Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/2014 AGENDA _77 =} ti. r b! SS li CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 G Phone (360) 473 -5280 JULY 16, 2014 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. BPD BRIEFING — Police Chief Steve Strachan 5. PUBLIC RECOGNITION 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Claims & Check Register B. Minutes of Meeting — July 2, 2014 C. Minutes of Special Meeting (Tour of Public Safety Facilities) — July 9, 2014 D. Minutes of Study Session — July 9, 2014 E. Resolution No. 3223 to establish August 20, 2014 as a public hearing date to vacate a portion of the alley located south of Burwell Street and east of Chester Avenue for the Bremerton Police Department F. Resolution No. 3224 to establish August 20, 2014 as a public hearing date to vacate the south half of Home Street between Winfield Avenue and the alley to the west G. Resolution No. 3225 to establish August 20, 2014 as a public hearing date to vacate a portion of Chester Avenue and dedicate Broadway Avenue, both actions between 16 and 18 Streets H. Resolution No. 3226 to establish August 20, 2014 as a public hearing date to vacate a portion of the south half of 9 th Street between Pitt Avenue and Shore Drive I. Installation of required equipment by Systems for Public Safety, Inc. on three (3) Ford Interceptor Utility Vehicles for the Bremerton Police Department J. Amendment to the Police Department Budget to increase one FTE Sergeant position and eliminate one FTE Police Officer position K. Amendment to the Human Resources Budget to add one Human Resources Analyst position; and placement of the current Legal Assistant at Step 2 of Pay Band 9 on the Management and Professional Salary Plan 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Resolution No. 3227 to adopt the City of Bremerton's 2015 -2020 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) B. Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 5251 to amend Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 entitled "Zoning Code" and to amend the official Zoning Map Continued on back... 8. GENERAL BUSINESS A. Ordinance No. 5252 to amend Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 2.18 entitled "Audit Committee and City Auditor" B. Approve to eliminate one FTE Forestry Manager position, decrease one FTE Forest Service Specialist Senior position, add one FTE Forest Service Specialist, and add one FTE Office Assistant Senior 9. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 10. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESSWEETING The Bremerton Transportation Benefit District (TBD) Board will meet after a brief recess... ® Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations please contact the City Clerk at (360) 473- 5323at least 24 hours prior to the Meeting. BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKERS LIST PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO COMMENT & YOU WISH YOUR NAME TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD 1 e� s r i- n d ` f vt \ r REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CLERK THANK YOU AGENDA BILL 6A CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Claims & Check Register Study Session Date: COUNCIL MEETING Date: 7/16/14 Department: Financial Services Presenter: Shannon Conn Phone: 473 -5323 SUMMARY: Approval of the following checks and electronic fund transfers: 1) Check #'s 359004 through 359193 and EFT's 13989 through 14029 in the amount of $1,845,985.74. 2) Regular Payroll for the pay period ending June 30, 2014 in the amount of $370.01. ATTACHMENTS: FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ® No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ® Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve consent agenda as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/25/13 AGENDA BILL 613 CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting — Study Session Date: N/A July 2, 2014 COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473 -5280 SUMMARY: Attached is a summary of the City Council Meeting on July 2, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: N No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: © 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 11/02/12 DIGITAL RECORDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, July 2, 2014 The weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order Wednesday, July 2, 2014, at 5:00 PM in Council Conference Room 603 of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER, 345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington, with Council President Greg Wheeler presiding. Council Members present were Eric Younger, Roy Runyon, Dino Davis, Jerry McDonald, Leslie Daugs, and Mike Sullivan. Also present were City Attorney Roger Lubovich; City Clerk Shannon Corin; Legislative Assistant Lori Smith; and Kevin Matthew, Information Services Manager. 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 Mike Sullivan followed by the invocation provided by Pastor Eric Roberts of New Life Assembly. HEROES RECOGNITION Police Chief Steve Strachan and Fire Chief Al Duke brought forward Alex Magellon Fire Department; John Bogen Police Department; Jim Deighan Manette Resident; and Jenson Charnell and Jonathon Watkins from Safe Boats to recognize their heroic actions going "Above and Beyond" in a water rescue of a local citizen on May 8. Mayor Lent presented Safe Boats President and CEO Dennis Morris with a Mayor's Recognition Award on behalf of the City of Bremerton. MAYOR'S REPORT — Mayor Patty Lent... • Brought forward a group of teens to talk about the positive experiences they've had while attending the Boys & Girls Club Teen Center, which now has 100 members; • Provided the latest amount of the City's assessed property value; • Brought forward Fire Chief Al Duke to remind the community that it is only legal to discharge fireworks in Bremerton on July 4 from 11:00 AM to 11:00 PM; urged everyone to be careful, and to please clean up the mess left behind afterward; • Announced that the Kid's Summer Lunch Program will be held Monday through Friday from July 7 to August 8 at Blueberry Park, Haddon Park, Kiwanis Park, and Manette Playfield; • Announced that the West Sound Senior Games will be held from July 9 through 12; • Announced that the Annual Summer Brewfest will be held on Saturday, July 12 from Noon to 6:30 PM between 4 and 7 Streets in Downtown Bremerton; • Indicated that volunteers will be needed for a Work Party for the Beyond Accessible Playground at Evergreen Rotary Park on Saturday, July 12 & 19 beginning at 8:30 AM; • Invited the community to bring a lunch and listen to a free concert by Bram Brata, Steel Drum Band, who will be performing on Wednesday, July 16 at 1:15 PM at the Bremerton Boardwalk; • Encouraged people to participate in the "Adopt -a -Beach Program" at Lions Park; • Shared several photos of the new neighborhoods at Bay Vista; • Also shared photos of the Sister City Kure Delegation from their recent visit to Bremerton; • Discussed the work done by volunteers who have adopted the Kitsap 9 -11 Memorial; and • Was excited that Foot Golf will be coming to Gold Mountain Golf Course. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Deirdre McKeel asked the Council Members to consider hiring an Economic Development Specialist. Marcy Mathis invited the Council Members to the 10 Annual Kitsap Pride Celebration on Sunday, July 20 at Evergreen Rotary Park. City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, July 2, 2014 Page 2 of 4 CONSENT AGENDA 6A— Claims & Check Register: Check Numbers 358681 through 359003, and EFT -13924 through EFT -13988 in the amount of $3,905,907.54; Regular Payroll for the pay period ending June 15, 2014 in the amount of $694,646.95; Regular Payroll for the pay period ending June 30, 2014 in the amount of $701,573.09; and Retiree Payroll for the pay period ending June 30, 2014 in the amount of $54,067.13 6113— Minutes of Special Meeting — June 16, 2014 6C — Minutes of Special Meeting (Tour of Public Works Facilities) — June 25, 2014 6D — Minutes of Study Session — June 25, 2014 6E — Resolution No. 3220 to Sponsor a Request by the Kitsap Regional Library to join the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Employee Benefits Trust 6F — Appointment of Adam Brockus and Adam Simmons to the Civil Service Commission 6G — Resolution No. 3221 to Adopt Standards for Delivery of Public Defense Services 6H — Resolution No. 3222 Amending Resolution No. 3211 relating to the Inter -Fund Loans for the Park Avenue Plaza Project Adam Simmons thanked the Council Members for providing him with this opportunity to serve. 06:09:34 Motion was made by Daugs and seconded by Sullivan... Comments were provided by Daugs, Runyon, and Davis... 06:12:10 M /S /C (Daugs /Sullivan) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented. Voted in favor of the Motion: Sullivan, Daugs, McDonald, Davis, Younger, and Wheeler Voted opposed to the Motion: Runyon Motion carried: 6 -Yes; 1 -No GENERAL BUSINESS 7A — AUTHORIZE A SECOND PROJECT ASSISTANT POSITION TO REPLACE THE VACANT OFFICE ASSISTANT SENIOR POSITION IN THE ENGINEERING DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Chal Martin Public Works & Utilities Director summarized that the Engineering Division staff at Olympus Drive is supported by an Office Assistant Senior and a Project Assistant. The person filling the OA Senior position recently resigned. The current Project Assistant has indicated she intends to retire in 2015. The Project Assistant assists with a number of duties not well understood outside of Engineering. Hiring a second Project Assistant at this time will allow time for orderly succession training. There were no comments from the public... 06 :15:11 Motion was made by Runyon and seconded by Sullivan... Questions and comments were provided by Runyon and Daugs; with responses provided by Mr. Martin 06:17:28 M /S /C /U (Runyon /Sullivan) Move to authorize Public Works & Utilities to add one additional FTE Project Assistant and decrease the vacant FTE Office Assistant Senior. 713 — SELECTION OF PROJECT CONFIGURATION FOR WASHINGTON AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS (5 TH STREET TO MANETTE BRIDGE) Chal Martin Public Works & Utilities Director, provided a PowerPoint presentation to explain that the City received a $1.7 million Bicycle /Pedestrian Grant to improve a segment of Washington Avenue between 5 th Street and the Manette Bridge. City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, July 2, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Over the last several months, three possible configurations emerged: Option No. 1 — One vehicular travel lane northbound and southbound Option No. 2 — Two lanes northbound and one lane southbound Option No. 3 — Two lanes (northbound only) from 6 c Street to the Manette Bridge At its Study Session on June 25, 2014, the Council narrowed the options to either Option No. 1 or No. 3. Comments and concerns received from the public are summarized as follows: Lou Weir recommended that the Council delay the decision until further study on an overall plan; Roy Wilder agreed that an overall traffic plan should be considered due to concerns about the space needed for buses; Dale Gillespie provided his own results from an 'unscientific poll', which he obtained while observing recent traffic and bike pattern; Rick Feeney supported Option No. 1, and was impressed with how Bremerton supports bike riders; Cliff Dietz preferred Option No. 1, and asked the Council to just eliminate both Options No. 2 and No. 3; Jeff Allen preferred Option No. 1; but speaking on behalf of the Bremerton Food Co -op, expressed concern at the lack of an overall comprehensive traffic plan; Leo Stone speaking as a frequent bike rider, initially preferred Option No. 2; and can live with Option No. 1, but not with the bike lane on the right side; Deirdre McKeel liked Option No. 1 because it would make the road "multimodal ", but also liked Option No. 2 since the proposed changes would benefit cyclists and drivers given current conditions; but added her concerns about unknown costs and impacts in making any changes; Martha Dalbeck hoped that the Council would reconsider Option No. 2; Marcy Mathis supported Option No. 2, and believed that roundabouts were not pedestrian friendly; Chuck Henderson expressed concerns with Option No. 3 due to impacts to bus service and increased difficulty for ferry passengers to be dropped off or picked up near the terminal; 07:03:28 Main Motion to `Approve Option No. 1 for the Washington Avenue Improvements; and authorize the Mayor to proceed with project design for the indicated street configuration" was made by Davis and seconded by Younger... Questions and comments were provided by Davis, Younger, and Daugs; with responses provided by Mr. Martin 07:15:07 Substitute Motion to Approve Option No. 2 was made by Runyon and seconded by Younger... Questions and comments were provided by Runyon, Daugs, Sullivan, McDonald, Younger, Davis and Wheeler, with responses provided by Mr. Martin Rick Feeney; Ms. Corin and Mayor Lent ... 07:47:07 Substitute Motion /S /C (Runyon/Younger) Move to preliminarily approve Option No. 2 for the Washington Avenue Improvements; and authorize the Mayor to proceed with project design for the indicated street configuration, subject to final Council approval upon completion of the validating traffic study. Voted in favor of the Substitute Motion: Runyon, Younger, Sullivan, Daugs Voted opposed to the Substitute Motion: McDonald, Davis, Wheeler Substitute Motion carried: 4 -Yes; 3 -No The Substitute Motion replaced the Main Motion when passed, so no vote was taken on the Main Motion City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes Wednesday, July 2, 2014 Page 4 of 4 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Leslie Dauas announced that Kitsap Habitat for Humanity would be hosting a "Humanity 101" Workshop on Thursday, July 24 beginning at 6:00 PM in the Meeting Chambers at the Norm Dicks Government Center; announced that the Summer Food Service Program for Children will be ongoing through August 7; looked forward to a Community Event hosted by Albertson's on Thursday, July 3 from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM; and wished everyone a safe and fun 4th of July. Jerry McDonald announced that "Music in Manette" Concerts will be held on Thursdays at the Whitey Domstad Park at the east end of the Manette Bridge starting on July 10; provided an update on the Horse & Cow Pub & Grill to be opening soon on 4 Street; was thrilled with the newly re- opened Isella Salon & Spa also on 4th Street; and also encouraged attendance at the Brewfest. Dino Davis announced the "Bite of Charleston" beginning at 10:00 AM on August 9; wished everyone a happy and safe 4 of July; and cautioned everyone to watch out for their pets. Roy Runyon reiterated that volunteers are needed on Saturday, July 12 beginning at 8:30 AM to help build the Beyond Accessible Playground at Evergreen Rotary Park; looked forward to the Annual Brewfest to be held at Bremerton Harborside later in the day on July 12 from Noon to 6:30 PM; also discussed his attendance at the Kitsap Transit Community Meeting, the Kitsap Agricultural Alliance Meeting, and the Bremerton Gasworks scoping meeting. Greg Wheeler announced that he would be hosting a District 4 Neighborhood Meeting on Tuesday, July 8 from 6:00 to 7:30 PM in the basement of the Community of Christ at Memorial Lutheran Church at the corner of 10 Street & Veneta Avenue. With no further business, President Wheeler adjourned the Council Meeting at 8:00 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: LORI SMITH Legislative Assistant Attest: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk GREG WHEELER, City Council President GW:SC:ls:cg AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ......................................................... ............................... SUBJECT: Minutes of Special Meeting — Study Session Date: N/A (Tour of Public Safety Facilities) COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 July 9, 2014 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473 -5280 SUMMARY: Attached is a summary of the City Council Special Meeting on July 9, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑x No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: N 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 11/02/12 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, July 9, 2014 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called for a Tour of Public Safety Facilities. The tour began in the Upper Parking Lot of the NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER, 345 6 th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, July 9, from 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM; and members of the public were provided an opportunity to participate. Council Members present were Mike Sullivan, Leslie Daugs, Jerry McDonald, and Dino Davis. The Itinerary was as follows: 11:00 AM Depart the Norm Dicks Government Center, Upper Parking Lot 11:15 AM Tour of Municipal Court — Hosted by Dawn Nelson, Municipal Court Administrator 12:00 Noon Tour of Police Station — Hosted by Police Chief Steven Strachan 1:45 PM Tour of Fire Station No. 3 and the Kitsap Readiness Center — Hosted by Fire Chief Al Duke 3:00 PM Returned to Norm Dicks Government Center, Upper Parking Lot With no further business, the Special Meeting ended at 3:00 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: L RI SMITH Legislative Assistant Attest: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk GREG WHEELER, City Council President GW:SC:ls:cg AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Minutes of Study Session— Study Session Date: N/A July 9, 2014 COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473 -5280 SUMMARY: Attached is a summary of the City Council Study Session on July 9, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A 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 11/02/12 DIGITAL RECORDING CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES Wednesday, July 9, 2014 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, July 9, 2014, at 5:00 PM, with Council President Greg Wheeler presiding. Council Members present were Roy Runyon, Dino Davis, Jerry McDonald, Leslie Daugs, and Mike Sullivan. Council Member Eric Younger was absent. Lori Smith, Legislative Assistant, 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; no action was anticipated; and announced that approved items by Council will be placed on the July 16, 2014 Council Meeting Agenda; or as indicated. A. NO PRESENTATION PLANNED — The following items are budgeted items or have been reviewed by the appropriate Council Committee... 1. Resolution to establish August 20, 2014 as a public hearing date to vacate a portion of the alley located south of Burwell Street and east of Chester Avenue for the Bremerton Police Department Consent Agenda 2. Resolution to establish August 20, 2014 as a public hearing date to vacate the south half of Home Street between Winfield Avenue and the alley to the west Consent Agenda 3. Resolution to establish August 20, 2014 as a public hearing date to vacate a portion of Chester Avenue and dedicate Broadway Avenue, both actions between 16 and 18th Streets Consent Agenda 4. Resolution to establish August 20, 2014 as a public hearing date to vacate a portion of the south half of 9 Street between Pitt Avenue and Shore Drive Consent Agenda 5. Installation of required equipment by Systems for Public Safety, Inc. on three (3) Ford Interceptor Utility Vehicles for the Bremerton Police Department Consent Agenda 6. Proposed public hearing and resolution to adopt the City of Bremerton's 2015 -2020 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Public Hearing B. BRIEFINGS & FULL PRESENTATIONS 7. Ordinance to amend Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 2.18 entitled "Audit Committee and City Auditor' General Business 8. Amendment to the Police Department Budget to increase one FTE Sergeant position and eliminate one FTE Police Officer position Consent Agenda 9. Amendment to the Human Resources Budget to add one Human Resources Analyst position; and placement of the current Legal Assistant at Step 2 of Pay Band 9 on the Management and Professional Salary Plan Consent Agenda 10. Approve to eliminate one FTE Forestry Manager position, decrease one FTE Forest Service Specialist Senior position, add one FTE Forest Service Specialist, and add one FTE Office Assistant Senior General Business 11. Proposed public hearing and ordinance to amend Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20 entitled "Zoning Code" and to amend the official Zoning Map Public Hearing City Council Study Session Minutes Wednesday, July 9, 2014 Page 2of2 12. Briefing on Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC) Employment Target Process — Andrea Spencer, Community Development Director Information only C. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS • Public Safety and Parks Committee Briefing (7109114 Meeting) — Leslie Daugs, Chair • Public Works Committee Briefing (7101114 Meeting) — Dino Davis, Chair • Other General Council Business was discussed. With no further business, President Wheeler adjourned the Council Study Session at 9:00 PM. Pre ared and Submitted by: X - 7 5-ffA ) - LORI SMITH Legislative Assistant Attest: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk GREG WHEELER, City Council President GW:SC:ls:cg AGENDA BILL 69 CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ■ eeseeseeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee SUBJECT: Resolution No. 3223 to Study Session Date: July 9, 2014 establish August 20, 2014, as a hearing date COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 to vacate a portion of the alley located south Department: Public Works & Utilities of Burwell Street and east of Chester Presenter: Chal Martin Avenue for the Bremerton Police Phone: 360.473.5920 Department SUMMARY: The City of Bremerton initiated the partial vacation of the alley abutting the Bremerton Police Department (BPD) property. This portion of the alley was blocked off by security gates during the construction of the BPD facility seven years ago and is being utilized by the BPD for parking and a security perimeter. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 3223; 2. Engineering Staff Report; 3. Exhibit Drawing FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: 0 Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. 3223 to establish August 20, 2014, as a Hearing Date to vacate the alley right of way for the BPD. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/25/13 RESOLUTION NO. 3223 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, establishing a hearing date for the proposed vacation of alley right of way for the Bremerton Police Department. WHEREAS, the City initiated the vacation in accordance with Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 11.20.080 as part of the Police Department Headquarters; and THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION]. A public hearing will be held on August 20, 2014, at 5:30 p.m. or later in the City Council Chambers at the Norm Dicks Government Center, First Floor, 345 Sixth Street, Bremerton, Washington, to take public comment or consider written objections to the vacation and dedication. SECTION 2. Severability. If any one 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 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of , 2014. GREG WHEELER, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk Vacation of Portion of the alley for Bremerton Police Department — Resolution ALLEY VACATION FOR BREMERTON POLICE DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: July 16th, 2014 PREPARED BY: Joe Keller /Gunnar Fridriksson SUMMARY A. Applicant: City of Bremerton 3027 Olympus Drive Bremerton, WA 98310 Location: Portion of Alley south of Burwell Street between Warren and Chester Avenues BACKGROUND The City of Bremerton is requesting a vacation of the alley abutting the Bremerton Police Department (BPD) property. This portion of the alley was blocked off by security gates during the construction of the BPD facility seven years ago and is being utilized by the BPD for parking and a security perimeter. With completion of this vacation, the City will also convert the remainder of the alley back to two -way traffic. It currently is designated one -way eastbound. The alley was dedicated in December of 1891 with the recording of the Plat of the Town of Bremerton, Volume 2 of Plats Page 30. As a right of way that was previously improved, this is Class II right of way. RIGHT -OF -WAY CONDITIONS EXISTING ROADWAY NEW ROADWAY • Functional Classification Alley N/A • R -O -W Width 14 feet N/A • R -O -W Areas N/A N/A • Pavement Width 14 feet N/A • Surface Type Asphalt N/A • Curb and Gutter No N/A • Sidewalks No N/A HEARING CONSIDERATIONS BMC 11.20.120 sets forth issues that the City Council needs to determine at the conclusion of the Vacation Hearing. These issues and the staff position are: May 2014 Portion of Alley Vacation for BPD Page 1 of 4 1. Whether the street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public use and vacation of the described portion will better serve the public good. Staff Position: This portion of the right of way is not currently being utilized for public access, nor is it anticipated to be needed. 2. Whether the vacation is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Staff Position: The proposed vacation does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether continued use of the proposed vacation as a public way is not of such public benefit as to justify the costs of maintenance. Staff Position: This portion of the alley is currently not accessed by the public and maintenance is the responsibility of the BPD. 4. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more useful to the public. Staff Position: No other thoroughfare would improve circulation in this area. 5. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater public use or need than presently exists. Staff Position: There is no anticipated future public transportation needs. 6. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property abutting the same. Staff Position: - The applicant for the vacation is the sole adjacent property owner. SHORELINE ACCESS This portion of right -of -way does not provide shoreline access. UTILITIES All private utility companies have been contacted. An easement for Cascade Natural Gas Corporation will be retained for existing infrastructure. SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES May 2014 Portion of Alley Vacation for BPD Page 2 of 4 This is a City- initiated vacation. COMPENSATION No compensation is due as a City- initiated vacation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Attorney, Police, Fire, Engineering and Community Development staff notes no objections to the proposal. Staff recommends that this Street Vacation be approved as requested. I i e i 0 T. Locked BPD gate facing east from Chester Avenue, parked vehicles are in the area of the proposed vacation. May 2014 Portion of Alley Vacation for BPD Page 3 of 4 , , r , t 1 , ,! t r S !�,i. y�'`' tt • t �' 1 4 �i '�, fi f c BPD gate facing west from alley, note security gate. May 2014 Portion of Alley Vacation for BPD Page 4 of 4 11 Li _ 1 1. 4TH..-..-S ' T... Lu i `` LLJ - W Q BURW LL %T. cc w w rr. W; r Q: W . VACATION EXHIBIT FOR COUNCIL "ALLEY VACATION" SCALE = I"=100' AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON &1 CITY COUNCIL ■■ rrsrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrsrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr��rrrrrr SUBJECT: Resolution No. 3224 to Study Session Date: July 9, 2014 establish August 20, 2014, as a hearing date COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 to vacate the south half of Home Street Department: Public Works & Utilities between Winfield Avenue and the alley to Presenter: Chal Martin the west Phone: 360.473.5920 SUMMARY: The adjacent property owner has petitioned the City to have the south half of the street vacated as the roadway was built entirely in the northern half of the right of way. No street improvements have been made in area proposed for vacation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 3224; 2. Engineering Staff Report; 3. Exhibit Drawing FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: © No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑x Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. 3224 to establish August 20, 2014, as a hearing date to vacate the south half of Home Street for the adjacent property owner. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/25/13 RESOLUTION NO. 3224 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, establishing a hearing date for the proposed vacation of a portion of the right of way for Home Street between Winfield Avenue and west to the alley. WHEREAS, the adjacent property owner has initiated the vacation in accordance with Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 11.20.070; and THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A public hearing will be held on August 20, 2014, at 5:30 p.m. or later in the City Council Chambers at the Norm Dicks Government Center, First Floor, 345 Sixth Street, Bremerton, Washington, to take public comment or consider written objections to the vacation and dedication. SECTION 2. Severability. If any one 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 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of , 2014. GREG WHEELER, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk Vacation of Portion of the alley for Bremerton Police Department — Resolution STREET VACATION FOR PORTION OF HOME STREET AT WINFIELD AVENUE ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: August 20, 2014 PREPARED BY: Gunnar Fridriksson SUMMARY A. Applicant: David Wederen 2472 Marine Drive Bremerton, WA 98312 Location: Portion of Home Street between Winfield Avenue and west to alley. BACKGROUND The adjacent property owner has petitioned the City to have the south half of the street vacated as the roadway was built entirely in the northern half of the right of way. The right of way was dedicated by the Plat of Ryther's First Addition to Decatur in January of 1904. As the right of way is unimproved, it is Class 3. RIGHT -OF -WAY CONDITIONS EXISTING ROADWAY NEW ROADWAY • Functional Classification Street N/A • R -O -W Width 50 feet N/A • R -O -W Areas N/A N/A • Pavement Width 22 feet N/A • Surface Type Asphalt N/A • Curb and Gutter No N/A • Sidewalks No N/A HEARING CONSIDERATIONS BMC 11.20.120 sets forth issues that the City Council needs to determine at the conclusion of the Vacation Hearing. These issues and the staff position are: 1. Whether the street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public use and vacation of the described portion will better serve the public good. Staff Position: This portion of the right of way is not currently being utilized for the roadway, nor is it anticipated to be needed. May 2014 Portion of Home Street Vacation Page 1 of 3 2. Whether the vacation is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Staff Position: The proposed vacation does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether continued use of the proposed vacation as a public way is not of such public benefit as to justify the costs of maintenance. Staff Position: Vacating this portion of right of way will reduce the City's maintenance responsibility in this area. 4. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more useful to the public. Staff Position: No other thoroughfare would improve circulation in this area. 5. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater public use or need than presently exists. Staff Position: There is no anticipated future public transportation needs. 6. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property abutting the same. Staff Position: The applicant for the vacation is the sole adjacent property owner. SHORELINE ACCESS This portion of right -of -way does not provide shoreline access. UTILITIES All private utility companies have been contacted. No easements are required for the public or private utilities. SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES The applicant is the sole adjacent property owner. COMPENSATION No compensation is owing as Class III right of way. May 2014 Portion of Home Street Vacation Page 2 of 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Attorney, Police, Fire, Engineering and Community Development staff notes no objections to the proposal. Staff recommends that this Street Vacation be approved as requested. e Looking westerly from east side of Winfield Avenue over vacation area. May 2014 Portion of Home Street Vacation Page 3 of 3 t r . I Q W z W HOME' ST 25' R.O. . VACA 10N EXHIBIT FOR COUNCIL "HOME ST. STREET VACATION" SCALE = I" =100' AGENDA BILL r4 CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ■■ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee SUBJECT: Resolution No. 3225 to Study Session Date: July 9, 2014 establish August 20, 2014, as a hearing date COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 to vacate a portion of Chester Avenue and Department: Public Works & Utilities dedicate Broadway Avenue, both actions Presenter: Chal Martin between 16 and 18 Streets Phone: 360.473.5920 SUMMARY: Olympic College has petitioned the City to have a portion of Chester Avenue vacated. As compensation for the vacation, the College proposes to dedicate and construct Broadway Avenue between 16 and 18 Streets. The relocation of the roadway is being done to allow for new building construction at the campus and is consistent with their master plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 3225; 2. Engineering Staff Report; 3. Exhibit Drawing FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: 0 Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. 3225 to establish August 20, 2014, as a Hearing Date to vacate a portion of Chester Avenue between 16 and 18 Streets. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/25/13 RESOLUTION NO. 3225 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, establishing a hearing date for the proposed vacation of a portion of Chester Avenue in exchange for dedication and construction of Broadway Avenue between 16` and 18` Streets. WHEREAS, Olympic College has initiated the vacation in accordance with Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 11.20.070; and THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A public hearing will be held on August 20, 2014, at 5:30 p.m. or later in the City Council Chambers at the Norm Dicks Government Center, First Floor, 345 Sixth Street, Bremerton, Washington, to take public comment or consider written objections to the vacation. SECTION 2. Severability. If any one 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. SECTION3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of , 2014. GREG WHEELER, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk 1 Olympic College Vacation/Dedication of Cheste/Broadway — Resolution STREET VACATION FOR PORTION OF CHESTER AVENUE NORTH OF 16 STREET ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: August 20th, 2014 PREPARED BY: Gunnar Fridriksson SUMMARY A. Applicant: Olympic College 1600 Chester Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337 Location: Portion of Chester Avenue north of 16 Street. BACKGROUND Olympic College has petitioned the City to have a portion of Chester Avenue vacated as part of their Master Plan to enable new building construction in this area. As compensation, the College proposes to dedicate and construct Broadway Avenue between 16 and 18 Streets. No compensation is proposed for the additional right of way area. RIGHT -OF -WAY CONDITIONS EXISTING ROADWAY NEW ROADWAY • Functional Classification Street Street • R -O -W Width 60 feet 50 feet • R -O -W Areas 26,796 sq. ft. 36,504 sq. ft. • Pavement Width 32 feet 40 feet • Surface Type Asphalt Asphalt • Curb and Gutter Yes Yes • Sidewalks Yes Yes HEARING CONSIDERATIONS BMC 11.20.120 sets forth issues that the City Council needs to determine at the conclusion of the Vacation Hearing. These issues and the staff position are: 1. Whether the street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public use and vacation of the described portion will better serve the public good. Staff Position: This portion of the right of way will better serve the Public as an Institutional facility. May 2014 Portion of Chester Avenue Vacation Page 1 of 3 2. Whether the vacation is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Staff Position: The proposed vacation does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether continued use of the proposed vacation as a public way is not of such public benefit as to justify the costs of maintenance. Staff Position: Vacating this portion of right of way will reduce the City's maintenance responsibility in this area. 4. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more useful to the public. Staff Position: Mitigation of the vacation of this portion of Chester Avenue will require the public right of way to be relocated as proposed by Olympic College. 5. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater public use or need than presently exists. Staff Position: There is no anticipated future public transportation needs. 6. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property abutting the same. Staff Position: The applicant for the vacation is the sole adjacent property owner. SHORELINE ACCESS This portion of right -of -way does provide shoreline access but will be mitigated for continued access to the north end of Chester Avenue where the shoreline is located. UTILITIES All private utility companies have been contacted. Easements are required for the public and private utilities. SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES The applicant is the sole adjacent property owner. COMPENSATION May 2014 Portion of Chester Avenue Vacation Page 2 of 3 Staff recommends compensation being in exchange for the dedication and construction of Broadway Avenue between 16 and 18 Streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Attorney, Police, Fire, Engineering and Community Development staff notes no objections to the proposal. Staff recommends that this Street Vacation be approved as requested. - w t< Looking north from 16 th Street over vacation area. May 2014 Portion of Chester Avenue Vacation Page 3 of 3 18th St. I � I � 3 8 0 9 TRACT 5 Warren Smith's Acre Tracts a Scale: 1 =100' I I t 10 V 30' 30' VAC -OCT 2013 26,796 Sq. Ft. 0.62 Ac. Vacation Area 6 True Point of Beginning — Proposed ah 7 Cul-de-sac 1 :y ` 6th St_ :o 2478 0.: Olympic College, Bremerton � Lp�v y�' Vacation Exhibit A Portion of the NE 1/4 N.L Olson & Associates, Inc Section 14, T 24 N, R 1 E , W.M. (360) 895 -2350 or (360) 876 -2284 City of Bremerton Project No. 8241 Kitsap County, Washington 1508' 18th St. B 3 9 TRACT 5 2 Warren Smith's Acre Tracts a 10 1 V 90' 30' L Vacation Area e s 8 1 Right -of -Way Dedication Area 7 Proposed 0 Cul -de-sac Point of 4 Beginning 16th St. 13 Point of Point of Commencing Beginning 8 Rlghbcf -Way TRACT 6 Dedication Area 3 Scale: 1" =100' �r Olympic College, Bremerton �'. 