Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2014 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 ❑ Phone (360)473-5280 NOVEMBER 19, 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. BPD SWEARING-IN CEREMONY— Police Officer Jeff Schaefer 4. MAYOR'S REPORT 5. BPD BRIEFING—City of Bremerton Police Chief Steve Strachan v. KE13A QR-ICCIN.G Item will be rescheduled... 7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Claims & Check Register B. Minutes of Meeting — November 5, 2014 C. Minutes of Budget Workshop— November 6, 2014 D. Minutes of Study Session — November 12, 2014 E. Minutes of Budget Workshop— November 13, 2014 F. Interlocal Agreement with the City of Port Orchard for Water Supply G. Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County Administrative Services for Court Security Services H. Appointment of Patty Lent to the Kitsap Transit Board Composition Review Committee 9. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 5263 amending Chapter 20.52 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled "Sign Standards" B. Public Hearing on Resolution No. 3237 establishing the Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program, Schedule, and Public Participation Plan; and to suspend Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications in 2016 C. Public Hearing on Revenue Sources for Proposed 2015 City Budget(To receive public comment only...) 10. GENERAL BUSINESS A. Ordinance No. 5264 levying Property Taxes for Collection in 2015 B. Resolution No. 3238 amending and re-establishing City Rates & Fees for 2015 C. Ordinance No. 5265 amending 2015 Rates & Fees for Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and other Related Services 11. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING ® Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations please contact the City Clerk at(360) 473-5323 at least 24 hours prior to the Meeting. OATH OF OFFICE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KITSAP I, Jeff Schaefer solemnly swear that I am a Citizen of the United States and of the State of Washington; That I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and Laws of the State of Washington; That I will abide by the Code of Ethics and Conduct as set forth in the Police Policy Manual; And will, to the best of my judgment, skill and ability, truly, faithfully, diligently and impartially perform the duties of the position of Police Officer, in and for the City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington, as such duties are prescribed by law. Jeff Schaefer Subscribed and swor o b fore this 19th day of November, 2014. Sign re of Official Adminis Bring the Oath J dge James Docter ,/Bremerton Municipal Court BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKERS LIST PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME BELOW IF YOU PLAN TO COMMENT SO YOUR NAME CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CLERK THANK YOU join us on Friday, December ip I•GI-GIAnnum Z 4 1 9k IV I te St • 1 anGer Fertc a (wa y (k You'll find unique Santa will arrive by fire truck at the Shops &Art Galleries Naval Museum at 5:30PM. filled with artwork Stick around for the 41 and gems, and one-of-a-kind tree lighting and BHS gifts to give or to keep. marching band! Meet artists and shop owners, old friends and new! We've wrapped up the From 6:00 to 7:OOPM, holiday spirit all for you! have your picture taken with Santa by / Hudson Photography Hop on the HorseL Artistry at the Kitsap Drawn Carriage Historical Society. Ride at Pacific & Burwell. It's free and fun for all ages. O M `Y Stop by the Sing with the Evergreen Children's Sweet Adelines carolers, Theatre &Aurora choirs and chorales. Valentinetti Their holiday music Puppet Museum at brings good cheer e y= 257 4th Street to around town. Q see exhibits and enjoy free refreshments! For good things O to eat just walk O down the street, O Keep WinterFest each step of going with dinner and friends. the way, you'll find , lots of treats! The restaurants are Like hot cocoa ready with good cheer and and goodies so sweet. fine fare, some even have live music to share. 1'e�entec� �y ��te �brVn�uNht �u��ne�� ,���6Caa�a6n, �bW'n�b�t'n �u�nne��e� anq! �6Ca�i ��7en�t51'�. Poster Produced by the City of Bremerton's Mayor's Office For more information, contact Sandy at 360-377-8888. 4L L 1, 1axpAcl ulil 41anWtel -hidta,y 5th, 5:00 8:00 F-) 1"At S;1,111marri ves w-11,11 I'lle lco .Prl 11COSS Bm)k :Mobile 5:�-)5-8:00 Phi)k-) wildi 'S;i,i 11;1 0(1 P N1 I I-I ic I i I I low: lip • '� .�. �;� '� *.� qtr . ♦• .. � * • of It lor ilk S po I I's -ored 1).N; the Nlmllelfe I'lls'11c,"'s Asso(iafi1.111 BREMERTO. N :P �, r E -E RS AAARK r1 � IPRIDAY, NOV-EMBER 21 m- SH 'ERI lN PA-R.K o ' � � '^ ` I fes' Saturday, November 22, 2014 ( Every 4th Saturday ) 10 :00 AM Meet up at the dock Point of Contact: Rick at (360) 373-0282 AA • f ~ � T a' r ►� / r. } R' .'�j'f1 - ,�.3 .,04 `'*_- ...` ��'. ..F �� .Y.� -^.." I •'�'�7A��. �-rte � �.. '11' I lMr� -t••.r_fi ,: - r ..,� .�' ,sem IJONSPARK - ADOPT A BEACH PROGRAM . v 1Y1, i Lionsenvironmentally friendly makover in • • �L• ` i. ;i; A The 1/3 mile •• 1 • grossesand _ approximately •1 shrubs. With limited funding for and wood killers being banned along the waterfront, the beach became overgrown with noxious weeds. Occasional summer weedings helped but did not prevent the weeds from multiplying.Thus Adopt A Beach was barn. If many volunteers could each maintain a small beach lot throughout the year,the weed war could be won. Many hands make light worki 11 �•'�-_'.,� • j '�~' A 1 5 ; A when: 4th Saturday of every month 9- 1 l a m Rain or Shine where: Kiwanis Park 1701 5th St. 9 �I Bremerton Upcoming Event Dates: April 26th May 24th 4" June 28th P» Judy 26th August 23rd - - - - ' Sept. 27th • - - - • - • Oct. 25th - - Nov. 22nd • • • • • • • • • • - • • • For more information please call 473-5305. �W_iN 1 RREMEMN AGENDA BILL 8A CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ■■eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee SUBJECT: Claims & Check Register Study Session Date: N/A COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 Department: Financial Services Presenter: Shannon Corin Phone: 473-5323 SUMMARY: Approval of the following checks and electronic fund transfers: 1) Check#'s 361013 through 361239 and EFT's 14336 through 14388 in the amount of $3,060,368.06. 2) Regular Payroll for the pay period ending October 31, 2014 in the amount of$746,889.98. ATTACHMENTS: None 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 seo CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ........................................................................................ SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting — Study Session Date: N/A November 5, 2014 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: Attached is a summary of the City Council Meeting on November 5, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: 0 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, November 5, 2014 A weekly meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order Wednesday, November 5, 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 Reverend Ron Anderson of Manette Community Church. MAYOR'S REPORT—Mayor Patty Lent... • Proclaimed November 2014 as "Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month", • Announced that the Annual Veterans Day Program "Honoring All Those Who Served" will be held on Tuesday, November 11 from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM in the Kitsap Sun Pavilion; • Invited interested community members to attend Youth Conflict Resolution Training hosted by the Dispute Resolution Center of Kitsap County on Thursday, November 13 from 5:30 to 7:30 PM in the Central Kitsap Junior High School; • Proclaimed November 2014 as "Hip Hop History Month'; and announced that there will be an event featuring The Malo Combo and a 3vs3 Dance Battle on Saturday, November 15 from 3:00 to 9:00 PM at the Eagle's Aerie #192 located at 205 6th Street; • Encouraged citizens to submit their vote for Alternative#2 for proposed Improvements to the SR3/SR304 Bremerton Interchange at www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr3/sr3O4icimprovement; • Proclaimed November 2014 as "Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month"; and invited everyone to wear purple on November 13; and announced the "Purple Light" event on March 1, 2015, and the Annual Celebration of Hope Gala on June 6, 2015; • Pointed out the whimsical sculpture that will temporarily reside in the building lobby; and • Reminded residents to clear drains of falling leaves or to report the blocked drains to the City of Bremerton Public Works Customer Response Line at (360) 473-5920. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Bob Dollar read a statement to express his concerns about a proposal that eliminates the full time City Auditor position through defunding the Department as part of the 2015 Budget process. Jane Rebelowski referred to the Washington Avenue Connector Project and pointed out several examples where she believed it did not meet the design standards set by the City of Bremerton. Chal Martin clarified that no Transportation Benefit District funds are involved in this project. John Bales General Manager of Olympic Indoor Sports Center provided the Council Members with VIP tickets to allow them attendance for the kick-off of the year's Indoor Soccer League on November 22 beginning at 6:30 PM. CONSENT AGENDA 5A— Claims & Check Register: Check Numbers 360635 through 361012, and EFT-14276 through EFT-14335 in the amount of$3,428,334.27; Regular Payroll for the pay period ending October 15, 2014 in the amount of$709,431.51; and Retiree Payroll for the pay period ending October 31, 2014 in the amount of$73,238.50 5B— Minutes of Meeting — October 15, 2014 5C— Minutes of Study Session — October 22, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Page 2 of 6 5D— Minutes of Special Meeting —October 29, 2014 5E— Confirm Appointment of David Hedger to the Parks & Recreation Commission 5F— Contract Award to Lakeside Industries, Inc. for Paving Bremerton Senior Center Parking Lot Jeff Elevado announced that Item 5F would not be possible without the generous donation of all members of "Seniors Uncover Money Solutions ($UM$)"; and President Pat Ward and Treasurer Al Butler; as well as Holly Peterson of the Bremerton Senior Center presented a check for$52,320.57 to repay the City for the full cost of the parking lot. 06:08:06 Motion was made by Daugs and seconded by Davis; Thanks were provided to all members of$UM$; and additional comments were provided by Daugs and Runyon... 06:09:15 M/S/C/U (Daugs/Davis) Move to approve the CONSENT AGENDA as presented. GENERAL BUSINESS 6A— GRANT AGREEMENT WITH STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR BURWELL PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL: Tom Knuckev, City Engineer, provided a PowerPoint presentation to summarize that in July 2013, the State of Washington awarded a $1,300,000 Department of Commerce grant to the City to reconstruct the Burwell Pedestrian Tunnel. The tunnel provides pedestrian access under Burwell Street between the Navy's controlled industrial area and a Navy owned property at the intersection of Park Avenue and Burwell Street. The project's purpose is to improve safety and security, while simultaneously improving the overall aesthetic look and feel of the secure access visible from City streets and businesses. Expenditures will begin immediately resulting in a need to increase the 2014 General Fund Engineering Budget by 100,000. The grant does not require matching funds; all project costs will be grant funded. Mayor Lent added that this was a partnership between the City of Bremerton, the United States Navy, and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and brought forward participants LCDR Brent Uvehara, NAVFAC NW, and Rick Tift, Executive Director of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard who each provided comments and thanked the City for their cooperative efforts. There were no questions or comments from the public... 06:24:36 Motion was made by Runyon and seconded by Davis; Questions and comments were provided by Runyon and Daugs; with responses provided by Mr. Knuckev... 06:30:48 M/S/C/U (Runyon/Davis) Move to approve the Commerce Grant Agreement; authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented; and move to increase the 2014 Engineering General Fund Revenue and Expenditure budgets by $100,000 for 2014 activity. 613— PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FRASER + FOGLE ARCHITECTS FOR BURWELL PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT: Tom Knuckev, City Engineer, added that in July 2013, the State of Washington awarded a $1,300,000 Department of Commerce grant to the City to reconstruct the Burwell Pedestrian Tunnel. The design was completed assuming Federal acquisition procedures would be employed which differ significantly from a typical City construction contract. The proposed contract with Fraser + Fogle is to revise the existing design into a typical City bid package, to revise the design to streamline several construction issues, and to act as the City's Construction Manager during construction of the improvements. 06:32:14 Motion was made by Davis and seconded by Runyon; Comments were provided by Davis... City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Page 3 of 6 06:33:43 M/S/C/U (Davis/Runyon) Move to award the Professional Services Agreement with Fraser+ Fogle Architects for$222,243, and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. 6C—ORDINANCE NO. 5262 TO AMEND CHAPTER 9A.44 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) BY ADDING SECTION 9A.44.105 ENTITLED "UNLAWFUL SOLICITATION" TO PROHIBIT PANHANDLING NEAR ATM AND BUS STOPS: AND PASSING OR RECEIVING ANYTHING (LIKE MONEY) FROM THE STREET TO THE SIDEWALK ON MAJOR ARTERIALS: Police Chief Steve Strachan provided a PowerPoint presentation to further explain why members of the City Council desire to add provisions to the Bremerton Municipal Code to regulate solicitation at automated teller machines, bus stops, and within certain designated roadways and makes other related changes. Jane Rebelowski was concerned that the City does not have enough officers now just for general enforcement, and therefore believed this legislation would just be an added burden. Robert Parker questioned the 15-feet restriction from the ATM machines, and suggested that 25-feet might be better. Joan Morris found the ordinance reasonable, but expressed concern that it not lead to a lack of sensitivity to the homeless. 06:53:12 Motion was made by Sullivan and seconded by Daugs; Questions and comments were provided by Sullivan, Daugs, Runyon, Younger, McDonald, and Wheeler, with responses provided by Chief Strachan, Mayor Lent, and Roger Lubovich... 07:14:30 M/S/C (Sullivan/Daugs) Move to adopt Ordinance No. 5262 amending Chapter 9A.44 of the Bremerton Municipal Code relating to solicitation in certain roadways and designated roadways. Voted in favor of Motion: Davis, Younger, Sullivan, Daugs, McDonald Voted opposed to Motion: Runyon, Wheeler Motion carried: 5-Yes; 2-No PUBLIC HEARING 7A— PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION NO. 3236 TO APPROVE THE 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT(CDBG) AND HOME FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCLUSION IN 2015 CDBG/HOME ACTION PLAN: Marie Vila, Block Grant Program Administrator, explained that on May 21, 2014, the City Council approved the 2015 CDBG/HOME Policy.Plan outlining the CDBG and HOME funding allocation process, and based on that policy, the program's Grant Recommendation Committees have developed 2015 funding recommendations for Council consideration and approval. If approved, these submissions will be sent to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the City's 2015 Annual Action Plan. President Wheeler opened the public hearing...Comments were received from Roxanne Bryson, Executive Director of Holly Ridge Center, Linda Hugo, President and Chief Executive Officer of Community Frameworks;and Laura Lyon, Chief Financial Officer and Deputy Executive Director of the Bremerton Housing Authority... With no further comments from the public, President Wheeler closed the hearing to the public, and opened discussion to the City Council... 07:35:48 Motion was made by Daugs and seconded by McDonald; Wheeler, Davis, and Runyon recused themselves from the vote...Comments were provided by Younger... City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Page 4 of 6 07:39:25 M/S/C (Daugs/McDonald) Move to pass Resolution No. 3236 approving the 2015 funding recommendations to be included in the 2015 Action Plan to HUD; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the contracts with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented once all funding has been secured and HUD has approved the Annual Action Plan. Voted in favor of Motion: Younger, Sullivan, Daugs, McDonald Abstained: Davis, Runyon, Wheeler Motion carried: 4-Yes; 3-Abstentions 719-(QUASI-JUDICIALI HEARING ON A RESOLUTION NO. 3234 TO RECOVER FEES FOR ABATEMENT COSTS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1127 N. CALLOW AVENUE: Janet Lunceford, Code Enforcement Officer, explained that pursuant to a Kitsap County Superior Court Order, the City hired a contractor to demolish a dilapidated building located at 1127 N. Callow Avenue. The work was completed on October 3, 2014. The owner of the property, Benjamin Nelson, surrendered the property to Bank of America in a bankruptcy action, but Bank of America has not foreclosed on the property. Bank of America agreed to demolish the building, but failed to do so in a timely manner, and the City moved forward with the Warrant of Abatement and demolished the house. The cost of the work totaled $5,978.50. The cost of process service, filing fees, the asbestos survey and administrative fees were paid by Bank of America in April of 2014. The Notice of Hearing was published in the Kitsap Sun on October 10, 2014, was posted on the property, was emailed to the owner's attorney, and was mailed both by regular mail and certified mail to the Bank of America. Following a quasi-judicial hearing, the Council must decide if the fees are just and reasonable, and how they should be collected. President Wheeler asked if any Council Member had a conflict with the `Appearance of Fairness" Doctrine; then asked members of the public if any Council Member should be excused due to a conflict. All Council Members remained seated. President Wheeler opened the public hearing...With no comments received President Wheeler closed the hearing to the public, and opened discussion to the City Council... 07:44:03 Motion was made by Runyon and seconded by Sullivan; Questions and comments were provided by Runyon and Daugs; with responses provided by Ms. Lunceford... 07:46:10 M/S/C/U (Runyon/Sullivan) Move to adopt Resolution No. 3234, ordering that the fees incurred for demolition of the building on the property located at 1127 N. Callow Avenue, be collected as reasonable abatement costs and become a lien against the property and assessed against the property pursuant to RCW 35.80.030. 7C— (QUASI-JUDICIALI HEARING ON A RESOLUTION NO. 3235 TO RECOVER FEES FOR ABATEMENT COSTS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1129 N. CALLOW AVENUE: Janet Lunceford, Code Enforcement Officer, explained that pursuant to a Kitsap County Superior Court Order, the City hired a contractor to demolish a dilapidated building located at 1129 N. Callow Avenue. The work was completed on October 3, 2014. The owner of the property, Benjamin Nelson, surrendered the property to Bank of America in a bankruptcy action, but Bank of America has not foreclosed on the property. Bank of America agreed to demolish the building, but failed to do so in a timely manner, and the City moved forward with the Warrant of Abatement and demolished the house. The cost of the work totaled $7,065.50. The costs of process service, filing fees, the asbestos survey and administrative fees were paid by Bank of America in April of 2014. The Notice of Hearing was published in the Kitsap Sun on October 10, 2014, was posted on the property, was mailed both by regular mail and certified mail to the Bank of America , and was emailed to the owner's attorney. Following a quasi-judicial hearing, the Council must decide if the fees are just and reasonable, and how they should be collected. City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Page 5 of 6 President Wheeler asked if any Council Member had a conflict with the "Appearance of Fairness" Doctrine; then asked members of the public if any Council Member should be excused due to a conflict. All Council Members remained seated. President Wheeler opened the public hearing...With no comments received President Wheeler closed the hearing to the public, and opened discussion to the City Council... 07:48:25 Motion was made by Runyon and seconded by Daugs... 07:48:38 M/S/C/U (Runyon/Daugs) Move to adopt Resolution No. 3235, ordering that the fees incurred for demolition of the building on the property located at 1129 N. Callow Avenue, be collected as reasonable abatement costs and become a lien against the property and assessed against the property pursuant to RCW 35.80.030. 7D— PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 5260 TO AMEND CHAPTER 3.78 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) ENTITLED "MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION" REGARDING BOUNDARIES FOR THE DOWNTOWN REGIONAL CENTER TARGET AREA: Kelli Lambert, Community Development, stated that in 2007, City Council adopted the Multifamily Tax Exemption for the Downtown Regional Center. IN 2010, the tax exemption Target Area was expanded to include all of the Downtown Regional Center. Ordinance No. 5202, approved in December 2012, amended the Downtown Regional Center Sub-Area Plan to include in its boundaries three parcels at 1008, 1016 and 1018 Burwell Street. Revisions are proposed at this time to again expand the Target Area to include the entire Downtown Regional Center. President Wheeler opened the public hearing...With no comments received President Wheeler closed the hearing to the public, and opened discussion to the City Council... 07:52:26 Motion was made by Davis and seconded by Runyon; Questions and comments were provided by Davis, Runyon, Daugs, McDonald, Younger, and Wheeler, with responses provided by Ms. Lambert and Andrea Spencer, Director of Community Development... 08:02:38 M/S/C (Davis/Runyon) Move to pass Ordinance No. 5260 to amend Chapter 3.78 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled "Multifamily Property Tax Exemption" regarding the boundaries of the Downtown Regional Center Target Area. Voted in favor of Motion: McDonald, Davis, Runyon, Younger, Sullivan, Wheeler Voted opposed to Motion: Daugs Motion carried: 6-Yes; 1-No 7E— PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 5261 TO AMEND CHAPER 20.12 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) ENTITLED "LAND DIVISION" REGARDING PHASING, EXTENSIONS, AND DESCRIPTIONS AND MAJOR PLAT AMENDMENTS: Allison Satter, Community Development, summarized that the action before the Council is to conduct a Public Hearing, and adopt an ordinance amending BMC Chapter 20.12 entitled "Land Division" regarding phasing, extensions, and classification of minor and major plat amendments. President Wheeler opened the public hearing...With no comments received President Wheeler closed the hearing to the public, and opened discussion to the City Council... 08:16:55 Motion was made by Daugs and seconded by Runyon; Questions and comments were provided by Daugs, Runyon, McDonald, and Davis; with responses provided by Ms. Satter and Ms. Spencer... City Council Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Page 6 of 6 08:28:15 M/S/C/U (Daugs/Runyon) Move to pass Ordinance No. 5261 to amend Chapter 20.12 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled "Land Division" regarding phasing, extensions, and descriptions of minor and major plat amendments. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Leslie Daugs explained that she has "grown" a full mustache after a challenge from Police Chief Steve Strachan as part of the Movember Foundation's movement leading "global organization committed to changing the face of men's health"; reminded drivers everyone to slow down and be more aware now that school is back in session; and reminded people to appreciate their families. Jerry McDonald announced that the Horse & Cow Pub and Grill will be holding a Grand Opening of their new patio space on Saturday, November 8 from 11:00 AM to 10:00 PM at 536 4th Street with the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony led by Mayor Lent at 3:30 PM. Dino Davis announced that the next Forest Ridge Park Clean-Up will be on Saturday, November 15 beginning at 9:00 AM; and also thanked the Mayor for raising awareness about Alzheimers and Pancreatic Cancer. Roy Runyon reminded citizens that they are welcome to attend the first Budget Workshop beginning tomorrow at 4:00 PM. Greg Wheeler announced that Financial Services Director Cathy Johnson has been invited to answer questions on the City of Bremerton Budget at the next District 4 Neighborhood Meeting on Tuesday, November 18 from 6:00 to 7:30 PM in the basement of the Community of Christ at Memorial Lutheran Church at the corner of 10`h Street & Veneta Avenue. President Wheeler stated that immediately following adjournment of the Council Meeting, the Council will hold an Exempt Closed Session to discuss "Labor Negotiations and Proceedings" under RCW 42.30.140(4)(b) with no action is anticipated; and announced that the first Budget Workshop will be held tomorrow night on Thursday, November 6 from 4:00 to 7:00 PM in the Council Conference Room, and the public is invited to attend. With no further business, President Wheeler adjourned the Council Meeting at 8:35 PM. Pre ared 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 Budget Workshop— Study Session Date: N/A November 6, 2014 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: Attached is a summary of the City Council Budget Workshop on November 6, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: Z 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 BUDGET WORKSHOP MINUTES Thursday, November 6, 2014 The Budget Workshop of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the Council Conference Room 603 of the DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER located at 345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Thursday, November 6, 2014, at 4:00 PM, 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 Finance Director Cathy Johnson and Budget Analyst Caroline Tompson. Legislative Assistant Lori Smith was present to provide staff support to the Council. President Wheeler announced that the 2015 Budget Workshop was for the Council to hear presentations on the proposed budget. It was further announced that this Budget Workshop was open to the public, but there would be no opportunities for input or participation; that no action will be taken, and the content of these items is subject to change. Cathy Johnson, Financial Services Director, opened the 2015 Budget Process then provided an overview of Assumptions and Considerations; Revenue and Expenditures; Funds; and shared highlights as well as proposed changes and new programs to Department Budgets: • BKAT • Kitsap Conference Center • Gold Mountain Golf Course • Risk Management • Equipment Rental & Reserve (ERR) • Community Development— Permits and Abatement • Police • Fire • Parks & Recreation • Auditor (Including proposal by the Administration to reduce the Auditor Department budget...Continued to November 13 Budget Workshop...) With no further business, President Wheeler adjourned the Budget Workshop at 8:30 PM. Pre red and Submitted by: &04��M 1) LORI SMITH Legislative Assistant Attest: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk GREG WHEELER, City Council President GW:SC:ls:cg AGENDA BILL 8D CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ........................................................................................ SUBJECT: Minutes of Study Session — Study Session Date: N/A November 12, 2014 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: Attached is a summary of the City Council Study Session on November 12, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: © 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, November 12, 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 61h Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, November 12, 2014, at 5:00 PM, with Council President Greg Wheeler presiding. Council Members present were Eric Younger, Roy Runyon, Dino Davis, Jerry McDonald, Leslie Daugs, and Mike Sullivan; with Lori Smith, Legislative Assistant, 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 November 19, 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. Interlocal Agreement with the City of Port Orchard for Water Supply (Consent Agenda) 2. Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County Administrative Services for Court Security Services (Consent Agenda) 3. Resolution amending and re-establishing City Rates and Fees for 2015 (December 3 General Business) 4. Appointment of Patty Lent to the Kitsap Transit Board Composition Review Committee (Consent Agenda) B. BRIEFINGS & FULL PRESENTATIONS 5. Proposed public hearing on ordinance amending Chapter 20.52 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) entitled "Sign Standards"(Public Hearing) 6. Proposed public hearing to adopt a resolution establishing the Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program, Schedule, and Public Participation Plan; and to suspend Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications in 2016 (Public Hearing) 7. Ordinance levying Property Taxes for Collection in 2015 (General Business) C. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS o Audit Committee Briefing (10/23/14 Meeting) — Leslie Daugs, Chair o Public Works Committee Briefing (10/28/14 Meeting)— Dino Davis, Chair o Public Safety & Parks Committee Briefing (11/12/14 Meeting) — Leslie Daugs, Chair o Other General Council Business was also discussed. With no further business, President Wheeler adjourned the Council Study Session at 7:25 PM. Prep ed and Submitted by: LORI SMITH Legislative Assistant City Council Study Session Minutes Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Page 2 of 2 Attest: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk GREG WHEELER, City Council President GW:SC:ls:cg AGENDA BILL BE CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ■■rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr SUBJECT: Minutes of Budget Workshop— Study Session Date: N/A November 13, 2014 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 Department: City Council Presenter: Council President Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: Attached is a summary of the City Council Budget Workshop on November 13, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Minutes FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: N No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: 9 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 BUDGET WORKSHOP MINUTES Thursday, November 13, 2014 The Budget Workshop of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the Council Conference Room 603 of the DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER located at 345 6th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Thursday, November 13, 2014, at 4:00 PM, 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 Finance Director Cathy Johnson and Budget Analyst Caroline Tompson. Legislative Assistant Lori Smith was present to provide staff support to the Council. President Wheeler announced that the 2015 Budget Workshop was for the Council to hear presentations on the proposed budget. It was further announced that this Budget Workshop was open to the public, but there would be no opportunities for input or participation; that no action will be taken, and the content of these items is subject to change. Cathy Johnson, Financial Services Director, continued with presentations on the 2015 Budget: • Public Works • Street Funds • Utilities • Auditor (Continued discussion on proposed changes to the Auditor Department...) With no further business, President Wheeler adjourned the Budget Workshop at 7:00 PM. Prepared and Submitted by: 9?b 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: Interlocal Agreement with the Study Session Date: November 12, 2014 with the City of Port Orchard for Water COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 Supply Department: Public Works&Utilities Presenter: K.Cahall,Water Resources Phone: 473-2315 SUMMARY: The City of Bremerton has had an agreement for many years to sell surplus water to the City of Port Orchard. This agreement has been updated and includes a four-year firm commitment of water between 2015 and 2018 at a higher unit price than for surplus water. After January 1, 2019 the agreement continues on a surplus basis. ATTACHMENTS: Water Sales Agreement with the City of Port Orchard. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The estimated revenue to the City of Bremerton Water Utility is between $50,000-$247,000 per year. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ® No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ® Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Water Sales Agreement with the City of Port Orchard and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/25/13 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR WATER SUPPLY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 2014, by and between the CITY OF BREMERTON, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Bremerton," and the City of Port Orchard, hereinafter referred to as "Port Orchard," a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington. BACKGROUND: 1. The parties desire to provide the highest reliability of service to their customers at reasonable costs. 2. The parties recognize that water resources are finite and vulnerable and that prudent use and management of these resources could be facilitated by cooperation among water utilities. 3. Bremerton and Port Orchard have water facilities which are interconnected at a 16-inch transmission main on Anderson Hill Road. Port Orchard has purchased water from Bremerton through this intertie for over 20 years. 4. RCW 39.34 and 35.92.200 empower Bremerton and Port Orchard to enter into a cooperative interlocal agreement for providing outside wholesale water service. IT IS AGREED: 1. SCOPE: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, Bremerton and Port Orchard agree to the continuation and maintenance of a water system intertie at Anderson Hill Road and SR 16 for the purpose of supplying domestic water between the two systems during emergency conditions. 1 Bremerton agrees to sell and deliver to Port Orchard and Port Orchard agrees to purchase from Bremerton wholesale water for the needs of inhabitants of Port Orchard and adjacent areas for domestic, irrigation, and fire protection purposes, in the amounts contemplated by Section 4 of this Agreement 2. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall run from the date of this agreement until December 31, 2019. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed for successive one-year terms with the same terms and conditions as those established for the year 2019 unless either party furnishes written notice to the other party of non-renewal before December 1. 3. QUALITY. Bremerton agrees to deliver water from its water system at the purity and quality in effect for residential customers of Bremerton. 4. AMOUNT AND COMPENSATION: A. From 2014 through 2018, Bremerton agrees to make available a minimum of 58 million gallons per year to the City of Port Orchard's main system. The cost of this firm available water will be 110% of the Bremerton Outside City Limits Residential Commodity Water Charge as approved in latest rate ordinance. Port Orchard agrees to pay for a minimum of$50,000 of water each year 2015 - 2018. If the cost of the water used is less than$50,000 the difference will be made in a payment to Bremerton. B. Surplus water to be supplied to Port Orchard after January 1, 2019 under this Agreement shall be such as Bremerton may have available over and above the requirements of the present users of the Bremerton system and the requirements of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Beginning January 1, 2019 the unit price of surplus water sold shall be 95% of the Bremerton Outside City Limits Residential Commodity Water Charge 2 as approved in latest rate ordinance. There is no minimum amount that Port Orchard is required to pay to Bremerton after January 1, 2019. 5. INTERTIE FACILITIES: All water supply delivered pursuant to this Agreement shall be measured by the delivery municipality using Sensus Omni T2 water meter and a 520M Smart Point MXU, to be furnished, installed, maintained, and calibrated by Port Orchard at the expense of Port Orchard. Port Orchard shall retain ownership of said meters. Calibration shall be performed by Port Orchard at least once every two (2) years and a copy of calibration results submitted to Bremerton. Bremerton shall have access to and be permitted to install and maintain its own monitoring and recording system at its expense. In the event any intertie meter fails to register, or it registers incorrectly, the Bremerton Water Utility Billing Department shall estimate the amount of water delivered for the period during which such meter failed to register by taking an average of the total deliveries of water through such meter for the preceding two months in which water was delivered. Each utility shall install, operate, and maintain isolation valves and related facilities on their respective water mains at the point where those mains are interconnected. Each utility shall cooperate with the other utility in coordinating the operation of the isolation valves and related facilities for the purposes of this Agreement. 6. PRIORITY OF BREMERTON WATER CUSTOMERS: Bremerton agrees that the firm water commitment of 58 million gallons per year described in Section 4 will be in place through 2018. It is understood between parties hereof that Bremerton is, by prior agreement, selling part of its water supply to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and that it will 3 give precedence to any and all needs and requirements of Bremerton's water customers and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for surplus water. 7. NOTICES: Port Orchard shall notify Bremerton water operations by phone to coordinate their intent to use water. All notices and other written communications required by this Agreement shall be in writing and, except as expressly provided elsewhere in this Agreement, shall be deemed to have been given at the time of delivery if personally delivered or at the time of mailing if mailed by first class, postage pre-paid and addressed to the part at its address as stated below or at such address as any party may designate at any time in writing. Director of Public Director of Public Works/City Works & Utilities Engineer City of Bremerton City of Port Orchard 100 Oyster Bay Ave N 216 Prospect Street Bremerton, WA 98312 Port Orchard, WA 98366 8. SEVERABILITY: If any provision of this Agreement or its application is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. 9. MODIFICATION: This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties. No change, termination or attempted waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding on either of the parties unless executed in writing by authorized representatives of each of the parties. 10. BENEFITS: This agreement is entered into for the benefit of the parties to this Agreement only and shall confer no benefits, direct or implied, on any third persons. 4 The rights granted by this Agreement may not be assigned without the written consent of the Mayor of the City of Bremerton and the Mayor of the City of Port Orchard. 11. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: Any claim by either party against the other related to this Agreement shall be filed in Kitsap County Superior Court. Each party is responsible for its own attorney's fees and litigation costs. 12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The written provisions of this Agreement shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of, or altering in any manner whatsoever, this Agreement or any attached exhibits. 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto execute this Agreement this day of , 2014. CITY OF BREMERTON CITY OF PORT ORCHARD BY: BY: Patty Lent, Mayor Mayor ATTEST: ATTEST: Shannon Corin, Clerk Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roger Lubovich, City Attorney City Attorney DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL: Chal Martin Director of Public Works & Utilities 6 9 (4 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement for Study Session Date: November 12, 2014 Court Security Services COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 Department: Municipal Court Presenter: Dawn Nelson Phone: 473-5242 SUMMARY: The Bremerton Municipal Court has an Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County Administration Services to provide security for the courthouse at 550 Park Avenue. In previous years, the court extended contract#KC-089-09 E. The new contract number is#KC-311-14. The term of the new contract is 12 months and can be extended for 12 months at a time with written notice to do so. The compensation on the contract has increased to$62,300.00 per year with uniform and uniform cleaning estimated to be $665.00. ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement for Court Security Services#KC-311-14 and Attachment A FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): $62,965.00. This is an increase of$2,650.00 from 2014. This includes a step increase and a 2% cola. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ® No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ® Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Interlocal Agreement for Court Security Services KC-311-14 between the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County Administrative Services and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/25/13 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COURT SECURITY SERVICES KC-311-14 This Agreement is entered into by and between Kitsap County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY) and the City of Bremerton, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, (hereinafter referred to as the CITY). WHEREAS, the parties are authorized to enter into agreements for the joint provision of governmental services pursuant to RCW 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, and WHEREAS the County presently employs court security officers pursuant to the authority found in RCW 9.41.300(b) and pursuant to Resolution Number 82295 of the Kitsap County Superior Court executed August 25, 1995, and WHEREAS the City desires to contract with the County for the furnishing of a full time Court Security Officer to provide security and screening services for the City's municipal court. Now, therefore the County and the City mutually agree as follows: Section 1 GENERAL TERMS 1.1 PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide by this contract the services of a full-time Court Security Officer by the County to the City under the terms and conditions specified in this Agreement. 1.2 PAYMENT OF COSTS. The City shall reimburse the County the costs of providing the City with a full-time Step 7 Court Security Officer, the costs of which are as identified in Attachment A hereto. The costs subject to reimbursement shall be subject to such adjustments as may be provided for in the County's collective bargaining agreement covering its employees. Both the County and the City shall be bound by the terms and provisions of the County's collective bargaining agreement covering court services for Court Security Officers together with any future amendments or modifications thereto. The City shall provide coverage for the Court Security Officer during the regular morning, lunchtime and afternoon breaks of the Court Security Officer with an individual designated by the City. 1.3 SUPERVISION OF COURT SECURITY OFFICER. At all times, the Court Security Officer shall remain an employee of the County and shall remain under the supervision and control of the Kitsap County Sheriffs Office. The supervisory contact within the Kitsap County Sheriff's Office shall be Support Services Sergeant or such other Kitsap County Sheriff's employee as may be designated. 1.4 MODIFICATION. The terms of this Agreement shall not be altered or modified unless agreed to in writing by the County and City and such writing shall be executed with the same formalities as are required for the execution of this document. 1.5 APPLICABLE LAW AND VENUE. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court of Kitsap County. 1.6 WAIVER. The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of same, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. 1.7 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the City and County regarding the subject matter of the contract. Any oral or written representations not incorporated in the contract are specifically excluded. Section 2 DURATION 2.1 This Agreement shall take affect on January 1, 2015 and terminate on December 31, 2015. The City will have the option of extending the initial term by a period of an additional 12 month(s) by giving written notice to the County of its intention to extend as provided in Section 4.1 of this Agreement. Section 3 INDEMNIFICATION 3.1 The City will hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County, its officers, officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, expenses, damages and judgments of any nature whatsoever, including reasonable costs and attorneys' fees in defense thereof for injury, sickness, disability or death to persons or damage to property or business, caused by or arising out of the City's acts, errors or omissions in connection with the performance of the contract. 3.2 The County will hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City, its officers, officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, expenses, damages and judgments of any nature whatsoever, including reasonable costs and attorneys' fees in defense thereof for injury, sickness, disability or death to persons or damage to property or business, caused by or arising out of the County's acts, errors or omissions in connection with the performance of the contract. 3.3 The obligations under Section 3 of this Agreement include, but are not limited to, investigating, adjusting and defending all claims alleging loss from action, error or omission, or breach of any common law, statutory or other delegated duty by the parties, the parties' employees, agents or subcontractors. Section 4 NOTICES 4.1 All notices required by this Agreement to be given to the County shall be made in writing and personally delivered or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid to: County: Amber D'Amato, Director of Administrative Services 614 Division Street, MS-7 Port Orchard, WA 98366 Tel. (360) 337-4504 adamato(a)co.kitsap.wa.us City Dawn Nelson, Court Administrator 550 Park Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337 Tel.: (360) 473-5242 dawn.nelson(aD-ci.bremerton.wa.us 4.2 All notices required by this Agreement to be given to the City shall be made in writing and personally delivered or sent by first class mail postage prepaid to the address noted above. Section 5 TERMINATION 5.1 Either party of this Agreement may terminate this Agreement by providing 30 calendar days written notice to the other party as provided in Section 4 of this Agreement. 