24783 Right -of -Way Dedication Exhibit Portion of the NE 114 L J N Olson & Associates, Inc. section 14, T 24 N, R 1 E, W.M. (360) 893.2350 or (360) 876.2284 City of Bremerton Projccl No. 8241 ICitsap County, Washington EXHIBIT (RIGHT OF WAY VACATION) That portion of Chester Avenue and that portion of 16 Street lying within Tract's 5 and 6 of the plat of Warren Smith's Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 51, records of Kitsap County, Washington; described as follows: Commencing at a brass disc monument, in case, at the intersection of Chester Avenue and 16 Street, as depicted on Survey recorded in Book 63 of Surveys, pages 104 and 105, records of Kitsap County, Washington; Thence North 1 East along the centerline of said Chester Avenue a distance of 126.21 feet; Thence North 68 °53'30" West 30.00 feet to the West right -of -way margin of said Chester Avenue and the Point of Beginning; Thence North 1 °06'30" East along said right -of -way margin a distance of 360.89 feet; Thence South 88 0 22'25" East 60.00 feet to the East right of way margin of Chester Avenue; Thence South 1 °06'33" West 300.45 feet along said East right of way margin to the beginning of a curve to the left; Thence 143.86 feet along the arc of a 155.00 foot radius curve to the left, said curve having a chord bearing of South 25 0 28'50" East, 138.76 feet to a point on a curve, concave to the Southeast having a radius of 55.50 feet from which the radius point bears South 52 0 37'39" East; Thence southwesterly (counterclockwise) and leaving said right of way margin, along said curve an arc distance of 30.46 feet through a central angle of 31 °26'55" to a point on a curve, concave to the Northwest having a radius of 10.50 feet from which the radius point bears North 84 0 04'34" West; Thence southwesterly (clockwise) along said curve an arc distance of 4.76 feet through a central angle of 25 0 58'38" to a point on a curve, concave to the Southeast having a radius of 17.00 feet from which the radius point bears South 58 °05'56" East; Thence southeasterly (counterclockwise) along said curve an arc distance of 12.75 feet through a central angle of 42 0 57'49" to a point on a curve, concave to the Northeast having a radius of 200.00 feet from which the radius point bears North 33 0 25'14" East; Thence northwesterly (clockwise) along said curve an arc distance of 140.54 feet through a central angle of 40 0 15'46 "; Thence North 68 °53'30" West, 24.17 feet to the Point of Beginning. BY q 6 N c� ON ` �,p w�r9TEP %' s ��NAI. IAN��' �_..;` EXHIBIT (RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION) That portion of Tract's 5 and 6 of the plat of Warren Smith's Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 51, records of Kltsap County, Washington, located within Gov't Lot 3, Section 14, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.; described as follows: Commencing at a brass disc monument, in case, at the intersection of Chester Avenue and 16 Street, as depicted on Survey recorded in Book 63 of Surveys, pages 104 and 105, records of Ktsap County, Washington; Thence South 8B "27'27" East along the centerline of said 16'" Street a distance of 331.69 feet to a brass disc monument, in case, on said centerline; Thence continuing along said centerline South 88 "27'03" East, 153.92 feet; Thence North 1 East 30.00 feet to the North right of way margin of said 18' Street and the Point of Beginning; Thence North 84 "04'04" West, 115.85 feet; Thence North 01 0 00'00" East, 536.30 feet to the Southerly right of way margin of 18 Street; Thence North 88 0 25'55" West, 51.00 feet along said Southerly right of way margin; Thence South 01 "00'00" West and leaving said right of way margin a distance of 527.39 feet; Thence North 84 0 04'04" West, 100.79 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right; Thence 18.61 feet along the are of a 48.50 foot radius curve to the right, said curve having a chord bearing of North 73 "04'22" West, 18.50 feet; Thence North 62 °04'40" West, 43.99 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left; Thence 78.03 feet along the arc of a 55.5D foot radius curve to the left, said curve having a chord bearing of South 77 °38'50" West, 71.76 feet to a point on a curve, concave to the Northeast, said point being on the existing right of way margin of 16 Street, having a radius of 155.00 feet from which the radius point bears North 37'55'46" East; Thence 93.61 feet, on said right of'way margin, along the arc of a 155.00 foot radius curve to the left, said curve having a chord bearing of South 69 "22'21" West, 92.20 feet; Thence South 86 °25'23" East, 72.54 feet Thence South 88 °27'27" East, 80.44 feet Thence South 88 °27'03" East, 153.92 feet to the Point of Beginning. AND: That portion of Tract 6 of the plat of Warren Smith's Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 51, records of Kitsap County, Washington, located within Gov't Lot 3, Section 14, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M.; described as follows: Commencing at a brass disc monument, in case, at the intersection of Chester Avenue and 16 Street, as depicted on Surrey recorded in Book 63 of Surveys, pages 104 and 105, records of Kitsap County, Washington; Thence South 88 °27'27" East along the centerline of said 16"' Street a distance of 153.23 feet; Thence South 1 °32'33" West, 30.00 feet to a point on the south right of way margin of said 16 Street the Point of Beginning; Thence North 88 0 27'27" West, 16.56 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right; Thence 81.82 feet along the arc of a 60.00 foot radius curve to the right, said curve having a chord bearing of North 49'23'21" West, 75.63 feet to a point on a curve to the left concave to the northeast having a radius of 200.00 feet from which the radius point bears North 33'25'14" East; Thence 80.81 feet along the arc of a 200.00 foot radius curve to the left, said curve having a chord bearing of South 68'09'17" East, 80.26 feet; Thence South 01'32'33" West, 19.82 feet to the Point of Beginning; ORY A. N �L �,IdiCt' AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ■■ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee SUBJECT: Resolution No. 3226 to Study Session Date: July 9, 2014 establish August 20, 2014, as a hearing date COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 to vacate a portion of the south half of 9" Department: Public Works & Utilities Street between Pitt Avenue and Shore Drive Presenter: Chal Martin Phone: 360.473.5920 SUMMARY: The adjacent property owner has petitioned the City to have the south twenty -five (25) feet of the street vacated as the roadway was built entirely in the northern half of the right of way. No street improvements have been made in area proposed for vacation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 3226; 2. Engineering Staff Report; 3. Exhibit Drawing FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 9 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: © Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. 3226 to establish August 20, 2014, as a hearing date to vacate a portion of the south half of 9 th Street for the adjacent property owner. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/25/13 RESOLUTION NO. 3226 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, establishing a hearing date for the proposed vacation of a portion of the right of way for 9 Street between Pitt Avenue and Shore Drive. WHEREAS, the adjacent property owner has initiated the vacation in accordance with Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 11.20.070; and THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. A public hearing will be held on August 20, 2014, at 5:30 p.m. or later in the City Council Chambers at the Norm Dicks Government Center, First Floor, 345 Sixth Street, Bremerton, Washington, to take public comment or consider written objections to the vacation and dedication. SECTION 2. Severability. If any one 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 3. Eective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of , 2014. GREG WHEELER, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk Vacation of Portion of 9` Street — Resolution STREET VACATION FOR PORTION OF E. 9 1h STREET ENGINEERING STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: August 20, 2014 PREPARED BY: Gunnar Fridriksson SUMMARY A. Applicant: Kathleen Trepanier 306 Shore Drive Bremerton, WA 98310 Location: Portion of E. 9th Street between Pitt Avenue and Shore Drive. BACKGROUND The adjacent property owner has petitioned the City to have the south 25 feet of the street vacated as the roadway was constructed on the northern half of the right of way. The right of way was dedicated by the plat of Decatur in March of 1889. As the right of way is unimproved, it is Class 3. RIGHT -OF -WAY CONDITIONS EXISTING ROADWAY NEW ROADWAY • Functional Classification Street Street • R -O -W Width 60 feet 35 feet • R -O -W Areas N/A N/A • Pavement Width 18 feet 18 feet • Surface Type Asphalt Asphalt • Curb and Gutter No No • Sidewalks No No HEARING CONSIDERATIONS BMC 11.20.120 sets forth issues that the City Council needs to determine at the conclusion of the Vacation Hearing. These issues and the staff position are: 1. Whether the street, alley or portion thereof is no longer required for public use and vacation of the described portion will better serve the public good. Staff Position: This portion of the right of way is not currently being utilized for the roadway, nor is it anticipated to be needed. Portion of 9 th Street Vacation Page 1 of 3 2. Whether the vacation is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Staff Position: The proposed vacation does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether continued use of the proposed vacation as a public way is not of such public benefit as to justify the costs of maintenance. Staff Position: Vacating this portion of right of way will reduce the City's maintenance responsibility in this area. 4. Whether substitution of a new and different thoroughfare would be more useful to the public. Staff Position: No other thoroughfare would improve circulation in this area. 5. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater public use or need than presently exists. Staff Position: There is no anticipated future public transportation needs. 6. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property abutting the same. Staff Position: The applicant for the vacation is the sole adjacent property owner. SHORELINE ACCESS This portion of right -of -way does not provide shoreline access. UTILITIES All private utility companies have been contacted. No easements are required for the public or private utilities. SUFFICIENCY OF SIGNATURES The applicant is the sole adjacent property owner. COMPENSATION No compensation is owing as this is Class III right of way. Portion of 9` Street Vacation Page 2 of 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Attorney, Police, Fire, Engineering and Community Development staff notes no objections to the proposal. Staff recommends that this Street Vacation be approved as requested. z. Looking East from Shore Drive down 9 th Street. Portion of 9 th Street Vacation Page 3 of 3 EAST 100 - - - G T.- CDD i . t. - - - 4w - Clb fD 25' O.W. . V 'CA EAST. S EXHIBIT FOR COUNCIL "EAST 9TH ST. STREET VACATION" SCALE = I" =100' AGENDA BILL (tat CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ......................................................... ............................... SUBJECT: Installation of required police Study Session Date: July 9, 2014 equipment on three (3) Ford Interceptor COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 Utility vehicles Department: ERR/ESD Presenter: Jim Orton Phone: 473 -5359 SUMMARY: Council approved the purchase of three (3) Ford interceptor utility vehicles. This agenda is to request authorization to have the required police equipment installed into them. The City of Bremerton utilizes a company in Lakewood named Systems for Public Safety Inc. The total cost of installation is $10,574.68 per vehicle for a total cost of $31,724.04, including Washington State sales tax. ATTACHMENTS: Quote from Systems for Public Safety Inc. #024474 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Funding is available in the ERR 510 fund STUDY SESSION AGENDA: © No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ® Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Systems for Public Safety to install Police equipment on three Interceptors at a total cost of $31,724.04 including Washington State sales tax. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/25/13 Systems for Public Safety Inc. ESTIMATE # 10005 Lakeview Ave SW Lakewood, WA. 98499 024474 Phone -253-983-1103 Fax-253-983-1101 Safety is Our Business ESTIMATE FOR SERVICES Cust ID: 11 Estimate Date : 4/18/2014 City of Bremerton 2014 Ford - Explorer Police Interceptor - 100 Oyster Bay Ave. N Lic #: - WA Odometer In: 0 Bremerton, WA 98312 Unit # : VIN #: Part Description / Number Qty Sale Extended Labor Description Hours Extended Inner Edge® Low -Pro 1OLT Visor w/ 2 TDs, Explorer nsta iste mergency Equipment an 35.00 2,695.00 IX34UFZ 1.00 618.00 618.00 Lighting. CenCom Sapphire Push Button with TA Module Install customer supplied remote mount CDM1250 radio with external speaker, CCSRN3TA 1.00 942.00 942.00 795H dash mount opticom unit, TAM83 Siren, WHELEN- Projector Series Speaker w/ Bracket (modify) and laptop mount and docking SA315P 1.00 188.40 188.40 station with all necessary cables. WHELEN- Vertex - LED - Blue Install customer supplied radar system. 2.00 160.00 -tail light leds Ordered off State Contract: - license plate leds - P134501-4 lighted push bumper Request Center Strobe Tube Setina VTX609B 4.00 77.40 309.60 -LH Spotlight WHELEN- Vertex - Mounting Flange -Front lighting solution w/ leds installed Recommended to order: VTXFB 2.00 5.50 11.00 - window barriers Vertex Hide -A -Way LED, Red - mirror beams 2314 - 088 -049 VTX609R 2.00 77.40 154.80 Required Functions: Whelen Blue ION Super High Power LED 6 -Head LED - opticom and siren park kill -door chime disable -side cage leds -2 spare 14ga red wire leads IONB 2.00 103.20 206.40 -horn ring circuit connected 2013 Ford Interceptor Utility Standard Console, 21 - pre -wire brake light cut C -VS- 1308 -INUT 1.00 315.00 315.00 -door open kills side of lightbar Whelen Blue ION Super High Power LED 6 -Head LED - traffic advisor cut when rear hatch is opened -Radar unit shall have speed signal input installed 3 red and 3 blue under rear spoiler IONB /IONR 6.00 103.20 619.20 *1 vehicle shall have a used Lojack tracking device installed into it. ION REAR HATCH MTG BKT (PAIR) "No door chime from factory on Utility IONBKT2 1.00 42.00 42.00 Havis Dual Cup Holder C -CUP24 1.00 35.00 35.00 Armrest For Top Mount, Console, Large Pad C- ARM -103 1.00 86.62 86.62 Able 2 Triple Accessory Outlet 14_0553 1.00 33.00 33.00 SUV Partition with Recess Panel & Sliding Window 10VS /RP 1.00 629.10 629.10 Double Vertical Weapon Mounting System- Dual Adjustable 1 LG lock for AR, 1 SM lock for shotgun; handcuff key DVWMSA 1.00 339.00 339.00 #12VS 2ND COATED POLY PARTITION cargo 12 -14 INTERC PK03161TU122NDAl 1.00 379.00 379.00 Interceptor Utility Prisoner Seat, Aedec With Center out Seat belts. SUVIC1313 1.00 750.00 750.00 Radio Mounting Box for Interceptor Utility A K 1040 RAD I O 1.00 175.00 175.00 Shipping on Equipment Freight 1.00 70.00 70.00 SPS Power Dist Unit. 12 Fused -timed circuits. SPS Utility Plug N Play Harness Fife, Khsta Page 1 of 2 Copyright (c) 2014 Mitchell Repair Information Company, LLC esthrs 09 1211YKYK PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com Systems for Public Safety Inc. ESTIMATE # 10005 Lakeview Ave SW Lakewood, WA. 98499 024474 Phone -253-983-1103 Fax-253-983-1101 Safety is Our Business ESTIMATE FOR SERVICES Cust ID: 11 Estimate Date : 4/18/2014 City of Bremerton 2014 Ford - Explorer Police Interceptor - 100 Oyster Bay Ave. N Lic #: - WA Odometer In: 0 Bremerton, WA 98312 Unit # : VIN #: Par Description I Number Qty Sa Extended Labor Description Hours Exte PD1 H 1.00 459.00 459.00 NMO Kit 17ft NM058UPL 2.00 14.00 28.00 Streamlight flashlight w/ DC charger, Metal Finish SL20X 2.00 130.00 260.00 3" Round Compartment Light, Red/White - prisoner light 3SRCCDCR 1.00 56.00 56.00 Map Light; Red/White with Dimmer 18" gooseneck CA0130 1.00 85.00 85.00 Shop Supplies 19.95 Parts: 6,811.07 Labor: 2,855.00 Tax: 908.61 Total: $ 10,574.68 Visit Us Online: www.systemsforpublicsafety.com I hereby authorize the above repair work to be done along with the necessary material and hereby grant you and/or your employees permission to operate the vehicle described for testing and/or inspection. Express mechanic's lien is hereby acknowledged on above vehicle to secure the amount of repairs thereto. SMOG: I understand that I can have emission service and/or adjustments done elsewhere. I hereby waive this right. TEARDOWN ESTIMATE: I understand that my vehicle will be reassembled within days of the date shown above if I choose not to authorize the service recommended. All Parts removed will be discarded unless instructed otherwise: Save all Parts . NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE TO CARS OR ARTICLES LEFT IN CARS IN CASE OF FIRE, THEFT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE. Signature Date Time Fife, Krista Page 2 of 2 Copyright (c) 2014 Mitchell Repair Information Company, LLC esthrs 09 12.1 ttKYK PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ■■ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee■ SUBJECT: Study Session Date: July 9, 2014 Amend Police Department Budget to COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 increase 1 FTE Sergeant Position and Department: Police eliminate 1 FTE Police Officer Position Presenter: Steven Strachan Phone: (360) 473 -5224 SUMMARY: The Police Department intends to fill a supervisory need in the Operations Division by upgrading a currently authorized police officer FTE to a police sergeant FTE. This upgrade will not increase overall FTE staffing for the Police Department In January of 2014, the Department reorganized its Patrol shifts from three large squads to six smaller squads. As the Department only has five authorized Patrol Sergeant FTE positions, one of the squads is being temporarily supervised by a police officer. This squad needs an actual Sergeant. The Department has completed a Sergeant's promotional process and intends to promote one of the top candidates from the promotional list to the rank of Sergeant. ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A to the Agreement between the City of Bremerton and the Bremerton Police Officers Guild FISCAL IMPACTS The Department intends to absorb the increased cost of this promotion within its existing 2014 budget. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation ❑x Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑x Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to amend the Police Department's budget by increasing 1 FTE Sergeant position and eliminating 1 FTE Police Officer position. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/25/13 APPENDIX A TO THE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF BREMERTON AND THE BREMERTON POLICE OFFICERS GUILD Effective January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 BPOG Pay Plan with 2.00% CPI Adjustment Effective January 1, 2011, the base rates of pay for employees shall be as follows' Annual salary based on 2080 hours per year. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 6 Master PO MPO Diff Police Officer Annual 80,944 00 63,232.00 66,164.80 69,118.40 75,108.80 78,873.60 Monthly 5,078.67 5,269.33 5,513.73 5,759.87 6,259.07 6,572.80 Semi - Monthly 2,539.34 2,634.67 2,756.87 2,879.94 3,129.54 3,286.40 Hourly 2930 30.40 31.81 3323 36.11 37.92 1.81 +Longevity Base +1.25% 29.67 30.78 32.21 33.65 36.56 38.39 1.83 Base +2.50% 3003 31.16 3261 34.06 37.01 38.87 1.86 Base +7.75% 31.57 32.76 34.28 35.81 38.91 40.86 1.95 Base +9.00% 31.94 33.14 34.67 36.22 39.36 41.33 1.97 Base +10.5% 32.38 33.59 35.15 36.72 39.90 41.90 2.00 Deferred Comp. 4% 101.67 106.39 110.27 116.20 126.18 Step I Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 (OIC) Sergeant Annual 81,328.00 83,116.80 84,843.20 86,673.60 88,441.60 Monthly 6,77733 6,926.40 7,070.27 7,222.80 7,370.13 Semi - Monthly 3,388.67 3,463.20 3,535.14 3,611.40 3,685.07 Hourly 39,10 39.96 40.79 41.67 42.52 +Longevity Base +1.25% 39.59 40.46 41.30 42.19 43.05 Base +2.50% 40.08 40.96 41.81 42.71 43.58 Base +7,75% 42.13 43.06 43.95 44.90 45.82 Base +9,00% 42.62 43.56 44.46 45.42 46.35 Base +10.5% 43.21 44.16 45.07 46.05 46.98 Deferred Comp. 4% 136.55 136.63 141.41 144.46 147.40 SERGEANT CLASSIFICATION - Any employee who is promoted to the classification of Sergeant shall be placed at Step 3 of the Sergeant classification, provided, however, an employee hired as a Sergeant through a lateral transfer, having not served as a police officer with the City of Bremerton, may be placed into Step 1 of the Sergeant classification. AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ■■ eeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee■ SUBJECT: Add a Human Resources Study Session Date: July 9, 2014 Analyst Position to the 2014 Budget COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 Department: Legal /HR Division Presenter: Charlotte Belmore Phone: 473 -5926 SUMMARY: This proposal adds a new position of Human Resources Analyst to the 2014 budget. The position will be included in the Management and Professional group. The current Legal Assistant will be reassigned to the Human Resources Analyst position at Step 2 of Pay Band 9. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Human Resource Analyst Job Description 2) M &P Salary Schedule FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This would require an increase in the 2014 budget in the amount of $28,259. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation 0 Full Presentation STUDY ACTION: ❑x Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the addition of a Human Resources Analyst position to the Human Resources budget; and the placement of the current Legal Assistant to this position at Band 9 Step 2. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 11/02/12 City of Bremerton Classification Specification July 2014 Human Resources Analyst - Draft GENERAL FUNCTION Under general direction of the Human Resources Manager, coordinates activities for Human Resources involved in recruitment, training, employee benefits, and labor relations. REPRESENTATIVE ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (Note — This list is intended only to illustrate the various types of work that may be performed. The omission of specific statements does not exclude them from the position. ) • Provides qualified candidates for vacant positions by directing the recruiting, advertising, testing, and pre- screening of applicants. Develops recruiting strategies and materials; coordinates examination administration including developing questions, rating criteria, scoring guidelines, and rater reliability tests; recommends recruitment and selection policies and procedures as required. • Conducts job analysis and classification audits; prepares correspondence, recommendations, class specifications, and other documents as required. • Meets with employees individually and in groups to explain Civil Service Rules. Interprets and applies Civil Service Rules, Human Resources policies and procedures to specific situations. • Conducts salary surveys to gather comparable salary and benefits data from outside employers for use in labor negotiations and is privy to the City's labor negotiations strategy and proposals, serves as note taker during negotiations. • Assists with enrollments and employee changes to the City's group insurance, deferred compensation, and the State pension programs; recommends and assists in the implementation of goals and objectives; assists in establishing schedules and methods for providing Human Resource Services and implementing policies and procedures. • Interprets Human Resources policies, procedures, and applicable laws; responds to requests for information and assistance from employees, management, outside agencies, and the public. • Verifies edits, and formats documents and correspondence that include proprietary and confidential information. • Performs research and drafts statistical and narrative reports. • Compiles data from a variety of sources and inputs /changes database information. May involve statistical calculations and tabulations in accordance with established formulas. Other Duties: Pagc I of 3 City of Bremerton Classification Specification July 2014 Human Resources Analyst - Draft • Regular Attendance is an essential requirement • Performs related work as assigned or required KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND, ABILITIES (Entry requirements) Knowledge of: • General human resource principles, responsibilities, and functions • Employee benefit programs and experience in problem resolution • General state and Federal employment laws and regulations, including but not limited to FLSA, FMLA, and ADA. • Current recruiting techniques • Testing procedures, including administering written, oral, and performance examinations including assessment centers. Skill in: • Problem solving and negotiations. • Multitasking and prioritizing work. • Use of PC including Microsoft WORD, Excel, database management. • Dealing with complicated and confidential issues. Ability to: • Interpret and apply Human Resource policies and procedures consistently. • Assist managers and employees in following Civil Service procedures. • Work with external and internal customers, vendors, and agencies. • Support the Department administratively and clerically. • Work independently and make responsible decisions in accordance with established policies and procedures. • Establish effective working relationships with co- workers, other departments, and the general public. • Ability to express ideas clearly and concisely both orally and in writing. QUALIFYING EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE (Minimum Requirements) An undergraduate degree in human resources, business administration, public policy, or a closely related field and two (2) years of professional human resources experience (or two (2) years of college and four (4) years of experience) preferably in the public sector or any equivalent combination of education, training, and experience that would demonstrate the applicant's ability to perform the essential duties and responsibilities of the position. Special Requirements: Valid Washington State Driver's license Page 2 of 3 City of Bremerton Classification Specification July 2014 Human Resources Analyst - Draft PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS While performing the duties of this job, the employee is frequently required to sit and talk or hear, use hands to finger, handle, feel, or operate objects, tools, or controls, and reach with hands and arms. The employee is occasionally required to walk. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 25 lbs. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision and the ability to adjust focus. WORKING CONDITIONS Work is primarily performed in an office environment. Public presentations and evening meetings are required. The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet. LEGAL AND REGULATORY EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS Fair Labor Standards Act: The position qualifies for exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage and overtime provisions under the Act's Professional Employees exemptions. Representation: The classification is exempt from the bargaining unit pursuant to the Recognition Article of the current labor agreement between the City of Bremerton and the Teamsters Local 589. Civil Service: The classification is excluded from the City's Civil Service System. Appointment and Removal Authority: The position is filled by appointment by the City Attorney. Removal is at the will of the City Attorney in conformance with Human Resources Policies. This classification specification does not constitute an employment agreement between the City and employee. It is subject to change by the City as the needs of the City and requirements change. Page 3 of 3 CITY OF BREMERTON MANAGEMENT, PROFESSIONAL, CONFIDENTIAL & FIDUCIARY SALARY PLAN - 2014 General Wage Adjustment 1.5% - Effective 1 -1 -14 PAY SALARY BAND TITLE BASE RATE 1 RATE 2 RATE 3 RATE 4 RATE 5 RATE 6 RATE 7 RATE 8 14 ASSISTANT FINANCE OFFICER MONTH 6,316.70 6,636.50 6,802.40 6,972.48 7.146.80 7,325.46 7,508.56 7,696.30 PUBLIC WORKS 8 UTILITY FINANCE MANAGER SEMI -MONTH 3,158.35 3,318.25 3,401.20 3,486.24 3,573.40 3,662.73 3,754.28 3,848.15 ANNUAL 75,800.40 79,638.00 81,62 83,669.76 85,761.60 87,905.52 90,10 92,3 55._60 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 126.33 132.73 136.05 139.45 142.94 146.51 150.17 153.93 13 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY II MONTH 6,012.32 6,316.70 6,474.62 6,636.50 6,802.40 6,972.48 7,146.80 7,325.46 CITY PROSECUTOR SEMI -MONTH 3,00616 3,158.35 3,237.31 3,318.25 3,401.20 3,486.24 3.573.40 3,662.73 FLEET MANAGER A NNUAL 72,147.84 75,800.40 77,695.44 79,638.00 81,628.80 83,669.76 85,761.60 87,905.52 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 120.25 126.33 129.49 132.73 136.05 139.45 142.94 146.51 12 ATHLETICS /RECREATION MANAGER MONTH 5,722.64 6,012.32 6,162.66 6,316.70 6,474.62 6,636.50 6,802.40 6,972.48 CDBG ADMINISTRATOR SEMI -MONTH 2,861.32 3,006.16 3,081.33 3,15835 3,237.31 3,31825 3,401.20 3,486.24 PARKS MAINTENANCE MANAGER ANNU 68,671.68 72,147.84 73,951.92 75,800.40 77,695.44 79,638. 61,6 83,669.76 POLICE SUPPORT MANAGER SEMI-MO DEF COM 1 14_.45_ 1 20. 2 5 1 23.25_ 126.33 129.49 132.73 13 6_.05 139. 45_ RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST 11 ADMINISTRATION DIVISION MANAGER MONTH 5,446.88 5,722.64 5,865.68 6,012.32 6,162.66 6,316.70 6,474.62 6,636.50 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT SEMI -MONTH 2,723.44 2,861 32 2,932.84 3,006.16 3,081.33 3,158.35 3.23731 3,31825 LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT ANNUAL 65,362.56 68,671.68 70,38 8.16 72,147.84 73,951.92 75,800.40 77,695 79,638.00 PARALEGAL SEMI -MO DEF COMP _ 1 1 17.31 1 20.25 12 3_26 _ _ _ 126_33 12 9.49 132. PARK DEVELOPMENT PLANNER PUBLIC ACCESS MANAGER SENIOR PLANNER 10 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY I MONTH 5,184.40 5,446.88 5,583.06 5,722.64 5,865.68 6,012.32 6,162.66 6,316.70 ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR II SEMI -MONTH 2,592.20 2.723.44 2,791.53 2,861.32 2,932.84 3,006.16 3,081.33 3,158.35 BUDGET ANALYST ANNUAL 62,212.8 65,362.56 66,9 96.72 68,671.68 70,388.16 72,147.84 73,951 75,800.40 CDBG COORDINATOR SEMI -MO DEF COM 10 3.69 108 ; 94 1 11.66 1 14A5 . 1 17,31 120.26 1 23_25 1 26.33 HR ANALYST II 9 MONTH 4,93458 5,184.40 5,31402 5,446.88 5,583.06 5,72264 5,865.68 6,01232 SEMI -MONTH 2,46729 2,592.20 2,657.01 2,72344 2,791.53 2,861 32 2,932.84 3,006.16 AN 59,214.96 62,212.80 63,768.24 65,362.56 66,996.72 68,67 70,388.16 72,147 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 98.69 103.69 106.28 108.94 111.661 114.45 117,31 120.25 8 BKAT PRODUCTION ADMINISTRATOR MONTH 4,69684 4,934.58 5,057.96 5,184.40 5,314.02 5,446.88 5,583.06 5,722.64 CITY CLERK SEMI -MONTH 2,34842 2,467.29 2,528.98 2,592.20 2,657.01 2,72344 2,791.53 2,861.32 CIVIL SERVICE OFFICER/HR ASSISTANT ANNU 56,362.08 59,214.96 60,695.52 62,212.80 63,768.24 65,362.56 66,996.72 68,671.68 COUNCIL /AUDITOR ASSISTANT SEMI -MO DEF COMP 93.94 98.69 101.16 103.69 106.28 108.94 111.66 114.45 7 ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR I MONTH 4,470.48 4,69684 4,814.22 4,934.58 5,05796 5,184.40 5,31402 5,446.88 CDBG PROGRAM SPECIALIST SEMI -MONTH 2,235.24 2,348.42 2,407.11 2,467.29 2,52898 2,592.20 2,65701 2,723.44 A NNUA L _ 53,645.76 56,362.08 _ 57,7 59,214. 60,695. 62,212 63,768 65,362.56 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 89.41 93.94 96.28 98.69 101.16 103.69 106.28 108.94 6 MONTH 4,255.06 4,470.48 4,582.26 4,696.84 4,814.22 4,934.58 5,057.96 5,184.40 SEMI -MONTH 2,127.53 2,235.24 2,291.13 2,348.42 2,407.11 2.467.29 2,528.98 2,592.20 ANNUAL 51,060,72 53,645.76 54,987.12 56,362.08 57,770.64 59,214.96 60,695.5 62,212.80 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 85.10 89.41 91.65 93.94 96.28 98.691 101.16 103.69 5 LEGAL ASSISTANT 11 MONTH 4,050.04 4,255.06 4,361 48 4,47048 4,582.26 4,696.84 4,814.22 4,934.58 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERALIST SEMI -MONTH 2,025.02 2,127.53 2,180.74 2,235.24 2,291.13 2,348.42 2,407.11 2,467.29 A 48,600,48 51,060.72 52,337 53,645.76 54,987.1 56,362.08 57,770.64 59,214.9 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 81.00 85.10 67.23 89.41 91.65 93.94 96.28 98.69 4 LEGAL ASSISTANT I MONTH 3,854.86 4,050.04 4,151.28 4,255.06 4,361.48 4,470.48 4,582.26 4,696.84 SEMI -MONTH 1,92743 2,025.02 2,075.64 2,127.53 2,180.74 2,235.24 2,291.13 2,348.42 July 7, 2014 1 1 RECEIVED. (Iff COUNCIL RUN )ATE 7/$ I, Council President Wheeler Council Vice - President Younger Council Members Daugs, Runyon Our Legal Department is proposing a new position for Human Resources. I have concerns regarding how this position will be filled. I know that as Council Members you do not have a say in who gets hired to fill a position but I want to make sure you have an understanding of how some exempt positions are being filled. Our city attorney proposes to create a HR analyst position (Pay Band 9) and to fill the position with the current legal assistant II (Pay Band 5). Although I believe this individual would do a good job in this position, I think it's unfair and unwise to "promote" someone to this position without opening the position up to all city employees as there may be someone more qualified for this job. Promotional positions in the city are few and far between and by only "promoting" management/professional staff and by only promoting within your own department, you are creating resentment from other employees throughout the city. To my knowledge, the City Attorney promoted the last Legal Assistant to the Risk Management Specialist position (Pay Band 12) without advertising for the position and the Finance Director promoted an Accounting Assistant II to the City Clerk position (Pay Band 8) without advertising internally or externally. I am not privy to the qualifications for the appointed jobs but I do know that our City Clerk has been sent to several classes to learn the job of city clerk. And, I have heard that the current legal assistant is proposing to get an education in HR after she is hired. I know the department director's have discretion in filling management/ professional positions in their departments. However, if the City Council chooses to approve this additional position, I would request in the interest of fairness, they would ask the City Attorney about his intentions to fill this position without advertising internally or externally for the best possible candidate. Thank you for your time. ARECEIVEO. CITY COUNUL EKE; )ATE We currently have an HR Manager that does not have a degree in Human Resources and is unable to negotiate the Fire Contract due to conflict of interest (husband is in IAFF Union). We currently have an HR Generalist with on the job training. Now it is being proposed to establish an HR Analyst position and appoint a current employee that does not have an HR degree or training and send them for training so that they can perform the job. With the salary that is being proposed the City should look at hiring someone just out of college with a degree if indeed the position is warranted. If a higher position than the HR Generalist is required then why are we just adding another position instead of reorganizing (RIF lower position)? If the City really only needs two positions for the HR /Benefits function then they should decide what those positions are and hire the most qualified people available. - RECEIVED. CITY COUNCIL OEEiCE°; Question: ?ATE 7/9 //!4 If the goal is to create a position that will assist the HR Manager with her work load, why is the City Attorney proposing to create an HR Analyst position and fill it with a non - experienced HR person who will need to be trained on the job? Why would they not promote the HR Generalist to this position and hire another experienced HR Generalist? AGENDA BILL 7A CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ■■ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee�eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Study Session Date: July 9, 2014 Resolution # 3227 Adopting the 2015 — COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 2020 Six Year Transportation Department: Public Works & Utilities Improvement Plan Presenter: Tom Knuckey Phone: 473 -2376 SUMMARY: The Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is prepared pursuant to RCW 35.77.010. The TIP is updated annually and filed with the Secretary of Transportation, Local Programs Office. It is intended as a planning tool for the local, State and Federal transportation funding entities. The TIP has been prepared for City Council approval by Resolution prior to submittal to the Washington State Department of Transportation. This TIP is consistent with Bremerton's Comprehensive and Non - Motorized Transportation Plans, and Street CIP. ATTACHMENTS: 2015 — 2020 Six Year City TIP Projects; Resolution No. 3227 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Annual adoption of a six -year TIP is required by State law, and is necessary to receive certain State and Federal Transportation funds. The TIP includes $68,938,700 in projects over the 6 -year planning period. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑x No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business Z Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No. 3227, which approves the City's 2015 — 2020 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan, and direct the Mayor to forward the Resolution and Plan to the Department of Transportation, Local Programs Office. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 11/02/12 TIP PROJECTS Project Total Project Title 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Budget Signal System Upgrades 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Pavement Preservation 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,400,000 Local Street Major Maintenance and Reconstruction 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 17,500,000 Arterial Streets Mayor Maintenance and Reconstruction 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 11,000,000 Sidewalk Improvements 500,000 250,000 500,000 250,000 500,000 2,000,000 Traffic Calming 10,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 160,000 Armin Jahr Elementary Safe Routes to Schools 400,000 400,000 Construct street lighting on Ricky Road per 2008 developer agreement 40,000 40,000 Construct street lighting on Pine Road for the Brandywine Dev. per 2006 developer agreement 100,000 100,000 Construct Werner Road widening and signal improvements 3,000,000 3,000,000 SR303 Corridor Improvements - Burwell to Riddell 250,000 2,000,000 700,000 4,000,000 1,000,000 7,950,000 Harrison District Traffic Circulation Improvements 10,000 10,000 4th Street Landscaping Replacement 150,000 150,000 Marine Drive NMT Improvements 100,000 100,000 Oyster Bay Avenue Improvements 300,000 300,000 Access ways in Dockside 20,000 20,000 Naval Ave Road Diet 50,000 50,000 Shore Drive Shared Use path 40,000 40,000 Arsenal Way /Patton Ave Safety Improvements 100,000 100,000 Gorst Sinclair Trail 100,000 100,000 Washington Avenue, Pacific to Manette Bridge 250,000 2,500,000 2,750,000 Lebo Blvd, Wheaton Way to City Limits 350,000 3,000,000 3,350,000 Werner Road Reconstruction 2,000,000 2,000,000 Purchase easement for 4th Street Alley Vacation 30,000 30,000 Austin Drive Pavement Preservation 45,000 755,000 800,000 Austin Drive ADA Ramps 35,000 35,000 1 of 2 Crosswalk Project Bundle (Kitsap Way & Harlow, 6th & High, 11th & High, Kitsap Way & 11th, SR304 & 1st) 130,000 670,000 800,000 SR3 Corridor Planning /Environmental - KRCC Countywide 13,500 13,500 SR3 Corridor Planning /Environmental - City Tiger Grant Project 300,000 300,000 Kitsap County Multi -modal Transportation Plan 5,200 5,200 Crownhdl Elementary Sidewalks 350,000 2,900,000 3,250,000 Sidewalk & Guardrail, Warren Avenue /SR303 north of bridge to Sheridan 110,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,610,000 Highway Safety Improvements Project - Phase 2 190,000 910,000 1,100,000 View Ridge /Armin Jahr Safe Routes to Schools 500,000 500,000 Naval Avenue Safe Routes to Schools 500,000 500,000 Kitsap Lake Elementary - Safe Routes to Schools 1,200,000 1,200,000 Washington Avenue Complete Street 3,275,000 3,275,000 Total 4,893,700 10,975,000 13,730,000 10,030,000 12,630,000 16,680,000 68,938,700 2of2 RESOLUTION NO. 3227 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, adopting the 2015 — 2020 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. WHEREAS, after proper notice, the City Council of the City of Bremerton held a public hearing at the regular meeting of the City Council at 5:30 p.m. on July 16, 2014 to consider public testimony on the City's proposed 2015 - 2020 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan and, having considered public testimony to the Plan and in accordance with the provisions of RCW 47.80; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The 2015 through 2020 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan, set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and herewith filed with the City Clerk, is hereby adopted. SECTION 2. Severability. If any one 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 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of , 2014. Greg Wheeler, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk R • \Lcgal\Lcgal\RcsolutwnsTublic Works0008 Resolution for TIP.doc 1 Six Year Transportation Plan AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL .........: ................................................ ............................... SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Ordinance Study Session Date: July 9, 2014 No. 5251 amending The Official Zoning Map COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 and BMC Title 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. Amend the Official Zoning Map related to the three District Centers within the City by increasing the amount of District Center Core zoning and reducing the amount of Low Density Residential zoning with District Center Core Zoning in specified areas. 2. Amend BMC 20.70 — The District Center Core Zone to allow for multi - family residential uses, modifying height limits and enhance visual screening requirements. ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Memo Attachment I: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: • February 18, 2014 Workshop; • March 18, 2014 Workshop; • April 15, 2014 workshops; • May 20, 2014 Public Hearing (Draft Minutes) B. Proposed Ordinance including: • Exhibit A: Planning Commission Findings & Conclusions • Exhibit B: Amendments to the Official Zoning Map — Charleston • Exhibit C: Amendments to the Official Zoning Map —Wheaton/Sheridan • Exhibit D: Amendments to the Official Zoning Map —Wheaton/Riddell FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation © Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business 0 Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No 5251 to amend the Official Zoning Map and BMC 20.70 related to multi - family uses; modify height requirements, and visual screening within the District Center Core zone. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Nicole Floyd, Senior Planner Date: July 9, 2014 Subject: Zoning Code Amendments - District Center Core Mapping and Development regulation modifications SUMMARY The Planning Commission has held several workshops and a Public Hearing over the last few months related to the District Center Core zoning district. This zoning designation is located in three distinct areas throughout the City: Charleston (Callow Avenue), Wheaton /Sheridan, and Wheaton /Riddell. Following significant study, public input, and deliberation, the Planning Commission unanimously recommends amendments relating to: • Mapping of the District Centers — Increasing the District Center Core zoning to better achieve the City's long term growth strategy and to allow for more flexibility in terms of allowed uses in all three areas. • Modify the District Center Core development Standards as follows: • Amend the allowed uses of the chapter to better allow for multi - family residential uses, • Increase height limits from 50' to 80' with transitional elements when adjacent to single family residential areas. • Require a 20' dense vegetated buffer along Almira Drive to protect the existing forested nature of the street. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment I: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from the February 18, 2014; March 18, 2014; and April 15, 2014 workshops; and the minutes from the Public Hearing held on May 20, 2014. HISTORY These amendments have grown out of a discussion related to the City's upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. The Planning Commission's February workshop focused on the Wheaton /Riddell District Center as an example of how the Comprehensive Plan allows for and encourages the development of unique "Sub -Area Plans" to be developed so that a district can implement development regulations that are tailored to the surrounding neighborhood and property owners desires. While the Sub -Area Planning process has been successful on other parts of the City, the unique Sub -Area Plan for the Wheaton /Riddell District Center has faced many challenges. One of the key issues relates to street design requirements that were required only in this Sub -Area. These street design requirements were particularly onerous and costly, which discouraged new development. The Sub -Area Plan requirements were in line with the financing and development markets prior to the economic recession of 2008, but following the recession some of the Sub -Area Plan's requirements were found to be onerous and infeasible due to the changed economic climate. Following the February Workshop, the Planning Commission recommended the Sub -Area Plan be revoked and replaced with the zoning which was in place previously. The City Council followed the Planning Commission's recommendation and revoked the Wheaton Riddell Subarea Plan on March 5, 2014. This revocation resulted in the zoning for the area reverting back to the zoning in place in 2005 prior to the Sub -Area Plan. This previous zoning included two zones that are seen in several areas throughout the City — District Center Core, and Low Density Residential. Following the revocation, the Planning Commission began studying both the zoning map and the development standards for this District Center. Both the March and April workshops focused on potential impacts and benefits related to code amendments. In both topics (mapping and development regulations), the Planning Commission recognized that the discussion should be broadened to include both of the other District Centers, as changes to development standards would be applicable citywide, not just in the Wheaton /Riddell District Center. In this way, the Commission could better assess the overall Citywide impacts of the proposed changes. At the April Planning Commission Workshop the Planning Commission provided Staff with clear guidance to make mapping amendments and development regulation amendments and to present those amendments for a Public Hearing at the May Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends the proposed amendments before the City Council. Significant discussion, community input, and deliberation have been conducted throughout the Planning Commission Process. Each workshop has included a Staff Report, much like this one and a PowerPoint presentation provided to the public. For more detailed information about the discussions held regarding this topic, please review the previous Planning Commission Packets and PowerPoint presentations at: hftp://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/display.r)hp?id=438 • Page 2 ANALYSIS There are essentially two separate topics for review: mapping changes, and development regulation changes. This report covers each of these topics separately. Mapping: The District Centers are designated as the principal areas targeted for growth within the City. Bremerton has been designated as what is known as a "Metropolitan City" and is therefore expected to be prepared to accommodate the most growth of all the Cities within Kitsap County. There are only five "Metropolitan Cities" within the greater Puget Sound region including Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett and Bremerton. As each of these Cities is the largest within their respective Counties, Bremerton is the largest city within Kitsap County. Every jurisdiction is required to have a Comprehensive Plan, which is a document that establishes how a jurisdiction will grow. Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan was written in 2004 and assumes a growth target of approximately 14,000 new residents. One of the basic elements of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan is to preserve existing neighborhood character by focusing a majority of the Cities allocated growth into "Centers" rather than existing neighborhoods. Of these Centers, the bulk of the growth is allocated to the following four areas: • Downtown Regional Center • Wheaton / Riddell District Center • Wheaton / Sheridan District Center • Charleston District Center It is important to note that the City is required to develop codes that allow the City to accommodate their designated growth targets, but achieving that actual growth is not required. Many have noted that due to the economy the growth expected has not been realized over the last several years. In fact, due to the economic recession, national growth has not been as strong as projected prior to the recession. Nevertheless, the City cannot create codes that would prohibit the growth that is assigned to be placed within its boundaries. The Comprehensive Plan designations establish that there are only two zones in which any District Center can be mapped: Low Density Residential, or District Center Core. Of the two zones, only one of them encourages the density necessary to meet Bremerton's assigned growth targets — the District Center Core zone. It is for this reason that the Planning Commission recommends the expansion of the District Center Core zoning and the reduction of the Low Density Residential zoning within these districts as follows: • Page 3 Charleston District Center: The Charleston District Center is the smallest of the three District Centers occupying approximately 39 acres. Accordingly, its anticipated build out is less than the other two larger District Centers. The Charleston District Center is unique in that it is already predominately mapped as District Center Core (red). There are only two small areas that are mapped as Low Density Residential (yellow) and in both of these areas the development pattern includes existing...: single family residential developments. The only exception is the automotive shop located on the corner of Callow Avenue and 11' Street. This automotive shop s mapped as single family P PP 9 Y residential and is the only corner of the intersection mapped this ` way. For this reason, Planning Commission recommends replacing the residential zoning with commercial zoning on this single piece of property within the Charleston District Center. Otherwise, the mapping of the District appears to be accurate and consistent with the growth strategy in the and complete, g gy Compressive Plan. Mapping changes are identified as Exhibit B of the proposed Ordinance. Wheaton / Sheridan District Center This is the second largest District Center occupying approximately 81 acres. It sits between Sylvan Way and Sheridan Road and is directly accessed from Wheaton Way. Much of the District is the old 4 a ro• East Bremerton High School and therefore has significant: br ►, redevelopment potential as there are few existing buildings on { J the grounds. Unlike the Charleston District Center, nearly 2 /3rds 7 of the District are mapped as Low Density (yellow) which significantly limits the allowed uses onsite. Many of the existing �,;• k developments within the District would not be permitted within the Low Density Residential Zone. In -fact schools are only t conditionally permitted in the Low Density zone, but are outrightly permitted within the District Center Core zone. The Planning Commission anticipates that increasing the District _ Center Core zoning (red) across the entire district will allow for a wider array of allowed uses and will likely increase the redevelopment potential of the site. The Youth Wellness _ Campus coordinator has commented in support of the expansion of District Center Core as it better fit their design` plans for 7 acres of the District Center. Proposed changes replace all of the Low Density Residential Zoning (yellow) with the • Page 4 District Center Core Zoning (red). Mapping changes for this District are identified as Exhibit C of the proposed Ordinance. Wheaton / Riddell District Center This is the largest District Center occupying approximately 100 acres, as such it is expected to accommodate the largest portion of the population growth within the City. While the area has been predominately commercially zoned since the 1980's, there have been many tweaks and changes throughout the 1 ``: years. Typically these changes have reflected different project proposals and marketing strategies.�cci,` ' Since the revocation of the Sub -Area Plan earlier this year, the zoning map has split the District nearly I �? in half with half as District Center Core (red) and the other half as Low Density Residential (yellow). It is 1. interesting that while half of the district (nearly 50 acres) is zoned Low Density Residential, there are no Low Density residential uses within the District, and several commercial and industrial uses throughout the District. The areas of change are only on the left and right sides of the maps, as the middle area adjacent to Wheaton Way has remained commercial (red). Discussions at the Planning Commission workshops and Public Hearing have concluded that the area is slated for significant growth in Bremerton and therefore should be zoned to ensure that this growth can occur. The R -10* zone does not support the growth targets established in the Comprehensive Plan, nor does it promote the type of development anticipated for this district. Proposed changes replace all of the Low Density Residential Zoning (yellow) with the District Center Core Zoning (red). Mapping changes for this District are identified as Exhibit D of the proposed Ordinance. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The development standards are the same for all three districts. Any applicant applying for a permit within any of the three districts would be required to comply with the District Center Core Zoning regulations (BMC 20.70). Since these development standards are applicable in all three Districts, it is important to consider the impacts of these potential code amendments in each. Allowing Residential of all types: The current code only allows residential uses within the District Center zone when it is mixed with ground floor retail uses. This requirement for mixed use ensures that both residential and commercial growth targets are being achieved and promotes a "walkable" Center. One reason to require mixed use is to minimize extensive apartment complexes without providing commercial amenities within walking distance. This • Page 5 promotes walkability and better implements the Centers concept. It also ensures that the commercial entity is the predominant feature along the fronting roadway. The Charleston District is a location where it is easy to see how providing ground floor retail with apartments above would be significantly more desirable than simply an apartment complex. The retail component activates the street and brings a commercial vibrancy to the District. Alternatively, there are some locations and situations where mixing commercial and residential in every building is not desirable or marketable. While the City wants to activate street level commerce, some project sites are too large or include several buildings of which some are too far removed from the main street to create the urban design along the streetscape that was envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. For this reason Planning Commission recommend revising the allowed uses and development standards within the District Center Core zone to allow for residential uses of all types (except Group Residential Type 11— alternatives to imprisonment) with specific criteria that require a mix of residential and commercial unless along the street frontage. The amendments allow for single use residential buildings to be located behind mixed use or commercial structures. They also clarify that if a building cannot be viewed from a public street, then mixed use would not be required. These revisions ensure that a mix of commercial and residential is maintained along the street frontage, but allows for a departure from this requirement when the building or buildings are separated from the street frontage. For example, a large commercial structure could be located along the street frontage and then several apartment buildings could be located behind the commercial structure and not be oriented to the public Right of Way. Height: The District Center Core currently has a height limit of 50'. The previous Sub -Area Plan for the Wheaton /Riddell District Center allowed heights of up to 65'. Neither the Charleston District nor Wheaton /Sheridan District have been a part of a neighborhood planning effort such as the recently revoked Subarea Plan. This means that the areas mapped as District Center Core (Shown in red on the previous page) within these two districts have had a height limit of 50' since 2005. Taller buildings often encourage a more efficient and environmentally friendly development pattern because they are utilizing less space and require less infrastructure to be constructed. In terms of utilization of tax dollars, taller, more dense housing units are less expensive to provide services to such as police, fire, roads, sewer, water, electricity, etc. which represents lower costs to providing these essential services in the long run. Taller buildings also allow for development to put parking underneath the building which is more efficient than surface parking, often leaving open space, or additional developable areas. There is a direct correlation between higher density and reductions in traffic because transit is more efficient and successful with higher densities. A height increase from 50' to 80' would likely allow for future developers to more easily • Page 6 achieve the goals within the Comprehensive Plan while also profiting from the project. A height limit of 50' is somewhat challenging for developers as it requires more expensive infrastructure to construct, but often does not provide significant increases in revenue. The construction costs of building mid to high rise buildings is significantly higher than traditional wood frame construction seen in structures of less than 40' in height. The added expense is primarily due to the need for large underground parking garages, steel beam framing, elevators, etc. The increased height limit will offer more opportunity to recoup the cost of steel construction. The condominiums recently constructed in Downtown Bremerton along the waterfront on Washington Avenue are 70' tall, are constructed of steel frames and concrete, and include a parking garage etc. It is anticipated that construction of similar structures within the District Centers would be appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals. Compatibility with the adjacent developments just outside the District Centers has been an important consideration. The proposed amendments include a 100' perimeter area that would more closely regulate buildings within 100' of the abutting Low Density Residential areas surrounding District Centers. Additionally, the code amendments include a requirement for building height limits of four stores within 50' of the Low Density Residential zoned properties and building modulation to limit height impacts for buildings between 50' to 100' from the Low Density Residential zoned properties. Discussion at the May 20, 2014 Hearing related to residentially zoned properties located across major roadways such as Wheaton Way. Concerns were raised regarding the transitional elements being placed inadvertently on "frontages" where taller buildings would seem appropriate. Due to this concern the Planning Commission included language in their recommendation for Staff to further evaluate code language related to this topic. Following this review, Staff has concluded that the term "adjacent" does not include properties across four or more lanes of traffic, such as Wheaton Way. Due to this existing definition, Staff do not believe that changing the proposed code language is necessary. Vegetated Buffers Adjacent to Low Density Zoning: The primary focus of this topic has been the Eastern Edge of the Wheaton / Riddell District Center along Almira Drive. The Sub -Area Plan called for a vegetated buffer for commercial development projects to ensure the existing forested nature of Almira Drive would be maintained. With the revocation of the Sub -Area plan, the requirement for a vegetated buffer was also removed. Existing landscaping requirements related to visual screening are in place that would adequately provide for a transition; however these provisions are not currently required at this location. In order to apply the visual screening requirements along Almira Drive, Planning Commission recommends placing a specific requirement within the District Center Core chapter that ensures a "Type II Visual Screen" is required specifically for this location. Type II visual screens are typically required between incompatible uses such as a sports complex and residential homes. The intent of the Type II Visual Screen is to provide 20' of dense vegetation that will buffer the more intense use from the residences. The proposed amendment would require 20' of dense vegetation along Almira Drive, which will preserve the • Page 7 existing vegetated nature of the streetscape. Existing significant trees and shrubs can be used to meet this requirement. CONSLUSION: The attached amendments, both mapping and text, reflect extensive study by the Planning Commissions related to this topic. The proposed amendments will implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan while allowing for greater opportunity for re- development of the three District Centers within the City. The Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council adopt the proposed amendments as drafted. • Page 8 Attachment I Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for: Workshops held on February 18, 2014 March 18, 2014 April 15, 2014 Public Hearing held on May 20, 2014 (Minutes from the Hearing are Draft) . ........... --- ---- CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING February 18, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Tift called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Staff Present Chair Tift Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Vice Chair Dinkuhn Nicole Floyd, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Garrett Jackson, Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Jose Commissioner Simpson Commissioner Strube Commissioner Wofford Quorum Certified ELECTION OF OFFICERS COMMISSIONER JOSE NOMINATED COMMISSIONER DINKUHN TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2014. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THERE WERE NO OTHER NOMINATIONS, AND THE NOMINATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR DINKUHN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 2014 AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER JOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Commissioner Jose asked if there were any comments from citizens. I Diedre McKeel, resident if Council District 5, provided testimony that the city needs an increase of multi - family zoning throughout the city and the commission should consider expanding this zoning type. No one else in the audience indicated a desire to comment, and Chair Tift closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments Mr. Jackson reviewed the following proposed 'Zoning Code Amendments, which are based on input staff received from the Commission on January 21': _• , Mobile Homes (BMC 19). Title 19 was originally adopted in 1960, and was last updated in 1976. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Housing and Urban Development placed a prohibition on mobile home construction. Manufactured homes are the modem -day successor to mobile homes, and standards for this use are established in BMC 20.46.040. Because Title 19 is obsolete and actually contradicts some of the regulations in Title 20, staff is recommending that it be repealed. • Electric Vehicle Infrastructure. In 2009, the State Legislature passed SSHB 1481, requiring all cities and counties in the State to allow for battery charging stations as a use in all zones, with the exception of Residential, Resource and Critical Areas. The Commission directed staff to draft amendment to satisfy SSHB 1481. These amendments include changing the off -street parking requirements (BMC 20.48) to read, "Where parking is provided in association with allowed uses within the associated zone, electric vehicle charging stations are encouraged and shall comply with City Building Code and Washington State Electrical Code." In addition, the "Definition" Section (BMC 20.42) would be amended to allow for the following levels of charging stations contingent on their intensity. Levels 1 and 2 Charging Stations would be permitted outright as an accessory use in any zone in the City with available parking. Level 3, rapid charging stations would be allowed where gas stations are a permitted use, and battery exchange stations would be allowed where automotive service and repair businesses are a permitted use. • Multi- Family in the Institutional Zone (BMC 20.98). The City received an application for a Zoning Code amendment from a private property owner to add multi - family as a permitted use within the Institutional Zone. Based off the recommendation of the Commission, staff drafted amendments adding multi - family to the list of allowed uses in the Institutional Zone and updated the permitted use list for the Employment Center Zone to ensure that consistent terms are used in both zoning districts and in the definitions section of Title 20. Ms. Floyd provided an overview of the following proposed Sign Code Amendments: • Special Purpose Signs (BMC 20.52.130). The proposed amendment would combine the Special Purpose Sign Standards with the Residential Sign Standards. Special purpose signs are associated with existing signs (i.e. existing businesses, schools, parks, etc.) within the Low- Density Residential Zones, so it makes sense to combine language related to special purpose signs with the Residential Sign Standards. • Sandwich Boards and Portable Signs (BMC 20:2.160 and 20.52.170). Sandwich board and portable signs are currently regulated by two separate code sections, which reference each other. The proposed amendment would combine the regulations into one section that includes a broader range of sign types. It would also allow for some flexibility as to sign location. • Freestanding Neighborhood Business Signs Size Limitations (20.52.180). As per the current code, freestanding neighborhood business signs are limited to a size that is two square feet smaller than other signs allowed in the Residential Zones. The proposed amendment would make neighborhood business sign sizes consistent with other similar zoning districts. • Nonconforming Signs (BMC 20.52). The current code calls for the removal of all nonconforming signs by 2015, which seems like a really strong approach that is not particularly consistent with other provisions of the City's nonconforming chapter. A map was provided to illustrate the high number of nonconforming signs, which includes all those over 8 feet tall in most zones of the City except Industrial and Freeway Corridor Zones. At the workshop, Bremerton Pianning Commiss February 18, 2014 — Page 2 of 8 the Commission agreed to try a softer approach that would replace the current amortization requirement with requirements that are tied to voluntary actions by property owners. For example, the amortization requirement could be tied to alterations of the site, the sign, or the business associated with the sign. As currently proposed, , alterations leading to removal include removal of signage cabinetry, alterations that exceed 25% of the replacement cost of the sign, and on -site improvements exceeding 75% of the assessed improvement value or $100,000. She emphasized that expanding, enlarging or adding electronic elements to nonconforming signs would be prohibited. Ms. Floyd recommended the Commission hold an open record public hearing, consider testimony, and recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. Priscilla Bailey, Bremerton, said she is the owner of the building located at 4171 Wheaton Way where a nonconforming sign is currently located. She expressed concern that her modest sign would have to be removed by 2015 if the code is not amended as proposed. She said it is not clear what would be considered a "conforming sign" and whether it would even be visible to passing traffic along Wheaton Way. She cautioned that signs are important, and she supports the amendment that softens the amortization requirement. Councilmember Runyon, emphasized that he was present to voice his own viewpoint and not that of the City Council. He questioned how practical the current 8 -foot height limitation for signs. Because many vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles, are over 8 -feet high tall, the signs would not be highly visible to smaller vehicle operators on the roadway. He asked if any other communities in Kitsap County have adopted similar sign restrictions and expressed concern that the sign code restriction could make the City's businesses less competitive with other areas in the County. No one else indicated a desire to participate, and Chair Tift closed the public hearing. Commissioner Strube said he spoke with business owners in Gig Harbor, which has adopted a lower sign height. One owner indicated he was closing his business because no one could find it because his sign was not tall enough. While he supports the Comprehensive Plan's goal of having nicer signs on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way, Commissioner Strube voiced his concern that the height limitation might be too drastic. He said he would be interested in learning more about what a conforming sign would look like. Vice Chair Dinkuhn recalled that the Commission considered examples from Gig Harbor at their January workshop. She noted that in addition to lower signs, there was a heavy amount of landscaping that impacted visibility. She suggested that as the signs are lowered in Bremerton, property owners would likely modify the landscaping in such a way that it does not block the signs. Commissioner Albright said she recently drove up and down Wheaton Way to observe the different signage. Although she is not prepared to say that 8 feet is the right height, she did find that having signage lower was better in terns of finding what she was looking for as she was driving. Commissioner Simpson expressed concern that in all the examples provided, the lower signs seemed to be lost in the vegetation and landscaping and were not highly visible. When she drives down Wheaton Way, she looks for the taller signs. Rather than being distractions, they are quite helpful in providing direction. She expressed her belief that they should take a serious look at how signs can help rather than hinder the City's ability to attract desirable businesses. Ms. Spencer clarified that sign height is not the issue before the Commission at this time. The current question is whether the City should amortize and get rid of all nonconforming signs in 2015 or take a different, softer approach. The 8 -foot height limit for signs has been in place since 2005, and the Commission could revisit the issue again as part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and subsequent code amendments. Commissioner Jose observed that all Commissioners appear to support the proposed amendment that would take a softer approach to amortization of the sign standards. He noted that, in addition to adjusting the amortization language, the proposed amendment also includes small changes to make the code simpler. He asked how the replacement costs of a sign would be calculated. Ms. Floyd said staff would use one of two methods: the City could use the bid price to calculate the cost to the applicant through the building permit fee or the applicant could submit an actual bid for the sign replacement. - Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2014 — Page 3 of 9 Commissioner Jose referred to Page 7 of Attachment I and requested the following modifications: • BMC 20.52.180(C)(2) — Change to read, "... the sign shall lose its nonconforming status if one of the following circumstances applies • BMC 20.52.180(C)(3) — Change to read, "If the sign has not been utilized ..." Commissioner Wofford said he would like the ordinance to include a date certain for amortization of nonconforming signs. He pointed out that people typically use technology to find the location of specific businesses, and tall signs are not really necessary. He said he has visited cities where businesses prosper using small signs, as long as they provide a service that people want. He voiced concern about allowing nonconforming signs to remain in place indefinitely as long as no significant alterations are made. Commissioner Jose said he is opposed to a hard and fast deadline for amortization of nonconforming signs. He supports the proposed amendment, which would apply an amortization standard that is consistent with the rest of the City's code. Commissioner Simpson referred to BMC 20.52.120(a)(2) and expressed concern that signs for multi - family development are limited to a total of four square feet. If the development is located on a corner and two signs are needed, they would have to be very small. She also expressed concern that BMC 20.52.120(a)(3) limits freestanding signs on residential properties to two square feet. Ms. Floyd clarified that these two provisions apply to signs for home occupation uses that occur inside individual residential units. Residential developments would be allowed to have entrance signs that are up to fifty square feet in size. Commissioner Albright referred to BMC 20.52.120(d), which prohibits advertising wind signs or devices that flutter, wave, revolve or sparkle. She asked how the City would enforce this prohibition if the proposed amendment is adopted. Ms. Floyd explained that code enforcement is complaint based, and the proposed amendment is intended to address the issues that have raised the most concern. This particular prohibition has not been identified as a continual problem. Chair Tift pointed out that the current sign code has been in place for nearly ten years, and some property owners have advertised their businesses with new conforming signs (ex. new: Walgreens, Rite Aid, and Starbucks). The conforming signs appear to be highly visible and attractive. He noted that redevelopment along Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way has not progressed as rapidly as the architects of the current ordinance had anticipated, but some progress has been made. While he doesn't want to abandon the current sign code requirements, he felt it would be a bit draconian to give property owners just ten months to amortize their nonconforming signs. He felt the proposed amendment represents a reasonable compromise. Commissioner Jose moved that the Commission forward the proposed amendments that would eliminate BMC 19 (Mobile Homes) and amend BMC 20.42 and BMC 20.48 (Electric Vehicle Infrastructure) and BMC 20.98 (allowing multi - family in the Institutional Zone) to the City Council with a recommendation of approval as presented. Commissioner Wofford seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Chair Tift summarized that the Commissioners appear to be in agreement over the need to replace the amortization section. The debate is whether or not another benchmark date should be set. Commissioner Wofford asked staff to share the concerns that have been raised related to the current 2015 amortization date. Ms. Floyd explained that City staff cannot ignore the 2015 amortization date, which is rapidly approaching, and notices must be sent to property owners. Because they anticipate a lot of push back from property owners, staff is seeking confirmation from the City Council and Planning Commission before proceeding. Chair Tift added that moving forward with the 2015 amortization date could result in enforcement actions and potential litigation. This could be costly to both the business owners and the City. While he is not in favor of abandoning the current sign code, he felt it would be counterproductive to require amortization by 2015. Ms. Floyd clarified that an amortization program requires a date certain. The proposed amendment would eliminate the amortization program and no date certain would be required. Code compliance would occur as alterations are made. Commissioner Simpson cautioned against placing an undue burden on business and land owners, particularly given the economy. She supports the proposed amendment, which would provide some flexibility for them to bring their signs into Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2014 — Page 4 of 8 compliance over time as alterations are made. Commissioner Wofford expressed concern that'if there is no date certain for compliance, the City could end up with a few nonconforming signs for years without the ability to enforce compliance. Commissioner Jose voiced concern that setting a date would just be "kicking the can down the road," and the same concern would come up again in the future. He recommended they eliminate the amortization date and let eventual compliance happen. Once again, he noted this would be consistent with City's nonconforming standards for all other uses. Commissioner Jose moved that the Commission forward the proposed amendments to BMC 20.52 (Sign Code) to the City Council with a recommendation of approval as presented by staff and with the following modifications: • BMC 20.52.180(C)(2) — Change to read, "... the sign shall lose its nonconforming status if one of the following applies • BMC 20.52.180(C)(3) —Change to read, "If the sign has not been utilized..." Commissioner Albright seconded the motion. The motion carried 6 -1, with Commissioner Wofford voting in opposition. Public Workshop: Wheaton/Riddell District Center Ms. Floyd explained that in preparation for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update, staff will present a series of workshops to the Planning Commission focusing on the different "centers' throughout the City. The intent is to familiarize the Commission with the key elements of the current Comprehensive Plan so they can better assess what is working and identify the changes that are needed. Ms. Floyd explained that the Comprehensive Plan is a 20 -year plan to accommodate growth in the City. It specifically identifies centers where the vast majority of the City's growth (14,000 people) will be accommodated. The centers are intended to be dense mixed -use, walkable environments, with nodes of commercial, residential and public gathering places. She provided a map to illustrate the location of the various centers, specifically noting those that have subarea plans adopted. The intent is for the Commission to have a workshop discuss regarding each of the centers, starting with the Wheaton/Riddell District Center. Ms. Floyd provided pictures to illustrate the current conditions on Wheaton Way, as well as what Wheaton Way could look like if redeveloped consistent with the Subarea Plan, which requires developers to provide 2 landscape strips, 2 sidewalks and a frontage road (cartway). She shared a current proposal to redevelop the Papa Murphy's site with two commercial buildings. She explained that because the frontage improvements require a significant amount of property, parking spaces would have to be eliminated and there would not be sufficient parking to meet the needs of the two businesses. In addition, there are significant costs associated with the required infrastructure. 