5.2 If funding for the underlying project or matter is withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way after the Contract is signed or becomes effective, the City may summarily terminate the Contract notwithstanding any other termination provision in the Contract. Termination under this provision will be effective upon the date specified in the written notice of termination sent by City to the County. No costs incurred after the effective date of the termination will be paid. Section 6 SEVERABILITY 6.1 In the event any provision of this Agreement is found invalid or contrary to law, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby. Dated this day of ' 2014 Dated this day of , 2014 CITY OF BREMERTON KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Patty Lent, Mayor Charlotte Garrido, Chair Bremerton City Attorney's Office Robert Gelder, Commissioner Linda Streissguth, Commissioner ATTEST: Dana Daniels, Clerk of the Board ATTACHMENT A TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COURT SECURITY SERVICES The City shall reimburse the County for the wages and employment-based benefits necessary and incidental to providing the City with a full-time Step 7 court security officer under the collective bargaining agreement covering court security officers. Those costs are as follows: • Wages, benefits, and employer's share of employment taxes (estimated to be $62,300 per year); • Uniform (estimated to be $400.00), and uniform cleaning (estimated to be $265.00 per year); • Overtime wages worked; • Cost of living increases (COLAs) authorized by the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners subsequent to this agreement; • Travel reimbursement, if applicable. In addition, in the event the court security officer assigned to the City is absent for personal reasons (e.g., sick and annual leave), the City will pay the County a per diem rate consisting of the annual wages and benefits of a Step 7 court security officer estimated to be $240.00 per day (annual salary of$62,300 divided by 260 work days per year)to cover the sick and annual leave absences. AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Appointment of Patty Lent to the Study Session Date: November 12, 2014 Kitsap Transit Board Composition Review COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 Committee Department: Executive Presenter: Mayor Lent Phone: 473-5266 SUMMARY: Every four years the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners and an elected representative of each of the component cities within the boundaries of Kitsap Transit(i.e., all of Kitsap County) must review the composition of Kitsap Transit's Board of Commissioners. Each City must select an elected representative to serve on this Review Committee. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from the Executive Director of Kitsap Transit and Memo to Review Committee FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): No fiscal impacts. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ® No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ® Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to appoint Patty Lent to the Kitsap Transit Board Composition Review Committee. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 11/02/12 Mayor's Office �- NOV 6 1014 60 Washington Avenue;suite 200 AN* Bremerton,WA 98337 , Clfy of Bremerton Phone:360.478.6230f Fax 360.377.7088 i i Transit'www.idtsaptransit.org November 4, 2014 Rob Gelder, Commissioner Charlotte Garrido, Commissioner Kitsap County Kitsap County 614 Division Street, MS-4 614 Division Street, MS-4 Port Orchard, WA 98366 Port Orchard, WA 98366 Linda Streissguth, Commissioner Ann Blair, Mayor Kitsap County City of Bainbridge Island 614 Division Street, MS-4 280 Madison Avenue N. Port Orchard, WA 98366 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Patty Lent, Mayor Tim Matthes, Mayor City of Bremerton City of Port Orchard 345 6th Street#600 216 Prospect Street Bremerton, WA 98337 Port Orchard, WA 98366 Becky Erickson, Mayor City of Poulsbo 200 NE Moe Street Poulsbo, WA 98370 Re: Kitsap Transit Board Composition Review Dear Commissioners and Mayors: Every four years the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners and an elected representative of each of the component cities within the boundaries of Kitsap Transit (i.e., all of Kitsap County) must review the composition of Kitsap Transit's Board of Commissioners.' 1 See RCW 36.57A.055. Connecting Communities Hereafter, I will refer to those County Commissioners and elected City representatives as the "Review Committee." I respectfully request that each City designate and supply me with the name of an elected representative to serve on this Review Committee. I am attaching a Memo from Kitsap Transit's General Counsel, which summarizes Kitsap Transit's existing Board composition and the procedural steps necessary to conclude the review. Subject to your respective approvals, I have scheduled the following date and time for a Review committee meeting date: Date Time Meeting Place December 4, 2014 5:OOPM Kitsap Transit Harborside Conference Room If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me or Mr. Templeton. In advance, I thank you for your courtesies and consideration. Ve tr u rs, y� John W. Clauson, Executive Director cc: Mark Fuller Connecting Communities* MEMO TO REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: Ronald C. Templeton, General Counsel RE: Periodic Review of Board Composition I. Summary of Review Statute Kitsap Transit is a Public Transportation Benefit Area("PTBA")governed by chapter 36.57A RCW. RCW 36.57A.055 obligates the "members of the County legislature authority and the elected representative of each[component]city within the boundaries[of the PTEA]to review the governing.body of the[PTEA]and change the composition of the governing body if the change is deemed appropriate." Composition review must occur every four years. The review must occur at a"meeting of the designated representatives of the component county and cities". 20 days notice of the meeting must be given by Kitsap Transit's Executive Director. A majority of the designated representatives present at the meeting constitute a quorum. Hereafter, I will refer to the Review representatives as the "Review Committee". II. Kitsap Transit's Current Board Composition Under Kitsap Transit's current By-Laws, Kitsap Transit's Board of Commissioners consist of nine(9)voting members and one(1)non-voting member. The voting members consist of the following: The Mayor of Bremerton; A Member of the Bremerton City Council,chosen by the Council; The Mayor of Poulsbo or a Member of the Poulsbo City Council,chosen by the Council; The Mayor of Port Orchard or a Member of the Port Orchard City Council,chosen by the Council; The Mayor of Bainbridge Island or a Member of the Bainbridge Island City Council, chosen by the Council; The non-voting member is appointed by the labor organizations which represent the employees of Kitsap Transit. MEMO TO REVIEW COMMITTEE-Page 1 III. Procedural Recommendations In order to comply with the Review Statute,I suggest the following: 1. Select a proposed date and time for a Review Meeting well in advance of the proposed date. 2. KTs Executive Director, Board Chair, Clerk or General Counsel should send a letter to each component city advising each city that it must designate an elected representative to attend the Review Meeting. Presumably,that designation should be made by the City Council at a regular or special meeting of the Council. The elected representative could be that city's current representative that sits on KTs Board. But keep in mind even though the cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard currently have two elected representatives who serve on KT's Board, only one elected official from each city can participate in the Review. 3. Each city needs to transmit the name and contact information for that city's designated representative to Kitsap Transit. 4. Twenty(20)days before the proposed Meeting, Kitsap Transit's Executive Director must transmit written notice of the Meeting to the three(3)County Commissioners and the designated representatives of the four(4)cities in Kitsap County. 5. Out of caution,the Meeting should be treated as a public meeting and published as if it were a special meeting of Kitsap Transit's Board or of the legislative authorities of the component jurisdictions. 6. At the time the Meeting is convened,the members of the Review Committee should elect a chair to preside over the Meeting and designate the Clerk of Kitsap Transit's Board to serve as the Clerk/Recording Secretary to record and keep minutes of the Meeting. 7. The Review Statute makes no provision for the participation by the labor organization(s)that represent the employees of a PTBA. Out of courtesy, KT should give notice of the Meeting to each labor organization and encourage the representatives of each labor organization to provide written input for the consideration of the Review Committee. MEMO TO REVIEW COMMITTEE-Page 2 qA AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Ordinance Study Session Date: November 12, 2014 No. 5263 amending BMC Chapter 20.52 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 entitled "Sign Standards" Department: DCD Presenter: Garrett Jackson Phone: 360.473.5289 SUMMARY: The action before Council is to conduct a Public Hearing and adopt an Ordinance amending BMC Chapter 20.52 entitled "Sign Standards" regarding sign dimensions and quantities, a new sign variety"co-op" signs, provide clarification for wayfinding signs, and removing cessation from the nonconforming sign section. ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance No. 5263 -Exhibit A—Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions B. Staff Memo: -Attachment I - Planning Commission Minutes (Workshop on September 16, 2014 and Hearing on October 21, 2014 (Draft)) FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation ® Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ® Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No. 5263 to amend Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 20.52 regarding sign dimensions and quantities, co-op signage, clarification for wayfinding signs, and removing cessation from the nonconforming sign section. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny 0 Table 0 Continue ❑ No Action ORDINANCE NO. 5263 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, making amendments to the Sign Standards section of the Zoning Code - BMC Title 20.52, regarding sign dimensions and quantities, a new sign variety "co-op" signs, provide clarification for wayfinding signs, and removing cessation from the nonconforming sign section. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4950 on November 30, 2005 establishing a new Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, through practical use and application of the Zoning Code the need for modification has been identified; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has established a procedure for amending the Zoning Code in Title 20.18.020 (d) of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), which requires amendments to the Zoning Code to be both consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and to be consistent with other applicable rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan-, County Wide Planning Policies, the State Growth Management - Act, and other applicable regulations and ordinances; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2014 the Planning Commission conducted a workshop on the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2014 the proposed Zoning Code amendments were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite review and comment period; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014 a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued for the proposed action and no appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 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 October 21, 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 November 7, 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 November 19, 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 recitals set forth above are adopted and incorporated as if set forth fully herein. SECTION 2. The findings and conclusions adopted by the Planning Commission attached hereto as Exhibit A are adopted and incorporated as if set forth fully herein. SECTIONS. Section 20.52 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled "Sign Standards" is hereby amended as follows: 20.52.040 EXEMPT SIGNS. The following signs are exempt from the provisions of this chapter,but may be subject to other provisions of the zoning code or building code: (a) Traffic signs, signals, wa finding signs, and other traffic control devices erected by the City or other public authority. (b) Public notices pertaining to public health or safety issues, or for notification of legal or legislative action erected by the City or other public authority, of a temporary nature. (c) Permanent plaques, cornerstones, nameplates, and other building identification marking attached to or carved into the building materials and which are integral parts of the structure. (d) Signs within buildings, provided they do not include moving, flashing or animated signs that are visible from any private or public roadway, or from adjacent properties. (e) Legal nonconforming signs. (f) Incidental signs intended for public information or convenience and which consist of no more than ten(10) square feet for a combination of such signs. These may include restroom signs, hours of operation signs, address numbers, help wanted, credit card signs, and similar. (g) The American flag, state of Washington flag, and other political or special purpose flags that are not intended to contribute to a commercial advertising display. (h) Wall graphics of an artistic nature and that do not conform to the definition of"sign." (i) Public information/identification approved through a conditional use permit process pursuant to BMC 20.58.020. (j) Real estate signs for sale of single-family dwelling units. 2 Zoning Code Amendments (k) Temporary construction and on-site real estate development marketing signs,provided they are removed prior to occupancy approval of the building. (1) Political signs meeting the provisions in BMC 20.52.090. 20.52.050 PROHIBITED SIGNS. The following signs are prohibited within the City limits of Bremerton and shall be subject to removal through amortization or other means: (a) Strobe lights or any other flashing, moving or animated features that are visible beyond any property line. Readerboard or message center signs that change copy no more frequently than at two (2) second intervals, and time/temperature signs are exempt from this provision. (b) Pole signs in all zones except the freeway corridor(FC)zone and the industrial (I)zone. (c) Private signs placed within a public right-of-way; except a projecting sign, may be permitted over a sidewalk if a clearance of at least eight(8) feet is maintained between the sidewalk and the bottom of the sign. (d) Any sign that is determined by the City Engineer to be a hazard to public safety due to its design, materials, physical condition, or placement. (e) Signs painted, attached to, or otherwise supported by rock formations, utility poles, trees or other plant materials. (f) Bench signs, when installed within the public right-of-way. When on private property, the size of a bench sign will be counted toward the total allowable sign area. (g) Portable signs within the public right-of-way except portable signs per BMC 20.52.160. (h) Off-premises signs including billboards. (i) Product signs, other than those at a franchise business identifying the franchise product. (h) Off-premises signs including billboards, but not including co-op signs or portable signs where permitted. 20.52.060 SIGN MEASUREMENTS. (a) The area of sign faces shall be measured as the area bounded by any six (6) straight lines intersecting at right angles, and shall include any surrounding frames or cabinet edges. (b) Sign area does not include supports, foundations or structures that are not part of the sign. (c) Only one (1) side of a double-faced sign is counted in the sign's total area. (d) Multiple copy signs or shopping center signs consisting of several individual signs on the same support structures are calculated as the total of all individual sign components. (e) A round or cylindrical sign is calculated as the maximum area that can be seen at one (1)time from one (1)position, or fifty(50)percent of the total area, whichever is greater. (f) The height of a sign is measured from grade, as defined,to the highest point of the sign OF 4S stpkC� , ...hieheye-is higher-. 3 Zoning Code Amendments (g) Sign clearances are measured from grade directly below the sign to the bottom of the sign or sign frame. (h) Street corner signs (at an intersection) shall be assigned to one (1) of the frontages by the applicant and shall conform to the requirements of that frontage only. (i) Portable signs shall be calculated as part of the total freestanding sign area available to the site. (Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.52.100 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS SIGN REGULATIONS. The following standards shall apply to signs placed on property zoned commercial: (a) Freestanding Signs. (1) Sign AFea. Freestanding signs may have an aggregated area that shall .t o eed e e (1) square foot of area PeF nal, lineal feet of street f;entage subjeet to the fol (i) NarFew Pareel. Any par-cel having less than fifty(50) l feet of street frontage m have ave ,� a (1) freestanding� t t. o eed fifty(50) square rcz.c va k-er (ii) Wide Par-eel. Any par-eel having mor-e than fifty(50) li foot of street fiontage may have multiple f:-eest...,. ia—� : 70 7 n single freestanding sign exeoeds a area of one hundred (100) square foot (2) Sparing F-Feest..,,. ing signs 1.,ea e.7 ,,,, the. s-afne pmeel o site shall have a separation of'.,t least f:#„ (50) F of Additionally, a twenty five (25) foot setl aek is required ffem adjaeont �pt this may be modified by the DiFeetar- .here stieh f et„r-s as the , .;,7th .f'the lotor-the aeeess mos , ,,,1:.,,,ee (1) No use or combination of uses on a single lot, or building shall have more than one freestanding_sign per street frontage, with the following_exceptions; (i) Parcels with five hundred (500) feet of continuous frontage may have one additional sign. (ii) Co-op Signs. See section 20.52.1 00(d). -3) Maximum Height and Design. Freestanding signs shall comply with the height and design requirements set forth in Figure 20.52(a). (b) Building Signs. (1) Commercial Uses. The building sign standards shall be in accordance with the following: (i) Sign Area. Signs attached to a building may have an aggregated area that shall not exceed two (2) square feet for each one (1) lineal foot of building facade width. (ii) Maximum Sign Size. A building sign attached individually shall not exceed one hundred(100) square feet in area, except it may exceed the maximum if the total sign area is less than ten (10) percent of the total building facade area. (2) Industrial Uses. The building sign standards for industrial uses and other uses not engaged in the sale of goods or services to the public shall be in accordance with the following: 4 Zoning Code Amendments (i) Sign Area. The maximum aggregated area for all building signs attached to a single building shall be one hundred(100) square feet. (3) Number of Signs. There is no limit to the number of individual building signs, provided the maximum aggregated sign area is not exceeded. (4) Illumination. Signs may be illuminated directly, indirectly, or internally,provided the lighting is directed away from other land uses, and away from on- coming traffic. (c) Shopping Center or Professional Complex. A shopping center, professional office complex, or similar large multiple-occupancy development may have an identification sign to a maximum size of three hundred(300) square feet placed along one(1) or- erstreet frontage that are long than thfee hundred i300feet eae provided the parcel has an area of at least eight(8) acres, and the sign is no closer than one hundred(100) feet from an adjacent property on the same side of the street and no other-ffeestanding signs lar-ger-than fifty(50) square feet ar-@ plaeed on the subje4 may. (Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) (d) Co-op Signs. A co-op sign is intended to permit businesses that do not have street frontages on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way a reasonable opportunity to advertise. A co-op sign transfers the right to place a freestanding sign from the nonfronting parcel to the parcel with street frontage on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way. Co- op signs may be permitted in the following circumstances: (1) The parcel fronting Wheaton Way or Kitsap Way shall have at least one hundred (100) feet of continuous street frontage on Wheaton Way or Kitsap Way; and (2) The parcels (fronting and nonfronting) must share a property line; and (3) The nonfronting business shall not have a property line fronting Wheaton Way or Kitsap Waw (4) A parcel fronting Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way shall be permitted one co-op sign, not to exceed one hundred(100) square feet, however, the co-op sign may contain signage for more than one nonfronting business; and (5) In the event that the fronting and nonfrontingparcel(s) elect to share a single freestanding sign, a twenty-five (25)percent bonus in square footage is permitted, provided: W The shared sign is the only permitted freestanding sign on the fronting and nonfronting parcels, except as provided in 20.52.1 00(d)(7)(i). (ii) The sign does not exceed the fifteen (15) foot maximum height. (6) The nonfronting parcel is limited to one co-op sign on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way, and (7) The nonfronting parcel will transfer the right to develop a freestanding sign on the nonfronting,parcel to the parcel fronting Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way; W The nonfronting parcel may place a directional sign at each entrance, not to exceed ten (10) square feet in size. (8) The owners of both the fronting parcel and nonfronting parcel shall record a"Notice to Title"prepared by the Department recognizing the presence of a co- 5 Zoning Code Amendments op sign with the Kitsap County Auditor when required by the Department. The notice shall be notarized and the applicant must submit proof that the notice has been legally recorded before the sign permit is issued. 20.52.180 NONCONFORMING SIGNS. (a) Applicability. This section applies to the maintenance, repair, as appropriate, and removal of nonconforming signs. "Nonconforming sign" means a sign. that was legally established, but no longer conforms to the current sign standards of this title. (b) Maintenance and Repair of Off-Premises Signs. Any nonconforming off- premises sign shall immediately lose its legal nonconforming designation, and be removed or brought into conformity with the provisions of this chapter, when one (1)or more of the following events occur: (1) Alterations to sign: (i) Any structural alteration to an off-premises sign shall result in the loss of its nonconforming status. This does not include replacing the sign's message or painting. (ii) In no case shall an off-premises sign be permitted to be expanded or enlarged. Adding electronic components that move, flash, or change copy is not permitted. (c) Maintenance and Repair of On-Premises Signs. Any nonconforming on- premises sign shall immediately lose its legal nonconforming designation, and be removed or brought into conformity with the provisions of this chapter, when one (1) or more of the following events occur: (1) Alterations to sign: (i) If alterations are made to the sign that exceed twenty-five (25)percent of the replacement cost of the sign it shall lose its nonconforming status; or (ii) For freestanding signs, re-facing the sign with a new message is permitted; however, if the cabinetry housing the sign is removed, or is intended to be replaced, the sign shall lose its nonconforming status; or (iii) In no case shall an on-premises sign be permitted to be expanded or enlarged. (2) Alteration to Associated Business or Site. Should a business with a nonconforming sign undergo remodel or site improvements, the sign shall lose its nonconforming status under any of the following circumstances: (i) The on-site renovation, construction, or other site improvements exceed seventy-five (75)percent of the assessed improvement value of the site; or (ii) On-site construction/improvements costs exceed fifty thousand(50,000) dollars. � existing the subjeet p ..eAy f r e e (1) year-OF 0, the sign shall lose its„ n f 6 Zoning Code Amendments Figure 20.52(a) Freestanding Signs: Zone-Specific Size and Design Requirements 4 Commercial Zones Freestanding Sign Type Max. Height° Max. Size 1,2.4 Commercial Corridor(CC) Monument only 8' 60 sq. ft. Wheaton Way Redev. Corr. (WWRC) Monument only 8' 60 sq. ft. Neighborhood Business (NB) Monument only 6' 60 sq. ft. Limited Commercial (LC) Monument only 8' 60 sq. ft. Freeway Corridor(FC) Any 35' 100 sq. ft.' Marine Industrial (MI) Monument only 8' 100 sq. ft. Industrial Park (IP) Monument only 8' 100 sq. ft. Industrial (I) Any 25' - Institutional(INST) Monument only 8' 60 sq. ft. Downtown and Centers Zones Freestanding Sign Type Max. Height Max. Size Neighborhood Center Core(NCC) Monument only 8' 60 sq. ft. District Center Core (DCC) Monument only 8' 60 sq. ft. Downtown Core (DC) Monument only 8' 60 sq. ft. Downtown Waterfront(DW) Monument only 8' 60 sq. ft. Business Core (BC) Monument only 8' 60 sq. ft. Employment Center(EC) Monument only 8' 60 sq. ft. 1. Maximum size is ferndi v,*d1l;I fFeestanding signs. Total allowable freestanding sign area is based on linear sty-eet ftentage per- LNly Gallowable.1 Wand 14 Mere than one (1) freestanding 11 Larger signs for shopping centers or professional office complexes are allowable per BMC 20.52.1 00(c).. 