'rhe property owner is trying to figure out if the improvements will pencil out or if remodeling the existing building is a better solution. Ms. Floyd observed that most of the properties have remained unchanged since the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan was adopted in 2007. Staff is concerned that, due to the economy, it is too costly for property owners to provide the infrastructure that would be required for redevelopment. Staff is also concerned about requiring Papa Murphy's to put in a frontage road when it will probably be the only site that is redeveloped for a long time to come. Because the remaining existing structures will likely be there quite some time, the frontage would be incomplete. The Subarea Plan generally assumes full redevelopment within a relatively short time period, which is not the reality of today. Ms. Floyd also pointed out that the Subarea Plan requires bicycle lanes on Wheaton Way, but they are specifically prohibited in the City's adopted Non - Motorized Transportation Plan because they are too dangerous in this location. It is also important to note that the bike lane would be short and have no connections to other bike lanes. Ms. Floyd advised that the Subarea Plan has specific design standards for the "City Villa" site that are based on plans from a previous developer that envisioned a high - density, mixed -use area with parks and open space. The current property owners are severely limited given that there is not currently a market for mixed -use residential development at this time. Questions have been raised about why this site, which is currently a gravel pit, cannot be redeveloped as commercial. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 20 14 — Page 5 of 8 Ms. Floyd summarized that when evaluating the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan, it is hard to say that the plan has had success. There are more vacancies now than ever before, and economic changes have made code compliance difficult and challenging. She reported that the Council discussed the subarea and directed the Commission to explore options before 2016. After further analysis, staff is offered the following three options: 1.. Replace the Subarea Plan with the District Center Core Zoning. This would be most consistent with the Subarea Plan without the plan's extensive design restrictions. 2. Replace the Subarea Plan with the previous 2005 "placeholder" zoning of District Center Core (DCC) in the middle and Residential (R -10 *) on both of the edges. This would probably be undesirable to the property owners and inconsistent with the Subarea Plan, which went through an extensive review process. 3. Maintain the Subarea Plan until 2016 when the plan could be reevaluated and updated. Ms. Floyd said staff is seeking input from both the Commission and the public regarding the best approach moving forward. Priscilla Bailey, Bremerton, said she owns property within the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea and is concerned that the plan has resulted in a blighted zone next to her building. She expressed her belief that properties will never be redeveloped if owners are required to give up land for roadways, walkways, and landscaping that provide no benefit to their businesses. She also expressed concern about the restrictive requirements that 60% of the building front must be glass and only one row of parking is allowed in front of the building. She said the plan does not match the demands and needs of the community. There is no great push for residential development, and the area is not pedestrian- friendly. She summarized that the current Subarea Plan is too restrictive and discourages development. She asked that the City revert back to the zoning that was in place immediately prior to the Subarea Plan or even expand the DCC Zoning into the areas zoned R -10 *. Mike Benetiel said he lives in the neighborhood adjacent to the gravel pit, which is the blight of Bremerton. Although there are restrictions, they are never enforced and the site just gets smellier, noisier and bigger each year. He found the Commission's previous discussion about how pole signs are eyesores to be interesting given that his neighborhood has been dealing with the impact of this huge factory for 12 years. Tom Remick said he also lives in the neighborhood adjacent to the gravel pit. He has paid close attention to the evolution of the City, and he has had the opportunity to be the spokesperson for his neighbors as they have fought to get rid of the business. The neighbors are concerned about why the City implemented the restrictive Subarea Plan when the economy took a drastic dive. He pleaded with the Commissioners to consider changes that would allow and encourage re- development to move forward. He noted the changes that have occurred on Kitsap Way, and he asked the Commission to consider going back to a more reasonable commercial (not industrial) zoning so the City can continue to grow. Diedre McKeel, Bremerton, recommended that as they review the "centers" that are located throughout the City and update the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission should consider how to accommodate both bicycle and pedestrian traffic by providing safe connections between the commercial centers and the residential areas. Councilmember Runyon said he was one of the four Councilmembers who at the council retreat spoke in favor of reducing restrictions and making the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan more flexible. He expressed his belief that the plan needs to be rebalanced by looking at market conditions. Property owners should be allowed to develop properties per the market. Gary Weber said he is a commercial real estate broker that specializes in retail real estate. Ile was hired by Carl Zarelli to help fill his buildings with tenants. He commented that while the Subarea Plan is well done, it will not work for a number of reasons as explained by Ms. Floyd. Ile recalled that ten years ago, developers and cities were partnering to build "village" projects, but only about 50% of these projects are viable today because they don't have a component other than retail. In order for a project to be viable, it must have a mixed -use component (residential or office), which provides the economic driver to make the project work. Retail, itself, will not substantiate a project. He noted that Kitsap County is not a hot multi- family residential market now, and the office market is not strong, either. Implementing the current Subarea Plan would require a market that does not currently exist in Bremerton. Bremerton Planning Commission'Ivlinutes Feb -wary 18, 2014 — Page 6 of 9 Mr. Weber referred to the R -10* zoning on either side tit the UCC zoning. He explained that, as he works with potential tenants, retailers will likely insist on having a view corridor to the main street. In fact, the lease will likely stipulate that nothing can be constructed in front of the retail space. Retailers are interested in spaces that have good visibility, signage, access and parking. Commissioner Wofford commented that he has observed numerous developments with frontage roads, particularly on the east coast. The buildings are set 30 to 50 feet back from the street and tend to get lost in the landscaping. Also, he expressed concern that frontage roads tend to become speedways because the main roads are blocked. IIe said he is not in favor of requiring frontage roads along Wheaton Way. Commissioner Strube observed that the current Subarea Plan is not working, and he would support changes that allow the district to grow. Commissioner Jose recalled that the intent of the Subarea Plan was for the area to transition over time through strict regulations. However, the strategy of strict regulations and very prescriptive standards obviously didn't work and they need to try something different. He reminded the Commission of their more recent work on the SKIA and Gorst Subarea Plans where they learned that flexibility in zoning attracts development. When Ms. Floyd pointed out that DCC zoning would allow for more flexibility, Commissioner Jose said he would be in favor of extending the DCC zoning Chair Tift observed that the businesses located in the Fred Meyer Complex are attractive and thriving, and the property where Albertson's used to be located was previously a hot bed of retail activity in Bremerton. He cautioned against underestimating the power of this retail area if it is properly developed and cared for. He agreed that they need to address the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan post haste rather than waiting until the Comprehensive Plan is updated in 2016. Ms. Spencer explained that the Commission could recommend the City Council revoke the Subarea Plan (Option 2), and the zoning would revert back to the 2005 zoning that had DCC in the middle and R -10* on both edges. If the Commission wants to explore other zoning configuration options, then the best approach would be replace the Subarea Plan with DCC zoning (Option 1). This would allow them to expand the DCC zoning beyond its original boundaries. Ms. Floyd added that the owners of the R -10* zoned property have voiced opinions that they would like commercial as opposed to residential zoning. The mining property is already zoned residential, and it is not working. The mining operation owners have indicated that the current business will exist in perpetuity if the property remains residential in zoning, and that is not an outcome anyone wants to see. Commissioner Jose moved that the Commission direct staff to recommend that the Subarea Plan be revoked and prepare a workshop and public hearing process to explore expanding the District Center Core (DCC) Zoning beyond its original boundaries prior to Subarea Plan adoption (Option 1). Commissioner Albright asked if DCC zoning would include industrial and light industrial uses. Ms. Floyd said the list of outright permitted uses would be the same as those currently allowed along the corridor. Industrial uses would only be allowed in the Industrial zone. Vice Chair Dinkuhn asked if DCC zoning would allow for mixed -use zoning. Ms. Floyd answered that residential uses would be allowed as secondary uses in the DCC zone. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Spencer explained that the Commission could recommend that the City Council revoke the Subarea Plan immediately, which means the zoning would default to DCC and R -10* Zoning while the Planning Commission works on a permanent change to the zoning. The Commission indicated support for expediting the revocation of the Subarea Plan. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2014 — Page'? of 8 BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Tift expressed appreciation for staff s hard work preparing items to come before the Commission. Director Report Ms. Spencer announced that the Kitsap Economic Development Alliance has invited the Commissioners to participate in a webinar titled, "Repurposing Aging Retail Centers. " The webinar will be held in the Mayor's Conference Room on February 27` from 10:30 a.m. to noon. She asked interested Commissioners to notify staff so that a public meeting could be advertised, if necessary. Old Business: Vote on By -Law Changes The Commission briefly reviewed the proposed changes to the Planning Commission Bylaws. Commissioner Albright moved that the Commission approve the amendments to the Planning Commission Bylaws, as presented. Commissioner Strube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. New Business There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: 1 ea L. S e , AICP Richard . Tift , i Ex utive cre Planning Commissi Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 2014 Page 9 of R I CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING March 18, 2414 CALL TO ORDER Chair Tift called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Staff Present Chair Tift Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Vice Chair Dinkuhn Nicole Floyd, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Commissioner Jose Commissioner Simpson (arrived at 5:33) Commissioner Strube Commissioner Wofford Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER JOSE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER WOFFORD SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER WOFFORD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2014 AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER JOSE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Tift asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting. Workshop: Potential Zoning Modifications to Implement the Wheaton/Riddell District Center Ms. Floyd recalled that the Commission held a public hearing on February 18' to discuss the District Center. At that time, staff presented information about how the area has not realized the growth that was envisioned in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan or in the Wheaton — Riddell District Center Subarea Plan due to changes in the economy, as well as changes in property ownership. After a public hearing, the Commission forwarded a recommendation to the City Council that the Wheaton- - Riddell District Center Subarea Plan be revoked immediately, reverting back to the zoning in place prior to adoption of the subarea plan in 2007. The Commission also directed staff to prepare alternative zoning for Commission's future discussion and deliberation. On March 5 the City Council accepted the Commission's recommendation and unanimously passed Ordinance 5241, revoking the Subarea Plan. The zoning in the district center is now District Center Core (DCC) and low - density residential (R -10 *), as per the 2005 Zoning Map. However, the Commission can choose to apply any combination of the two zoning districts throughout the Center and is not required to apply R -10* zoning at all. Ms. Floyd explained that, typically, district centers are high - density areas that are intended to accommodate the vast majority of the City's growth over the next 20 years. The Wheaton - Riddell District Center is one of the largest centers in Bremerton and is slated for more growth (3,800 residents and 2,000 jobs) than any other center, including downtown. She explained that while zoning cannot prohibit the City from reaching its growth targets, there are various ways to accommodate growth. She reviewed options and noted that the area would need to be developed at a high intensity with a mix of commercial and multi- family units in order to meet the growth targets established in the Comprehensive Plan. Low - density residential zoning (R- 10*) would not accommodate the level of growth needed. Ms. Floyd provided a brief history of how zoning in the district center has changed over the past 25 years and described how the properties are currently developed. She also explained how the current DCC and R -10* zoning designations differ from the previous subarea plan zoning. She specifically noted that the DCC zoning is very similar to the subarea plan zoning, but the extra requirements that were challenging for developers to accomplish are no longer required. In addition, the DCC zone only allows residential uses when they are mixed with commercial. The R -10* zoning designation only allows single- family residential uses, as opposed to the previous subarea zoning that allowed a mixture of commercial and high- density residential uses on the western side and residential on the eastern side, with some bonus for commercial if an 85 -foot forested swath is maintained and a gathering place is provided. Lastly, she noted that the height limits in the R -10* (35 feet) and DCC (50 feet) zones are lower than the height limits that were allowed in the subarea plan zoning (between 55 and 65 feet). Ms. Floyd specifically asked the Commission to consider what zoning arrangement would spur development and best meet the City's growth targets. She specifically asked them to focus on the following: •' Should the zoning map have both R -10* and DCC zoning? If so, is the current boundary correct or should it be changed? The Commission should keep in mind how to best achieve the City's growth targets and Comprehensive Plan vision. They should also keep in mind how the decision will impact the residential neighborhoods on both the eastern and western boundaries. • Are modifications needed to the DCC Zone? Is it necessary to require mixed -use, and is the 50 -foot height limit appropriate? Should bonus development privileges be allowed for vegetated buffers? She pointed out that DCC mixed use requirements work towards both residential and commercial growth targets and are encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. However, they do not allow as great of flexibility for developers. • What should the height limits be? Heights in the downtown commercial district range from 80 feet to market driven. Greater heights allow for growth targets to be more easily obtained. In addition, underground parking does not pencil without significant building height. • Should vegetative buffers be required? Vegetated buffers are currently required where DCC zones are adjacent to low- density residential zones. On the eastern edge, the subarea plan allowed commercial uses only if a significant forested swath was maintained. However, this requirement was removed with the revocation of the subarea plan and the current R -10* zoning prohibits commercial uses. Ms. Floyd reminded the Commission that in September 2013, the City Council adopted amendments to change the DCC zone to allow for exceptions to the 10 -foot maximum setback. The changes were intended to provide more flexibility for situations such as site constraints, existing development, etc. that made it impossible to push buildings forward. It also provided flexibility for a developer to include enhanced public features to offset the increase in setback. In addition, the code was amended to minimise rather than prohibit parking in the front, and it provided design criteria to achieve goals. Ms. Floyd recommended the Planning Commission take public testimony and provide staff with a recommendation regarding the appropriate zoning, height, mixture of uses, buffers, and any other code changes the Commission recommends before a public hearing is scheduled. Bremerton Planning Ciiiiiiiiission Minates March 18, 2014 — Page 2 of 7 I Robert Larsen, Carnation, said he owns several properties and is proactive as a contractor in Bremerton. He said he was present to speak in favor of keeping the Soil Factory available as it creates jobs and provides a valued service to the community. Priscilla Bailey, Bremerton, said she owns a building at 4171 Wheaton Way, and she supports changes that will improve the economic climate of the Wheaton - Riddell area. Although the Comprehensive Plan calls for substantial growth in the area, growth has actually been stagnant in recent years and a number of businesses have closed and/or relocated. She expressed skepticism that growth would occur to the extent illustrated in the examples provided by staff. The examples represent an extreme change that may not be realistic. She said that when she voiced support for revoking the subarea plan, she thought the standards for the DCC zone would be more liberal. She voiced concern that having standards that are too "nitpicky" will force large companies to locate in the county where the codes are much less restrictive. Ms. Bailey expressed concern about the vegetated buffer on the eastern boundary along Almira, noting that it has become a place where homeless people hang out. She is not sure leaving it forested is the best solution. Perhaps an apartment complex with shrubbery in front would be better. Lastly, Ms. Bailey expressed her desire for commercial zoning on the western edge of the district. Most of the existing businesses are doing well, and they should be retained. Gary Lindsey, Silverdale, said he was present to represent Royal Valley Property, which is also referred to as the Soil Factory. Rather than discuss the merits of the Soil Factory, he said he was present to request that the City reinstate the commercial zoning that was in place prior to the Council's recent action that applied R -10* zoning to the western portion of the district. He said that although he likes the concepts shown in the pictures provided by staff, there is not a big enough market in Bremerton to support this type of intense development. He referred to the redevelopment that is occurring in downtown Bothell, pointing out that the City of Bothell sent $150 million to purchase land and construct roads, utilities and parks. He commented that this is the type of leadership that needs to happen to support the type of development concepts presented by staff. Mr. Lindsey pointed out that the Zarelli and Royal Valley properties represent about 50 acres of literally vacant, developable commercial land, which any City would like to have. The properties will develop over time, but development will require a commitment on the part of a developer because it is not likely the City will commit funding. The economics of future redevelopment will be more akin to a Fred Meyer and similar developments rather than the concepts outlined by staff. He submitted an exhibit outlining development regulations he would like the City to address. Don Cole, Bremerton, commented that if the Soil Factory is pushed out of the area, local businesses will be heavily impacted. He also expressed his belief that the growth assumptions are aggressive, and the concepts presented by staff are unrealistic. He said he sees the proposed changes as more negative than positive. Carl Zarelli, Bremerton, read a letter he submitted to staff earlier, along with a few attachments. The letter expressed concern about the uncertainty about the recent changes that have been imposed upon property owners in the Wheaton- Riddell area. For the past several years, the subarea plan has required buildings to be pushed up to the street, with the hopes of creating a large center and reducing the look of asphalt parking. He referred to redevelopment plans he submitted for the property at 4220 Wheaton Way (old Lowe's property) as an example of potential building enhancement and site amenities that can make the property more appealing. He said retailers have indicated they actually prefer to have parking in front, but with elements that soften the parking lot areas, similar to what is proposed in his plan. He asked that the Commission recommend changes to the DCC zone so that the type of development identified in his plan would be possible. He commented that minor tweaking of the Comprehensive Plan would do little to attract redevelopment. Lastly, Mr. Zarelli said he believes the 85 -foot buffer on the western boundary is unwarranted, and its purpose could be easily achieved by the street separation and the requirements outlined in the City's landscape code. In closing, he asked that his property be zoned DCC to allow commercial development. Robin Waite, said he owns property in the Wheaton- Riddell area, as well. He asked what incentives the City would offer to encourage redevelopment. The area has been an eyesore for the past 10 years and it does not appear to be getting any better. Ken Melbourne, Kitsap County, commented that the concepts presented by staff remind him of the things he hates about big cities, and most people in the area feel the same way. Bremerton is a blue collar town. While he does not want it to Bremerton Plan ning Commission Minutes March 18, 2014 -- Page 3 of 7 remain underdeveloped, he doesn't want it to become overdeveloped, either. He expressed concerned that the discussion is focused on how many businesses and people the City can squeeze into a small area. He said he works for the Soil Factory, which provides a valuable service to citizens of Bremerton. He referred to a petition, signed by over 500 people, who rely upon the Soil Factory to dispose of soils and vegetation. The Soil Factory works to educate citizens about the cycle of sustainability, which is also a City goal. If this business is eliminated, citizens will have to go to Mason County for the same service. Eric Sandall, Traeyton, said that as a real estate investor, he considers the Soil Factory a valuable service. Because he drives a large truck, it would cost him significantly more time and money to travel to Mason County to dispose of soils. He recognized that, in time, the Soil Factory would have to be eliminated to accommodate redevelopment. However, he asked that the City allow current businesses to remain until there is a market demand for the properties to be redeveloped. Commissioner Simpson clarified out that the pictures provided by staff are not necessarily illustrative of the type of growth the Planning Commission supports. Instead, they illustrate the type of development that must occur to accommodate the amount of growth mandated by the State. Director Spencer explained that the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the City to plan for the forecasted population growth. Discussions took place at the county level to identify where growth will occur so it is spread out throughout the county. In 2004, the City decided to accommodate most of its growth in the centers like Wheaton - Riddell to protect the low- density neighborhoods. Barbara Roberts, Bremerton, said that when she and her husband purchased their home in 1990, they were told that the sand pit behind would not be worked any more. However, the Soil Factory came onto the site in 2002. She said she cannot open her windows for fresh air because of the dust, noise and smell that comes from the business. She said she would like the City to do something about the situation. Gary Lindsey, Silverdale, noted that the pictures provided by staff do not represent densities of five to ten units per acre which is what R -10* requires. He suggested that allowing multi - family development in the DCC zone would enable developers to achieve the mix and density the City is looking for. No one else in the audience indicated a desire to address the Commission, and Chair Tift closed the public portion of the meeting. Commissioner Wofford asked if there is an allowance for expanding the City's growth targets into the Urban Growth Areas (UGA). Director Spencer said the growth targets are assigned in the Comprehensive Plan, and the City cannot assign its growth targets into an unassigned UGA. Commissioner Wofford asked the total depth of the buffer along Almira Drive. Ms. Floyd said the treed area runs parallel to Almira Drive all the way from Riddell to Hollis. The entire eastern property is approximately 20 acres, and the subarea plan required an 85 -foot buffer for commercial development. However, the subarea plan was recently revoked, and the current zoning is low- density residential with no opportunity for commercial. Commissioner Wofford asked if the Commission should consider "shadowing" when discussing the appropriate height for buildings in the area. Ms. Floyd said that is certainly something the Commission could talk about. Chair Tift asked staff to clarify the options the Commission can consider. Director Spencer said staff would like direction from the Commission so they can prepare a draft ordinance for a public hearing. Staff is specifically seeking feedback on how the area should be zoned and what code changes are needed to fully implement what is identified in the Comprehensive Plan. She emphasized that staff is not proposing changes to the Comprehensive Plan at this time. Commissioner Jose said it is clear to him that R -10* zoning would not allow the City to meet its growth targets. He also heard from the public that R -10* zoning is less appropriate than DCC zoning. His inclination would be to zone the entire area DCC, but he questioned whether this approach would allow the City to reach its growth target for residences if multi- family residential development is only allowed as part of mixed -use projects. He asked if the DCC standards would allow for horizontal or just vertical mixed -use development. Ms. Floyd said it allows for any type of mixed use, but the commercial Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2014 — Page 4 of'% space must be the primary and most prominent use. Director Spencer suggested it would be helpful for the DCC standards to make this clarification. Once again, Commissioner Jose said it is clear that DCC is the most appropriate zone for the entire area. However, DCC has some requirements that are not palatable. For example, the height limit seems too low. He questioned why there needs to be a height limit at all. Ms. Floyd pointed out that there is no height limit in the Downtown District Center because the goal is to build up and not out. However, many community members have expressed opposition to tall, overshadowing buildings, and height limits are intended to set the right balance. Commissioner Jose suggested the Commission consider allowing additional height, as view blockage would not be an issue in this area. He also felt it would be appropriate to eliminate the mixed -use requirement. From past experience, it is clear that prescriptive zoning regulations are not the answer and flexible zoning is the path to success. COMMISSIONER JOSE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION DEVELOP A ZONING MAP FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT APPLIES THE DISTRICT CENTER CORE (DCC) ZONING TO THE ENTIRE WHEATON- RIDDELL DISTRICT CENTER AREA. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Albright asked if the changes made to the DCC standards would impact other properties in the City. Director Spencer clarified that the current motion would zone everything in the Wheaton - Riddell District Center as DCC. She reminded the Commission that Downtown Bremerton has a subarea plan and accompanying development regulations, so the changes made to the DCC zoning standards would have minimal impact. However, they must consider the unintended consequences the changes might have on other areas in the City that are zoned DCC. Ms. Floyd clarified that the current motion deals specifically with how the area will be zoned. Once the Commission has decided on the appropriate zoning, they can review the specific DCC standards and consider potential amendments. Commissioner Strube asked how the Soil Factory would be impacted by the proposed change in zoning. Director Spencer answered that, through a code enforcement action, the City reached a settlement agreement with the property owner and business owner. As per the agreement, if the zoning changes before a certain date (July 2015), the Soil Factory use would go away on December 31, 2015. If the zoning changes as a result of the Comprehensive Plan update in 2015, the use would terminate six months after the zoning is changed. Chair Tift noted that all, with the exception of the Soil Factory, all the existing uses would be allowed under DCC zoning. Ms. Floyd agreed and pointed out that the uses allowed in the previous subarea plan are the same as the uses that would be allowed under DCC zoning. Commissioner Jose clarified that if the zoning is changed as per the motion, the Soil Factory would have to cease. Director Spencer agreed that this would be consistent with the settlement agreement adhered to by both the property owner and the business owner. Commissioner Jose asked staff to clarify the schedule for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Director Spencer advised that, as per GMA, the City must update its Comprehensive Plan no later than June 1, 2016. Commissioner Jose suggested that the zoning for the western portion of the district center could remain as R -10* until the Comprehensive Plan is updated. He expressed his belief that redevelopment would not likely occur on this site within the next two years even if the zoning were changed now. In the meantime, he is concerned about shutting down a functioning and supported business. Director Spencer encouraged the Commissioners to review the comment letter the City received from representatives of the property owner, requesting that the zoning be changed to DCC. The Commission asked the property owner representative, Mr. Lindsey, to comment on his zoning preference. Gary Lindsey, Silverdale, said the property owners would like the zoning changed now to allow for commercial uses. This would allow the Soil Factory to operate until December 31, 2015. Commissioner Simpson recalled an article in THE KITSAP SUN, in which the owner of the Soil Factory stated that a zoning change would be a death sentence for his business. She invited the owner of the Soil Factory to comment on the property owner's request to change the zoning on the property to DCC. Greg Bush, Soil Factory, expressed his feeling that the current agreement was coerced. Because they recognized that their time at the current location was limited, they decided not Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2014 -- Page 5 of 7 to spend any more money fighting the code enforcement action. He would like to continue to operate his business until the site is redeveloped. He pointed out that the Soil Factory no longer grinds concrete and asphalt on site, so the noise problems raised by the earlier speaker are no longer an issue. Commissioner Simpson pointed out that the current agreement limits stump grinding to just 24 days each year. She asked how often stump grinding occurred prior to the agreement. Mr. Bush said that stump grinding occurred more frequently in 2013 as they tried to clean up the site. Now that the pit has been cleaned up, he can abide by the 24 -day limit. He recognized the need to create a happy medium for the residential homes located behind his business, but he noted that the current use is not new to the area. Commissioner Simpson asked where people take asphalt and concrete to be ground up. Mr. Bush answered that asphalt and concrete can be taken to KRM in Gorst or ACE Paving on Warner Road. This change has not impacted his customers; their biggest worry is where to take landscape debris because there are no facilities close by. Chair Tift pointed out that the hillside has been eroded over the years, as the Soil Factory has used the material for fill. Chair Tiff asked staff to provide a plan to illustrate how the entire area could be redeveloped based on Kitsap County zoning. Ms. Floyd agreed to try, but pointed out that it would be difficult given that the two jurisdictions codes are very different. She noted that DCC zoning would be the closest match to the development that exists across the street on properties that are under Kitsap County's jurisdiction. Commissioner Dinkuhn asked about the zoning on the south side of the Wheaton- Riddell District Center. Ms. Floyd answered that these properties are zoned Commercial Corridor. Commercial Corridor is similar but the uses vary. Chair Tift emphasized that the Commission is not being asked to make a final decision at this time. Instead, staff is seeking direction so they can prepare a draft ordinance and additional information for a public hearing. The Commission could farther modify the ordinance after the public hearing. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Tift commented that requiring an 85 -foot vegetated corridor on the eastern boundary seems excessive. Commissioner Simpson agreed and suggested that a 20 or 25 -foot buffer would be more appropriate. Commissioner Dinkuhn questioned if changing this requirement would raise concerns from adjacent property owners. Ms. Floyd said public notices were sent to residents within a 500 -foot radius to solicit comments. She pointed out that the current buffer requirement for the DCC zone is 10 feet. However, this buffer would only apply on rear and side property lines and not along Almira, which is considered a street front. Director Spencer reminded the Commission that the 85 -foot requirement was based on allowing a bonus for commercial development, and the tool is not currently available in the DCC standards. Commissioner Dinkuhn said she would like the DCC standards to include incentives for maintaining green spaces that will benefit everyone. Commissioner Dinkuhn suggested they also consider potential incentives for providing Iess parking and focusing more on mass transit opportunities along the business corridor. Commissioner Simpson asked if growth in the number of people using public transportation is consistent with population growth over the last 10 years. Incentives related to transportation should be based on reality, and not what they hope is the reality. Director Spencer agreed to provide information about increases in bus ridership and Kitsap Transit's plans for a bus corridor along Wheaton Way. Commissioner Wofford noted that Kitsap Transit purchased the area previously occupied by Parker Lumber for a transfer center, and he anticipates increased transit service along the corridor. Chair Tift and Commissioner Albright pointed out that there is already significant ridership on Wheaton Way. Chair Tift asked Mr. Bush if the Mayor has looked at other places for the Soil Factory to locate. Mr. Bush said the first he heard about this effort was in the article that was recently published in THE K17SAP SUN. Commissioner Wofford asked if the business could be relocated to the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA). Director Spencer replied that this type of use would be appropriate in any of the City's industrial districts, including SKIA. Bremerton Vianning Commission, Minutes March 18, 2014 — .Page 6 of 7 The Commission indicated general support for increasing building heights in the DCC zone and eliminating the mixed use requirement. While they felt it was important to provide some protection for the forested area, it was suggested that the code buffer requirements be looked at. In addition, they wanted to have further discussion about potential incentives and making the code less restrictive and more flexible. Director Spencer suggested the Commission hold another workshop discussion on zoning for the Wheaton- Riddell District Center prior to a public hearing. The workshop could also include a discussion about how the draft piles might affect other District Centers. A public hearing could be scheduled in May. The Commission indicated support for Director Spencer's recommendation for moving forward. Chair Tift commented that whatever the County has done 20 feet further down Wheaton Way (Fred Meyer) appears to be :working. The City needs an anchor business at the end of Wheaton Way, and he is inclined to be as liberal as possible with regard to encouraging development in that area. Commissioner Strube agreed that the City's zoning codes should be as business friendly as those of the County. The Commission discussed that perhaps the City's Business and Occupation Tax is driving businesses to relocate from the City to the County. Director Spencer agreed to ask the Finance Department to provide a response to this concern. Ms. Floyd referred the Commission to an additional comment the City received from Patricia Hennessy, Executive Director, Youth Wellness Campus, asking the Commission to consider increasing the height limits in District Centers. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Tift commented that he appreciated the number of citizens who attended the meeting and provided comments. Director Report Director Spencer did not have any items to report. However, she commented that the Commission's next meeting is scheduled for April 15' and will be a continuation of their workshop discussion regarding the Wheaton- Riddell District Center. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business Commissioner Simpson reported that Sunday's edition of THE KITSAP SUN included an article about 4` Street and inquired if the Commission would be involved in the issue. Director Spencer indicated she had no additional information because the Public Works Department deals with all streets and rights -of -way issues and it would not be an item for Commission review. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was'adjoumed at 7:27 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: 70 � 6 ; = d ea pe r, P Richar . Tift, h Exec i L ve Se eta Planning Commiss on Bremerton !"la Bing Commission Minutes March 18, 2014 .-Page 7 of 7 CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Apri115, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Tift called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Staff Present Chair Tift Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Vice Chair Dinkuhn Nicole Floyd, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Mark Koontz, Assistant City Attorney Commissioner Jose Commissioner Simpson Commissioner Strube Commissioner Wofford Quorum Cerd led APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER WOFFORD MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER JOSE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2014 AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER WOFFORD SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Tift asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting. Workshop: Comprehensive Plan Growth Strategy Ms. Floyd commented that people have been studying what makes a desirable city for years. While not everyone agrees on all aspects of this issue, there is consensus that the following elements are important: • Planning for Growth. It is anticipated that the Central Puget Sound Region will grow by almost 2 million people by 2040, totaling more than 5 million people. She briefly explained how the State arrived at the growth target numbers and how they were allocated to the various counties and cities. A chart was provided to illustrate the growth of the region's footprint since 1940, noting that between 1970 and 2000 the population grew by 1.3 million people, which is nearly twice the rate of the national average. Growth is expected to continue at a rate of nearly 2 million between 2008 and 2040. Bremerton is one of five designated metropolitan cities (Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, and Bremerton) in the Central Puget Sound Region that are expected to accommodate 32% of the region's total growth. Bremerton is expected to grow significantly because it is in a regional location with existing infrastructure and jobs. The City must have policies and regulations in place that allow for this large -scale growth. The City's Comprehensive Plan focuses on nine principles: distinctive growth in viable and convenient neighborhoods and activity centers; enticing new development; supportive transportation that provides seamless, efficient and varied options; improved access for pedestrian orientation; quality housing with broader choices to choose from; increased opportunities for businesses; environmental management that integrates natural systems; community service that focuses on the City's assets; and design review to ensure there is quality, urban development. All of these pieces fit together to create a viable city. Bremerton has planned for growth using a Centers Concept, which places growth in key locations. ,Because the community indicated a desire to protect existing neighborhoods, about 76% of the population growth is anticipated to occur in the four District Centers (Downtown, Charleston, Wheaton/Riddell, and Wheaton/Sheridan). Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal 7 states that all multi - family designations outside of centers should be removed, and a map was provided to illustrate the pattern of shifting multi - family development to the centers. The City must evaluate and adopt design standards, codes and ordinances that allow for growth regardless of whether or not it occurs. • Jobs. Thriving communities are those with robust job markets. Bremerton has three major employment sectors (naval, college, and hospital), and it would be great if people who work in these places also lived in Bremerton. The Comprehensive Plan talks not only about accommodating growth, but making Bremerton a place where people want to live. It contains policies that call for designating employment centers that provided mixed -use environments and planning for an adequate supply of lands and infrastructure for new employment and economic expansion. The City has established two Employment Centers (South Kitsap Industrial Area and Harrison Employment Center), and there are vast amounts of land available for new employment and economic expansion. • Local Character/Design Standards. People want to live in places that feel safe and are appealing, alluring and attractive. They also like to live in places that stand out and are recognizable from other places. Rather than just buying a house, people buy into the community. The Comprehensive Plan contains an entire chapter on Community Character, which provides a foundation for future design parameters and incentive programs in the development code. It defines a center as a concentrated and planned mixed -use development area. Specific policies call for demonstrating excellent urban design qualities in new development; providing for safe, pleasant and rich pedestrian experiences; and promoting the development of areas of special character by utilizing design guidelines. Most experts agree that the future belongs to main streets, town centers and mixed use developments, and cities with a forward focus are more prepared to handle changing demands. For example, strip commercial and big box developments are no longer highly desirable. The economy, fuel prices and traffic congestion have restructured the retail landscape to include fewer and smaller stores. It is difficult to repurpose existing big box and strip mall developments, and there is currently over 1 billion square feet of vacant retail space nationwide. Pictures were provided to illustrate the current national market trend for more compact, mixed -use, and walkable developments. The City must plan for its future population, recognizing that baby - boomers and millennials are the largest populations in Kitsap County and the nation, and growth must accommodate their desires and needs. Both groups are interested in low maintenance housing that is located close to shops and public transportation. At this time, Baby Boomers and Millennials are flocking to cities like Seattle and Portland, which have jobs and dense urban cores that are walkable and attractive with amenities at their fingertips. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2014 — Page 2 of 9 Most major cities in the United States have design standards to ensure that character is addressed. Examples were provided to illustrate how design standards can result in significantly different development that is more consistent with the community's character. Although some people have expressed concern that design standards have discouraged development in Bremerton, experts agree that they actually enhance a community and bring development. However, it is important to find the balance between ensuring development enhances community character and pencils for developers. • Transportation Options. Transportation and density are intrinsically tied. The more dense the population, the more likely the transit system will work for the community. Density can actually reduce traffic impacts because you end up with better systems. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City's district centers are located directly on the transportation routes. The Comprehensive Plan calls for encouraging efficient multi -modal transportation, and new development is required to incorporate transit, pedestrian and non - motorized transportation measures during the review process. The general goal is to reduce street widths, speed and crossing distance to make pedestrian access easier. • Open Space. Experts agree that neighborhoods within a walking distance of parks are more desirable, and Bremerton has a robust Parks and Open Space Plan that promotes open and green spaces for everyone's enjoyment and encourages a sense of place and identity within neighborhoods. The City currently has 30 parks in about 300 acres throughout the City. Ms. Floyd explained that common characteristics of the centers concept includes a core area characterized by well - designed, mixed -use structures featuring residential uses above street level commercial or office uses. The goal is to create a walkable environment that begins with friendly, active streetscapes extending to the less dense areas of the center and into surrounding neighborhoods. Public gathering places such as parks and plazas are essential, as is public transportation. Dierdre McKee], Bremerton, said she is a proponent of light rail for Kitsap County, and including it as a goal in the Comprehensive Plan is the right thing to do. She said she has lived and worked in a number of different-places, some with public transportation and some without. For example, Singapore has a wonderful transit system, and Japan has a train system. However, Oahu, Hawaii, does not provide an extensive public transportation system. Instead, they have used a lot of land to expand their highway system. She felt this was the wrong approach and would hate for Kitsap County to go that direction. She expressed concern about stormwater pollution caused by vehicles. Developing light rail is one way to restore the waters. Light rail would also support energy independence from oil and gas. She noted there are federal initiatives where communities can develop a new light rail system that is federally funded, and she suggested this is something the City should look into. Commissioner Simpson asked if Ms. McKeel had a car when she lived overseas. Ms. McKee) said she did not have a vehicle for the first few years in Singapore. They got one later, but it was mainly used for traveling longer distances. She had a bike in Japan and Hawaii, but not a car. Commissioner Simpson asked where she would expect the light rail route to be located. Ms. McKeel suggested that the lines could make loops around the City, and the loops could be connected at different transit centers. Commissioner Simpson asked for more information about the experts who have come up with all of the ideas noted in staff's presentation. Ms. Floyd answered that experts include real estate developers, bankers, investors, magazine articles, Urban Land Institute, etc. She said she cited some of her sources in the Staff Report. Commissioner Simpson inquired if the City could ask not to be identified as a metropolitan city because they cannot assume that much growth. Ms. Spencer replied the City was designated as a metropolitan city in Vision 2040, which was adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council. The City enjoys a lot of benefits of being designated as such, including grant opportunities and funding for transportation infrastructure. She suggested it would not be in the City's best interest to be re- designated. She reviewed that the population numbers identified in the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan update were allocated by the State's Office of Financial Management. Through work with the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC) the population numbers were adjusted to deal with the decrease in population over the last 10 years, and the numbers the City will plan for in the next update are the same as the 2004 numbers. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 15,.2014 — Page 3 of 9 Workshop: Wheaton/Riddell District Center Zoning Mao and District Center Development Code Regulations Ms. Floyd said the City currently has four District Centers: Downtown, Charleston, Wheaton/Sheridan, and Wheaton/Riddell. She reminded the Commission that the four District Centers are supposed to absorb 76% of the City's population growth. Because the Downtown District Center Subarea Plan is working well, no changes are being proposed at this time. The workshop will focus on the other three district centers where changes might be needed. • The Charleston District Center is the smallest of the District Centers and is relatively built out. The center is 39 acres in size, and the anticipated growth is 1,400 people and 700 new jobs. The target density is about 40 units per acre. Currently, there are a number of one and two -story structures, and the idea is that the owners may decide to redevelop the sites with greater height over the next 20 years. • The Wheaton/Sheridan District Center is 81 acres in size, and the anticipated growth is 2,900 new residents and 1,400 new jobs. This center is the location of the future Youth Wellness Campus, and a new Boys and Girls Club was recently developed. This district center has undeveloped sites with a lot of opportunity for future growth. • The Wheaton/Riddell District Center is 100 acres in size, and the anticipated growth is 4,000 new residents and 2,000 new jobs. This center also has large undeveloped and underutilized areas and opportunity for growth. Ms. Floyd pointed out that all three of the District Centers have the same zoning pattern, with District Center Core (DCC) and R -10 zoning. She provided sample illustrations of the estimated land area that would be required to accommodate 120 units of housing and noted that 1.4 acres would be required in the District Center Core zones and 11 acres in the R -10 zones. She emphasized that zoning is important when figuring out how to accommodate the anticipated growth in each of the district centers. To provide context, she referred to the 400 Condominiums, which provides a pattern of the type of development anticipated in the District Centers. The project has 72 residential units and 16,000 square feet of retail space. The buildings are four stories tall, with a maximum height of 70 feet. The footprint of the project is approximately %z acre. She pointed out that development of this scale would require 26 acres to accommodate 1,900 units, excluding roads, parking and open space. She reviewed the current zoning in each of the center;, described the issues, and identified potential mapping changes as follows: • The Charleston District Center is almost completely zoned DCC, which has no density maximum. The existing zoning could accommodate the anticipated growth using development similar to the 400 Condominiums. It was noted that the automotive repair shop property is the only property at the corner of l l` and Callow that is zoned low density. The owner has expressed concern that if he discontinued the current use for more than a year, the property would have to be redeveloped as residential. As they consider mapping changes, this is a site that probably should be zoned commercial consistent with the other three comers. • The Wheaton/Sheridan District Center is predominantly zoned as R -10, which limits density to a maximum of 10 units per acre. The growth required in the center cannot be achieved with the existing zoning. It would seem appropriate to reevaluate the zoning in this district, as well. One option would be to zone the entire district as DCC, which would accommodate schools as an allowed use. It was noted that both the Youth Wellness Center and Boys and the Girls Club are more suited to a commercial zone. • The Wheaton/Riddell District Center is currently zoned half DCC and half R -10, and it would not be possible to achieve the anticipated growth based on the existing zoning. Historically, the properties in this district have been zoned as commercial and multi- family residential. Changing the zoning would allow the City to achieve the growth target of 4,000 people and 2,000 jobs. It was noted that the western portion of the district that is currently zoned R- 10 is developed as an industrial use, which is not an allowed use in either the R -10 or DCC zones. The other R -10 zone is located on the eastern side of the district. It is currently undeveloped and homeless camps have been a problem since 2001. At their last meeting, the Commission discussed zoning the entire district as DCC. Commissioner Jose asked how the current zoning was approved if it does not allow the City to accommodate the growth. Ms. Floyd said it was approved as a placeholder, with the idea that subarea plans would quickly follow. She noted that the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan was adopted just two years later with zoning that allowed the City to achieve its growth Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2014 -- Page 4 of 9 targets for the area. However, the zoning was recently changed, and the growth targets are no longer achievable. She suggested that the zoning in the Wheaton/Sheridan District Center was also added as a placeholder, as well, without a lot of thought about its layout. For example, the school property has split zoning, and the library, post office and other commercial uses are located in the R -10 zone. The zoning was likely intended to be temporary until a subarea plan was adopted. Ms. Floyd recalled that, at their last meeting, the Commission discussed potential amendments to the DCC Development Regulations, and she emphasized that the changes would apply citywide in all of the District Center zones. She reviewed each of the changes as follows: • Mixed -Use Requirement. The existing code allows residential development as a secondary use, but only if it has a commercial component. In addition, residential uses must be placed in locations that do not conflict with street level frontage locations that are reserved for retail, office and other business uses. While this is consistent with what is encouraged throughout the Comprehensive Plan, it does not allow as much flexibility as developers want. Staff would like direction from the Commission about the appropriateness of maintaining the mixed -use requirement as is. Other options include removing the mixed -use requirement completely or only applying the requirement to sites facing major street frontages. • Height limit. Currently, the maximum height in the DCC zone is 50 feet. While Bremerton is a "metropolitan city," compatibility with surrounding residential properties must also be considered. A chart was provided to illustrate how Bremerton's height limit compares with those of other cities in the region. It was pointed out that the Downtown District Center allows for a range of heights from 80 feet to market driven. Greater heights allow for growth targets to be more easily obtained and underground parking to pencil out. If the height limit is increased in the DCC zone, step down requirements could be applied at the edges to provide a transition to low- density residential neighborhoods. Staff requested feedback about increasing the height limit in the DCC zone from 50 feet up to 80 feet, including a lower height requirement for properties adjacent to low- density residential zones. • Transitions to Low- Density Residential. Transition requirements apply to any commercial zone in the City, including the DCC zone. The code was amended in 2007 to require a 10 -foot visual screen where commercial and residential zoning meet. This provision replaced large setback requirements and is intended to soften the edges along commercial boundaries and provide visual, noise and light screening. The code also requires developers to retain significant trees to the greatest extent possible. An arborist report is required for removal of significant trees in undeveloped areas, and bonuses are offered for the retention of existing significant trees. Staff requested the Commission's feedback on amendments that would add site - specific vegetation retention requirements to two heavily - vegetated areas in the Wheaton/Sheridan District Center (on school property) and the Wheaton/Riddell District Center (along Almira). Patricia Hennessy, Bremerton, Executive Director, Youth Wellness Campus, noted that they are currently working on a project just north of Sheridan on Wheaton Way on the old Bremerton East High School site. As proposed, the existing school buildings would be completely removed, the gymnasium renovated, and two or three new buildings would be constructed. She asked that the Commission consider extending the District Center Core Map to include this site, and also consider greater height allowances. She noted that the redevelopment project is an exciting community and economic development opportunity for Bremerton. Mike Benefiel, Bremerton,, commented that the Wheaton/Riddell area is in dire need of improvement. He encouraged the Commissioners and the City to recognize that now is the time to fix the problem by updating the zoning to DCC to be compatible with the growth of commercial properties that will enhance the City and the adjoining neighborhoods. Dennis Stone, Bremerton, said that although he recognizes there is a demand and need for the Soil Factory business, it is not an appropriate use for its current location. The business started as a small "mom and pop" operation, but it has grown substantially over time. The noise, smell and vibrations created by the use have devalued surrounding properties, and it is time for a change. He suggested the Soil Factory should be relocated so the area can be redeveloped into uses that are more compatible with the neighborhood. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2014 Page 5 of 9 Eric Sandall, Kitsap County, said he owns several properties within the City of Bremerton and he uses the services provided by the Soil Factory on a regular basis. Without this service, he would be required to spend significantly more time driving to other locations. He noted that the Soil Factory made a lot of concessions in the way they were operating, and they may have gotten out of control last year in an effort to clean the site up. However, the site is currently being used as a retail outlet for people like himself. He cautioned against putting the Soil Factory out of business, which would eliminate 20 or 30 jobs. Mr. Sandall recalled staffs earlier comment that 39 acres would be required to accommodate 120 units in the DCC zone, excluding roads and open space. He questioned how many acres would be required if roads and open space are factored into the development. He cautioned that providing examples that do not meet code requirements can lead to public confusion. Tom Remick, Bremerton, said his residential property is also impacted by the Soil Factory, and he and his neighbors have made significant concessions, including a decrease in property values and quality of life. The adjacent residential property owners must deal with the impacts of this business every day, including weekends. While the Commission has heard from the land and business owners, it is also important to listen to the people who actually live nearby. In the past, there has been no real plan for development in the area, and the neighbors have watched the business grow from a permitted, single- parcel landscape business to the current business that occupies seven parcels, six of which are unpermitted. He pointed out that Bremerton currently has an opportunity to evolve and draw people from all diversities, but the City must act now. The decisions that are made now will not only affect the people who currently live nearby, but future generations. Richard Roberts, Bremerton, recalled that at their last meeting, the Commission passed a motion that zoned the entire Wheaton/Riddell District Center as DCC. Commissioner Jose said the motion was to direct staff to prepare the zoning map changes that are currently under consideration. Debbie Santini- Stone, Bremerton, said she supports DCC zoning for the entire Wheaton/Riddell District Center. She is tired of the dumping that goes on at the Soil Factory. Dale Herbold, Bremerton, said he and his neighbors support the planning effort to zone the entire Wheaton/Riddell District Center as DCC. The entire area is adversely impacted by the current zoning, and the City has received at least 42 letters of complaint from people who live nearby. Changing the zoning to DCC would open the entire East Bremerton area to quality redevelopment that is consistent with the vision outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. While other areas of Bremerton have developed in appropriate and attractive ways, that is not the case for the Wheaton/Riddell area. Chair Tift clarified that, at their last meeting, the Commission passed a motion recommending that the Wheaton/Riddell District Center be rezoned to DCC. However, staff subsequently pointed out that changing the zoning would require a public process and they should consider how the change would impact other properties that are zoned DCC. At the end of the workshop discussion, the Commission will provide direction for staff to prepare a proposal for a public hearing in May. After the public hearing, the Commission will forward a recommendation to the City Council, who will make the final decision. Commissioner Simpson recalled that the owner of the property where the Soil Factory is located has requested that the property be rezoned to DCC. However, regardless of the zoning, an agreement between the landowner and the City requires that the Soil Factory use be discontinued no later than December 31, 2015. Mr. Koontz explained that the three parties to the agreement are the landowner (Royal Valley LLC), the tenant (Soil Factory), and the City of Bremerton. The agreement was to include additional conditions on the special -use permit in consideration of the City withdrawing its notice of intent to revoke the special -use permit. One of the terms of the agreement is that the special -use permit will terminate 180 days after a zoning change at the subject property to a commercial use similar to DCC. If the zoning changes prior to July 1, 2015, the termination date of the special -use permit will be December 31, 2015. He emphasized that the agreement does not take into account any agreement the landowner may have with the tenant, and the earliest the special -use permit would terminate would be December 31, 2015. Director Spencer cautioned that the City's decision making about a current use on the site is irrelevant to the orders of the day. The Comprehensive Plan calls for District Center growth, and the Commission's task is to make the right land -use decisions to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan growth targets can be met. As demonstrated, the growth targets cannot be met by the current zoning. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2014 — Page 6 of 9 Commissioner Simpson said she would like the baseball field to be excluded from the DCC zone in the Wheaton/Sheridan District Center so it can remain intact as an open space. Commissioner Jose pointed out that parks are outright permitted uses in the DCC zone, and Director Spencer added that schools and their associated sports fields are actually conditional uses in the R -10 zone. Vice Chair Dinkuhn agreed that the zoning should accommodate the sports field, recognizing that the landowner may not want to retain the use in the future. Commissioner Albright requested clarification of what could happen at the street level if strictly multi - family development is allowed in the DCC zone. Ms. Floyd said the appearance at the street level would depend on the development. For example, in a large multi- family residential development, all the buildings could look similar, including those on the street frontage. Removing the commercial requirement would allow more flexibility, but it would not necessarily achieve the mixture of uses called out in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Simpson pointed out that the District Centers have not changed to accommodate the growth that was envisioned in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan, and she questioned where the growth has actually gone. Ms. Floyd said some subdivisions have been approved; but not a lot of development has occurred since 2008 when the economy took a downturn. There has been an uptick in permits and interest in developing senior housing and apartment complexes, and most would be located in the District Centers. Director Spencer added that there are a number of land -use approvals on the books for growth in the Downtown District Center. Vice Chair Dinkuhn asked if there is a reason why the Commission should not consider extending the Charleston District Center to include the comers at the north and south ends that are zoned R -10. Ms. Floyd pointed out that these properties are primarily developed as single - family residences. Preserving the existing neighborhood character might be more important than redeveloping properties with multi - family units. COMMISSIONER JOSE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE FOR PUBLIC HEARING THE THREE DISTRICT CENTER MAPS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE PRESENTED AT THE WORKSHOP. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Jose said the Commission has heard loud and clear support for DCC zoning in the Wheaton/Riddell District Center, and he sees no reason why DCC zoning should not be extended throughout. He also supports extending the DCC zoning in the Charleston and Wheaton/Sheridan District Centers as previously discussed. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Jose recalled the table provided by staff to illustrate that Bremerton's height limits are far lower than some of the other jurisdictions. At their last meeting they discussed that, particularly in the Wheaton/Riddell District Center, it does not make sense to have such low height limits. Increased height is necessary in order to meet the density targets. He reminded the Commission that the height restriction would be a limit and not a mandate, and he would support an 80 -foot or greater height limit. Vice Chair Dinkuhn said she supports a height limit greater than 50 feet so that parking can be located under the buildings. However, she asked if having parking under the buildings would conflict with having retail on the street level. Ms. Floyd advised that blank facades are prohibited on the public rights -of -way, and there are also requirements for the location of parking and its access. In addition, transparent windows are required along the street front. Based on the requirements, it would not be easy to put a parking garage along the front of a building, but it could easily be placed below. Commissioner Wofford said he would also support an 80 -foot height limit, with a provision for additional height in exchange for providing certain public amenities. He also supports a provision that would require height to be stepped down on properties that are closer to residential neighborhoods. Ms. Floyd said the provision for additional height in the Downtown District Center is complex and based on floor area ratios and bonuses. She cautioned against implementing a similar program for the other District Centers. She noted that the existing design and development standards related to the DCC zone are quite robust. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2014 — Page 7 of 9 The Commission indicated support for an 80 -foot height limit in the DCC zone, and they were also in favor of a step back requirement for development located closer to low - density residential zones. They agreed to allow staff to recommend an appropriate step back provision. Commissioner Albright questioned if an 80 -foot height limit would be acceptable to the residents who live west of the Charleston District Center. Commissioner Jose commented that the transition requirement should address this concern. COMMISSIONER JOSE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE CODE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE THAT ESTABLISHES A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 80 FEET IN THE DCC ZONE, WITH A POTENTIAL STEP BACK REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CLOSER TO LOW - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. The Commissioners expressed some interest in allowing height greater than 80 feet in exchange for certain public amenities. Commissioner Jose suggested they start with an 80 -foot height limit. If there is significant interest in a greater height limit, the limit could be reevaluated at a future time. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Jose suggested that removing the commercial requirement for development on non -major roadways would be a good compromise that fits with the intent of the zone. The commercial requirement could be maintained for development that fronts on major roadways. Commissioner Strube agreed COMMISSIONER STRUBE MOVED THAT STAFF PREPARE CODE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE SO THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD ONLY APPLY ON MAIN ROADWAYS IN THE DCC ZONE. VICE CHAIR DINKUHN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Jose asked if the existing transition requirements would maintain a vegetative barrier along Ahnira. Ms. Floyd said the 10 -foot visual screen provision would not apply to the properties along Almira because they are not side or rear property lines, but the code would require that significant trees be preserved to the extent possible because Almira is unlikely to become a development's primary frontage due to topography and access. In addition, an arborist report would be required for the removal of significant trees in undeveloped areas. While this is not strong language, it does encourage tree preservation. Commissioner Jose said he is interested in maintaining a green strip between Almira and the rest of the development, and he would support a code provision that preserves developer flexibility and is simple to implement. Rather than an 85 -foot buffer, he felt a 20 -foot buffer would be more reasonable. Ms. Floyd noted that the property owner, Mr. Zarelli submitted a comment letter that indicated support for a 20 -foot buffer. Vice Chair Dinkuhn asked if the transition requirements mandate that a certain percentage of the significant trees be retained. Ms. Floyd answered that there is no specific number for the amount of trees that must be retained, and the zone allows development coverage of up to 100 %. Director Spencer suggested that perhaps a better approach would be to include a provision that specifically prohibits access from Almira Drive. Commissioner Wofford suggested that the Commission also consider the opportunity to place similar access restrictions on the eastern portion of the Wheaton/Sheridan District Center. Commissioner Simpson expressed concern about placing access restrictions on the eastern boundaries of the Wheaton/Sheridan and Wheaton/Riddell District Centers, depending on what is developed on the sites. She felt a better approach would be to establish a minimum setback. Commissioner Wofford noted that allowing access through the buffer would be counterproductive. The Commission generally agreed that at least a portion of the vegetated buffer should be maintained on the eastern boundaries of both the Wheaton/Riddell and Wheaton/Sheridan District Centers. Staff agreed to provide draft code language that protects residential neighborhoods where adjacent rights -of -way abut the District Centers. Commissioner Simpson requested that staff provide a map to identify the existing City parks at the next Commission meeting. Rather than providing a map, Director Spencer agreed to send the Commissioners a link to the Parks and Open Space Plan, which was recently updated. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2014 — Page 8 of 9 BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Tift did not have any items to report during this portion of the meeting. Commissioner Jose submitted his letter of resignation from the Planning Commission, announcing that he has accepted a job in Washington, D.C. and will be relocating. On behalf of the Commission, Chair Tiff thanked Commissioner Jose for his remarkable service. Director Spencer also thanked Commissioner Jose for his service. Director Report Director Spencer announced that staff would present the Commission's recommended zoning code amendments (electric vehicle charging stations, removal of mobile home provisions, and sign amortization) to the City Council on April 16` She advised that staff has been extremely busy, and permit revenues and inquiries are up. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business Commissioner Wofford asked the Commissioners to consider going_paperless, and they agreed to consider the option further. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:39 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: An d L Spe ICP Ric . Tift, Exe utive S Planning Commissi n Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes April 15, 2014 — Page 9 of 9 DRAFT Subicct to July 15. 2014 Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING May 20, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Tift called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Staff Present Chair Tift Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Vice Chair Dinkuhn Nicole Floyd, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Mark Koontz, Assistant City Attorney Commissioner Strube Commissioner Nethery Commissioner Wofford Commissioners Absent Commissioner Simpson (excused) Quorum Certified Chair Tift welcomed new Commissioner, Stuart Nethery; and Commissioner Nethery introduced himself. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER DINKUHN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER WOFFORD SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER WOFFORD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 15, 2014 MEETING AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearing to Amend the Zoning and Development Standards for District Center Core and Amend the District Center Core Designation on the Zoning May in the Vicinities of Wheaton /Riddell, Wheaton /Sheridan, and Callow /1I h Street Ms. Floyd referred the Commissioners and members of the audience to two additional items that were added after the Commission's packets had been sent out. The purple item is a packet of comment letters regarding the subject of the hearing, and the orange item is a minor staff - recommended amendment to the proposed changes. Ms. Floyd explained that jurisdictions in Puget Sound are anticipated to grow by more than 1.5 million people by 2040. She provided a brief explanation of how the Washington State Office of Financial Management determines the growth that each jurisdiction must accommodate. She provided maps to illustrate how the Puget Sound area has developed between 1940 and 2000, specifically pointing out that between 1970 and 2000 the population grew by 1.3 million. This growth is twice the rate of the national average and is expected to continue at a rate of nearly 2 million between 2008 and 2040. Ms. Floyd advised that 32% of the total growth is currently allocated into five Metropolitan Cities (Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, and Bremerton), which are the largest in their respective counties. Because of its regional location, public transportation and existing infrastructure, it is anticipated that Bremerton will continue to be the largest City in Kitsap County. She explained that as a Metropolitan City, Bremerton is required to have a plan in place (Comprehensive Plan) to accommodate the allocated growth. She recalled that the 2005 Comprehensive Plan update focused on protecting the single - family neighborhoods by pushing the City's anticipated growth into key areas (District Centers). She briefly reviewed each of the District Centers as follows: • The Charleston District Center (39 acres) is the smallest of the District Centers. It is anticipated the center will grow by 280 more people and 136 new jobs in the next 20 years. At full build out, it anticipated there will be 1,400 more people and 700 new jobs. The center is characterized by one and two -story commercial buildings, and it is likely these buildings will be replaced with taller, larger buildings. The vacant parcels will be developed, as well. • The Wheaton /Sheridan District Center (81 acres) is the second largest of the District Centers. It is anticipated the center will grow by 875 more people and 425 new fobs in the next 20 years. At full build out, it is anticipated there will be 2,900 more people and 1,400 new jobs. The centers is the future home of the Youth Wellness Campus. • The Wheaton/Riddell District Center (100 acres) is the largest of the District Centers. It is anticipated the center will grow by 1,908 more people and 924 new jobs in the next 20 years. At full build out, it is anticipated there will be 4,000 more people and 2,000 new jobs. The 2007 subarea plan was revoked in 2014 due to a larger number of vacancies and fewer new businesses. The Commission has had several discussions about development regulations that are geared towards the Comprehensive Plan but also encourage development in the area. Ms. Floyd emphasized that, although growth does not have to occur, the City's plans must accommodate the anticipated growth. She advised that, based on current zoning, growth targets for the Charleston District Center are achievable, but that is not the case for the Wheaton/Sheridan and Wheaton/Riddell District Centers. She explained that the Low Density Residential (R -10) zones are intended to accommodate single - family houses at a scale of no more than 10 -units per acre. Because a large portion of both the Wheaton/Riddell and Wheaton/Sheridan District Centers are zoned R -10, quite a bit more land would be needed to achieve the growth targets. In recent workshops, the Commission discussed the idea of changing the zoning from R -10 to District Center Core (DCC) where appropriate. She reviewed the areas where mapping changes have been proposed as follows: • In the Charleston District Center the property at the corner of 11' and Callow Street is currently zoned R -10, while the other corners of the intersection are all zoned commercial. The site is currently developed as an automotive use, which is a grandfathered use. However, if the current use discontinues for more than a year, it would no longer be allowed under the current R -I0 zoning. The proposed amendment would change the zoning to DCC. • Schools are not outright permitted uses in the Wheaton /Sheridan District Center. The Youth Wellness Campus has written a letter to the City, requesting that the property be zoned DCC to help facilitate their goals. The school district has also requested DCC zoning, which allows residential, commercial, or a mixture of both. This would open up the potential for more types of uses in the district and alleviate some of the existing nonconformities. • The Wheaton /Riddell District Center has historically been zoned either commercial or multi - family. However, given the amount of growth anticipated in the center, Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning does not make sense. While the middle section of the center has always been zoned for commercial uses, the western edge is currently zoned R -10 *, which only allows single - family residential development. The site is currently developed as an industrial scale gravel operation, which would not be allowed in either the DCC or R -10* zones. The property owner has indicated that Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2014 — Page 2 of 7 commercial zoning would allow for a new use that would be more compatible with the commercial entities that surround it. The eastern edge of the center is currently undeveloped and has historically been zoned primarily commercial. In the subarea plan, the property was zoned as commercial but allowed residential uses, as well. For a few years prior to the subarea plan, the property was zoned R -10. While some citizens have requested that the eastern edge be maintained as a nature preserve, the historic commercial zoning is probably more in line with what the property owner would like. The proposed amendments would rezone both the eastern and western edges of the center to DCC to allow for both residential and commercial uses. Ms. Floyd emphasized that the proposed changes to the Development Regulations would apply across the board to all three districts. She reviewed the proposed changes as follows: • Mixed -Use Requirement. The current code requires that development in the DCC zone include both commercial and residential components. The requirement is encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan to create street level activity and improve walkability. However, there is a need for flexibility, particularly for sites where there is no street presence. The proposed amendment would only require mixed -use development for structures that are oriented towards, adjacent to, or viewable from public rights -of -way. In addition, 65% of the frontage on the ground floor would have to be retail uses. She provided illustrations showing how the proposed amendment would be implemented. • Height Limit. The Commission discussed raising the height limit in the DCC zone from 50 to 80 feet, however they voiced concern about allowing greater height where the DCC zones are adjacent to residential zones. The proposed amendment would implement a graduated height limit. The height limit for properties that are zoned DCC and located within 50 feet of a LDR zone would be four stories. The height limit for properties that are zoned DCC and located between 50 and 100 feet from a LDR zone would gradually step up to 80 feet. Rather than over regulating the transition area, staff is recommending flexibility to allow architects to design aesthetically - pleasing buildings. Illustrations were provided to show how the provision would be applied in the District Centers. She pointed out that the graduated- height requirement would work well in most transition areas, but it would be a problem for properties that are located adjacent to mayor roadways (Wheaton Way and Sylvan Way). She referred to an additional amendment proposed by staff to address these situations. • Transition. The proposed amendment would add a vegetation preservation requirement to provide a transition between the DCC and LDR zones. There are currently heavily - vegetated areas on the eastern boundaries of the Wheaton/Sheridan and Wheaton/Riddell District Centers. The existing code requires 10 -feet of visual screening where commercial and residential zoning meets, which addresses the issue in the Wheaton/Sheridan District Center. To address the concerns raised by citizens for the Wheaton/Riddell District Center, staff is recommending a provision that would require 20 -feet of visual screening along Almira Drive. In addition, staff recommends that the preferred access to the 20- acre site for commercial uses be from Wheaton and Riddell, which would likely be better for businesses. However, access to residential uses should be allowed from Almira Drive, consistent with what is allowed for the residentially - zoned properties on the other side of the street. Prohibiting access altogether may have unforeseen impacts such as discouraging residential development or eliminating the ability for fire access. Ms. Floyd reviewed a summarized list of the comment letters received to date. • People living along Almira Drive generally agree that the existing vegetation adds to their property values and access from Almira should be prohibited due to increases in potential traffic. In addition, redevelopment of the existing commercial areas should be accomplished prior'to development of the vegetated 20 -acre parcel, and 80 -foot heights could block views of the Olympic Mountains. She provided pictures taken from Almira Drive, as well as a map to illustrate the current topography. She noted that the existing vegetation substantially blocks views. She explained that because the houses along Almira Drive are taller and there is a 50 -foot drop in topography, it is not likely that views of the Olympics would be blocked. Four -story buildings would not be any taller than the existing trees. • Property owners along Riddell and Wheaton Ways are generally supportive of the DCC zoning, but suggest revisions related to the 10 -foot maximum front -yard setback. They also recommend allowing parking in the front of buildings. She recalled that in 2013, the code was amended to allow for exceptions to the maximum front -yard setback when there is more than one frontage, site constraints, existing development and /or enhanced public features are provided to off -set Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2014 — Page 3 of 7 the increase. In addition, the current code minimizes rather than prohibits parking in front of buildings and on corners. Currently, no more than 50% of the required parking can be located at the street frontage. in addition, design criteria was added to allow more flexibility in the code. • A representative from the Youth Wellness Campus expressed support for the proposed zoning change to DCC, as well as the increased height limit. Ms. Floyd recommended the Commission conduct an open record public hearing, consider testimony, and recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. She provided two motions for the Commission to consider: the main motion, and the amending motion related to heights (orange sheet). Chair Tift reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. Jerry Wheeler, Bremerton, said he lives near the eastern edge of the Wheaton/Riddell District Center. He said he had a discussion in 1982 with Mr. Zarelli, the property owner, who informed him that the wooded area was always intended to remain as a barrier between the development on Wheaton Way and the residential properties. He further explained that Mr. Zarelli made a deal with the residents, that if the property was annexed into the City of Bremerton, he would maintain the barrier. Mr. Wheeler expressed his belief that allowing such brazen commercial development in the area would be a betrayal to the original property owners, as well as those who have purchased homes in subsequent years. He said he would prefer that the eastern portion of the District Center remain residentially zoned, which is what it has been for the past 30 years. However, if the City decides to change the zoning, he felt a greater buffer than 20 feet would be appropriate. He reminded the Commission that the City established a 50 -foot buffer on Maple Street. Marva Connelly, Bremerton, said she has lived near the eastern edge of the Wheaton /Riddell District Center since 1963, and she supported Mr. Zarelli's development plans and proposed annexation because they were promised that the vegetative buffer would remain. She asked that the Commission consider the noise that is created by adjacent commercial development. On top of the everyday noise (traffic, sirens, etc.) on Wheaton Way, they also have to listen to freight trucks load and unload, and she can even hear workers taking orders at the Taco Bell. In addition, she noted that not even homeless people can live in the area during the winter because of the drainage problems. Instead of 12 acres of bird sanctuary, the site has been changed into 12 acres of non - native vegetation in the form of scotch broom and blackberries. Claudia Campbell, Bremerton, said she lives directly behind the old East High School on the boundary of the Wheaton/Riddell District Center. She requested more information about what will happen to the school site adjacent to her property. She also asked if there are plans to convert at least a portion of the school site into park space. Leonard Anderson, Bremerton, asked if redevelopment on the east side of the school property would gain access from the alley. He said he does not want the alley to be widened, since it would increase noise and devalue the existing homes. Tom Remick, Bremerton, said he owns property on David Drive and he and his neighbors support the proposed zoning change from R -10 to DCC. He commented that change and growth happens; it's inevitable. He pointed to Lower Pacific Avenue in Tacoma, which was a blight until the University of Washington changed it around and the property values have increased significantly. He said he has watched his property values go down due to industrial complexes. He wants to see exciting things happen; and the proposed amendments will help facilitate the changes needed and allow Bremerton to evolve. Roy Runyon, Bremerton, said he is a member of the Bremerton City Council, but was present to voice his own opinion on the proposed amendments and not those of the City or City Council. He recommended that BMC 20.70.060(g)(ii) be amended by changing "between" to "within" and by adding "feet" after "80." He said he supports giving flexibility to the property owners, but he expressed concern about whether or not a 20 -foot screen would be adequate to protect the residential properties. He asked if the forested parcel adjacent to Almira Drive would be subject to the Critical Areas Ordinance. He also asked if there are any encumbrances on the property related to previous promises made by Mr. Zarelli. He suggested that perhaps some additional flexibility could be incorporated in the language to include a combination of wall and vegetation to address both noise and visual impacts. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2014 — Page 4 of 7 Dennis Stone, Bremerton, said he was born and raised in Bremerton and has seen a lot of change over the years, including businesses coming and going. He expressed his belief that redevelopment is the only opportunity to get the area cleaned up and bring back neighborhood and business vitality. They have had enough negative over the years, and it is time to step up and make some positive changes that will benefit the majority of the City's residents. Debbie Santini - Stone, Bremerton, said she supports the positive growth that the DCC zoning designation would accommodate. Joshua Folen, Bremerton, agreed with those who spoke earlier in favor of retaining the R -10 zoning designation. He voiced concern that DCC zoning would bring noise closer to residential neighborhoods. He also voiced uncertainty about whether the graduated height restrictions would allow development that obscures the view from adjacent residences. Chair Tift closed the public portion of the hearing. Chair Tift recalled that members of the public requested more information about what the area off of Cherry Drive will become. Ms. Floyd explained that the school district owns this property, and they are in contract with the Youth Wellness Campus. If the project goes forward, they are proposing to retain the gymnasium and much of the green space. They are also proposing a few youth related buildings, and perhaps a farmers market at some point in the future. She emphasized that there is no guarantee as to how the site will be developed. She acknowledged that the school district could partner with someone else and come up with an entirely different proposal. Chair Tift asked if there are plans to transform the alley that is adjacent to the east side of the school property into a street. Ms. Floyd explained that the alley is a public right -of -way. However, because alleys are typically 8 to 18 feet wide, it would be hard to transform the alley into a major street without going through significant change. While she acknowledged it is possible, it is highly unlikely. Chair Tift asked if staff is aware of any former agreement related to the 20 acres of forested property along Wheaton Way. Ms. Floyd said she has done quite a bit of research on the particular site, and has been unable to find any encumbrances. If there was an agreement between Mr. Zarelli and the neighborhood, it was not documented via the City. At one time, the property was under Kitsap County's jurisdiction. Chair Tift asked if the 20 -acre parcel along Wheaton Way was previously zoned for commercial uses. Ms. Floyd said that from 1988 to 2004, the property was zoned either Commercial or Multi Family Residential. The zoning was changed in 1998 from general business to Multi Family Residential to accommodate a proposed multi - family development. However, the project never moved forward, and the property was zoned to LDR in 2005. In 2007, the property was rezoned to Commercial/General Business as part of the adopted subarea plan. Chair Tift asked if staff would support the changes proposed by Mr. Runyan, and Ms. Floyd answered affirmatively. Chair Tift also asked if the Critical Areas Ordinance would apply to the wooded area along Almira Drive. Ms. Floyd answered that the Critical Areas Ordinance is applicable throughout the City. If and when a development is proposed for the site, it would be reviewed under the Critical Areas Ordinance to identify streams, slopes, etc. Chair Tift invited staff to comment on other screening options, such as a wall as suggested by Mr. Runyon. Ms. Floyd said that in the chapter of the code that requires a vegetative buffer, there is also a discussion about berms and walls, which could be used in concert with vegetation. However, a noise barrier, similar to those used along the freeway, goes beyond the scope of what the code would require. Director Markle added that, if there is excessive noise, the City has the opportunity to condition a proposal under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to address impacts. Commissioner Dinkuhn asked staff to comment on Mr. Wheeler's statement that a 50 -foot buffer was required along Maple Street. Ms. Floyd explained that the buffer on Maple Street was related to a specific proposal in 1981, and the buffer area was actually dedicated to the City. Because of changes in land -use law, the City can no longer require a developer to dedicate a buffer area to the City. However, the code can identify an appropriate buffer depth. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2014 — Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Strube asked about the topography of the wooded section along Almira Drive. He also asked if development along Almira Drive would be subject to the graduated height restriction, and Ms. Floyd answered affirmatively. She observed that because the topography steps down from Almira Drive, an 80 -foot building in the District Center would appear shorter when viewed from Almira Drive. Chair Tift reminded the Commission that, earlier in the year, the City Council adopted the Planning Commission's recommendation to repeal the zoning in the Wheaton/Riddell District Center. At that time, the zoning reverted back to R -10 zoning. Now the Commission's task is to recommend zoning for the District Centers. Based on the Commission's work and input from both the staff and the public, he felt the proposed amendments represent the best approach for accommodating the growth targets while remaining consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSION WOFFORD MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE MAPPING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT I, AND ADOPT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO BMC 20.70 AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT II, INCLUDING THE MINOR MODIFICATIONS IN BMC 20.70.060(g)(ii) AS NOTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING BY MR. RUNYON, AND BASED UPON THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT III. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER WOFFORD MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO AMEND THE DRAFT LANGUAGE IN BMC 20.70.060(g) TO EXCLUDE HEIGHT REDUCTIONS FROM PARCELS IN WHICH THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING, AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, IS SEPARATED FROM THE DISTRICT CENTER CORE ZONING BY A MAJOR ROADWAY. THE COMMISSION DIRECTS STAFF TO MODIFY THE CODE LANGUAGE AND PRESENT IT TO CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER DINKUHN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Commissioner Dinkuhn asked if the subarea plans for the District Centers are subject to design review. Ms. Floyd answered that only the development in the Downtown Center is subject to review by the Design Review Board as the adopted subarea plan includes very rigorous design standards. THE MAIN MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS AMENDED. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Commission regarding items not on the agenda. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Tift welcomed Commissioner Nethery to the Commission and thanked him for joining. Director Report Director Spencer also welcomed Commissioner Nethery. Director Spencer advised that the topic of discussion for the July 15` meeting will be "buildable lands." She said staff is collecting information on this topic as part of its Growth Management Act (GMA) monitoring report. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2014 — Page 6 of 7 New Business There was no new business to come before the Commission. Cancellation of June 17 and August 19 Meetings Staff proposed, and the Commissioners concurred, that the June 17' and August 19 meetings should be cancelled. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: Andrea L Spencer, AICP Richard L. Tift, Chair Executive Secretary Planning Commission Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2014 — Page 7 of 7 ORDINANCE NO. 5251 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, making amendments to the Official Zoning Map to expand the District Center Core Zoning and to Chapter 20.70 BMC the District Center Core Development Standards related to multi - family housing, modifying height limits, and improving visual screening requirements. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4950 on November 30, 2005 establishing the current Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, through the revocation of the Wheaton Riddell Sub -Area Plan, the need for amendments related to the District Center Core was evaluated and deemed appropriate; 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, the Planning Commission conducted several workshops to discuss the varying aspects of the proposed amendments. Workshops were held on February, 18, 2014, March 18, 2014, and April 15, 2014; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2014 the proposed Zoning Code amendments were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite review and comment period organized by the Department of Commerce; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2014 a SEPA DNS was issued for the proposed action with a 14 day administrative appeal deadline, no appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2014 the public was notified by a legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing held by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014 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 July 3 ,2014 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 July 16, 2014 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. Modify the Official Zoning Map relating to the Charleston District Center to replace the Low Density Residential Zoning on parcel 152401- 1 -154- 2002 addressed as 1104 N. Callow Avenue and replace the zoning with District Center Core; as seen in Exhibit B. SECTION 3. Modify the Official Zoning Map relating to the Wheaton/Sheridan District Center to replace all of the Low Density Residential Zoning with District Center Core Zoning within the District as seen in Exhibit C This rezone applies to the following properties: 122401 -2- 037 -2006; 3972 - 000 - 001 -0502; 3972 - 000 - 002 -0105; 3972 - 000 - 003 -0104; 3972 - 000 - 001 -0502; 3972- 000 -007- 0209; 3972 - 000 - 007 -0308. SECTION 4. Modify the Official Zoning Map relating to the Wheaton/Riddell District Center to replace all of the Low Density Residential Zoning with District Center Core Zoning within the District as seen in Exhibit D. This rezone applies to the following properties: 012401 -2 -180 -2004; 012401 -2- 181 -2003; 022401 -1- 082 -2004; 022401 -1- 069 -2001; 022401 -1- 070 -2008; 022401- 1 -071- 2007; 022401 -1- 025 -2004; 022401 -1- 062 -2008; 022401 -1- 002 -2001; 022401- 1- 079 -2009; 022401 -1- 039 -2008; 022401 -1- 064 -2006; 022401 -1- 042 -2003; 022401 -1- 086 -2000; 022401 -1- 024 -2005. SECTION 5. 20.70.020 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Outright Permitted Uses" is hereby amended as follows: 20.70.020 OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USES. The following uses are permitted outright: (a) Bed and breakfast; (b) Co- location of wireless telecommunications facility per BMC 20.46.140; (c) Community facility; (d) Day care facility; (e) Drinking place; (f) Entertainment use; 2 Zoning Code Amendments (g) Finance, insurance and real estate; (h) General office and business services; (1) General retail; 0) Group residential facilities - Class I; (k) Hotel and lodging place; (1) Medical office and clinic; (m) Motion picture theater; (n) Museum and gallery; (o) Nursing /convalescent home; (p) Park, playground and open space; (q Personal services business; (r) Physical fitness and health club; (s) Public or private park, playground or open space; (t) Public administration; (u) Residential of all types except Group Residential Type II we; (v) Restaurant; (w) School and education; (x) Senior housing complex; (y) Transportation facility; (z) Veterinary clinic. SECTION 6. Section 20.70.060 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Development Standards" 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: (a) Maximum front yard setback: ten (10) feet. At least sixty -five (65) percent of 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 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; (2) To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other physical 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 include, but are not limited to, the 3 Zoning Code Amendments following: public plazas, increased landscaping, architectural features, improved pedestrian connections. (b) 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). (c) 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). (d) There is no maximum density for residential use. (e) Maximum building coverage: sixty (60) percent base maximum; provided, that through the use of any combination of the following, building coverage may be increased up to eighty -five (85) percent maximum: (1) Projects containing mixed uses: ten (10) percent bonus. (2) Projects with a three (3) or four (4) story building: ten (10) percent bonus projects with five (5) or more story building: fifteen 0 5) percent bonus (3) Projects providing a pedestrian- oriented plaza or area of at least one hundred fifty (150) square feet along a pedestrian walkway at an intersection corner, bus stop or other key pedestrian area approved by the City. Such areas shall contain seating for at least four (4) people, a trash receptacle and three (3) or more of the following: a pedestrian shelter, a drinking fountain, a bike rack, pedestrian -scale lights, pavers on the walkway surfaces, a kiosk, a street vendor station providing food or beverages, trees, an appropriately sized statue or sculpture, or a public restroom. Interior courtyards with these amenities qualify if they would be readily apparent and accessible to pedestrians on adjoining sidewalks: twenty (20) percent bonus. (4) Projects providing a through -block corridor that facilitates pedestrian access in a location approved by the City: five (5) percent bonus. (5) Projects providing at least fifty (50) percent of their required parking underground or within the building: twenty (20) percent bonus. (f) Maximum development coverage: maximum development coverage by impervious surfaces, seventy -five (75) percent; provided, that through the use of any combination of the mechanisms listed in subsections (e)(1) through (5) of this section, up to ninety -five (95) percent maximum development coverage may be allowed. (g) Maximum building height: fifty (380) feet except: (1) Structures within fifty (50) linear feet of parcels zoned for Low Density Residential shall not exceed four (4) stories in height; and (2) Structures within fifty (50) and one hundred (100) linear feet of parcels zoned for Low Density Residential shall include architectural features to rag dually transition the building height from four (4) stories to a maximum height ghty (80) feet at the one hundred (100) foot distance from the Low Density Residential zoned parcel. (h) Mixed -Use Requirement: All structures that include residential uses located adjacent to, are oriented towards, or are viewable from a public Right -of -Way (not required on private streets ) shall provide retail / commercial uses along a minimum of sixty -five 65) percent of the ground floor building fagade. On corner lots, the requirement shall be applied to both frontages facing a public Right -of Way. 4 Zoning Code Amendments SECTION 7. Section 20.70.090 in the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Landscaping Requirements" is hereby amended as follows: 20.70.090 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. Landscaping shall meet the standards of Chapter 20.50 BMC and the following standards shall be met: (a) All development proposed on properties abutting Almira Drive NE shall provide a Type II visual screen as established in BMC 20.50.050(b), SECTION 8. 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 9. 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 , 2014 GREG WHEELER, Council President Approved this day of 1 2014 PATTY LENT, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of 7 2014 EFFECTIVE the day of , 2014 ORDINANCE NO. 5 Zoning Code Amendments Exhibit A FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary: Amendments to the Official Zoning Map to expand the District Center Core Zoning (DCC) and BMC 20.70, the DCC related to development regulations such as adding multi - family housing as an allowed use, increasing height limits, and modifying visual screening requirements. 1. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Project Description: The proposed amendment package includes revisions to both the Official Zoning Map and BMC 20.70follows: • Expand the DCC zoning within all three District Centers by replacing the Low Density Residential zoning in all areas except those that are currently developed with low density uses. • Modify The DCC development regulations as follows: • Add residential uses of all types except group residential Class Il as an out - rightly permitted use and eliminate residential as a secondary use. Revision also requires amendment to the development standard sub - section to ensure mixed use is required along primary street frontages but allows for standalone residential where there is no primary street presence. • Increase height limits from 50' to 80' with specific requirements for a reduced height of four stories when within 50' of the low density residential zone. • Add language in the landscaping section of the DCC to ensure the vegetated character of Almira Drive is maintained by requiring a 20' visual screen through vegetation preservation or planting. 2. Procedural History: 2.1 Planning Commission Workshops: February 18, 2014, March 18, 2014, and April 15, 2014 2.2 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: May 8, 2014 2.3 Commerce Notice: May 8, 2014 2.4 Notice of Public Hearing: May 10, 2014 2,4 Planning Commission Public Hearing: May 20, 2014 3. Public and Agency Comment: 3.1 February 18 Workshop: • Priscilla Bailey: expressed concerns regarding the realistic nature of the sub -area plan and asked the plan be revoked. • Mike Benefiel: Expressed concerns regarding the Soil Factory property • Tom Remick: Stated that the Sub -Area Plan is not beneficial to re- development • Diedre McKeel: Suggested that all "Centers" should be reviewed multi -modal transportation should be emphasized. ` • Councilman Runyon: Recommended flexibility and balance by looking at market conditions when developing codes. Ii 1 Exhibit A • Gary Weber: Representative of Carl Zarelli, pointed out that mixed use is the future of development, but the market in Bremerton is not strong enough to support it just yet. 3.2 March 18 Workshop: • Priscilla Bailey: Pointed out that growth targets have not been achieved in the past and expressed skepticism that they would be achieved in the future. Design standards and restrictive codes may not entice development. Expressed concern about a vegetated buffer on Almira Drive as homeless camps are a persistent problem. • Gary Lindsey: Representing Royal Valley Properties stated that the property owner of the Soil Factory site would prefer commercial zoning rather than residential. Nearly 50 acres of vacant properties in this District offer significant redevelopment potential and submitted an exhibit outlining development regulations he would like. • Don Cole: Showed support for the soil factory and felt that aggressive growth assumptions are not realistic. • Carl Zarelli: Read the comment letter he submitted, and expressed concern over future development. He requested changes to the DCC to allow for greater flexibility in uses and development standards. • Robin Waite: Asked about incentives for redevelopment. • Ken Melbourne: Employee of the Soil f=actory, commented that the City's growth strategy is not desirable. He referred pointed out that the community relies on the soil factory. • Eric Sandall: As a real - estate investor he considers the Soil Factory a valuable service and requested the City allow the current business to remain until market demands change. • Barbara Roberts: Pointed out the problems with living near the Soil f=actory, such as dust, noise, and smell from the business. • Written comment received: Patricia Hennessy, Executive Director of the Youth Wellness Campus. Pat O'Leary of WSDOT Highway Advertising Control Program, commented February 20 2014. 3.3 April 15` Workshop: • Patricia Hennessy: Representing the Youth Wellness Campus voiced support of increased heights and DCC zoning across the Wheaton / Sheridan District. • Mike Benefiel: Voiced support of DCC zoning in the Wheaton / Riddell District. • Denis Stone: Stated that the Soil Factory has outgrown its current location and would like to see more compatible uses on the site. • Eric Sandall: Suggested that the Soil Factory has made concessions and has reduced impacts to the neighborhood over the last year. • Tom Remick: Noted that impacts to his residence and neighborhood have grown as the business has expanded. He showed support for rezoning the property to commercial. • Richard Roberts: Questioned why this topic was being discussed as the Planning Commission passed a motion at the last meeting to re -zone the District. • Debbie Santini- Stone: Supports the DCC zone for the entire Wheaton /Riddell District. • Dale Herbold: Supports re- zoning to DCC as it would allow for re- development. Pointed out that the City has received at least 42 code complaint letters about the Soil Factory by neighboring residents. • Written Comments Received: Jerry Wheeler submitted a letter addressing concerns about development along Almira,Drive and the location of future 2 �' Exhibit A meetings and Tom Remick submitted a letter supporting DCC zoning in the Wheaton / Riddell District. 