2-3. Larger signs for auto dealership groups are allowable per BMC 20.52.110. 34. Freestanding sign size for special purpose zones not listed in this table are subject to the requirements of BMC 20.52.130. 4. Freestanding signs fronting Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way may increase the maximum height to fifteen (15) feet, and maximum area to one hundred (100) square feet, which is a permissible departure from the requirements listed in Figure 20.52(a). 7 Zoning Code Amendments SECTION 3. 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 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the day of , 2014 GREG WHEELER, Council President Approved this day of 92014 PATTY LENT, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of _, 2014 EFFECTIVE the day of , 2014 ORDINANCE NO. 8 Zoning Code Amendments FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary: The proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code concern amending Chapter 20.52 Sign Standards. I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Project Description: The proposed amendment package includes revisions to Bremerton Municipal Code 20.52 Sign Regulations as follows: • Revise method for determining sign height, exempt wayfinding signs erected by the City, update dimensional standards along Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way, permit co-op signs along Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way, revise the number of signs permitted per property to one per frontage, revise standards for shopping center signs, and remove cessation from the nonconforming sign section. 2. Procedural History: 2.1 Planning Commission Workshops: September 16, 2014 2.2 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: October 14, 2014 2.3 Washington State Department Of Commerce Notice: October 10, 2014 2.4 Notice of Public Hearing: October 11, 2014 2.5 _ Planning Commission Public Hearing: October 21, 2014 3. Public and Agency Comment: 3.1 Planning Commission Workshop: September 16, 2014 • None 3.2 Planning Commission Hearing: October 21, 2014 • Teresa Osinski: Generally supportive of the ordinance. Concerned over possible prohibition of off-premise event and real estate signs. Supports removal of cessation requirement, suggests$50,000 threshold for nonconforming sign insufficient. • Ron Raggee: Inquired if amendments would alter requirements for building signs. 4. SEPA Determination: A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on October 10, 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; Analysis: The proposed amendments continue to uphold the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and implement the following policies: 1 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. CC1 C. Ensure on premise business signs are of size, number, quality, and style to provide identification of the businesses they support while contributing a positive visual character to the community. CCIE. Identify and implement ways to control forms of off-premise advertising other than billboards. -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. ECIC: Encourage redevelopment of underutilized land. (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 submitted by: r r, Executive Secretary 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Garrett Jackson, Planner I Date: November 12, 2014 Subject: Zoning Code Amendments—BMC Chapter 20.52, Sign Standards EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed amendments offer revisions to the municipal sign code. The sign code was last changed in May of this year, in order to avert the scheduled Amortization and removal of nonconforming signs citywide. During the review process for those changes, comments were made by the public, Planning Commission, and City Council requesting greater flexibility within the sign code, as a measured response to a recovering economy; the proposed amendments address these concerns. The Planning Commission has unanimously recommended that the City Council review and approve the proposed Ordinance in order to make the following changes to the Bremerton Municipal Code related Chapter 20.52, Sign Standards: • Wayfinding — Provide clarification that wayfinding signs are exempt from a permit when erected by the City or public authority. • Height—Alter the method for determining the height of a sign. • Dimensions - Increase maximum permitted height to fifteen feet and maximum square footage to one-hundred square feet, along Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way only. • Number— Revise the maximum number of signs permitted to one per street frontage, with exceptions for co-op signs and frontages greater than 500 lineal feet. • Co-op Sign —A new variety of sign, permitting properties not fronting Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way, but sharing a property line with a fronting property, an opportunity to place a sign along those frontages. • Shopping Center Sign — Remove language permitting additional signs. Revise minimum property qualifier from three-hundred linear feet of frontage to properties with a minimum eight acres in size. • Nonconforming Signs — Remove cessation regulations from nonconforming signs section (also commonly referred to as the `one year rule"). ATTACHMENTS Attachment I — Minutes from the Planning Commission: Workshop on September 16, 2014 and Hearing on October 21, 2014 (Draft). PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommends that City Council review the materials provided, conduct a Public Hearing, consider testimony and approve the proposed Ordinance. Background: The sign code was adopted in 2005, and emphasized a pedestrian scale by utilizing monument signs and reduced height limits. Since that time the economy has been in flux, leading to a shift in market demands for signage. A sign code is needed that reflects these changes by allowing greater flexibility by permitting a greater variety of signage options while remaining in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Much of the proposed changes will apply specifically to two of the City's main corridors, Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way. The Comprehensive Plan calls for designing a streetscape that benefits pedestrians, and planning for pedestrians is punctuated within Centers. Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way span large expanses of the City, covering three District Centers, one Neighborhood Center, and various zoning districts in between. The proposed amendments, whether specific to these corridors or the remainder of the City, increase the signage options available, provide relief from current economic challenges, and maintain a quality streetscape for pedestrian traffic. Wayfinding Signs: �THLA-T PARK��j A wayfinding sign is a sign, map, and other graphic used to ?LWIT011N " convey location and directions to travelers. Off premise wayfinding signs will continue to be prohibited for signs not fl, erected by the City or other public authority. Height: Currently, code language stipulates a sign be measured f j from grade to the highest point of the sign structure. The proposed revisions would exclude architectural additions above the advertising. Revisions will promote architectural diversity for more attractive signage citywide. CURRENT CODE__________ PROPOSED ADVERTISING ADVERTISING 0 Page 2 Dimensions: Increase the maximum height of freestanding signs along Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way to fifteen feet and the maximum area to 100 square feet. These dimensions would make Bremerton competitive with what is currently permitted by neighboring jurisdictions. The proposed increase in size, when teamed with the proposed reduction in the number of signs permitted, provides a balance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as reviewed in the Findings and Conclusions, Exhibit A of the ordinance. To ensure safe traffic conditions, all signage must continue to comply with the "clear vision triangle". Number: In order to balance the proposed increase in height and area, the number of signs permitted per property would be limited to one per frontage, which is a reduction from the current code. Larger properties on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way may be permitted an additional freestanding sign. A property may also have an additional freestanding sign when that sign is a "Co-op" sign; which is discussed in the next section. The increases in the physical dimensions of signage within the City is balanced by a reduction in the number of signs permitted per property. All neighboring jurisdictions share the standard one sign permitted per street frontage. Both the increase in size and the reduction in number make the City competitive with neighboring jurisdictions, while shielding residential areas by limiting the increases to these corridors. Co-op Sign: A Co-op sign is a new variety of sign, which permits properties not directly fronting Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way an opportunity to Nonfronttng Parcel Fronting Parcel advertise on fronting parcels. The nonfronting parcel must share a property line with the fronting parcel. The nonfronting SIGN parcel would transfer the right to develop a freestanding sign on the nonfronting parcel to the fronting parcel. In other words, with the exception of directional signs, a nonfronting parcel with a co-op sign would FIr --- -----> not be permitted a freestanding sign on their property. A Notice to Title would be required for both properties, which recognizes the presence of a co-op sign, and the guidelines for its continued use. In the case that the fronting and nonfronting parcel agree to a single shared freestanding sign, this reduction in signage would be incentivized by a 25% bonus in permitted square footage of the signage. 0 Page 3 Shopping Center Sign: A minor revision is necessary to this section to ensure continuity with the proposed one sign per street frontage maximum. Currently shopping centers or multi-occupancy developments are permitted additional freestanding signs, this language would be removed to limit the number to one per frontage. The minimum property eligibility would also transition from a method based off a minimum amount of linear street frontage, to a minimum amount of acreage. Acreage is the standard qualifier for neighboring jurisdictions. Nonconforming Signs: The cessation requirement of the nonconforming sign code is recommended for removal. Cessation mandates that any sign abandoned for at least a year would require removal. Considering current economic conditions, cessation may be too aggressive of an approach to nonconforming sign removal. SUMMARY: The Planning Commission finds that these amendments improve the functionality of the zoning code and will better address economic challenges following the 2008 recession. The proposed amendments provide increased flexibility and variability is the types of signage allowed, while providing a quality pedestrian streetscape. 0 Page 4 CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING September 16, 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 Allison Satter,Senior Planner,Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Garrett Jackson,Planner I,Department of Community Development Commissioner Nethery Commissioner Simpson Commissioner Wofford Commissioners Absent Commissioner Strube(excused) Quorum Certifled APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER WOFFORD MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER WOFFORD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 15, 2014 AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public(public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Tift issued a call to the public for comments on items other than those listed on the agenda. He noted that a number of citizens were present to speak on the casino proposal. This item is related to the Comprehensive Plan Update, which is scheduled as the last item on the agenda. He emphasized that no formal proposal for a casino has been submitted to the City, and the specific issue is not scheduled on the Commission's agenda for discussion at this time. However,he acknowledged that the use could be considered as part of the,Comprehensive Plan Update if an application is received. To respect the citizens' time,the Commission agreed to accept public comment regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update now rather than waiting until the end of the agenda. Bob Dryer, Bremerton, said he and his wife are the Neighborhood Watch Block Captains for the 1700 block of North Wycoff, where they have lived for 8 years. He noted that his block is a heavily-traveled road without sidewalks and 20 children. Within a half mile radius from his home during the months of July and August there were 6 assaults, 14 civil and domestic disturbances and 19 burglaries and thefts;and statistics demonstrate that bringing a casino into the residential area would result in increases across the board. Although THE KUSAP SUN reported that the Mayor and City Council are opposed to a casino use, an article in last night's SEATTLE TIMES demonstrates that the discussion is not over. He shared the following data to support his opposition to casino uses: • Based on data from the United States Agriculture's Report on Expenditures on Children by Families in 2013,Bremerton was listed as the 8'h worst city in the country for raising children in economic terms. • In 1997,the Kansas City Star reported on a survey of 184 Gamblers Anonymous members, which indicated that 56% admitted to some illegal act to obtain money to gamble, 58% wrote bad checks, and 44% stole money from their employers. • In 1999,the National Gambling Impact Commission's Study recommended a national moratorium on the expansion of gambling and more study of its cost benefits and effects. • A 2001 report evaluating industries with externalities,particularly in the case of casinos,stated that studies that purport to evaluate the economic impact of casinos commonly exhibit a great deal of misunderstanding about what should be included among benefits and costs. • A 2006 Washington Post report on casinos,crime and community costs stated that crime began to rise after the first year until it had far surpassed what it would have been if the casino has never opened. By the 5th year, robberies were up 1361/6,aggravated assault 190/6,auto theft 78%,burglary 50%,larceny 38%and rape 21%. The report provided evidence that casinos create crime locally and don't merely attract it from somewhere else. • In 2014,the Ohio Casino Control Commission's Criminal Statistics identified 319 criminal incidents in one year directly related to their casinos. Mr.Dryer summarized that.the statistics say nothing about the subsequent destruction heaped on local families. Along with crime and increased foot traffic, vehicular traffic will increase where street parking is already limited, thus making the neighborhood all the more dangerous for children. With the combination of increased crime and continued economic loss, housing values continue to drop and struggles only intensify for families working to build their lives in the community. As researcher Earl Grinols said, "Gambling is a loser from society's point of view and carries social costs that outweigh the benefits." As a local government,the Commission has a moral responsibility to protect the citizenry. He urged them not sacrifice the citizens for the sake of economic illusions. Pete Cann, Bremerton, said he lives just two or three blocks from the site where a casino has been proposed on Callow Avenue. While the area needs,to be cleaned up,he expressed his belief that the subject property is too small and not an appropriate place for a casino. A much larger area is needed for this type of use. Lowell Yoasimer,Bremerton,commented that the City is on a positive path of revitalization from its downtown core to its farthest outlying neighborhoods. Years of hard work and ground work are in motion to ensure the best possible results in creating a strong,positive and inviting city for people to invest in with their dreams of a better future. He said most would agree that more could and should be done to help this along,but rezoning of residential properties to commercial properties to potentially allow a tribal casino would undermine the long-term image and success of the City. He encouraged the City to stay on track and not gamble away its future. Celeste Beaumont, Bremerton, asked that her property and other residential properties be referred to as homes and not simply properties. The homes are located in a neighborhood, and the person proposing the casino should find somewhere else to locate his business. She suggested that the casino proponent is using his Native American status to get what he wants, and it is very unjust. Heidi Yoxsimer,Bremerton,said she and her husband have owned and operated the Hi-Lo 15'h Street Cafd for the past 8.5 years. She has reviewed Mr.Ragge's proposal to build a tribal casino starting at 1321 Callow Avenue and branching out in various directions throughout the neighborhood;and she does not support the development in any way,shape or form. She was pleased to read in THE K17SAP SUN that the City Council listened to the citizens and is looking out for the best interest Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 2 of 13 of the community. While working on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update she asked that rezoning to allow a tribal casino in the neighborhood be denied. Isaiah Hoffstetter,Bremerton,said he opposes the establishment of a casino on Callow Avenue. Barbara Strassburg,Bremerton,said she owns property next to the HiLo 15'h Street Cafb. She has maintained her property and kept her rents low. She screens her tenants very closely,and she is definitely opposed to the casino. She suggested that special consideration should be given to the neighborhood, itself, and the people who have maintained their properties even though they are rentals. Although the City Council has gone on record that they do not support a casino in this location, it could still be considered an option in the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Tift clarified that there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan or on the Commission's agenda at the moment with regard to a casino. However,the property owner could submit a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment at some point in the future that would allow casinos. Ms. Strassburg pointed out that the property is tribal land,so the City does not have the ability to govern it. Ms. Strassburg said she thought the obligation of City Council Members was to represent the needs of their district,and she does not believe that Council Member Runyon has done that. Instead of working for the people,he appears to be working for Mr.Ragge,who has indicated his desire to push forward with the casino plan. She questioned when the public would have an opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposal. Rich Connell, Bremerton, said he owns a duplex at 1339 Callow Avenue and was present to voice opposition to the proposed casino. He said he is opposed to selling his properties because the assessed value would be less than half of fair market value. Donna Nielson,Bremerton,said she owns property at 1333 North Callow Avenue and supports the proposed casino because it would improve the site and the entire neighborhood. While several property owners testified at a recent City Council Meeting that they had improved their properties,very few of the homes are well-kept. She acknowledged that her house on Callow Avenue is not well maintained. It is a very small home,and they would like to redevelop the site. Bremerton needs more people,and what has been done so far has not encouraged new residents. Tiffany Gay, Bremerton, said she owns property at 1309 North Montgomery and has lived in the neighborhood for six years. During that time,there,has not been a lot of improvement. Many of the units are rentals,and there is an abandoned house next to her that she has tried to care for. She voiced concern that the Mayor and City Council have already issued an opinion before a proposal has even been submitted. She said she can't form a definite opinion either for or against the concept until more information is available. However,at this time she is leaning towards being in favor of the idea because it would result in improvements to the area. James Robertson,Bremerton,said he and his wife own the house at 1334 North Callow Avenue,which is near the property in question. His understanding is that the City is at a stalemate with the property owner, and the casino proposal could present a potential resolution. While he is not ready to voice either support or opposition for the proposal,it should at least be considered further. Doug Whittle,Bremerton,said he owns a rental property at 1303 North Callow Avenue. He said he also is leaning in favor of the casino. While the Mayor commented that it would be better to see the properties fixed up, it is important to keep in mind that it is a low-income neighborhood and most of the properties are in poor condition. The casino proposal could address this issue. People who sell their residential properties would have money to move elsewhere and the neighborhood could be fixed up. Caroline Stein, Bremerton, said she was present to represent herself and her mother who own property at 1327 Callow Avenue. She encouraged the Commissioners to think about opportunities for both residential and commercial uses in this area. She voiced concern that focusing solely on the casino could taint future discussions about other potential rezones in the area that would allow desirable commercial and residential development. David Richards,Bremerton,said he owns property at 1718 North Callow Avenue. He expressed concern that if a casino is developed on property that is tribally owned, the City would not have any control over the use and it could continue to spread. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014--Page 3 of 13 Barbara Strassburg, Bremerton, agreed that the neighborhood is blue collar, but there are hard-working families living there. Again,she said the casino does not belong in the neighborhood,and property owners should be given an opportunity to fix up their properties if they can afford to. Chair Tift thanked the citizens for their comments,but emphasized that there is no proposal for a casino currently before the Commission. Director Spencer referred to the City's website www.Bremeiton2035.com, which provides a link to district profiles. Each profile provides a preliminary analysis of what staff anticipates is going to change in the Comprehensive Plan Update. In addition to amendments initiated by the City, citizens can also propose amendments between January 1" and April 1"of next year. She particularly invited those present to view District Profile 6 and submit comments to staff. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the work plan for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update in October. Those who sign up on the website can become parties of record and receive notices as the update process moves forward. Public Hearin¢: Zonine Code Amendments for Subdivision Rcaulations Ms.Satter reviewed that the Commission conducted a workshop in July to discuss proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations to reflect economic changes and improve the clarity and flexibility of the City's code requirements. She explained that the subdivision process is broken into three steps: • Preliminary Approval. This conceptual review evaluates project plans and determines if they are feasible and able to comply with all applicable regulations. A Preliminary Approval is valid for five years. • Site Development. At this point, the applicant submits plans for the construction of infrastructure(sewer lines, water lines, roadways, parks, sidewalks, street lighting, etc.). This approval grants the applicant the ability to begin construction,but only for infrastructure,not homes. The infrastructure must be completed within a five-year window. • Final Approval. A developer will not be permitted to create the new lot lines until all the required infrastructure has been completed and approved by the City. This final step includes the recording of all the separated lots and the granting of new addresses and tax lot numbers. This allows each lot to be sold and developed. Ms. Satter reviewed that at their July workshop, the Commission directed staff to research other jurisdictions and prepare amendments that address the following topics related to the processing and permitting of subdivisions: • Clarify the differences and requirements for "major" and "minor" amendments to,preliminarily approved subdivisions. There are numerous preliminarily approved new lots in Bremerton that have not been finalized,and most are under new ownership. In many cases,the new owners want to maintain the code vesting of the existing approval but substantially change the project's scope, size, layout,etc. The existing code language is vague and does not adequately differentiate a "major amendment" from a "minor amendment." In addition, it does not clearly identify what would trigger an entirely new project approval. Staff recommends modifying the code to allow minor amendments as an administrative approval, but require major amendments to re-apply for preliminary plat approval. The revised code language also lists the following criteria for determining whether or not an amendment is minor: o No changes to the conditions of approval given at preliminary approval o Minor reduction of lots(no more than 5) o No increase in lots o Minor alteration of layout(no more than 10%overall change) o Changes to phasing are not permitted with a minor amendment • Add language to allow for project phasing beyond five years for new subdivision applications. Economic changes as a result of the recession have increased the popularity of phasing. However, only a few jurisdictions have specific code language to address the concept. After reviewing other jurisdictions and assessing the State code regarding the topic, staff recommends-modifying Bremerton's code to allow for phasing, but limit the number of phases to four, require the first phase to be completed in five years,and establish a two-year time limit on each subsequent phase. Staff also recommends adding criteria to establish how phasing is to be reviewed and what needs to be submitted for the phasing plan. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014-Page 4 of 13 • Increase flexibility by adding language to allow for extended time to install required infrastructure for existing projects struggling to achieve completion of requirements. As per State Law,plats approved before 2008 have a 10- year completion timeline,those approved before 2015 have a 7-year completion timeline,and those approved after 2015 will have a 5-year completion timeline. The City has approximately 2,000 lots with preliminary approval that would have expired already had it not been for the State doubling the time allowed for project completion. Many of these existing projects have not progressed since their original approval nearly 10 year ago,and little or no infrastructure has been installed. As the expiration date of the State extension nears, developers are beginning to request extensions in order to further extend the life of preliminary plat approvals so they do not have to comply with the more stringent requirements in place today. Extensions are requested for projects with existing land use approval and are typically granted under extenuating circumstances when project construction is near completion but cannot be fully completed in the time allotted. Consistent with many other jurisdictions, staff is proposing the City allow two, one-year extensions over the life of the project if o The application for an extension is filed at least thirty days prior to the preliminary subdivision expiration. o It can be demonstrated that tangible progress and reasonable diligence is being made towards infrastructure completion such that it is clear the project completion will occur within the timeline of the extension requested. o It can be demonstrated that the extension requested is the minimum necessary to finalize the necessary infrastructure improvements required for final subdivision approval. Ms. Satter explained that, when reviewing the proposed amendments, the Commission should carefully consider the combined impacts of extensions and phasing. For example,because the amendments would significantly extend the time a new project remains valid, the combined impact may encourage developers to gain preliminary plat approval without the intent of developing in the near future so that the project is vested to the older,less strict regulations. Chair Tift issued a call to the public to participate in the public hearing. Mark Kuhlman,Bremerton,said he is the owner of Team 4 Engineering and has been doing subdivisions in Kitsap County since 1976. He expressed concern that although the subdivision process has gotten far more difficult over the years, the timeline has remained the same. He pointed out that 60%of a project's engineering is related to stormwater issues, and it takes much longer to do a design that complies with the codes. In addition, it takes longer for staff to review the more complex designs. He said it is not unusual to have a two-year period between the time an application is submitted and the time a construction plan is approved. They try to focus their work in the dryer summer months,and construction is further complicated by water/fish windows. Even a good project in Kitsap County will only have four or five sales per month, so large projects will likely be phased. Five years is definitely not enough time to complete a plat of 100 to 200 lots. He said he supports the proposed amendments,which provide more clarity to staff. Isaiah Hoffstatter,Bremerton,said he was present to support the idea of building more residential housing in Bremerton. Development projects will provide more work for members of his local Union 528 to install the concrete foundations. The public comment period was closed. Commissioner Wofford asked if the City requires developers to provide irrigation for street trees and if they must be replaced if they die. Ms. Satter answered that the City requires developers to provide irrigation for street trees that are planted on site and in the rights-of-way,but there is a temporary provision for irrigation on soils that take deep moisture. At least 80%of the landscaping must survive a minimum two years, and the trees should remain for the life of the project. If not,the City can require tree replacement. Commissioner Albright referred to the proposed amendments to Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.12.140(2)(b), and asked if an amendment would automatically be considered"major"if the Director determines that a new State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist would be required. Director Spencer explained that the intent of this statement is that subdivisions that have already gone through the SEPA process and received preliminary approval could use the existing environmental documents for the subdivision amendment as long as the proposed change would not increase the environmental impacts. Commissioner Albright voiced concern about allowing the Director the discretion to make this determination. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,1014—Page 5 of 13 Chair Till observed that,as currently proposed, a project approval would have an 11-year time limit,with two potential 1- year extensions,for a maximum total of 13 years. Ms.Satter concurred and clarified that while an applicant could break the project into a maximum of four phases,only two extensions would be allowed for the entire project. Commissioner Simpson asked if a developer would be required to complete infrastructure for the entire subdivisions before he/she would be allowed to sell the lots and begin development in phases. Ms.Satter clarified that a developer must submit a plan for all of the infrastructure required on the site,but completion of the infrastructure improvements could be done in phases. Chair Titl observed that the.objective of the proposed amendments is to save original projects from having to start over' when minor changes are proposed. Director Spencer clarified that the proposed language would provide clarification and codify how staff has been processing minor versus major amendments. Commissioner Simpson recalled that at their study session in July,she expressed concern about limiting minor amendments to no more than five lots, regardless of the project's size. She asked if it would be possible to base the change on a percentage of the lot capacity. Director Spencer said staff researched this option and was unable to get a percentage approach to work because 5% of a very large subdivision is a sigirificant change. Capping the change at 5 would be the easiest approach for implementation. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO BMC 20.12 AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT 1,BASED UPON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT H. COMMISSIONER WOFFORD SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Workshop: Zoning Code Amendments for Sien Reeul tions Mr.Jackson reviewed that the sign code was last changed in May of this year in order to avert the impending scheduled amortization and removal of nonconforming signs citywide. During the review process for the changes, staff received comments from the public, Planning Commission, and City Council requesting increased visibility for freestanding signs along Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way. Since that time,staff has considered options for making the sign code more flexible, while maintaining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. At this workshop, staff is seeking feedback from the Commission on increasing sign visibility. Other workshop topics'include additional language to permit a limited number of way-fording signs as required by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the revised nonconforming sign code. • Freestaisdine Sians Mr. Jackson reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan mandates that there is a balance between the size and number of freestanding signs. Currently, there are a large number of signs on Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way, but they must be relatively small in stature. This has resulted in a streetscape that is obscured by signage. Not only is the streetscape cluttered,but it defeats the purpose of advertising in general. He advised that,as per the current code,properties fronting on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way are permitted signs up to 8 feet in height and 60 square feet in area. While this is more conservative than in neighboring jurisdictions, Bremerton allows a higher number of signs per parcel on large properties. Currently,parcels with less than 50 feet of street frontage are limited to one freestanding sign,but parcels over 50 feet are permitted multiple freestanding signs,provided they are setback 25 feet from the property line and spaced fifty feet apart. He provided examples of current signage,noting that although large properties are allowed additional signage,most developers are choosing to have only one or two signs along the street front. Consistent with neighboring jurisdictions, Mr. Jackson said staff is proposing that the code be amended to permit fewer signs with increased height and area on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way only. As currently proposed, the maximum sign height would be increased to 15 feet and the maximum area to 100 square feet. The number of signs permitted would be limited to one per parcel's street frontage,and the 25-foot setback and 50-foot spacing requirements would be eliminated. In addition,staff is recommending a limited number of exceptions to permitting one sign per each street frontage: Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 6 of 13 o One additional sign would be permitted for properties with over 500 feet of continuous street frontage. o Permit a new variety of signage (Co-Op) that would provide businesses that do not have street frontage on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way a reasonable opportunity to advertise. A business would only be allowed one co- op sign per street frontage, and the properties participating in the progrirn must share a property line. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,this opportunity to advertise would not result in an increase in overall signage,as the property owner would relinquish the right to have a freestanding sign on the non-fronting parcel. He shared several examples to illustrate where this exception could be applied, and suggested that the option would provide incentive for business owners to replace signs that are in disrepair with new, more visible signage on major arterials. Commissioner Wofford asked if a strip mall on Kitsap Way with several businesses would be limited to just one sign. Mr. Jackson answered that only one sign would be allowed per street frontage. However, he emphasized that the proposed amendment would dramatically increase the square footage and height limits allowed. He specifically referred to the proposed amendment to BMC 20.52.100(c),which would remove language that permits additional freestanding signs. Also, instead of requiring 300 linear feet to qualify for a shopping center sign,a minimum of 8 acres would be required. • Nonconforming Signs Ms. Satter reviewed that earlier in 2014 the City replaced its amortization requirement with a nonconforming code that is tied to activities occurring on a site-by-site basis. As currently written, off-premise signs lose their legal, nonconforming status if they are altered. On-premise signs lose their legal, nonconforming status if alternations to the sign are made that exceed 25%of the replacement cost of the sign,alterations are made to the associated business or site that exceed 75%of the assessed improvement value of the site or$50,000 dollars,or the sign has not advertised an existing business on the subject property for one year or more. Ms. Satter explained that while the guiding concept for nonconforming signage represents a drastic improvement over amortization, fine tuning is required in its application to ensure consistency with all signage and with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is specifically seeking feedback from the Commission about when the City should require property owners to remove signs. For example,how should they handle situations where multiple tenants advertise on a single sign or there are multiple tenants on a site? Also,should the City require that a nonconforming sign be removed at the time of building permit or when the actual improvements are made? • Way-Finding Signs Mr. Jackson explained that WSDOT has a program for posting informational signage along highways to aid motorist in finding off-highway opportunities. In some cases, when a business is not within a reasonable distance from the highway, WSDOT will require it to post way-finding signs to help motorists locate the site. These signs require the permission of the local jurisdiction. Currently, the City does not permit this type of off-premise sign, and staff is suggesting the code be amended to permit them for recreation and tourist activities. However, it is important for the City to have an organized program that includes design standards and limits the placement and number of signs. He invited the Commission to provide feedback regarding what the appropriate design standards might be. Chair Tift invited members of the public to comment_on the proposed sign code amendments. No one in.the audience indicated a desire to participate,and the public comment period was closed. Commissioner Simpson asked if staff would propose design criteria for co-op signs. If so, how would it address what happens to the sign when one business changes and a portion of the sign needs to be altered. Director Spencer clarified that co-op signs would not be a combination of signage between two property owners. It is essentially taking the freestanding sign that is allowed on the back parcel and moving it to the street front. The front parcel would be allowed to have a separate freestanding sign,as well. Mr.Jackson added that each nonfronting parcel would be allowed just one street front sign. Commissioner Albright commented that property owners in the downtown core are extremely interested in amending the code to allow for way-finding signs. They are currently seeking funding to introduce way-finding signage to direct people Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014--Page 7 of 13 from the ferry into the downtown core. She suggested the Commission invite the downtown businesses to comment on the issue. Director Spencer reminded the Commission that the current code does not allow off-premise signage. While basic directional signs are allowed,they cannot include business logos,etc.that identify certain businesses. Commissioner Wofford asked if there would be a space requirement between co-op signs and signs advertising a street front business. Mr.Jackson answered that no spacing requirement as been proposed. The number of signs allowed is determined by the number of street frontages a property owner has. Where they are placed is up to the developer. Staff has found that spacing requirements can be confusing and serve little purpose. Director Spencer added that there are placement requirements associated with driveways to ensure that clear vision triangles are maintained. Commissioner Dinkuhn said that in an effort to reduce clutter and maintain visibility,she would prefer a lower overall size limit that is consistent with Port Orchard and Kitsap County. Perhaps 90 square feet would be better. Commissioner Wofford concurred. Commissioner Nethery asked if a co-op sign would require an agreement between the fronting and nonfronting property owners. Director Spencer answered that both property owners must be willing,and the agreement must be submitted to the City. Commissioner Nethery asked if the agreement could be voided if properties and/or businesses change hands. Director Spencer cautioned that the logistics of the concept still have to be worked out. Commissioner Nethery noted that,as proposed,larger shopping center signs would only be allowed on properties that are at least eight acres in size. He expressed concern that the proposed size limit would not be enough for smaller shopping centers with multiple tenants. Ms.Satter explained that staff considered how the proposed amendments would be implemented on existing shopping centers. All of them are greater than eight acres,which means that a sign of up to 300 square feet would be allowed. She pointed out that the current code allows pole signs for businesses along the freeway corridor. Commissioner Nethery said he supports the proposed amendments,which allow greater flexibility. He commented that the current sign limitations have driven away several prospective buyers. Commissioner Dinkuhn asked if code language could be added to require actual property owners to deal with derelict signs rather than the tenants that are no longer there. Director Spencer agreed that is a significant issue,and the current code does not mandate removal. Staff has made the interpretation that if a sign has not been used for signage in the past year,it can no longer be used. However,there are situations where other businesses have advertised on the same sign pole. Should they be allowed to continue to use the same pole,and simply remove the portion of signage that is no longer used? Commissioner Simpson questioned the cost of removing and/or replacing the old`Baskin Robbins"sign. The current code eliminates the property owner's ability to use the existing sign, and the proposed amendment would require the sign to be eliminated. Yet the City cannot even guarantee that the area where the current sign is located is large enough to accommodate a new monument sign at the dimensions proposed. She is leaning towards allowing replacement of the "Baskin Robbins"portion of the sign until such time as the property owners are willing to-remove and/or replace the entire sign. Director Spencer recalled that until recently, all nonconforming signage had to be removed by a certain date. This amortization process was replaced with new nonconforming provisions. Commissioner Simpson asked if staff could provide a cost estimate for removing an existing nonconforming sign and replacing it with a code-compliant sign. Commissioner Dinkuhn expressed her belief that cost is irrelevant. .The bigger issue is whether or not the City should hold property owners responsible for the contributions they make to the community. If a sign is visually atrocious, the City should have the ability to require something better. Commissioner Albright suggested that perhaps the replacement criteria could be based on whether or not the anchor tenant and/or anchor use has changed. Chair Tiljt commented that because the Commission recommended and the City Council adopted code language that replaced the amortization provision with the nonconforming provision, they must come up with reasonable guidelines to guide future implementation. Director Spencer summarized the Commission's feedback as follows: Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 8 of 13 i o The Commission offered support for amending the code to permit fewer freestanding signs with increased height and area on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way. The total number of freestanding signs would be limited to one,except one additional sign would be allowed for properties with over 500 feet of continuous street frontage. o The Commission indicated support for amending the code to permit a new variety of signage(co-op)that would provide business that do not have street frontage on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way a reasonable opportunity to advertise. Commissioner Nethery agreed to provide information to staff about how real estate transactions work o Additional work is needed to address criteria for multi-tenant signs that are nonconforming. o Staff will continue to work on a proposal for off-premise way-finding signage. The Commission took a short recess at 7:27 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:34 p.m. Workshop: Comprehensive Plan Update Introduction and Work Plan Ms. Satter said the purpose of the workshop is to introduce the Planning Commission to the Comprehensive Plan Update. Topics of discussion will include the work program, public participation process, and an overview of