3.4 At the May 20, 2014 Planning Commission Public Hearing public testimony was offered by: • Jerry Wheeler: The 20 acre parcel behind the old Lowes has always been intended to be a barrier between the commercial and residential areas, therefore it should not be zoned commercial. If zoned commercial, a 50' vegetated buffer should be required. 41 Marva Connelly: Requested information about the Wheaton /Sheridan school site and its future development plans. • Leonard Anders: Requested information about the East Side School Property and alley access. He does not want the alley to be widened or utilized for more intense uses. • Tom Remick: Recommends changing zoning from R -10 to DCC in the Wheaton/Riddell District Center because it will enable future growth and development of the area. • Roy Runyon: Suggested minor code language changes to ensure the code was clearly worded. He also asked about legal documents relating to the 20 acre property behind the old Lowes site. • Dennis Stone: Supports redevelopment. • Debbie Santini - Stone: Supports the rezone to District Center Core. • Joshua Folen: Recommended maintaining the R -10 zoning and is uncertain about increased heights because of potential view blockage. 4. SEPA Determination: A Determination of Non - Significance was issued on May 8, 2014, to date no comments or appeals have been filed. 5. Consistency: Text amendments to Title 20 shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020(d). The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to Title 20 if the criteria outlined below are met. (1) It is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan; t Analysis. The proposed amendments continue to uphold the objectives and goals of the 1, Comprehensive Plan, and implement the following policies: 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 infill 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 flexibilities within the Zoning Code provisions for all new development and redevelopment. EC1C: Encourage redevelopment of underutilized land. 3 I Exhibit A EC5A: 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. Resp Ily submi y: An . Spe , Executive Secretary i ( t i t 1 i 4 k x } t I I I I SUMMIT :..__._..._ ___...._...._. ._...._�.. _ - - - -- to I I ' S - Z7 � TIME -_ .._ ._........ ; I ! 1 _ J. CJ Q. - - -- -- -... -- --- " - - - -- TIMES CD C7 SUtij I i - - - --_. -- - * MST- .- _.____._..__ _ . _.._..:..__i.._...__•. I _ - - - , F; - -- _ i , I I I -..... _ i • I YETT - -�! - - -- , I I , I - Y r- rTERREL-L- i � -- - --- -......_.. -- - I , rr ! I ! CAMB - I i�� �`�� - • r- r -r-� -. �. f MEADE'_ I i. "• I i I I i 11 WYCOFF F ` 111 11 I - -- ---- - - - - -- j - 1 i.._. ! i + i i - I CALLOW j I I MONT I 77 , IT] RAINIER - 1 I ; I ' _ I E . l I ' -_ __......- - - -- -- - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- I RYAN C. � - � I 1 • cn I BLOOMINGTON l I -- - .._._If - i! IF.... -- I•- - N N _! _ - I N � I i I I - I o ff.. o - - - -- . _ _ j :- - - - NGTON 1 .. -- I i i '' _...__ _.. li ...... -i. )L o OOM i I _._.._.._ -- - - -- , - I i I -- i I I i I -- . - i; .. _:_.. - ------- = � Z � E== I L.__- ..i.;......;... N � I i I t ... o n I I. I r - II .._. L , i 1..- - - -. -. - - -- -- - -. - -- OLYMPIC + L_... -i - - - - PLYMPIC cn I, , I I ' I:. _— ..__:._....._ - - • I i { - I i i ' ' I .� I; I ', 1 • r� / I I i �.I T - I I KIP 0 OAF 0 OrAl MO®R O V A OFA o p d , O F A I 01 r oil I 0 0 N MARIAH G/& Exhibit D: - ------------- i LU < I a ------- S L kbADMOOW WORRAEL' Tax Account Numbers -- EAST B 1 Ujl_ Re-zoned to DCC -2-180-2004 CO 012401 012401-2-181-2003 --BRADLEY 022401-1-082-2004 022401-1-069-2001 022401-1-070-2008 022401-1-071-2007 I 022401-1-025-2004 I HOPE -- j 022401-1-062-2008 HANFbRD' 022401-1-002-2001 - ----- 022401-1-079-2009 022401-1-039-2008 022401-1-064-2006 Legend 022401-1-042-2003 022401 -1- 086 -2000 DCC 022401-1-024-2005 F77772 C C'- CoVVtCc 'RECEIVED. CE COUNCIL MITI Page 1 of 3 )ATE Letter to The Bremerton City Council, May 26, 2014 By: Jerry Wheeler, Westview Drive NE Resident for thirty Years Proposed land use rezone of the 20 acres behind the current commercial property known as Merit Mart, Albertsons, Rite Aid, Lowes etc., On Almira Drive, Owned by the Merit /Zerrelli Family. I had a personal meeting with the original Mr. Zerrelli, the Patriarch of the Zerrelli Family, in 1982, in Tacoma where he had a business. I believe he was the father or grandfather of the current Mr. Zerrelli. I don't believe it was until after the original Mr. Zerrelli passed away in the mid to latter 1980's, that there was any attempt develop the Merit Corporation wooded property facing Almira Drive, by the Zerrilli family. The original Mr. Zerrelli, vigorously and without solicitation on my part told me that the 20 wooded acres behind his Merit Mart Development would never be developed. He stated that he promised the residences to the West of his development, that he would always leave this property undeveloped as a "barrier" between his Merit Mart Development and their single family residences. Why did he do this, because this area, including his property a former dairy farm and the residences between Almira Drive and Petersville, were located in the Kitsap County. Mr. Zerrelli told me he needed the residents to sign a petition to annex to the City of Bremerton. He needed his Merit Mart Development to be brought into the City of Bremerton, in order to get the City services he needed. Without the compliance and trust of our neighborhood, Mr. Zerrelli would not have been able to get his Merit Mart into the City limits of Bremerton and he would not have been able to build his Merit Mart. I've recently walked and talked to my neighbors in the very area that Mr. Zerrelli contacted more than fifty years ago. Many of them told me the same story about the annexation. In addition, the property has remained wooded and undeveloped to this very day. I believe this is proof of my statement and the proof of the statements made to me by several of my neighbors. I think the City Council should review all of the documents and discussions to the Planning Commission and the Bremerton City Council in the annexation files at the time of annexation, before the current City Council makes any determination. This would be the last annexation to the west of Wheaton Way to Riddell Road on the North and Petersville Road to the East. I think it took place around 1962 or 1963. The 20 undeveloped wooded acres owned by the Zerrelli Family, has been either single family residential, multi - family residential and currently single family residential for more than thirty years. The rather confusing up and down zoning demands, by the Zerrelli family and City Hall, upon our neighborhood has been stressful and unfair in the past just as it is today. The planning department staff findings in 1990 stated that a multi - family land use zoning is an appropriate zone for this property. A transition'between commercial and residential. It was limited in height to two and three stories. There was limited access on Almira Drive. Even though the neighborhood strongly rejected the proposed development, it was approved by City Hall. Our residential neighborhood was shot down again by City Hall. The Police and Fire Departments did not even make a comment. The development was strongly rejected'by Field Ryan, business manager for the Bremerton School District, stating the schools could not handle the impact of such a development. Field Ryan stated that the proposed 1990 development should be required to pay impact fees. Our schools still can't handle this level of development, and you are asking for even larger buildings and more impact of people than in 1990. Page 2 of 3 For decades, City Hall has not invested in infrastructure like: schools, roads, sidewalks, parks, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, police or fire protection in East Bremerton, to support the kind of Commercial land use zoning proposed for the undeveloped residentially zoned Merit /Zerrelli Property. City Hall doesn't even patch the holes in our streets. We ask the members of the City Council, would you want to live near a development that will house four or five thousand people. Living and working there and loom eight stories into the air? If you allow this Commercial Land Use Development on the undeveloped wooded property, on Almira Drive, it will be a first of its kind in East Bremerton. It will spell the Doom of our residential community. Certainly, the traffic noise and the untold volume of people, will have dramatic impacts on our quality of lives. Certainly, the City Council must know this development will have an impact on the value of our homes. Is it fair to increase the value of the Zerrilli Property by zoning up to commercial from residential R -10, while decreasing and destroying the value of the homes owned by residents, who are paying taxes to support this City? The Planning Department seems to think it's more important to be considerate of the Merit /Zerrelli property values, but does not consider the impact on my property values or the property values of my neighbors? Questions for the Planning Department and City Council: On March 5, 2014, when the Planning Department stated the Subarea Planned Development for the Zerrilli, Kmart and Ross properties, does not "pencil out "? We ask the Planning Department Staff to state "exactly what the term "Pencil Out" means? It's not familiar accounting term. Once the Planning Department has clarified its terms, then our next question would be, did anyone on the City Council ask why the Planning Department exactly why this Subarea Plan would not "Pencil Out "? The Subarea Plan seems to be working in Downtown Bremerton? It seemed to work out in the current Bremerton Comprehensive Plan for the Eastside of Bremerton, when the Subarea Plan was put in place, why not now? Another term used be the Planning Department, to justify changing the Zerrelli wooded area on Almira Drive, from Residential R -10 to Commercial, is that the current Residential R -10 Land Use Zoning is a "Placeholder" land use zone? Yet nothing is in the current zoning ordinance or in' the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan to support these statements to the City Council, by Planning Department Staff. This is important, because we believe the R -10 residential land use zoning recognizes the importance of the preservation of the neighborhood. Under the Subarea Plan the City of Bremerton was able to meet its population growth needs, even with the R -10 residential land use designation. As one of the Planning Department'staff members stated, when Jerry told her the story of meeting and discussing the wooded area barrier, with the original Mr. Zerrelli, the developer of the Merit Mart fifty years ago, "there is nothing in writing in the zoning ordinance and if it's not in writing it does not exist." Well the term or concept that the R -10 Single Family Land use Zoning as a "Placeholder" land use zone is not in writing so it does not exist either? Many neighbors contend that the Merit /Zerrelli Property was not posted with a land use zone change from R -10 residential to Commercial. Our neighborhood wanted to know, "Why wasn't the change in land use Zoning posted on the Merit /Zerrelli Property "? When there is a change in land use zone, doesn't the City of Bremerton have to post the change on the property? Page 3 of 3 So is the Planning Commission and City Hall trying to force the concentration of most of the population growth of the City of Bremerton over the next 10 years, onto a little strip of land on the east side of Bremerton, running along Wheaton Way? Without infrastructure to support it? It's not clear why out of the blue, in February of 2014, just a few months after the Mayoral and City Council elections, City Hall decided the Subarea Plan would not work? I can't find a clear explanation. It's no surprise that very little property development has happened since 2005, it was called the "Great Recession ". Is City Hall and the landowners using the lack of development, due to the "Great Recession" as an opportunity to make more money? I've been told that City Hall needs tax revenue. Is tax revenue to pay a heavy debt service the reason why my neighborhood and for that matter the entire eastside of Bremerton must fall on our sword? Please let's not sell out the citizens of our City to outside property developers, who will fill their pockets with our gold and then leave town. How about Compromise: If City Council must make a decision, then we propose the same solution as the one found for the Maple Street Neighborhood in 1981, (Ordinance #3636), about six blocks to the south of the Merit /Zerrelli property. Maple Street is a duplicate situation to the one our neighborhood is now facing. Maple Street is the residential street, which runs parallel to Wheaton Way and is located directly behind the Quadrant Corporation development on Wheaton Way. In order to protect the Maple Street Neighborhood, from the commercial development on Wheaton Way, the property owner deeded 50 Feet to the City of Bremerton, put up a fence and was not allowed access to Maple Street. The Planning Department has argued that due to "changes in the law," the City can't ask the of the Merit /Zerrelli property owners to donate just 50 Feet and put up a fence in order to protect the neighborhood. Well if that's the case, why not just leave the land use zoning on the Merit /Zerrelli property R -10 Residential. That's the best fit for the neighborhood anyway. The best course of action at this time is to wait for the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Revue in 2016. Let's really find out at that time what has happened in Bremerton over the last ten years. Then determine what would be the best way to proceed for East Bremerton and for our City as a whole in the future. Respectfully Submitted, Jerry Wheeler L 1 79 From: Lori Smith on behalf of City Council Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:32 PM To: City Council Cc: Shannon Corin Subject: FW: Response to Citizen Request for Information - Wheaton Way Subarea Plan (Gerald Wheeler) Attn: Council Members (FYI) From: Nicole Floyd Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:15 PM To: 'Gerald' Cc: City Council; Andrea Spencer Subject: RE: Wheaton Way Subarea Plan Mr. Wheeler, Sub -Area Planning and the Centers concept was first adopted by Bremerton in the most recent Comprehensive Plan (adopted 2004). There are 12 "Centers" designated in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. There are a few different types of Centers: • Neighborhood Centers (6 areas) • District Centers (3 areas) • Regional Centers (1 area) • Employment Centers (2 areas) The idea in the Comprehensive Plan is that each of the Centers will eventually go through a Sub -Area Planning Process, but until then, the general zoning regulations would apply. For example, there is a zone called "Neighborhood Center Core ", which establishes development regulations that apply in all of the neighborhood centers. They all are required to comply with the same set of regulations, no one neighborhood center has standards unique from another, EXCEPT when a Sub -Area Plan is adopted. The Manette Neighborhood has such a plan, and has a unique set of standards for street lighting, parking lot design etc. These additional requirements are intended to help set Manette apart from other neighborhoods and to emphasize its character. In most cases a Sub -Area Plan increases the amount of detailed requirements because it is tailored to a specific place. Of the 12 Centers, only 4 have undergone the Sub -Area Planning process (Downtown, Wheaton /Riddell, Manette, and SKIA). There are two other Sub -Area Plans (Bay Vista and East Park), but these are both somewhat different in that they were designated as "Master Development" sites and the Sub -Area Plans were developed by the property owner. All Sub -Area Plans can be viewed online at: http: / /www.ci .bremerton.wa.us /display.php ?id =439 All of the Sub -Area Plans in place have very specific development requirements that are tailored to the specific area. Each one includes several different "zones" and therefore several different sets of requirements. For example, there are 8 "zones" within the Downtown Sub -Area Plan. Height limits vary dependent upon the desired type of growth for that portion of the plan. Figure 6.2 of the Downtown Sub -Area Plan shows all the different height limits. The main commercial portion of Downtown does not have a height limit, the code allows for the market to drive the height. Essentially, the developer can build as high as they want, provided it will work financially for them. The Commercially zoned area along the waterfront has a 175' height limit. Every Sub -Area Plan is different and has different requirements. i As Staff has been preparing for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update we have been looking at what codes have been working well, and what have not. Since the Centers concept was new in the last update (2004), we have been taking a close look at it's implementation. As part of this review and update process, the City began a series of workshops with the Planning Commission to discuss the different centers throughout the City. Discussions related to how the Center's concept was intended to achieve our growth strategy, and how that was working. All of the Planning Commission workshop reports, minutes, and PowerPoints are available online at: http: / /www.ci .bremerton.wa.us /display.php ?id =438 At the annual City Council Retreat held in January of 2014, Council raised concerns about the increasing vacancies along Wheaton Way. The Council asked Staff to look into potential barriers to development and to evaluate code provisions along this corridor. This request, coupled with the preparation for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update made the Wheaton /Riddell Sub -Area, an easy choice for discussing the commercial vacancies and inter - relatedness of code provisions. As a Sub -Area Plan had been adopted for this District Center, the Planning Commission was able to compare the requirements for development in the Sub -Area Plan and the general District Center Core Zoning applicable in all of the other District Centers. It was in this comparing and contrasting that it became evident that the Sub -Area Plan was not achieving its intended purpose. The Sub -Area plan was adopted in 2007 at the height of the economic bubble. Many of the unique requirements in the plan were onerous and expensive for potential tenants and purchasers. In many cases, the property owners who had been involved with the Sub -Area Plan's creation and who had originally supported the more restrictive and complex development regulations were no longer in the picture due to foreclosures etc. Lending practices, economic factors, and market trends had changed. Existing property owners and perspective tenants often criticized the Sub -Area Plan's requirements - particularly related to street improvements as they were too expensive and impeding development. Several examples of the Sub -Area Plan's extra requirements were provided for the discussion at the Planning Commission Workshops. These documents are all available for review on the above mentioned link. Based on the Planning Commissions guidance, and public input, the City Council revoked the Sub -Area Plan on March 5, 2014. It is the only Sub -Area Plan to have been revoked. The revocation returned the zoning back to what was in place prior to the Sub -Area Plan — the placeholder zoning of 2005, which included a mix of District Center Core and Low Density Residential. Prior to 2005, the zoning had been primarily commercial. With nearly half the District Center now zoned Low Density Residential, there were concerns that growth targets would not be achievable and development activities may be stifled. City Council and the Planning Commission directed Staff to review the mapping and development regulations now in effect to ensure they would allow for the growth targets to be achieved and that the development regulations were appropriate. As the District Center Core zone applies in 3 areas of the City, any changes to the code would impact all three District Centers. Code changes were therefore evaluated in relationship to all three Districts, not just Wheaton /Riddell. A detailed analysis of each District and the rationale for all proposed changes is provided in the Planning Commission Packets that are online. Following four workshops (January — April) and a Public Hearing (May 20 the Planning Commission unanimously recommended mapping changes and development standards changes to the City Council that will make sure the growth targets can be met, and will encourage well designed development within these three District Centers. In terms of Annexation — I have done some research regarding your previous request and have located the file for the 1966 Annexation (Ordinance # 2680). It is available for you to look through at your convenience. The documents in the file indicate that the annexed areas were originally zoned as either commercial or residential depending. It looks like the 20 acres of undeveloped land owned by the Zarelli's, behind the old Lowe's was zoned residential at the point of annexation. I have asked the City Surveyor to confirm. Under either outcome (commercial or residential), the implication is that at the point of annexation, the property was intended to be developed - either with houses, or with businesses. There is nothing in the file that indicates the property was intended to be preserved as open space. I have placed the file in the will call box at the front counter so that you can look through it at your convenience. I hope I have adequately answered your questions. Please feel free to contact me regarding any other questions. Sincerely, 2 Nicof AJ1 a City of Bremerton Senior Land Use Planner phone: (360) 473 -5279 fax: (360) 473 -5278 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Gerald [ mailto:wheelerge47Amsn.com ] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:30 AM To: Nicole Floyd Cc: City Council Subject: Wheaton Way Subarea Plan Good morning Ms. Floyd. Please tell me the history of the revocation of the Wheaton Way Subarea, Ross /Zerrelli properties. Why was it revoked? Who asked for the revocation and what was the driver behind the request. Please provide the dates and history from start to finish of the revocation. After the revocation of the Subarea Plan, why is it necessary to change the zoning on the properties? Who asked for the zoning changes? Please identify all of the Subarea Planned Developments that Bremerton has revoked? Please identify all of the original . Subarea Plans originally put into place? Is there a hight restriction on the Subarea Plans still in place? I believe Downtown Bremerton has a Subarea Plan in Place? What is the height restriction for Downtown Bremerton? Regards Jerry Wheeler 3 To: The Bremerton City Council "78. From: Jerry Wheeler Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 Re: The rezone of 20 acres from R -10 Single Family Residential Land Use Zone, to Commercial Land Use Zone. The Property is located behind the current commercially zoned Merit /Zarelli development facing Wheaton Way. My biggest concern is the huge amount of traffic and noise, this large commercial development will bring to our neighborhood. When Lowe's and other commercial businesses occupied the current buildings on the Merit /Zarelli property, the noise and traffic was already a major problem. The noise was only mitigated at that time, because of the 20 acres of wooded property, located behind the huge commercial development facing Wheaton Way. As I've stated before, I know this was the intent for this wooded property, by the original developer, Mr. Zarelli in 1966. If you rezone the wooded and undeveloped 20 acres from R -10 Residential Zone, to the commercial land use zoning, without an adequate buffer, the noise will be unbearable for our East Bremerton community. We are a long time and well established East Bremerton community. We pay our taxes and have often been subjected to the greater needs of our entire community. If this rezone is not fairly mitigated, with at least a significant buffer, you will be putting another nail in the ultimate degradation, of our eastside neighborhoods. We deserve to be protected from the noise and traffic this commercial development will bring to our neighborhoods. I've looked into this a little and I think there are three possible solutions that can help preserve our East Bremerton residential community and the quality of our lives. 1. Retain the R -10 single family residential land use zoning, on the twenty undeveloped acres on the west side of Almira Drive from Hollis Street to Riddell Road. 2. Reinstate the 85 foot forested buffer, on the west side of Almira Drive between Hollis Street and Riddell Road, which was required under the former Wheaton /Riddell Subarea Plan. The City Council eliminated the Wheaton /Riddell Subarea Plan in March 2014. 3. The Maple Street Solution: 50 feet of property dedicated to the City of Bremerton along the west side of Almira Drive, from Hollis Street to Riddell Road, with no access to Almira Drive. The property owner would need to agree to deed the 50 feet to the City of Bremerton, as a good neighbor to our community. Thank You, Jerry Wheeler 78 From: Lori Smith on behalf of City Council Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 11:00 AM To: 'Mike Benefiel' Cc: City Council Subject: RE: Citizen Comments - East Bremerton Rezoning (Mike Benefiel) From: Mike Benefiel [ mailto:mikernben@)yahoo.coml Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 10:48 AM To: City Council Cc: Tom Remick- Subject: East Bremerton Rezoning To City Council members Roy Runyon, Leslie. Daugs, Greg Wheeler, Dino Davis, Jerry McDonald, Mike Sullivan, and Eric Younger Just a note to remind you that the rezoning of East Bremerton in the area of Riddell Rd and Wheaton Way, will impact more than just City residents. Those of us that live adjacent to the City in that area will be impacted. Please keep that in consideration. The current industrial Soil Factory shouldn't be allowed next to residential. The rezoning will make this area compatible to be next to a residential neighborhood. I know you've heard all the arguments so I won't repeat them. A lot of work has gone into this rezoning plan and it would be a shame to throw it out. I know you will all do what's best for the City and it's neighbors. Thank you, Mike Benefiel From: Dave Magnenat [ mailto :dave.magnenatCa)gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 7:28 AM To: City Council Subject: Public Comment: Land Use Rezoning Almira to Hollis 7S To Whom It May Concern: This email constitutes public comment on the above referenced issue. Please enter it into the record as such, and please consider it before making your decision. We have lived on Westview for 17 years; some of our neighbors have been here for more than 30. We are a well established residential community comprised of single family homes dating back to the early 1960's. It is communities like ours that give Bremerton its unique flavor and enable the commercial areas like downtown to be fully realized. We are blue collar, working Bremerton, housing shipyard workers, US Navy families, and the people that make Bremerton's economy work. We are the lifeblood of Bremerton. I am greatly concerned that the City of Bremerton has spent thousands of dollars already to address a complaint made by County residents, that being the noise and traffic created by the gravel business behind Goodwill. I am even more concerned that this use of my taxpayer funds also includes a proposal to rezone 20 acres of wooded area off Almira, to the sole benefit of land owners who no longer have any ties to our community (with the sole exception of profiting from the loss of this green space). Rezoning the area to commercial would destroy the rapidly disappearing green space in the neighborhood as well as remove habitat for the deer, coyotes, and other wild life that live there. The height allowances for new construction being considered would destroy the view corridor of the Olympic Mountains, thereby decreasing the property value of multiple homes in the neighborhood. Increased traffic and noise from the future development there would further decrease property values and negatively impact the safety of the area to the many children who live in our neighborhood. There is already sufficient commercially zoned space available: witness the concrete wasteland that includes only Taco Bell, Shari's and Pacific Fabrics. That space has been a constant eyesore for at least 10 years, and frankly if developers can't make money in an existing space with access from two major roads (Wheaton and Riddell), existing construction pads, water and electric already in place, and a willing City government, what makes anyone think that they can make money by tearing out a forested area on a side street and starting from scratch? We urge you, the City Council, to put an end to this ridiculous scheme by rejecting the effort to rezone the area and address the situation more thoroughly and thoughtfully during the update of the Comprehensive Plan. This enables the Council to separate the gravel pit issue from the residential zoning issue, two items that should never have been conflated in the first place. If the Council is unwilling to take this more careful approach, we urge that you reinstate the 85 foot forested buffer on the west side of Almira Drive between Hollis Street and Riddell Road, which was the requirement under the former Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan. We offer a third option as well, that instituted on Maple Drive during construction of the complex facing Wheaton Way. In that solution the property owner agreed to deed 50 feet of property along the residential - facing side to the City, and the City agreed to hold the property as green and untouched. We would ask that a similar solution be reached along the west side of Almira Drive from Hollis Street to Riddell Road, with no access to the area from Almira Drive. Sincerely, Dave and Mary Jane Magnenat 4201 Westview Dr. NE Bremerton, WA Lori Smith From: Lori Smith on behalf of City Council Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:34 PM To: 'Gerald' Cc: City Council Subject: RE: Citizen Letter to Council - Request to Speak more than 3- minutes on Rezone of 20- acres (Gerald Wheeler) Mr. Wheeler, I've passed on your request to Council President Greg Wheeler for his consideration. Please note that three letters submitted by you on May 27, 2014; June 19, 2014 (which includes a response from Nicole Floyd); and July 11, 2014 have all been received by the Council Members for their review; and copies have been included as a part of the record. Thank you, Legislative Assistant Bremerton City Council (360) 473 -5280 From: Gerald [ mailto:wheelerge47(�i)msn.com ] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:14 PM To: City Council Subject: Re: Citizen Letter to Council - Rezone of 20 -acres (Gerald Wheeler) Tomorrow night I may need more than three minutes to speak. I don't think it will take more than ten minutes. I hope the council will allow everyone who wants to speak, j enough time to speak their mind. In my opinion, this rezone issue is the single most important issue to impact east Bremerton residents, in the more than forty years. It deserves more attention and more citizen outreach. Thank you, Jerry Wheeler Sent from my iPad 1 To: Bremerton City Council 7/16/14 Amendment of official Zoning map to expand District Center Core Dear Council Members, although I would rather be at tonight's meeting I cannot attend because of other pending matters but I wanted to write all of you and speak to a couple of points. A forest that was to be maintained In perpetuity The owners of this property have heard for years that some surrounding home owners were told years ago that this 20 acre property east of the old Rite Aid building was going to stay as is. We have no idea where this comment comes from. Perhaps from the real estate people that sold their house. However we have no knowledge of this and no agreements that this area was to stay in the state it is now. The 85 foot buffer Comments have been made about maintaining the 85 foot buffer along Almira. The following is the net effect the size this 85' buffer has on the 20 acre parcel we own. According to the survey we had done the length of our property is 1425.21 feet in length north to south. If you take 1425.21'x 85' = 121142.85 square feet divided by 43560' this results in a net loss of 2.78 acres to a buffer that could be accomplished by a 20 foot buffer or .65 acres( 28500 square feet ) . It is important to remember that our property drops anywhere from 10 to 15' in elevation west of Almira street. This drop also provides a natural buffer. In addition we have a buffer which is the road separator (Almira Street). A 20' buffer, a drop of 10' to 15' and a road separator should be more than enough to accomplish the normal separation requirement for a commercial zoning. In addition the landscaping can be Intensified to create a visual barrier so little can be seen from Almira. The city is aware of the vagrants that this wooded area harbors. An 85' buffer would only allow this sort of camping to continue. This would be another problem for the City and BPD to control. The open space requirement If the open space requirement is still under consideration this would result in another loss of 1% acres or so. All this goes to the net loss of land within the 20 acres. The city needs to think about what liability and maintenance we and the City would incur as a result of the public entering private property to use such a concept of open space. In addition this open space would also harbor the vagrants which now enjoy the cover of the wooded area. Photos have been previously submitted to the Planning Commission and are a part of the record for your review. We submit that this is not the pristine woodland that some may think it is. Commercial Zoning allows both residential and commercial It is our understanding that the proposed Commercial Zoning allows residential zoning. With this flexibility the property will find its highest and best use. The owners of this property urge you approve this zoning and help East Bremerton revitalize. As you can see the zoning that was in place has not had the effect it was intended to have. Everyone wants to have a say in properties that they have no ownership of as long as it does not affect them. We submit to you that if the City was to take a large swath of a home owner's front yard because some thought it was in their best interest the homeowners would not be pleased. Carl Z r �) East Bremerton Pla LLC 1 E K' 7 1 . , • Topic History Sub-Area Plan Revocation • Evaluation of City's Growth Strategy for the District Centers - • Proposed Amendments: • Mapping of District Centers • Development Code Revisions Lr u a Revocation of Wheaton Riddell Sub -Area Plan • March 5, 2014 -City Council Approval 0 a Recap of: • Differences and similarities between Zoning and Sub -Area Plans • Problems with the Sub -Area Plan • Impacts of revocation Existing All _ s ,1, "...: ; "' austere • . Future a rl SOAtessoundary J EW, ��D'.�i r.- •,���affl � (Y� "ti � � � � - �: 'QF' -"Y� a.�� .. ` - ,�i � �i a�- �''`'�� i Y L :' Ill /� ,• •- Cry limos � ! ! j . Tax Parcels r 11 J y�r air vilem /r�.caaon i .... .. .. *.,. 1 dv ,, � 1 �•. ' J !I 1� Lis WHEATON FRONTAGES CONCEPT k Y' G. a 'r 4 4 WHEATON FRONTAGES SETBACK DIAGRAM MINIMUM SETBACK OPTION C Public ROW ' i{ Private Setback cc W _ V c , Amenl 8tor+efron Frontage Rd. Bike " t Zone 1ParkIn Partway Lane - t 9 Configuration Optional Required Required t P r 0 tionat Front Setback Min. 30' Max. 55 . ........:. ._.._......�- �.- W....�...: _.�.. f..:.�. t; � a 0 m� UNEATON WAY w r r(� a b2 n cr t R al V a ki S' Z E Standard Zoning Tools Reinstated - ■ Automatic reinstatement of most previous zoning map & regulations. 7 t, f I s l l zil� 1 11 r 1 •. R-10 F1 I-AI Ic R-10 . T OR 7- &2; ------- 7 T. C.YLMI. q t.. 71PI Z r9l Tu Pa�ts M R46.- 1390 ..No Ja o Planning Commission held 4 Public Meetings to: ■ Ensure Zoning would meet Growth Targets ■ Ensure existing zoning tools are appropriate ■ Evaluate ALL 3 District Center's Simultaneously JLJ r"Irij. n r o w h E Ensuring complianc'e with mandated targets ■ Broadening scope to big picture goals ■ Looking at all 3 District Centers &NICH01! SH COUNTY E o Pu et Sound will grow by ` Ty 1 000 b 2040 - totaling mor e a n n million than g f '�._� . � • -� . • � � .� • Office of Financial 11. { ` KING COUNTY Management o Multi- County Planning Policies L KRSAP COUNTY a Countywide Planning � Policies -, 2007 2007 Apix 1 — �ral:ce Pu get S ov M Regi 1 1 ( ' 1 , 963 . 000 6 ran g ( ount y • • ! 11 ' 1 111 -7 :�' p• S� �' it!WOKdi. Cf QGi{piM:;S ratsap County 93,000 396 p PiERCECOUNTY ' C oun ty 791, 000 306 .` _owe - w.aaon+wn4xrr � Sn ohom i s h C ount y 686 2 2 wit D w.eMara.taraoaus . n 6 P G 'Utm- nq [No t [Nil 32% of total growth is allocated to the 5 Metropolitan Cities: ■ Seattle ■ Bellevue Tacoma • Everett ■ Bremerton ❑ The entire Puget Sound region is T T expecting Bremerton to grow is significantly iii Bremerton is the Regional Hub of Kitsap 'Bremerton Centers \)J L 7 � 1/3 of growth is allocated citywide as infill .............. . . 2/3rdsof total growth is allocated v,-- -1 S, acs to Centers: Of that growth: Ri VT-- 75% in District Centers: ,�;� L • Downtown SKIA • Wheaton/Riddell • Wheaton/ Sheridan i Downtown • Charleston District Center Neighborhood Center Employment Center L Cily Limits 0 US 0.5 1 Miles _j + @ G? �.. F. ESTIM ATED ACCOMMODA Downtwin Older Close In New Suburban County Area Neighborhood Development (? uni per 2.5 tb (5 units per eae) 1 unit per 5 saw) i 1.4 awes 11 acres 39 acres 289 — 580 acres j • • ta�'� , . °.IfB+�+.. Y' � a`h ' '� � � it , , `v' i� � — `�'� � ' .. _ .. ;c � � - i�.. I � o The 400 Condo ■ 72 units & 16,OOOsf of retail i ■ 4 stories & a rox. 70' tall pp �. ■ Footprint of approx. 1 /2acre =' ■ Development of this scale would take 26 acres to reach AK _•_; ,.. :- = - 2,000 units (excluding roads parkuzg and open space) if 0 39 Acres r a 20 Year Growth of : l �i ■ 280 residential units L -4 ■ 136 new job,'' o Full Bui1d0O 3 p� ■ 1,400 res� ■ 700 jobs,4350 1 �M rJDSR'71R11 �'•: ti i 9 � ?�� -.+•.1 � 2A , Y IT 1 \ i��1 i � � J 1 ' �� 4� I I. J � f _ I �I ..� � f. �� � � ' ✓� �� ��� l�.a.+�' f 3 � 'i �l � {� �� a r iii 81 Acres F r'q S 20 Year Growth of: ■ 875 Residential Units ® 425 new jobs (212,000 so ED Full Build-Out R a 2 900 Residential Units Lot* ■ 1 ,400 jobs (700,000 so • - L LJ Future Home of the Youth Wellness Campus R-1 V -- - - - - - - - - - 0 C. C Z;!r 77! (\J 71 .d e Distr t o a � 1 v dab h fwF� ` 1 �l , -� :..t ;� .•.III►, ■ Ib oil Ili, IF 1jvw Q 'c'ti• �. � t r ,,i A ' M-Rk f r � Gro s < • - z 0 0 ui b 10 0 C-, 3 M',C- C " • • • � �� � °�� Q�� ��� �0 ° LC is��r� X0'"2 !7s� .;� lL`��:`�`' � ^` ' . fi - rte" � •z` - - . t XT •�* � ,� ; � �- � �, �� , 'a � : '�� �� � ''`, �� � h ,�� +'�� ' ' - '� �.: � - a 'r - � t �r ( l� ,.- .,. + �; t ry e y'-. •� 1 t ;- 'S�3 -- i8� Q -.� �` � ,c.. _ VIP IdW kk ' A tl* ` a; i [A- r Mapping El Planning Commission. recommends mapping changes in all 3 District Centers: ■ Charleston District Center m Wheaton Sheridan District Center ■ Wheaton Riddell District Center Eii Proposed mapping amendments are exhibits B, C, & D of the Ordinance. t - .111 -9'. �� t5 '..��'y. �. `� �y � �`'• AL et no 17 ,A 4: �. fir �: • • �. 0, ' � �+ � "�,k_'!► ' -� + w�! �'Y■ .�- 1, -y ; .. a � 4.5 �• 0 0 0 IRS � s r rp, ru 5 n n n u asz- Wheaton s haQan F U . . . . . . . . . . me 65 zoned Low Density Cn ❑ Existing LA q Development: • Post Office ■ Library. ■ School Site - Youth Wellness Campus split DCC' zoned o 2 Low Density does �_F not allow schools as an out-ri htly permitte use. o h ` `;, , ; n ;. _ Ic � i Q d� a Historic zoning of commercial, Multi- family, and 1 residential. �. o Growth targets T unachievable with 1 /2 ? .b ��� -� D FIN of center as o Plan calls for an :� // ; ? • t: �` increase of nearl �' L ( � K o l S p p � erac4mt ni! `ov 4,000 eo le a � � ''. �,, 2,000 1 obs. f �' -,..� • � ` Q '�' i n ;--� r ti,i4`:-1 ..!`'rJtr�iion` a No existing residential Properties 1 eve meat Aw 4e I l k '* r sl� �' 7.� •~ ' -`I � �� -- 1 , � ��� ���(�� C 1 1 I � �li s!�f � •.teary, •� � �� � ly �1 • Ti . � i- of Planning ..-ary . . . . . . . a L ns Recommended 4s, 'ping Changes • F MO-Ia iii low Pn Changes 1. Multi - Family Regulations relaxation 2. Increased Height Limit s. Increased Visual Screening Requirement's Changes to DCC ZOM'ng WoUIld aPPRJ C�tywn • Charleston District Center (Callow Ave.) • Wheaton /Sheridan District Center • Wheaton /Riddell District Center / . and M Uza o Encouraged in Comprefiensive Plan Ei Ensures activation E of street frontage 2 Need for flexibility E Proposed Code: * Structures that are oriented towards, adjacent to, • viewable from Public ROW shall provide mixed use. * 65% of frontage on ground floor must have retail. ha. ` 9 PC W t L x a • 5 0 F O� tnd — ally OIL A PR t r _ • ti ' i In � Cc r n e U m 'Rft a Plannin g g Commission Recommends increase from 50' to 80' a Sub -Area Plan allowed for up to 65' a Bremerton is a "Metropolitan City." o o m � o IIIT OJUT RIMS o M- 9 o 0 o a Q Omaa&26 9 W- - Growth of 14,288 61,676 36,516 5,779 6,235 5,635 3 POP. Height 50' 60'+ 80' -100' 65' 39' 35 35' Design Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Standards , e e'g ' t 13 • • - _ a M =A1, I109 _T • Transitio to borhoods 1 1 • • ®env o 0 0toTy a� gradu Ell Air- • 4 P ' 1 � 1 �� � t � G"i•,,V1J t- � a�•r r Scree ROM s(mF 13 -T� nrl o,� �2 AF _ J • .• - `� �--A •, a .v• .. -+�,w. \V\+SSiaty�jy1 . + ( . f !tw " \�"' .'� l � y t'�' h ` t p yt � +� r �.. � 4" v � • _ .�•.�� �11. � 'ice 1� 1• .'� �_ � 'r � .. �• 'T �.� �r y,� 7 S� '^�- f �' � �~ �I� ;. + i} �.l mil. ^��� ' '1� � Y^ +. • � - '�_. �•� �- °s '5r r Q Ice u vn f a n n n Recomm(ended Rons Standard Rey's 1) Allow stand alone multi - family - Mixed use required in buildings fronting Public Rights of Way. 2) Increase height limits to 80' Transitions required when adjacent to Low Density 3) Visual Screening requirements along Almira Drive 20' of sight obscuring landscaping. } 1 . ,, I I .., I .ary of a i n t ry Recommended ,,ping Changes 2 Miter's S huni o Ishii Am IF r. .ice FP RR I - t Staff recommends City Council: ■ Hold an open record Public Hearing, consider testimony, and recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. Staff is available for questions I r WI ! r1P y:nx. m ar r.: tau a. J. , •� t. Is i ., ..:... 61a. i. ,..... r.. .. ....... 1.::'�:. a. � .:.n:. , 'X.:, i,: u;P� %Y'.!h. ..:i5' ^•,': .�:y;R: .,. :11.M1• ... ... : .:. .:1 l _ :.. .... ...+..:: 1:. :M I . .... ..:..w, ...P ... .. ... .n.r.,: ..:�.,..' .. f::............ .. , Y'�n'M1yq �xii. ....t th G': - A t,m,,i ta* D ri"vte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • ® gab - - - - - - - - - - - .., _ r > - �= r y s J - t 1/ 1 � �-S 1, � Imo S n tic? GI o Allow for Exce tions to m w ax setback gen: CD ■ More than one frontage H L • Site constraint's - topography & utilities ■ Existing development ■ Enhanced public features are provided to off-set increase o Parking in the front ■ Minimize rather than g ohibit parking in the front w - �rT r J ` VSO �, �'-. r "��b g , � . on corners ■ Use design criteria to achieve goals. { Sheridan 1 00' Graduated Height Border 0 WIN Wr fI . __ .�:,`AN�1 _ •-mil . � i �� 5.., • h' . 1 l' Y`iir � , �=,L.•� r '► 'I r , •` f r. ,; l Law W, wujigg r, , oi liJ (� . X4-1 i. -.4 y- , �� ^, ly #, 4 A . � I p,' �.� I •� ''� �i•' 3 F f Ib _ -} - 7' �; `✓ � X117 �� 'y � r, a , �i � yr -; a e e s • - • - . ® lsssss� sss sssss snssss v • • • . • • • • sss ss o the E' M ss ss ho)', s _ iii:? .� L� J3� L1i"r ,` ., f � • • ._ � •tit �� 1 ' „r. � � , '.1� ' rt j fir., .�..� .• . � 4 ..C• � f . � or rw`" 1, �� � l.'1 • \7 ,r t _ n til n n ��her'ucclan Existing City Wide Code Requires: - `� 10" visual screening where 4 + ��o . Commercial Zoning and Residential i f Zoning , P ° . meet. • Alley is a rear and ;° ( °- WOOF, area - 10' visual �� -. _L -_ screening is required. o 1. 41 • �3 1 Optional Preferred Building Existing Building Location Q Furniture Addition Store Zoning i Code Ideal Building Location Zoning: CC. - V • 10' Front "" �' 'S Setback! • Drive Thru ok x1 F i AGENDA BILL 'BA CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 5252 amending Study Session Date: July 9, 2014 Chapter 2.18 of the Bremerton Municipal COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 Code entitled "Audit Committee and City Department: City Attorney's Office Auditor" Presenter: Roger A. Lubovich Phone: 473 -2345 SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance amends Chapter 2.18 relating to the Auditing Committee and the City Auditor by clarifying the designation of Council Members and the Certified Public Accountant to the Audit Committee and makes other related changes. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 5252 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation ❑x Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda Z General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 5252 amending Chapter 2.18 of the Bremerton Municipal Code related to the Audit Committee and City Auditor. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/25/13 ORDINANCE NO. 5252 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Chapter 2.18 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Audit Committee and City Auditor." WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update provisions of Chapter 2.18 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to the Audit Committee; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 2.18 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Audit Committee and City Auditor" is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 2.18 AUDIT COMMITTEE AND CITY AUDITOR 2.18.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of the Audit Committee, as provided in the Charter of the City of Bremerton, Article III, Section 18, shall be to assure elected City officials and management that the internal auditing of the municipality and its departments, programs and activities is performed in accordance with standards for the practice of internal auditing and with professional standards of conduct. "Internal Auditing is an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add value and improve an organization's operations. It helps an organization accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control, and governance processes" as defined by the institute Institute of Internal Auditors. To this end, the Committee will: (a) Conduct annual appraisals of the City Auditor's performance as to effectiveness and efficiency; including a comparison of planned and actual audits; (b) Review and approve the internal audit work schedule and planned budget for the coming year; (c) Review results of external and internal audits, prior to release of internal audit reports, with specific attention to: (1) Restrictions; (2) Cooperation received; (3) Audit findings; (4) Audit recommendations; (d) Review and approve appropriate special audit requests; (e) Review and recommend revisions to policies relating to unethical and illegal procedures; (f) Ensure the City Auditor's independence of management; (g) Meet regularly with the City Auditor; 1 Audit Committee and City Auditor (h) Help to assure that management is exercising due professional care. 2.18.015 SCOPE OF WORK. The three (3) fundamental characteristics of internal auditing function include (1) risk assessment and control, (2) operations: effectiveness, efficiency, and improvement, and (3) compliance with laws regulations, and contracts. The scope of internal auditing will include but not be limited to: (a) Assurance Services - traditional audits, investigations and testing, performance evaluation, limited assurance. (b) Consulting and operations improvement services - Business process reviews, internal control education and other training as requested and approved by Audit Committee, and self - assessments reviews. (c) Ethics Compliance reviews per Chapter 2.96 BMC and compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. (d) Serve as a liaison between external auditors to assure audit coordination. 2.18.020 MEMBERSHIP. (a) There shall be an Auditing-Committee consisting of two (2) Council members and an independent Certified Public Accountant to be designated by the City Council, and two (2) Bremerton residents selected by the designated members of the Audit Committee. The City Council may designate b y m°j^"ty vot°, one (1) alternate member to serve in the absence of either or both of the appointed Council Members. The designation of the Council Members to the Audit Committee, including the alternate member, shall be by the Council President. The designation of the Certified Public Accountant to the Audit Committee shall be by vote of the City Council. (b) The Audit Committee shall appoint the City Auditor to serve at the pleasure of the Audit Committee. The City Auditor shall only be removed by the majority vote of the entire membership of the Committee sitting as a whole. (c) In order to foster continuity, during the first meeting in January, the Committee shall elect one (1) of its members as Chairperson and one (1) as Vice Chairperson to serve a term of one (1) year. The Chairperson, or in his or her absence the Vice Chairperson, will conduct the order of business at meetings, coordinate communications of the committee, approve the Auditor's payroll and expenses, and perform all other duties as specified by the Committee. 2.18.030 TERM. Audit Committee members shall serve terms as follows: (a) ' The two (2) Bremerton residents selected by the other members of the Audit Committee shall serve three (3) year staggered terms. The first two (2) appointments shall made as follows; one (1) iauFfeady sitting resident (Citizen Position #1) shall expir-e on Deeem 31 2000; a nd the s e en s itti ng r (Citizen Position #2) sh e December-3 2001. At th ° rati ,.late of a e h tet: n, a f esi e t a s h ll Residents may be appointed to an unlimited number of terms. (b) The Council members designated by the City Council shall serve for a term up to the unexpired term of their current elected office, and may be re- appointed during successive terms of elected office. 2 Audit Committee and City Auditor (c) The independent Certified Public Accountant selected by the City Council shall serve a three (3) year term, , and may be re- appointed for an unlimited number of terms. The City Auditor shall be a permanent ex officio member of the Audit Committee. In the event that any member does not serve a full term, either by resignation or removal, a replacement shall be selected by the original appointing authority to serve the remainder of the term. 2.18.040 VOTING AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST. (a) Decisions of the Committee shall be by majority vote of the members in attendance except that if a tie vote occurs the City Auditor may cast a tie - breaking vote. A Committee member may abstain from participating and voting at will or may be requested by Committee consensus to abstain from participating and voting on issues that are sensitive subject to that member's area of control or influence. _(b) VAen a depaAment whieh is dir-eetly represented by an Audit Committee memb is the subjeet of a paftieulaf audit, that member- of the Conunittee will be exeluded ftem. pai4ieipating in that peffien of the Audit Committee agenda affeeting I . . . nd will also be prohibited fiem being present dur-ing any Audit Cormnittee diseussion of that audit, w hether it a s the i r pert seepe o r fi release of a report (eb) There shall be no voting by proxy except that any member who will be absent may prepare a written statement of position to the Chairperson in advance of any meeting to be read to the members present during that meeting. 2.18.050 MEETINGS. The Audit Committee shall meet on the date, time and place as established by the Committee meet o the se n d T'h„rsda„ of each month Audit Committee meeti shy eemmenee at 4 : 00 r in the Cit C eil C e Ro om. i the ev ent the re gular-! seheduled meeting falls on a holiday, the Audit Committee shall meet on the third Thufsday o the me=th B majer- v ote , a nd u pon etiee to the u bli a differ-ea time or - date or p l e o f regularly seheduled meeting may be designated by the Committe 2.18.060 REPORTING. The Audit Committee shall issue periodic reports to the City Council and Mayor and will advise City Council and Mayor at any time and on any issue that the Committee deems essential for the effective performance of duties and decisions by them; provided, that: (a) The Committee and the parties will comply with Chapter 42.17 RCW (Public Disclosure Laws). (b) The Committee shall present to the City Council and the Mayor, on a yearly basis, the City Auditor's summary of audits performed, reported upon, and responded to by management. The City Auditor shall report administratively and functionally to the Audit Committee. In carrying out duties and responsibilities, the City Auditor shall have full, free and unrestricted access to all City activities, records, property and personnel. The City Auditor will advise the Audit Committee, at regular meetings and upon request, of the audit work anticipated, scheduled and /or performed. To this end: 3 Audit Committee and City Auditor (a) The City Auditor shall prepare projected schedules for each quarter with the proposed objective and scope of audit work for each audit, for Committee review and approval. (b) The City Auditor may discuss audit objectives with the Audit Committee and relevant management before the start date of an audit and as needed. (c) The City Auditor may discuss audit findings with the appropriate management during the course of an audit and with the Committee as deemed necessary. However, the Audit Committee reserves the privilege of reviewing draft reports before such reports are issued and routed; provided, that the review privilege shall not exceed five days from report completion. (d) A final draft of each audit report will be forwarded to the director or elected official of that department for review and comment before it is released. A copy will also be provided to the Mayor. The department must respond in writing specifying either agreement with the audit findings and recommendations or reasons for disagreement with findings and /or recommendations, plans for implementing solutions to identified problems and a timetable to complete such activities. The response must be forwarded to the Auditor within twenty (20) working days unless an extension is granted by the Auditor. The Auditor will include the full text of the department and director /elected official's response in the report. (e) A copy of each final report will be provided to the Mayor, City Council, Director of Financial Services, responsible department head, and others as directed by the Audit Committee. n .. u bli,. ,. w ill be maintained i th Cit Gl e ffi (f) Upon official submittal to the City Council and Mayor the report and response will no longer be exempt from public disclosure. (g) The City Auditor will ensure adequate and appropriate responses to audit findings through periodic follow -up reports to the City Council. 2.18.070 CONFIDENTIALITY. All employees and the auditee involved in an investigation by the City Auditor are subject to strict confidentiality. In order to protect the integrity of the Internal Audit function, members of the Audit Committee will be held to a strict standard of confidentiality. Strict confidentiality will be maintained for any communication between the City Auditor and Committee members or between individual Committee members, regardless of whether the communication is generated during an Audit Committee meeting. It is further understood that the City Auditor is to retain all confidences obtained from managers during performance of an audit. The City Auditor will communicate confidences obtained during an audit at the time a report is presented to the Audit Committee if such information is significant to the report conclusions and findings, or if it is relevant and necessary to a request of the Committee to change the scope of an audit or to discontinue a particular audit. Confidences, which relate to illegal activities, shall be immediately communicated to the City Attorney and /or State Auditor 2.18.080 REMOVAL. The Audit Committee may request the removal of a member by majority vote of the entire membership of the Committee sitting as a whole, to the appointing authority of that member. 4 Audit Committee and City Auditor 2.18.090 PROCEDURES. The Audit Committee and the City Auditor may adopt such policies, procedures, and directives as are necessary to fulfill the purposes of their functions. Proposed policies, procedures and directives shall be presented to the Audit Committee during a meeting open to t-he -wand may be approved upon a majority vote of the Audit Committee. C—epies shall�e maintained in the City Geoneil 094ee-. SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the day of , 2014 GREG WHEELER, Council President Approved this day of 9 2014 PATTY LENT, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of 9 2014 EFFECTIVE the day of 1 2014 ORDINANCE NO. R:\Legal\Legal \Ordinances \City Council \Chapter 2.18 Audit Committee and City Auditor.docx 5 Audit Committee and City Auditor 8A From: Robert Parker To: Greg Wheeler Cc: Shannon Corin Roy Runyon Bob Dollar Subject: Council Agenda Item 8A Audit Committee Date: Thursday, July 17, 2014 5:26:00 PM Council President Wheeler: Last night I discussed with you that I didn't think a call for public comment was made for the audit committee items on the agenda. I had driven in to the meeting specifically to comment. Reviewing the BKAT recording I see that you actually did call for public comment and somehow both Mr. Dollar and I both didn't hear and missed the call. I believe Mr. Dollar also intended to comment. As shown to you last night, I had already prepared notes to address the council as well as signed in for public commenting. Thank you for the courteous and professional way you responded to my error and my missing the opportunity. As you know, I have concerns at the "on the fly" new changes and selective member exclusions orchestrated in the last selection process and now apparent pushing citizen members involvement away from full committee participation. I believe that the Charter writers intended just the opposite but understand that there may be a few legal loopholes jumped through that appear to allow the exclusions. For an already semi - secret committee, there are very few opportunities for citizens to participate or weigh in on the audit committee. In my opinion, It's the citizen members involvement, not the council's that bring a level of trust to this nontransparent committee. My belief is that a few on the current council have orchestrated an overwhelming new influence over this important committee. So who shall audit the council's orchestration and heavy hand of what gets audited? This is what I had planned to speak about last night. A transparent government with citizen inclusion is one to be trusted, even when the decisions are not agreed with. I am hopeful that the council will indeed revisit this topic again as promised last night so the audit committee can be restored to a higher level of citizen participation and trust. The sooner, the better. I ask that if possible that this correspondence be added to the July 16, 2014 council packet for agenda item #8A and made part of the public record. Thank you, Robert Parker 360- 377 -6540 office 360- 377 -2356 fax Be AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Approval to eliminate the 1 FTE Study Session Date: July 9, 2014 Forestry Manager position, decrease 1 FTE COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 16, 2014 Forest Service Specialist Senior position, Department: PW &U add1 FTE Forest Service Specialist, and Presenter: Chal Martin add1 FTE Office Assistant Senior Phone: 360- 473 -5758 SUMMARY: We are proposing elimination of the Forestry Division Manager position, with the management duties of that position to be assigned to remaining division managers. To help with the additional administrative work associated with the Forestry function, we are proposing to add an Office Assistant Senior position. There will be no change in the total FTE in the Forestry Department. The reorganization consists of the following: • The Administration Division Manager will absorb oversight of the administrative, timber harvest, project coordination, and best practices. The Forestry Supervisor will report to the Administration Division Manager. • The Wastewater Division Manager will oversee the Biosolids program. • The Water Resources Division Manager will oversee regulatory compliance activities and watershed oversight functions. • The Maintenance Division Manager, in coordination with the Police Department, the Public Works Director, and other Public Works and City departments, will oversee the City's shooting range. • The current vacant position of Forestry Service Specialist Senior (grade 12) will be reclassified to a Forestry Service Specialist (grade 10) position. • An Office Assistant Senior position (grade 8) will be added. • Follow -up desk audits when necessary and appropriate to ensure proper position classifications. ATTACHMENTS: 1) M &P Salary Schedule and 2) Appendix A Teamster's Wage Schedule FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This reorganization of the Forestry function will save $113,000 in salary and benefit expenses in 2014, and $70,000 in 2015. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation x❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑x General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the elimination of 1 FTE Forestry Manager position, decrease 1 FTE Forest Service Specialist Senior position, the addition of 1 FTE Forest Service Specialist, and the addition of 1 FTE Office Assistant Senior. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/25/13 CITY OF BREMERTON MANAGEMENT, PROFESSIONAL, CONFIDENTIAL & FIDUCIARY SALARY PLAN - 2014 General Wage Adjustment 1.5% - Effective 1 -1 -14 PAY SALARY BAND TITLE BASE RATE 1 RATE 2 RATE 3 RATE 4 RATE 5 RATE 6 RATE 7 RATE 8 23 CITY ATTORNEY MONTH 9,851.86 10.350.60 10,609.38 10,87462 11.146.46 11,425.14 11,710.84 12.003.58 POLICE CHIEF SEMI -MONTH 4,925.93 5,175.30 5,304.69 5,437.31 5,573.23 5,712.57 5,85542 6,001.79 _A NNUA L_ _ 118,222.32 12 127,312 130,495. 13 _ _ 137,1 140,530.08 1 44,042.96 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 197.04 207.01 212.19 217.49 222.93 228.50 234.22 240.07 22 DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES MONTH 9.377.14 9,851.86 10,098.16 10,350.60 10,609.38 10,874.62 11,146.46 11,425 14 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES SEMI -MONTH 4,688.57 4,925.93 5,049.08 5,175.30 5,304.69 5,437.31 5,573.23 5,712.57 FIRE CHIEF ANNUAL _ _ 112,525.68 118,222.32 121,177. 124,207.20 127,312.56 130,495.44 _ 133,757.52 13_ 7,101.68 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ADMINISTRATOR SEMI -MO DEF COMP 187.54 197.04 201.96 207.01 212.19 217.49 222.93 _ 228.50 21 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MONTH 8,925.32 9,377 14 9,611.58 9,851.86 10,098.16 10,350.60 10,609 38 10,874 62 SEMI -MONTH 4,462.66 4,688.57 4,805.79 4.925.93 5,049.08 5,175.30 5,304.69 5,43731 ANNUAL 107,103.84 1 . 12,525.68 _ 115,338.96 _ 118,222.32 _ 121,177.92 124,207.20 _ 127,312.5 1 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 178.51 187.54 192.23 197.04 201.96 207.01 212.19 217.49 20 ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF MONTH 8,495.26 8,925.32 9,148.46 9,377.14 9,611.58 9,851.86 10,098.16 10,350.60 CITY ENGINEER SEMI -MONTH 4,24763 4,462.66 4,574.23 4,688.57 4,805.79 4,925.93 5,049.08 5,175.30 DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION ANNUAL _ 1 107 ____ 109, 781.52 ___ 112,525.68 _ 11 118, 121,177.92 1 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 169.91 178.51 182.97 187.54 192.23 197.04 201.96 207.01 19 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY MONTH 8,085.90 8,49526 8,707.64 8,925.32 9,148.46 9,377.14 9,611 58 9,851.86 SEMI -MONTH 4,042.95 4,24763 4,353.82 4,462.66 4,57423 4,688.57 4,805.79 4,925.93 ANNUAL 9 7,030.80 101,943.12 _ 104,491. 107,103.84 1 112,525.68 115,338.96 118,222.32 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 161.72 169.91 174.15 178.51 - 182.97 187.54 Y 192.23 197.04 18 MONTH 7,696.30 8,085.90 8,288.06 8,49526 8,707.64 8,925.32 9,148.46 9,377.14 SEMI -MONTH 3,848.15 4,04295 4.144.03 4,24763 4,353.82 4,462.66 4,574.23 4,688.57 ANNUAL 92,355.60 97,030.80 99,456.72 101,943.12 104,491.68 107,103.84 _ 109,781.52 112,525.68 SEMI -M0 DEF COMP 153.93 161.72 165.76 169.91 174.15 178.51 182.97 187.54 17 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY III MONTH 7,325.46 7,696.30 7.888.68 8,085.90 8,288.06 8,495.26 8,707.64 8,925.32 CITY AUDITOR SEMI -MONTH 3,662.73 3,848.15 3,944.34 4,042.95 4,144.03 4,247.63 4,353.82 4,462.66 A NNUAL 87,905.52 92,355.60 94,664.16 97,030.80 99,456.72 _ 101,9 104,491.68 107,103.84 SEMI -M0 DEF COMP 146.51 153.93 157.77 161.72 165.76 169.91 174.15 178.51 16 ASST. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MONTH 6,97248 7,325.46 7,508.56 7,696.30 7,888.68 8,085.90 8,288.06 8,495.26 ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR SEMI -MONTH 3,486.24 3,662.73 3,754.28 3,848.15 3,944.34 4,042.95 4,144.03 4,247.63 FORESTRY MANAGER ANNUAL _ _ 83,669.76 87,905.52 90,102. 92,355.60 _94_, 664.16 _ 97,030.80 99,456.72 101,943.12 INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGER SEMI -M O DEF COM 139.45 _ 146.51 150 153.93 157.77 1 _ _165.76 169.91 MANAGING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS MANAGER RISK MANAGER UTILITY OPERATIONS MANAGER WASTEWATER MANAGER WATER RESOURCE MANAGER 15 COURT ADMINISTRATOR MONTH 6,636.50 6,972.48 7,146.80 7,325.46 7,508.56 7,69630 7,888.68 8,085.90 BUILDING OFFICIAL SEMI -MONTH 3,318.25 3.486.24 3,573.40 3,662.73 3,754.28 3,848.15 3,944.34 4,042.95 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER ANNUAL _ 7 . 9,638.00 83,669.78 85,761.60 87,905.52 90,102.72 92,3 _ _ 94,664.1 97,030.80 PROJECT MANAGER SEMI -MO DEF COMP 132.73 139.45 142.94 146.51 150.17 153.93 157.77 161.72 CITY OF BREMERTON MANAGEMENT, PROFESSIONAL, CONFIDENTIAL & FIDUCIARY SALARY PLAN - 2014 General Wage Adjustment 1.5% - Effective 1 -1 -14 PAY SALARY BAND TITLE BASE RATE 1 RATE 2 RATE 3 RATE 4 RATE 6 RATE 6 RATE 7 RATE 8 14 ASSISTANT FINANCE OFFICER MONTH 6,316.70 6.636.50 6,802.40 6,972.48 7,146.80 7,325.46 7,508.56 7,696.30 PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITY FINANCE MANAGER SEMI -MONTH 3,158.35 3,318.25 3,401.20 3,486.24 3,573.40 3,662.73 3,754.28 3,848.15 ANNUAL 75,8 00.40 7 9,638.00 8 1,628.8 0 83,6 69.76 85,761.60 87,905.5 90,102.72 92,355.60 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 126.33 132.73 136.05 139.45 142.94 146.51 150.17 153.93 13 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 11 MONTH 6,012.32 6,316.70 6,474.62 6,636.50 6,802.40 6,97248 7,146.80 7,325.46 CITY PROSECUTOR SEMI -MONTH 3,006.16 3.158.35 3,237.31 3,318.25 3,401.20 3,486.24 3,573.40 3,662.73 FLEET MANAGER ANNUAL 7 75,800.4 77,695.44 79,638.00 _ 81,628.80 8 85,761.60 - 87,90 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 120.25 126.33 129.49 132.73 136.05 139.45 142.94 146.51 12 ATHLETICS/RECREATION MANAGER MONTH 5,722.64 6.012.32 6,162.66 6,316.70 6,47462 6,636.50 6,802.40 6,972.48 CDBG ADMINISTRATOR SEMI -MONTH 2,861.32 3,006.16 3,081.33 3,158.35 3,23731 3,318.25 3,401.20 3,486.24 PARKS MAINTENANCE MANAGER A NNUAL _ _ _ 68,671.68 _- 72,147.84 _ 73,951.92 75,80_0.4 - 77,695.4 - - 79,638.00 81,628.8_0 83,66 POLICE SUPPORT MANAGER SEMI -MO DEF C _ 114.45 120.25 123. _ 126 .33 1 _ 132.73 136.0 1 39.45 RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST 11 ADMINISTRATION DIVISION MANAGER MONTH 5,446.88 5,722.64 5,86568 6,012.32 6,162.66 6,316.70 6,474.62 6,636.50 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT SEMI -MONTH 2,723.44 2,861.32 2,932.84 3,006.16 3,081.33 3,158.35 3,237.31 3,318.25 LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT ANNUAL _ _ _ - 65,362.56 - 68,671.68 - 70,388.16 _ 72, _ 7 - 75,800.40 77,695.44 _ _79,63 PARALEGAL S EMI -MO D COMP 108.94 114.4 117.3 _ 120.25 _ 1 23.25 -- 126.33 129.49 -_ 13 2.73 PARK DEVELOPMENT PLANNER PUBLIC ACCESS MANAGER SENIOR PLANNER 10 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY I MONTH 5.184.40 5,446.88 5,583.06 5,722.64 5,865.68 6,012.32 6,162.66 6,316.70 ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR 11 SEMI -MONTH 2,592.20 2,723.44 2,791.53 2,861.32 2,932.84 3,006.16 3,081 33 3,158.35 BUDGET ANALYST ANNUAL 62,212.80 65,362.56 66,996.72 _ 68,671.68 70,388.16 72,147.84 73,951.92 75,800.40 CDBG COORDINATOR S EMI -M O D C _ 103.69 - 108.9 ___ 111.66 - 114.45 -.---11.7.31 120_25 123.25 126.33 HR ANALYST II ^ 9 MONTH 4,934.58 5,184.40 5,314.02 5,446.88 5,583.06 5,722.64 5,865.68 6,012.32 SEMI -MONTH 2,467.29 2.59220 2,657.01 2,723.44 2,791 53 2,861.32 2,932.84 3,006.16 ANNUAL 59,214.96 62,212.80 63,768.24 65,362.56 66,996.72 68,671.68 70,388.16 72,147.84 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 98.691 103.69 106.28 108.94 111.66 114.45 117.31 120.25 8 BKAT PRODUCTION ADMINISTRATOR MONTH 4,696.84 4,934.58 5,05796 5,184.40 5,31402 5,446.88 5,583.06 5,722.64 CITY CLERK SEMI -MONTH 2,34842 2.467.29 2,528.98 2,592.20 2,657.01 2,723.44 2,791.53 2,861.32 CIVIL SERVICE OFFICER /HR ASSISTANT ANNUAL 56,362.08 59,214.96 60,695.52 62,212.80 63,768.24 65 ,362.56 66, 996.72 68,671.68 COUNCIL /AUDITOR ASSISTANT SEMI -MO DEF COMP 93.94 98.69 101.16 103.69 106.28 108.94 111.66 114.45 7 ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR I MONTH 4,470.48 4,696.84 4,814.22 4,934.58 5,057.96 5,184.40 5,314.02 5,446.88 CDBG PROGRAM SPECIALIST SEMI -MONTH 2,235.24 2,348.42 2,407.11 2,467.29 2,528.98 2,592.20 2,657.01 2,723.44 ANNUAL _ 53,645.76 56,362.08 57,770.64 _ 59,214.96 60,695.52 _ 62,212.80 63,768.24 65,362. SEMI -MO DEF COMP 89.41 93.94 96.28 98.69 101.16 - 103.69 106.28 108.94 6 MONTH 4,255.06 4,470.48 4,582.26 4,696.84 4,814.22 4,934.58 5,057.96 5,184.40 SEMI -MONTH 2,127.53 2,235.24 2,291.13 2,348.42 2,407.11 2,467.29 2,528.98 2,592.20 AN NUAL _ 51, 53,645.76 54,987.12 56,362.08 _ 57,770.64 59,2 6 0,695.5 2 62,212.80 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 85.10 89.411 91.65 93.94 96.28 98.69 a 101.16 103.69 5 LEGAL ASSISTANT II MONTH 4,050.04 4,255.06 4,361.48 4,470.48 4,58226 4,696.84 4,814.22 4,934.58 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERALIST SEMI -MONTH 2,025.02 2,127.53 2,180.74 2,235.24 2,291.13 2,348.42 2,407.11 2,467.29 A NNUAL _ _ 48, 600.48 51,060.72 5 2,337.7 6_ 53,645.76 54_98 56 - 5 59,214.96 SEMI -MO DEF COMP 1 81.00 85.10 87.23 89.41 91.65 93.94 96.28 98.69 4 LEGAL ASSISTANT I MONTH 3,854.86 4,050.04 4,151.28 4,255.06 4,361.48 4,470.48 4,582.26 4,696.84 SEMI -MONTH 1,927.431 2,025.02 2,075.641 2,127.531 2,180.741 2,235.241 2,291.131 2,348.42 APPENDIX A TEAMSTERS 2014 EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2014 1.5% General Wage Adjustment 12 Mos. 12 Mos. 12 Mos. 12 Mos. 12 Mos. 12 Mos. Hours Worked Per Year: 2088 Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Stea G Grade 4 Annual 33,471 34,348 35,183 36,143 37,125 38,085 39,087 Parks Laborer Monthly 2,789 2,862 1 2,932 3,012 3,094 3,174 3,257 Semi- Monthlyl 1,395 1 1,431 1 1,4661 1,506 1 1,547 1 1,587 1,629 Hourly 16.03 16.45 - 16.85 17.31 17.78 18.24 18.72 OT Hourly 24.05 24.68 25.28 25.97 26.67 27.36 28.08 +Longevity Base +1% 16.19 16.61 17.02 17.48 17.96 18.42 18.91 Base +2% 16.35 16.78 17.19 17.66 18.14 18.60 19.09 Base +3% 16.51 16.94 17.36 17.83 18.31 18.79 19.28 Base +4% 16.67 17.11 17.52 18.00 18.49 18.97 19.47 Grade 5 Annual 35,183 36,143 37,125 38,085 39,087 40,090 41,217 Office Assistant I Monthly 2,932 3,012 3,094 3,174 3,257 3,341 3,435 Semi - Monthly 1,466 1,506 1,547 1,587 1,6291 1,671 1,718 Hourly 16.85 17.31 , 17.78 18.24 18.72 19.20 19.74 OT Hourly 25.28 25.97 26.67 27.36 28.08 28.80 29.61 +Longevity Base +1 % 17.02 17.48 17.96 18.42 18.91 19.39 19.94 Base +2% 17.19 17.66 18.14 18.60 19.09 19.58 20.13 Base +3% 17.36 17.83 18.31 18.79 19.28 19.78 20.33 Base +4% 17.52 18.00 18.49 18.97 19.47 19.97 20.53 Grade 6 Annual 37,125 38,085 39,087 40,090 41,217 42,282 43,451 Office Assistant II Monthly 3,094 3,174 3,257 3,341 3,435 3,524 3,621 Semi - Monthly 1,547 1,587 1,629 1,671 1,718 1,762 1,811 Hourly 17.78 18.24 ` 18.72 19.20 19.74 20.25 20.81 OT Hourly 26.67 27.36 28.08 28.80 29.61 30.38 31.22 +Longevity Base +1% 17.96 18.42 18.91 19.39 19.94 20.45 21.02 Base +2 % 18.14 18.60 19.09 19.58 20.13 20.66 21.23 Base +3% 18.31 18.79 19.28 19.78 20.33 20.86 21.43 Base +4 %u 18.49 18.97 19.47 19.97 20.53 21.06 21.64 Grade 7 Annual 39,087 40,090 41,217 42,282 43,451 44,579 45,748 Customer Service Representative Monthly 3,257 3,341 3,435 3,524 3,621 3,715 3,812 Evidence Property Control Specialist Semi - Monthly 1,629 1,671 1 1,718 1,762 1,811 1,858 1,906 Office Assistant III Hourly 18.72 19.20 19.74: 20.25 20.81 ; 21.35 21.91 Police Records Specialist I OT Hourly 28.08 28.801 29.61 30.38 31.22 32.03 32.87 Base +1% 18.91 19.39 19.94 20.45 21.02 21.56 22.13 Base +2% 19.09 19.58 20.13 20.66 21.23 21.78 22.35 Base +3% 19.28 19.78 20.33 20.86 21.43 21.99 22.57 Base +4% 19.47 19.97 20.53 21.06 21.64 22.20 22.79 Grade 8 Annual 41,217 42,282 1 43,451 1 44,579 45,748 47,043 48,295 Accounting Assistant II Monthly 3,435 3,524 3,621 3,715 3,812 3,920 4,025 Automotive Tech Assistant Semi - Monthly 1,718 1,762 1,811 1,858 1,906 1,960 2,013 Human Resource Assistant Hourly 19.74 20.25 20.81 21.35 21.91 22.53 23.13 Lead Evidence Property Contr. Spec. OT Hourly 29.61 30.38 31.22 32.03 32.87 33.80 34.70 Legal Technician Base +1% 19.94 20.45 21.02 21.56 22.13 22.76 23.36 Office Assistant Senior Base +2% 20.13 20.66 21.23 21.78 22.35 22.98 23.59 Recreation Program Coordinator I Base +3% 20.33 20.86 21.43 21.99 22.57 23.21 23.82 Base +4% 20.53 21.06 21.64 22.20 22.79 23.43 24.06 APPENDIX A TEAMSTERS 2014 EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2014 1.5% General Wage Adjustment 12 Mos. 12 Mos. 12 Mos. 12 Mos. 12 Mos. 12 Mos. Hours Worked Per Year: 2088 Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Step G Grade 9 Annual 43,451 44,579 45,748 47,043 48,295 49,569 50,989 Accounting Assistant III Monthly 3,621 3,715 3,812 3,920 4,025 4,131 4,249 Police Records Specialist II Semi-Monthlyl 1,811 1,858 1,906 1,960 2,013 2,066 2,125 Water Resources Assistant Hourly 20.81 21.35 21.91 22.53 23.13 23.74 , 24.42 OT Hourly 31.22 32.03 32.87 33.80 34.70 35.61 36.63 Base +1% 21.02 21.56 22.13 22.76 23.36 23.98 24.66 Base +2% 21.23 1 21.78 22.35 22.98 23.59 1 24.21 24.91 Base +3% 21.43 21.99 22.57 23.21 23.82 24.45 25.15 Base +4% 21.64 22.20 22.79 23.43 24.06 24.69 25.40 ms's Grade 10 Annual 45,748 47,043 48,295 49,569 50,989 52,430 53,829 Accounting Assistant Senior Monthly 3,812 3,920 4,025 4,131 4,249 4,369 4,486 Office Assistant Senior Specialist Serni-Monthlyl 1,906 1,960 2,013 2,066 2,125 2,185 2,243 Parks Service Specialist Hourly 21.91 22.53 23113 23.74 ' 24.42 25.11• 25.78 Payroll Specialist OT Hourly 32.87 33.80 34.70 35.61 36.63 37.67 38.67 Project Assistant Base +1% 22.13 22.76 23.36 23.98 24.66 25.36 26.04 Web Support Specialist Base +2% 22.35 22.981 23.59 24.21 24.91 25.61 26.30 WWTP Maintenance Tech Trainee Base +3% 22.57 23.21 23.82 24.45 25.15 25.86 26.55 Base +4% 22.79 23.43 24.06 24.69 25.40 26.11 26.81 Grade 11 Annual 48,295 49,569 50,989 52,430 53,829 55,395 56,877 Building & Development Specialist I Monthly 4,025 4,131 4,249 4,369 4,486 4,616 4,740 Engineering Technician II Semi - Monthly 2,013 2,066 2,125 2,185 2,243 2,308 2,370 Permit Technician Hourly 23.13 23.74 24.42 1 25.11 25.78 26.53 27.24 Recreation Program Coordinator II OT Hourly 34.70 35.61 36.63 37.67 38.67 39.80 40.86 Sign Shop Service Specialist Base +1% 23.36 23.98 24.66 25.36 26.04 26.80 27.51 Street Service Specialist Base +2% 23.59 24.21 24.91 25.61 26.30 27.06 27.78 Utilities Service Specialist Base +3% 23.82 24.45 25.15 25.86 26.55 27.33 28.06 Water Operator Base +4% 24.06 24.691 25.40 26.11 26.81 27.59 28.33 WWTP Operator Trainee Grade 12 Annual 50,989 52,430 53,829 55,395 56,877 58,360 60,009 Court Security Home Detention Spec. Monthly 4,249 4,369 4,486 4,616 4,740 4,863 5,001 Deputy City Clerk Semi - Monthly 2,125 2,185 2,243 2,308 2,370 2,432 2,501 Forestry Service Specialist Senior Hourly i 24.42 25.11 25.78 ' 26.53 i 27.24 27.95 28.74 Parks Service Specialist Senior OT Hourly 36.63 37.67 38.67 39.80 40.86 41.93 43.11 Probation Officer Base +1% 24.66 25.36 26.04 26.80 27.51 28.23 29.03 Recreation Program Coordinator III Base +2% 24.91 25.61 26.30 27.06 27.78 28.51 29.31 Warrant Officer Base +3% 25.15 25.86 26.55 27.33 28.06 28.79 29.60 WWTP Industrial Mechanic Base +4% 25.40 26.11 1 26.81 27.59 28.33 1 29.07 29.89 Grade 13 Annual 53,829 55,395 56,877 58,360 60,009 61,721 63,329 Automotive Equipment Technician Monthly 4,486 4,616 4,740 4,863 5,001 5,143 5,277 Engineerin Technician III Semi - Monthly 2,243 2,308 2,370 2,432 2,501 2,572 2,639 PC Technician Hourly 25.78: 26.53 27.24: 27.95 28.74 ; 29.56 30.33 Sign Shop Service Specialist Senior OT Hourly 38.67 39.80 40.86 41.93 43.11 44.34 45.50 Streets Service Specialist Senior Base +1% 26.04 26.80 27.51 28.23 29.03 29.86 30.63 Utilities Service Specialist Senior Base +2% 26.30 27.06 27.78 28.51 29.31 30.15 30.94 Water Operator Senior Base +3% 26.55 27.33 28.06 28.79 29.60 30.45 31.24 WWTP Lab Technician Base +4% 26.81 27.59 28.33 29.07 29.89 30.74 31.54