the schedule. She reviewed the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan,explained why it must be updated on a regular basis,and advised about the timeline for completing the update. The Legislature approved an extension due to the economic recession, and the City's deadline for completing its update is now June 30, 2016. She emphasized that the City must have an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Ms. Satter referred to the proposed Work Program (Attachment C), which identifies the major steps or phases of the planning process,the roles and relationships among the participants in the process,a timeline for program execution,specific major technical tasks,and products of each phase. She noted that a total of 24 meetings have been identified, including 14 Planning Commission workshops throughout 2015 with staff presentations and opportunity for public comments. Ms.Satter reviewed the overall vision of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. She explained that the City of Bremerton has been identified as a Regional Growth Center in the multi-county and county-wide planning policies. Because the City is a metropolitan area, it needs to plan for additional development. The intent was to protect and promote the single-family neighborhoods,provide more choices and opportunities, improve efficiency and insure compatibility throughout the area. A significant element of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan was the "centers concept," which calls for having development and infrastructure in the core areas, with supporting residential uses around it. The goal was to create stronger neighborhoods surrounding the centers and promote walkability, a mixture of uses, different housing types and more transportation options within the centers. Ms. Satter provided a map of the City, particularly identifying the various Centers. She referred to the Land Capacity Analysis that was presented to the Commission in July. She reminded the Commission that the State Office of Financial Management,Puget Sound Regional Council,and Kitsap County have indicated that the City of Bremerton must have a plan in place to accommodate about 19,000 additional jobs and 14,000 additional residents in the next 20 years. A preliminary Land Capacity Analysis indicates that, based on current zoning, the City can accommodate 34,000 additional people and 20,000 additional jobs. Because the City has excess capacity with the current zoning, staff does not anticipate any Comprehensive Plan changes will be needed to allow increased growth. Ms. Satter encouraged Commissioners to visit the project website at www.Bremerton2035.com, which will be continually updated as the process moves forward. It will provide access to all of the documents provided to the Planning Commission, and outline the various opportunities for public involvement. Ms.Satter explained that the Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program will consist of three different review types: State Regulation Compliance. Staff reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for compliance with all of the State and regional plans and regulations that have come out since the last update in 2004. The Washington State Department of Commerce has provided a checklist to assist in this task. Attachment C of the Staff Report provides feedback on how the current Comprehensive Plan does or does not address the new state regulations. A common theme throughout the Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 9 of 13 checklist is the need to update with current data It is also important to incorporate newly adopted City plans. In addition, staff is currently participating in a joint land-use study to address military operations, which is being lead by Kitsap County.. Policies and documents that result from this study will also be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. • District Profiling. Staff and City Council Members walked through each of the seven districts in the City and a profile was created for each one. Each of the district profiles includes graphs and data on trends of development, age of structures,assessed value,etc. They also include the land-use designation descriptions from the current Comprehensive Plan. She provided a brief overview of the key findings of each of the district profiles as follows: o District 1 —The Sylvan/Pine Neighborhood Center is located in this district, and the Armin Jahr School and Blueberry Park are its key features. The idea is to have commercial uses around the key features,transitioning into higher-density residential and the single-family neighborhoods. Since adoption in 2004, minimal development has happened within this center, and it does not currently have any existing commercial development. Staffs recommendation is to remove the Sylvan/Pine Neighborhood as a center and reallocate the growth targets. A possible solution is to designate the Lebo Neighborhood as a center. The area provides key services such as a grocery store,shops and professional offices,with moderately intense residential uses incorporated above the commercial spaces and near the center core. However,there is also a significant number of duplexes north of Lions Park, and many are in need of major renovations. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan discourages duplex development citywide, and they are considered nonconforming in the residential zones in the Lebo Neighborhood. If the neighborhood is identified as a center, perhaps the Comprehensive Plan could be modified to allow duplexes in certain zoning designations. There are also a few lots abutting Wheaton Way that are considered through-lots with frontage on both Eagle Avenue and Wheaton Way. Currently,the lots are designated as Commercial Corridor(CC),which means that a business developed on the site could have its primary access and building orientation provided from Eagle Avenue rather than Wheaton Way. This could have a negative impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is recommending a split zoning designation to limit the potential impacts to Eagle Avenue. o District 2 — This district includes the Wheaton Way Corridor, Wheaton/Sylvan Neighborhood Center, Perry Avenue Neighborhood Center,Harrison Employment Center,and East Park. The Perry Avenue Neighborhood Center contains commercial on the north end and residential to the south, and there are a large number of multifamily homes located south of the center. Staff is recommending the Commission consider enlarging this neighborhood center to include the primarily nonconforming multifamily structures as the neighborhood center designation supports higher-density development. o District 3—This district includes the Downtown Regional Center and the Manette Neighborhood Center, as well as a limited commercial area where the Police Station is located. Staff is recommending that the Downtown Regional Center be expanded to include the area along 6th Street,Park Avenue and Warren Avenue. Although the area is primarily developed as commercial business, the current multifamily zoning does not outright support commercial uses. Staff is also recommending that the area between 6t"Street,Burwell Street and.Chester Avenue warrants further consideration of the appropriate designation. This area already contains numerous parking lots, a mixture of churches and church commercial uses, and multifamily residential uses. Possible consideration could be given to allowing multifamily with some limited commercial opportunities to transition the downtown into the surrounding neighborhoods. The Manette Neighborhood is considered a neighborhood center that promotes higher density residential and commercial uses. However, the center includes good stock single-family homes which are unlikely to redevelop as they have a very established and developed neighborhood between Scott Avenue and Perry Avenue and 11th Street and l3th Street. Staff is recommending that this area be removed from the neighborhood center and be re-designated as single family. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 10 of 13 A portion of the Olympic College property is located in District 3 and has been used by the college for a number of years. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as Low Density Residential(LDR),which allows educational uses through a conditional use permit process. Located north of the college property is the City's former Cencom Building. Staff receives many requests for commercial use of this space. However,due to the LDR designation,commercial uses cannot be permitted. One intent of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan was to promote homeownership by encouraging single-family homes in LDR areas and limiting duplexes and multifamily structures to center designations. However, there are numerous types of housing, including multifamily structures in this area that are currently classified as nonconforming uses. Staff is proposing the Commission consider re-designating this area and modifying the Comprehensive Plan policies to allow duplexes and townhouses. o District 4— This district encompasses a small portion of the downtown and most of Olympic College. It also includes properties designated as Neighborhood Business (NB)and Marine Industrial (MI). Because there is access to the water, the code requires that any improvements in the MI area must be functionally linked to water-dependent activities. However, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is cumntly working on a Superhard clean-up plan for the waterfront properties within this designation. Since the EPA may take over 10 years to complete the clean up, the majority of the MI area does not have access to the water. Staff is recommending the Commission consider an Industrial Park designation for the interim. Two lots to the west of the NB designation have commercial uses but are designated LDR. Staff recommends the map be revised to include these parcels in NB. A lot to the east has an NB designation,but is developed as a house. While the lot could be used for commercial, the home was recently remodeled and is not likely to redevelop in the next 20 years. Staff recommends the map be revised to change this parcel to the LDR designation. A lot to the north is also designated as NB but contains a single-family home. Due to topography, it is unlikely this lot will redevelop to commercial, and staff recommends that re-designating the property to LDR may be appropriate. Nonconformities exist within the LDR designation that were built prior to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, including corner markets. These properties are vacant and if the use is reestablished, it would be required to comply with the nonconforming provisions. However, the Comprehensive Plan is silent about supporting existing nonconforming uses within the LDR areas. Staff is recommending that the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies be amended to address existing nonconforming uses within the LDR areas that have lost their nonconforming status. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Higher Education(HE)as a designation for the land on and surrounding the Olympic College campus. This designation provides for growth of the college campus,but promotes growing up rather than occupying lands in the surrounding areas. Currently, the college owns four parcels that are located beyond the HE designation. Staff recommends that consideration be given to identifying all the parcels owned by Olympic College as HE. The area south of Olympic College contains vacant and underutilized parcels,and staff has had to deny requests to construct dormitories in this location due to the LDR regulations. Staff recommends that this area be considered for potential multifamily and/or institution designations to support housing for the college. o District 5 — This is the Charleston District Center, which has some industrial designations and limited commercial. The neighborhood just southeast of the center is LDR but is primarily developed with multifamily structures. Staff recommends the Commission consider expanding the Charleston District Center to incorporate this neighborhood and other properties that have nonconforming uses. o District 6 — This district includes the Haddon and Oyster Bay Neighborhood Centers, and parts of the Charleston District Center. There are also some commercial designations. The area around the Haddon Neighborhood Center is primarily established single-family residences under separate ownership.Although the area has the ability to grow commercial uses, it is not necessary or a benefit to have this location considered a Neighborhood Center and staff does not see the advantage of creating a.specialized plan with significant Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page I1 of 13 population growth for this area targeted. Staff is recommending removing this area as a center. The existing lots with commercial uses should be classified as some form of commercial designation and the residential uses as LDR. Just south of the Haddon Neighborhood Center and north of the Charleston District Center is an area that is designated LDR. The neighborhood contains established single-family residences. There have been proposals to expand the Charleston District Center to include this area. Based on their study and the condition of the neighborhood housing stock, as well as the fact that the growth targets don't require additional redevelopment land area,staff is not recommending an expansion of the Charleston District Center into this established single- family neighborhood. The Commercial Corridor (CC) straddles Kitsap Way. While this designation seems appropriate, specific parcels were identified as inappropriately designated: For example, the parcel just north of the Total Video Building is vacant and available for redevelopment. Due to topography,this commercially designated parcel is above the existing building located on Kitsap Way and can only be accessed from Wilbert Avenue near a 90- degree turn in the road. Staff recommends the property be designated as LDR rather than CC. Across Kitsap Way from this.parcel is a single-family residential property that sits about 40 feet above Kitsap Way due to topography. This parcel is also designated as CC, but access for the parcel is on the bend down to the l Id' Street light on Kitsap Way. Staff is also recommending that the parcels between I Ph Street and 9d' Street between Adele Street and where Charleston Avenue starts should be re-designated to a CC designation. The properties are already developed with commercial-type uses. The Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center has not been redeveloped within the last decade.If development were to occur, the area would not necessarily warrant additional planning elements. Staff is recommending that this center be re-designated to a commercial designation. o District 7—This district is the largest district in land area,with approximately 2,600 acres of LDR zoning and not a lot of commercial. The district includes the employment center for the Puget Sound Industrial Center- Bremerton and Bay Vista. The district also includes 323 acres of Industrial(I) designation,which is bordered by properties with LDR designations that are developed with single-family homes. It is not likely these properties will be developed with industrial uses. Staff is recommending that all of the single-family properties in the I designation be reviewed and considered for potential re-designation,if appropriate. There is a triangular parcel in the Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton that is separated by a wetland and the only access is from Sunnyslope Road through a residential neighborhood.-The pr6perty is zoned Industrial, which promotes heavy industrial uses. Staff recommends the Commission consider removing this property from the Manufacturing/Industrial Center(MIC)designation and re-designating to some type of residential. • Public Participation. Again,Ms.Satter,reviewed that 24 meetings are scheduled for the draft update. Members of the public can submit written comments on the postcards that will provided at each meeting. The postcards will provide contact information for staff,as well. Those who view and comment on their district profiles will be eligible to receive a prize. She encouraged the Commissioners to accept public testimony at this meeting, recognizing that no Planning Commission action is required. The Commission will conduct a public hearing regarding the proposed work plan for the Comprehensive Plan Update on the October 21". After the hearing,the Commission will forward a recommendation to the City Council. She invited Commissioners and the public to forward their additional comments to staff or to the www.Bremerton2035.com, website. She reminded the public that the timeline for submitting applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan is between January 1 and April 1, 2015. No amendment applications will be accepted in 2016. Chair Tift issued a call to the public to provide comments. Ron Ragge,Liberty Lake,said he is the person promoting the concept of a Native American casino on Callow Avenue. He said he was previously told by staff that a Comprehensive Plan amendment related to his proposal was going to be included Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014 Page 12 of 13 in the 2015 update,but he just learned today that it was nollonger included in the list of potential amendments. He pointed out that Council Member Runyon has also indicated support for a more expanded area than what he is proposing. He requested that this option remain open for additional discussion. Chair Tift closed the public portion of the workshop. Chair Tift observed that, as per the preliminary Land Capacity Analysis, the City can accommodate 34,000 additional people,which would nearly double the current population. Ms.Satter said the current population is about 39,000,but there are large parcels of vacant land that could be developed at a rate of 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre. Some of the additional population could also be allocated into the centers. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Tift did not have any additional items to report. Director Report Director Spencer announced that the Bremerton Port Commission and the Bremerton City Council took action in August to rename the South Kitsap Industrial Area(SKIA)to the Puget Sound Industrial Center—Bremerton. Director Spencer summarized that the staff spent many hours conducting district tours with City Council Members, and getting out in the field was quite useful. When the Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2004, the staff was relatively new to the City. Most of the current staff has now been on board for seven to nine years, and they did not want to make decisions based on maps while sitting at their desks. Director Spencer said people who review their District Profile, answer the questions, and provide comments will win a prize. She encouraged the Commissioners to advertise the City's website and encourage public participation. Chair Tift complimented staff and said the individual documents for each district were very helpful. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business No new business was scheduled on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Resp 'vely Submitted by: Ric d .Ti Ex� Planning Commis n Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014�Page 13 of 13 DRAFT SLibject to Novenitici 17. 20 14 Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING October 21, 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 Allison Satter, Senior Planner,Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Garrett Jackson,Planner 1,Department of Community Development Commissioner Nethery Commissioner Simpson Commissioners Absent Commissioner Strube(excused) Commissioner Wofford(excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR DINKUHN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 AS AMENDED. VICE CHAIR DINKUHN 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. Public Hearing on Proposed Chapter 20.52 Sign Code Amendments Mr. Jackson reviewed that the Planning Commission held a workshop on September 16`h to discuss potential Zoning Code amendments related to the sign code. The proposed amendments (Attachment I) arc based on feedback provided by the Commission regarding the following topics: • Wayfindmg_Signs: Mr.Jackson advised that the current code has provisions for traffic signs when erected by the City or other public authority as a traffic control device. However,the language is vague and wayfinding is not specifically called out. Staff is proposing that "wayfinding signs"be added to the language to make it clearer. Planning staff will work with the Public Works Department to fine tune how the wayfinding signs will be placed. • Sin Height: Mr.Jackson said currently,signs are measured from the base to the top of the structure the sign is housed in. The proposed new method would measure the sign from the bottom of the structure to the top of the sign(where the advertising ends). The amendment is intended to promote architectural diversity for more attractive signage citywide. • Freestanding Sign Revisions: Mr.Jackson advised that staff is recommending that the maximum height of freestanding signs along Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way be increased to fifteen (15) feet. Staff also recommends that the maximum sign area be increased to 100 square feet. In order to balance the proposed increase in height and area, staff proposes that the number of signs be limited to one per street front. The current code, which allows many small signs, is confusing and can create clutter. Not only would the amendment clarify the code and make it easier to implement, it would also be consistent with the requirements of neighboring jurisdictions. • Shopping Center Signs: Mr.Jackson noted that, currently, the code permits additional freestanding signs for shopping centers or multi-occupancy developments. Staff is recommending that this language be removed to ensure continuity with the proposed one-sign-per-street frontage maximum. • Co-Op Signs: Mr. Jackson explained that "co-op" is a new variety of signage proposed by staff, which would permit properties that do not directly front on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way,but share a property line with a fronting business, an opportunity to advertise on fronting parcels. As proposed, the non-fronting parcel owner would transfer his/her right to develop a freestanding sign on the non-fronting parcel to the owner of the front parcel. This transfer of development right would ensure there is not an overall increase in the amount of signage allowed. Based on the Commission's concerns, staff is proposing language that would require a Notice to Title for both properties that details the agreement between the two property owners. Also, in the event that the fronting and non-fronting parcel owners agree to a single, shared freestanding sign,they could receive a 25%bonus in permitted sign area. • Nonconforming Signs: Mr. Jackson reviewed that the current nonconforming section requires that a sign either be removed or brought into compliance with the code under three circumstances (when alterations are made to the sign, when alterations are made to the business or overall site,and cessation). To address concerns voiced by the community, as well as the City Council and Planning Commission,staff is proposing that the language be amended to remove the one year cessation requirement. Staff recognizes that cessation may be too aggressive of an approach. Mr.Jackson concluded his presentation by recommending the Planning Commission review the materials provided,conduct a public hearing,consider testimony and move to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. Chair Tift opened the public hearing and invited the public to provide testimony regarding the proposed amendments to the sign code. Teresa Osinski,Executive Vice President,Home Builders' Association, said the association is generally supportive of the proposed amendments, but there is concern that the proposed amendments might prohibit off-premise event signage. She noted that the Home Builders' Association holds two large home expos each year,and off-premise signs are used from time- to-time to promote the events. Off-premise signs might also be used to direct traffic to a development or residential plats. These signs are extremely important for promoting the construction industry and the opportunities available to the public,as well as increasing the City's tax base. She agreed that cessation is an extreme provision, and she encouraged the Commission to recognize that businesses, for any number of reasons, might have vacancies for more than a year. The cessation provision could hinder the further ability of properties to be marketed if the new owners are required to invest in new signs. She emphasized that signs are costly, and the City should be cautious about imposing such an expense on a property sale. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 21,2014—Page 2 of 7 Ron Raggee, Liberty Lake, asked if the proposed amendments would alter the provisions for signs on buildings. He cautioned the Commission to be very careful when applying the proposed amendments retroactively to existing businesses. Requiring property owners to do certain things may end up forcing them out of business. Teresa Osinski referred to the requirement that property renovations of more than$50,000 would require property owners to upgrade signage to meet the current code requirements. She expressed concern that$50,000 is not very much in the scope of the cost of construction, and she asked that the threshold be raised. She inquired if the $50,000 threshold would include tenant improvements. Chair Tift closed the public comment period and invited the Commissioners to share their comments and questions. Commissioner Simpson referred to the proposed provision that would allow a 25% bonus in sign area when non-fronting and fronting parcels combine signage. She asked if 25% would be the maximum bonus allowed, or if an additional bonus would be offered if more than one non-fronting parcel participates in the co-op sign. Mr.Jackson answered that the bonus would be capped at 25%. Commissioner Nethery asked if subsequent purchasers would be required to accept the co-op sign agreement as it is recorded on the title. Mr. Jackson answered that the agreement would become part of the Notice of Title and would run with the parcel. Any prospective purchaser would be aware of the requirement,and the agreement would remain valid unless authorized by City staff. if a property owner is no longer interested in having a co-op sign, it would have to be removed and subsequent signage would have to comply with the current code. Chair Tift invited staff to respond to Ms. Osinski's questions regarding off-premise signs. Mr.Jackson answered that the City would not regulate off-premise signs (7 or less days) for temporary events as described by Ms. Osinski. Real estate signs are also exempt as per current code. Chair Tift asked staff to respond to Ms. Osinski's suggestion that a $50,000 threshold for nonconforming signs would be unreasonable. Commissioner Nethery questioned if the threshold would pertain only to the structure or if tenant improvements would also be a factor. If tenant improvements are included,the dollar amount would need to be substantially higher because$50,000 could easily be spent to adapt a building for a new tenant. Vice Chair Dinkuhn suggested that the language be amended so that the threshold would only apply to exterior improvements. Commissioner Simpson suggested that the dollar amount of the threshold should also be increased. Outside improvements, such as parking lot renovations, can be costly, as well. She invited Ms. Osinski to share her insight on what an appropriate dollar amount would be. Ms. Osinski said she does not know what the right number is now, but she agreed to provide assistance to the Commission in making this determination. She said it is also important to be clear whether the number refers to pre-tax or post-tax construction costs. Director Spencer reminded the Commission that the threshold provision for nonconforming signs was added to the code when the amortization component was eliminated. The current threshold has been in place since earlier this year. The only proposal on the table is to remove the cessation provision. Rather than changing the numbers without additional work, she recommended the issue be placed in the Commission's "bullpen" of code changes. This would allow the staff and Commission an opportunity to further research and discuss the issue to identify the best solution. The Commission concurred. Commissioner Simpson asked if the proposed amendments would alter a property owner's ability to place a sign on his/her building. Director Spencer answered that staff has not heard any concerns about building signage from customers at the counter. This portion of the code is working, and no changes are being proposed at this time. Vice Chair Dinkuhn asked if the same would be true for blade signs that extend from the building and hang over the sidewalk. Mr. Jackson answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Dinkuhn said she is uncomfortable with the idea of removing the cessation provision at this time. She asked if staff is recommending removal because it is too hard to enforce. Commissioner Nethery pointed out that there are numerous buildings in the City that are vacant much longer than one year. The cost of signage is a significant factor for new Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 21,2014—Page 3 of 7 tenants,and existing suitable signs should be allowed to continue. Removing a sign's nonconforming status just because the site has been vacant for more than one year could hinder a lot of business potential. While they would all like to see the signs renovated and brought up to today's code,it is really cost prohibitive in a lot of cases. Vice Chair Dinkuhn asked at what point the City should require removal of derelict signs. She questioned if an alternate time frame would be more appropriate. She also questioned how the City would enforce the requirement. Director Spencer said it is likely that,given the poor quality of some signs,re-facing them would require significant structural changes. There are provisions in the code related to structural changes that would not allow a property owner to reuse the existing sign. She is confident that the City could require the signs that are in significant disrepair to be replaced, and she is comfortable with the current threshold related to structural changes. Chair Tift said his view on this issue was largely changed by Commissioner Netherly's comments about the hardship the cessation requirement places on businesses that want to relocate to Bremerton. He said he would support removing the cessation provision. He said he is more concerned with businesses that tag additional signs to existing pole signs. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) 20.52 AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT 11. VICE CHAIR DINKUHN SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program and Public Participation Plan Ms. Satter reviewed that the purpose of the hearing is to discuss the work program and public participation plan for the Comprehensive Plan Update. She briefly explained that the Comprehensive Plan is the umbrella policy that guides virtually all decisions made by the City and, in many cases, local organizations and individual citizens when they are considering developing. It seeks to assure that each community decision, expenditure and action is consistent with the shared vision, values and goals. The City's Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2004, and the State's Growth Management Act (GMA)requires that it be updated again by June 30, 2016. The update is necessary in order for the City to be eligible for grants and/or loans for infrastructure and programs. The goal is to keep the vision current and comply with the multi-county and countywide planning policies. She said staff recommends the Commission hold a public hearing, consider testimony, and consider passage of the following four motions: • Move to recommend the Comprehensive Plan Update Schedule as detailed in Attachment A. Ms. Satter briefly reviewed the schedule for the two year process that started last spring and is anticipated to end June 30, 2016. She specifically identified what staff needs to provide, as well as when public meetings will take place related to each of the separate Comprehensive Plan elements. She asked the Commission for feedback on whether or not the proposed schedule is feasible. • Move to recommend the Comprehensive Plan Update Public Participation Program as detailed in Attachment B. Ms. Satter explained that a public participation plan is required by GMA to outline how the City will get the public involved in the update process. She advised that the purpose and mission of the proposed plan is for early and continuous participation. Requirements in the plan address public meetings,distribution of documents for public review, open discussions, and information on the City's website. The plan calls out specific procedures, identifies the various stages in the process,and indicates the role staff will play. She provided a quick overview of the information provided' on the City's website (www.Bremerton2035.com), and encouraged Commissioners to help inform the public of where they can find up-to-date information regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update. • Move to recommend the Department of Commerce Review Checklist, Expanded District Profiles Analysis and District Profiles as presented at the September 16th Planning Commission Workshop, with the Errata presented in Attachment C-1, the revised Errata for District 3, and any direction amendments from the Planning Commission for Council adoption. Ms. Satter advised that the Washington State Department of Commerce has provided jurisdictions a periodic update checklist to help assist in the task of reviewing relevant plans and regulations that are required by the state and regional plans. The checklist has helped staff compare the City's current Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 21,2014—Page 4 of 7 Comprehensive Plan against the latest requirements and determine what needs to be reviewed in greater detail,as well as what may need to be added, deleted or amended in the plan to maintain GMA compliance. She advised that staff and most of the City Council Members toured the districts throughout the City to compare the current code to existing development. This effort resulted in individual district profiles,which include a detailed analysis of each district,as well as staff field notes and recommendations. Ms. Satter recalled that the district profiles were presented to the Commission on September 16th. Since that time, minor changes have been proposed to District 7 as per Commissioner Wofford's written comments. In addition, the Department of Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)staff has identified Downtown Bremerton as meeting the Department of Housing and Urban Development's(HUD) "slum and blight"criteria. While this is not a requirement of the Comprehensive Plan Update, staff felt it would be great to add specific goals and politics to acknowledge this condition. Also the District 3 Profile proposes that additional parcels be added to the Downtown Regional Center designation to help promote redevelopment. In addition to these parcels,staff has recommended that the area designated Limited Commercial along Burwell warrants further consideration to include in the downtown regional center. Possible consideration could be given to allow multifamily with some limited commercial opportunities to transition the downtown into the surrounding neighborhood. Lastly, she advised that revisions have been proposed to a map in the District 4 profile. She referred to the Errata Sheets for Districts, 3,4 and 7,which outline the above mentioned changes. If approved, the changes will be incorporated into the district profiles that are presented to the City Council for final approval. • Move to recommend the summarized Comprehensive Plan Schedule Work Program as detailed in Attachment C- 2. Ms. Satter explained that the Work Program Summary Report summarizes the staff recommendations contained within each of the District Profiles to help establish a work program for the Comprehensive Plan Update. She summarized that goals for the Comprehensive Plan Update include maintaining the general concepts but making updates to comply with state laws and regulations; streamlining and simplifying the plan; reducing nonconformities; and decreasing the number of smaller neighborhood centers. Ms.Satter advised that public comments will be solicited throughout the process,and Commissioners will be notified of all comments received. The comments will also be posted to www.Bremerton2035.coni as they are received. She referred to Attachment D, which summarizes all of the public comments received to date. She summarized that the majority of the comments were related to the casino proposal on Callow Avenue. Other comments included keeping Wheaton Way as a District Center and expanding the Downtown Regional Center to existing nonconforming uses (District 3 Errata). Lastly, there was a comment about police patrols and red light.cameras that was forwarded to the Police Department. Ms.Satter concluded her presentation by announcing that staff is planning to present the Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program to the City Council on November 19`h. The Commission will discuss the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan at their November 18`h and January 201h meetings. Again, she reminded the Commission that information regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update can be found at www.Bremerton2035.com,and citizens can become interested parties of record by sending an email to CompPlan(d)ci.bremerton.wa.us. Postcards for comments were available during the meeting at the back of the room and at the front counter of the Department of Community Development. Chair Tift opened the public hearing and invited members of the public to comment on the Comprehensive Plan Update items presented in the Staff Report. Doug Johnson, Bremerton, said he owns a rental home on Wycoff Avenue. When he lived in the neighborhood in the 1950s and 1960s, it was extremely well maintained. It has been discouraging watching it decline over the years, and he is encouraged by the recent improvements people have made to their homes and yards. He is in the process of fixing up his home,as well. He expressed concern that allowing a Casino on Callow Avenue will detract from the family atmosphere and have a negative impact on the community. He indicated he would follow up his comments with a letter. Ron Raggee,Liberty Lake, said he understands how Mr. Johnson feels having gown up in the neighborhood,and that may be the one saving grace for the anti-casino movement. When someone likes an area they grew up in,they will typically have a negative view of any proposed changes. However, it is important for the Commission to consider the economic benefits a casino would provide for the City of Bremerton as a whole such as 200 jobs,$5 million payroll, more than$10 million being Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 21,2014—Page 5 of 7 spent locally, and probably more than $1 million given to local charities and service groups. Mr. Raggee asked how to submit written comments regarding the Comprehensive Plan update. Chair Tift encouraged him to submit his comments to the Planning Commission. Chair Tift closed the public portion of the meeting. Commissioner Dinkuhn referred to the Comprehensive Plan Update Schedule (Attachment A) and asked if the land use discussions will focus on land use as it pertains to each of the neighborhoods or as it might change in the neighborhoods indicated in the summary. Ms. Satter said the intent is to focus on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the staff recommendations in each of the district profiles. Director Spencer added that it is also staffs intent to simplify the numerous goals and polices in the Land Use Element. There will be a lot of discussion about the language in the plan,as well as how they will"paint the map." Chair Tift asked if the summary of staff recommendations (Attachment C-2) has been presented to the City Council Members for comment. Ms. Satter answered that, prior to preparing the district profiles, staff visited each of the districts with Council Members. The ideas have been discussed with City Council Members, but they have not approved or denied any of the recommendations. However, they have received a copy of the draft profiles, and staff will present the updated profiles,along with the Planning Commission's recommendations,to the City Council on November 19`h. Chair Tift referred to the District 2 Profile, which recommends removing the reference to Harrison Hospital from the Employment Center Designation. He noted that there is currently a group meeting to discuss repurposing the Harrison Hospital Campus, and it may be premature to make this decision. Ms.Satter said the current Comprehensive Plan calls for using the Harrison Hospital Master Plan as a guiding principle in this area,and this may no longer be the case in the future. Perhaps they could remove references to "Harrison" but still support hospital uses. This is an opportunity to make the designation more vague to support uses other than Harrison Hospital. Director Spencer added that this entire section of the Comprehensive Plan is very hospital specific, and the intent of the District 2 Profile is to maintain the employment center concept without speaking to a specific type of employment. Vice Chair Dinkuhn requested clarification for the repeated references in the district profiles to smart planning principles. Ms.Satter answered saying this term implies that the City would not"willy-nilly"change property designations just because someone thinks it is a good idea. It is important to discuss why the proposed changes represent good planning and what the benefits would be. Director Spencer said it can be thought of as no spot zoning and making sure that uses across the streets from one another are consistent,etc. Chair Tift asked if the Errata Sheet for District 3, which declares it a blighted area, would be a positive step for the City. Downtown has been making a resurgence, and calling it blighted seems extreme. Ms. Spencer explained that this is a traditional HUD designation that is defined as "vacant buildings." She noted that, for numerous years, the City has had an ordinance on the books that actually designates the downtown as a slum and blighted area because of the vacancy rate. The City still meets the HUD definition, even with all the improvements that have been made. CDBG staff is expected to go to Council to renew the slum and blight ordinance, and it is expected that downtown will remain the target area. There are potential benefits to the designation, and the City Council will be weighing options on how to use block grant funds in the future. At this time,the City is an entitlement community, with its own allocation from HUD for their CDBG program. The designation might allow the City to be more strategic in how the CDBG funds arc used. The other benefit is getting it into the Comprehensive Plan so it is integrated with the City's long-term vision. Commissioner Simpson pointed out that the first sentence in the last paragraph on Page 4 of the Staff Report has incorrect dates. Ms.Satter clarified that"January 5,2016"should be replaced with"January 5,2015." COMMISSIONER SIMPSON MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE SCHEDULE AS OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENT A TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 21,2014—Page 6 of 7 VICE CHAIR DINKUHN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM AS OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENT B TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE EXPANDED DISTRICT PROFILES ANALYSIS AND DISTRICT PROFILES AS PRESENTED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2014, WITH THE ERRATA PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT C-1 AND THE REVISED ERRATA SHEET FOR DISTRICT 3 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. COMMISSIONER NETHERY SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER NETHERY MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE SUMMARIZED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SCHEDULE WORK PROGRAM AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT C-2 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Tift commented that he is always very impressed with the minutes. They are very well done. Chair Tift noted that the Commission would elect new officers for 2015 at their November meeting. Director Spencer recalled that the Commission moved "election of officers" to November of each year, as they do not typically conduct a regular meeting in December. She noted that Commissioners can serve as Vice Chair and Chair for a period of two terms. Chair Tift and Vice Chair Dmkuhn are just completing their first year, so both are eligible for reappointment if the Commission so chooses. Chair Tift announced that Governor Inslee was in Bremerton earlier in the day,and he had an opportunity to attend some of the meetings where he was present. Director Report Director Spencer did not have any additional items to report. However, she thanked Ms. Satter for all of her hard work preparing all of the materials for the meeting. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business No new business was scheduled on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: Andrea L Spencer,AICP Richard L.Tift,Chair Executive Secretary Planning Commission Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 21,2014—Page 7 of 7 is AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Resolution Study Session Date: November 12, 2014 No. 3237 to establish the Comprehensive COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 Plan Update Work Program, Schedule and Department: DCD Public Participation Plan and to suspend Presenter: Allison Satter Comprehensive Plan Amendment Phone: 360.473.5845 Applications in 2016 SUMMARY: The action before Council is to conduct a Public Hearing and adopt a resolution to set the Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program, Schedule and Public Participation Plan, and affirm the acceptance of Comprehensive Plan Update Amendment Applications to 2015, and suspend applications in 2016. This Resolution provides a work program and schedule to review potential amendments to the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map, with early and continuous public participation. In addition, the resolution limits the time frame to accept Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications from the public to allow Staff adequate time to review and analyze prior to the Comprehensive Plan Update adoption in June 2016. ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution No. 3237 • Exhibit A—Bremerton2035 Public Participation Plan • Exhibit B —Bremerton2035 Schedule • Exhibit C—Bremerton2035 Work Program Summary B. Staff Memo • Attachment I - Planning Commission Minutes (Workshop on September 16, 2014 and Hearing on October 21, 2014 (Draft)) FISCAL IMPACTS: The State mandated Comprehensive Plan Update is a work item that is part of the Department of Community Development Staffing Plan. There is money proposed in the 2015 budget for consulting contract for environmental review and capital facilities planning. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation ® Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ® Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Resolution No. 3237 to establish the Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program, Public Participation Plan, and Schedule, and to affirm amendment applications to January 5, 2015 to April 1, 2015. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action RESOLUTION NO.3237 A RESOULTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, to establish the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update Public Participation Plan, Work Program, and Schedule and affirming Comprehensive Plan amendment applications to be accepted from January 5, 2015 to April 1, 2015 and suspend applications in 2016. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton adopted a Comprehensive Plan on December 1, 2004 by Ordinance No. 4917 and has been subsequently amended by Ordinances No.; 4954, 4962, 4985, 4998, 5025, 5034, 5037, 5062, 5077, 5082, 5094, 5104, 5111, 5202, 5233 and 5237, hereinafter referred to as the"Comprehensive Plan"; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act ("GMA") RCW 360.70A.130 requires internal consistency among comprehensive plan elements and applicable regional plans; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan provides that it will be reviewed and updated to adjust to changing needs, unforeseen circumstances or new local or regional trends; and WHEREAS, to assure that comprehensive plans remain relevant and up to date, the GMA requires each jurisdiction to establish procedures whereby amendments to the plan are considered by the City Council (RCW 3 6.70A.13 0(2)), and limits these amendments to once each year unless under limited circumstances as outlined in RCW 36.70A.130; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires that City of Bremerton take legislative action to review, and if necessary, revise the Comprehensive Plan by June 30, 2016 to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan continues to comply with the requirements of GMA; and WHEREAS, City of Bremerton has identified a public participation process (Exhibit A) that'complies with the Growth'Management Act, RCW 36.70A.140, which provides for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations that implement such plans; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton has established a procedure for amending the Comprehensive Plan in Section 20.10.010 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), that limits amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to no more than once each year; and 1 Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program Hearing WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.10.030 BMC, the City of Bremerton allows Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications to be submitted annually between the first business day of January and the first business day of April; and WHEREAS, Section 20.10.070 BMC provides that all proposed amendments to the Plan shall be considered concurrently so that all cumulative effects of the amendments can be determined; and WHEREAS, to accommodate the Comprehensive Plan Update to be adopted by June 30, 2016, complete Comprehensive Plan amendment applications will be accepted between January 5, 2015 and April 1, 2015 per Section 20.10.030 BMC; and WHEREAS, Section 20.10.040 BMC allows City Council by motion or resolution, suspend the amendment process for any given calendar year; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to suspend the amendment application window in 2016 because adequate time is needed to review the cumulative effects of the City with the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, to assist GMA planning jurisdictions, the Washington State Department of Commerce, which administers the GMA, provides a compliance "checklist". This checklist was utilized by planning staff and the Planning Commission to review the Comprehensive Plan for compliance with the various provisions of the GMA including Federal, State and local laws and regulations which helped determine the Work Program in Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the Work Program Summary attached as Exhibit C identifies the scope of work that will be considered for amendments within the Comprehensive Plan update. This exhibit summarizes the Planning Commission's Recommended District Profiles; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop on the Comprehensive Work Program, Schedule and Public Participation Plan on September 16, 2014; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 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 Conunission; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 2014 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and unanimously recommended the 2016 Comprehensive Work Program, Schedule and Public Participation Plan as shown in Exhibits A, B, and C; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 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 City Council; and 2 Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program Hearing WHEREAS, on November 19, 2013 the City Council hold a public hearing and considered all testimony related to the proposal for the Public Participation Plan (Exhibit A), schedule (Exhibit B), and a Work Program that includes a scope of work which is the summary of the District Profiles and State law compliance checklist (Exhibit C); and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Fundings. The findings set forth in the recitals above are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference. SECTION 2. Application Period: Public applications for proposals of Comprehensive Plan amendments will only be accepted January 5, 2015 and April 1, 2015 as outlined in BMC 20.10.030 for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. Council is affirming that this is the only application window for the public to apply for Comprehensive Plan Update amendment. SECTION 3. Suspending Applications: Pursuant to BMC 20.10.040, the amendment applications period in 2016 is suspended. SECTION 4. Public Outreach: Pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA),public outreach and participation will be conducted as set forth in the Public Participation Plan as attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 5. Schedule: The City adopts the Comprehensive Plan Update schedule as attached hereto as Exhibit B, and this process should be completed, as GMA requires,by June 30, 2016. SECTION 6. Work Program Summary: The City adopts the Work Program as attached hereto as Exhibit C, for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program. SECTION 7. The City Council may,by motion or resolution, amend the exhibits attached hereto throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process to reflect changing conditions. SECTION 8. Severabilitv. 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 Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council the day of 12014 3 Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program Hearing GREG WHEELER, Council President Approved this day of 92014 PATTY LENT, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney R:\Legal\Legal`•.Resolutions\Community Development\Comp Plan Update Work Program 2014.docx 4 Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program Hearing Exhibit A Bremerton Comprehensive Planning PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 1. PURPOSE AND MISSION: Public participation is an essential part of the City of Bremerton's planning process. This public participation program provides the framework for public input on the review, amendment, and ultimate update of the city's comprehensive plan. In designing this public participation program, the City of Bremerton attempts to involve the broadest cross-section of the community,particularly encouraging both groups and individuals not previously involved in planning. Early, continuous, effective public participation will result in a comprehensive plan that assures the community's desired future, while meeting the mandates of the Washington State's Growth Management Act. 2. REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT The Growth Management Act requires that the City of Bremerton establish procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations. The procedures described below for the City of Bremerton Update Process will achieve the following: 1. Early and continuous participation From the onset of the process, including the creation of the participation program, the Planning Commission and city staff will ensure expansive and effective public involvement by using methods that include surveys, information bulletins, and distribution lists for all interested parties to receive regular notices, meeting advertisements, and updates. The public will be well advised of the opportunities for involvement and particularly encouraged to participate in the drafting and review of the proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Communication and information programs City staff will use all available means to encourage participation at all levels, through outreach and educational efforts, including television appearances that will be available throughout the proposal (wcb-video), presence at public events, and a website that will be continually updated with project documents and announcements. 1 Exhibit A Keeping the public informed through a variety of mediums is a key aspect of this program, and the website will be used as a top source of information. Web publications will be posted and updated regularly. These are designed to describe the Comprehensive Plan and the update process, outline opportunities for public involvement, and provide contact information, including the web site, email, and facsimile address for public inquiry and comment. Detailed information and progress reports will be available for local organizations and media outlets, such as local newsletters, news articles, and Bremerton-Kitsap Access Television (BKAT)regular appearances. 3. Public meetings with adequate notice All public meetings concerning the Comprehensive Plan will be advertised throughout the community. Formal public notices will be posted and published in consistent locations including the Department of Community Development, and "The Sun"(local daily newspaper). Interested parties will be further notified through an electronic notice distribution list,providing process updates and meeting details. 4. Provisions for open discussion Open discussion will result from a fair and open process, with various opportunities for public input. Public workshops will be advertised and made accessible to the broadest audience possible. Public notification of the meetings will be distributed in advance of the workshops. Discussion will be ensured and encouraged by designated time for facilitated discussion,public hearings prior to adoption of amendments, and well-noticed public comment periods. 5. Opportunity for written comments Written comments will be accepted and encouraged at all venues and in various forms, including email messages and facsimiles. Notice of public comments periods will encourage written comments and provide contact information, especially on draft comprehensive plan updates. Comments should be addressed to the City of Bremerton Planni%Commission at: (Mail Address) Department of Community Development, 345 6` Street Suite 600, Bremerton, Washington 98337, or(E-mail Address) comp lan(a)ci.bremerton.wa.us. For specific questions Long Range Planner,Allison Satter will be available throughout this process at(360)473-5845. Planning staff will provide public comment cards at Commission meetings and at strategic locations throughout the city. The comment cards will be regularly collected but also designed for easy postcard mailing. In addition to this, assorted City of Bremerton swag will be handed out to those who arc involved in the 2 Exhibit A commenting process. Written comments will be presented to the Planning Commission during official public meetings. 6. Consideration and "fair response" to public comments All comments on draft proposals and alternatives will be accepted and brought to the attention of the Planning Commission for their consideration. Written comments will also be kept on file for public review. City Planning Staff will acknowledge the receipt of written comments by sending a letter with notification of opportunities for further involvement. 7. Broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives Draft proposals and alternatives will be broadly disseminated throughout the community. A bulletin-type publication, posted at various locations to provide general information about the process, will direct the public to the city-wide locations for reviewing the draft materials. Locations for the review of draft proposals and alternatives include: 1. Department of Community Development, 345 6`h Street, Suite 600 Bremerton 2. Downtown Library, 612 5`h Street, Bremerton 3. Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce, 286 4`h Street, Bremerton 4. Kitsap Regional Library—Sylvan Way Branch. 1301 Sylvan Way, Bremerton 5. Sheridan Community Center, 680 Lebo Blvd., Bremerton 6. Olympic College Library, 1600 Chester Avenue, Bremerton 7. School District Office, 134 Marion Avenue, Bremerton 3. PROGRAM POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: Throughout the Comprehensive Plan update process, the City of Bremerton will maximize citizen involvement opportunities. This participation program specifically details the comprehensive update process, striving for city-wide participation as opposed to a process which tends to focus on isolated issues or properties. Efforts will continue to make the process open and accessible to all concerned parties and to make related materials and presentations easily understood by the citizens of Bremerton. STAGES of the COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PROCESS: 1. Scoping Stage: Review of the Comprehensive Vision and Goals Public participation efforts begin with accepting public comment on the Work Program established through the District Profiling exercise and review for consistency with State law and regulations. The existing Comprehensive Plan's vision, goals,policies, and implementation strategies are the starting point for the update. Fine-tuning of the Comprehensive Plan, compliance with Kitsap County- 3 Exhibit A wide planning policies, Puget Sound Regional Center Vision 2040 and Washington State mandates will be raised for discussion. 2.Adopting Stage: Proposed Updates for a Comprehensive Revision The Comprehensive Plan Update will be conducted through public, noticed hearings at which community members and interested parties will be encouraged to participate. Planning Commission and City Council will conduct workshops to deliberate the code as a whole, in addition to separating key policies into their own workshops (such as separate meetings for Housing, Land Use, Economic Development, Parks &Recreation, and Capital Facilities & Utilities). All those workshops will provide time for public comment, approximately 24+meetings. Public Hearings will be held at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels, complete with notices and written comment periods. At hearings, all persons desiring to speak should be allowed to do so, consistent with time constraints. ROLES in the COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE PROCESS: As outlined above, the Planning Commission chairs the update process for the Comprehensive Plan. Following the City Council's final adoption of comprehensive plan updates and supplemental development regulations, the Commission will monitor implementation and compliance. The Commission will hold public meetings to provide information on how implementation is progressing and to receive public input on changes that may be needed. When amendments are proposed for adoption, the same public hearing procedure should be followed as attended in the Update adoption process. Public participation and comprehensive planning are iterative and continuous. Planning staff will provide frequent progress reports on the update to the Planning Commission and the City Council, including verbal reports during regularly televised Council meetings. Members of the Planning, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, Utilities, and other City Departments will provide technical assistance throughout the process, including requests for neighborhood meetings, sub-committee work, and other opportunities. The City will support and participate in public education/involvement offered by Puget Sound Regional Council, Kitsap County, Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, surrounding jurisdictions, special districts, and other area organizations. [Statutory Authority: RCW 36.70A. -020(11),-.140,-.035,-.070,-.130(2),-.390] 4 Comprehensive Plan Update — Plan Schedule 2014-2016 BREMERTON2035 Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Data Collection Applications aCCE pted Conduct 5 EPA Inventory of LC • Trends and projections Vision and 1/5/15—4/1/15 Comment Period Local Ado ion Growth Strategy 11 i Update Elements and Regulations DOC District Tours 60-day Notice DOC ■DOC Draft P.C. Documents Resolutio of Work Plan Su mit to State ■ 1C days after • Dept.of Co nmerce(DOC) SEPA acloption • Noticef Intention PSRC PI n Certificate 0 Work Prc gram Tra sportation Shoreline AtDeliberation Work Program . A it . Capital Facilities a d nd Use Utilities raft updated . . ® amendments ork Program . . Essent at Public . At Housing Facilities&Optional • ALElements Comp Plan Rev ew Land Use . . Economic Development Parks& . Ado tion Recreation He ring • LEGEND Schedule Prepared:August 2014 ®- Planning Commission Public Workshop .-City Council General Business Please note that dates are subject to change .- Planning Commission Public Hearing .-City Council Hearing Exhibit C Bremerton2035-Work Program Summary Planning Commission Recommended Work Program Summary Report This outline broadly summarizes the recommendations made within the District Profiles that establish the Work Program for the Comprehensive Plan Update.To see the field note and full recommendation as presented by Planning Commission, please review the corresponding District Profile (identified in the chart below).The District Profiles can be found at www.Bremerton2035.com under the "Project Documents" tab. The first item addressed in this Summary Report for this Work Program Summary is for State Regulation and Law Compliance which is outlined in the Department of Commerce Expanded Comprehensive Plan Update Checklist. This complete checklist and analysis can be found at www.Bremerton2035.com under"Project Documents" called "State Law and Policy Compliance Checklist" Summary of Planning Commission Districts General Vicinity Possibly Recommendations Affected Revising-Streamlining/simplifying/revising the Plan,such as text revisions 1. Update the Comprehensive Plan to comply with all State Citywide Law and Regulations.Further analysis can be found at www.Bremerton2035.com under"Project Documents" called"State Law and Policy Compliance Checklist". 2. To assist in simplicity and creating a more user-friendly Citywide document,staff is recommending revising descriptions to help clarify all land use designations and remove reference to previous Comprehensive Plans. 3. Integrate work performed by Community of District 3 Development Block Grant(CDBG) into the and Comprehensive Plan Update.This includes identification Citywide of slum and blight areas which includes Downtown (blight). 4. Fine tuning of Wheaton Way District Center language in Located along District 2 the Plan regarding future development,with additional Wheaton Way discussions of the goals and policies of how the District between Riddell Rd Center relates to the Wheaton Way Redevelopment and sylvan way Corridor designation located just to the south of the Center. S. As South Kitsap Industrial Area has been renamed to District 7 Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton (PSIC- Bremerton),proposal is to revise language to updated name. Page 1 of 5 November 5, 2014 Exhibit C Bremerton2035—Work Program Summary 6. Employment Center Designation should remove District 2 references to Harrison Hos ital 7. Explore options to consolidate the various commercial Citywide,but District 7 designations.The current Comp Plan has five commercial specifically along(1) and citywide designations,and many areas change commercial zoning Kitsap Way and within a few parcels making difficult for consistency with Highway 3 and(2) developers and staff. an area near Shorewood Drive 8. Waterfront superfund site located within the Marine Located on 15` District 4 Industrial designation reduce the ability for marine Street and related businesses.Cleanup anticipated within 10 years. Thompson Drive May consider interim use provisions for this area until and Pennsylvania cleanup is completed. Avenue 9. Explore options to create a policy to support large tracts Most large tracts District 7 of Low Density Residential designated land having a are in District 7,but and citywide central portion of the area be redesignated for could citywide neighborhood commercial (for small scale neighborhood supporting businesses). 10. Public Sector Redevelopment Sites are no longer Bay Vista, East Park District 2 necessary.Staff recommends removal or revising of this and area near and 7 designation. Jackson Park Housing 11. Consider consolidating current Subarea Plans that have Citywide,Manette District 3 similar goals and policies into the current Subarea Plan Comprehensive Plan. Reduce -Due to excess residential and commercial land capacity based on current land use designations,these recommendations are aimed to bring the land use plan into alignment with our growth targets. 12. Consider removing Haddon Neighborhood Center,and Located off 15`h St District 6 establish as commercial and Low Density Residential and includes designations. Lafayette Cambrian, Wycoff and Callow Avenue 13. Explore options to remove Oyster Bay Neighborhood Kitsap Way and District 6 Center,and establish as commercial and Low Density oyster Bay and 7 Residential designations. 14. Consider removing Sylvan/Pine Neighborhood Center Lebo Boulevard District 1 (Blueberry Park area),and establish as residential near Lions Park to designation.Establish a Neighborhood Center in the area Sheridan Road around Lions Park,where there is commercial uses and denser housing types. Page 2 of 5 November 5, 2014 Exhibit C Bremerton2035—Work Program Summary Conformine- Proposals to reduce nonconforming properties due to improper designations for existing commercial,industrial and residential structures 1S. Consider allowing commercial designations,instead of (1)Warren Citywide residential designation,on areas that are have existing Avenue between (1),(2)&(3) commercial uses,and utilizing smart planning principles 6"Street and 9`h District 4; when redesignating. Street; (2) 6`h (4)&(5) Street between District 6; Pennsylvania (6) District 7 Avenue and High Avenue;(3) Warren Avenue and 17`h Street; (4) 15 1h Street and Naval Avenue; (5) Along 91h Street between Adele Avenue and Wilbert Avenue; (6) Kitsap Way and Shorewood Drive 16. Consider allowing residential designation,instead of (1)6 th Street and Citywide commercial designation,on areas that are have existing Veneta Avenue(2) (1) District 4 residential uses and/or physically separated due to Parcels to the east (2) District 6 topography,or have limited access. of Kitsap Way Commercial Corridor area 17. Consider allowing commercial designations,instead of West of Auto District 7 industrial designation when adjacent to existing Center Way commercial uses,and utilize smart planning principles (behind existing when redesignating. Cash&Carry)and Blumer Street 18. Consider allowing industrial designations,instead of Areas within District 7 residential designation,on areas that are have existing District 7, industrial uses or have high potential for mineral especially located resources,and utilize smart planning principles when near Werner Road redesignating. 19. Consider allowing residential designations,instead of Nollwood Ln and Citywide industrial designation,on areas that have existing Ida Street District 7 residential uses and in a residential neighborhood. 20. Consider redesignating a single Low Density Residential Parcel located on District 6 parcel to a commercial or industrial designation because National Avenue all adjacent parcels are non-residential designations. (south of Rite Aid) Page 3 of 5 November 5, 2014 Exhibit C Bremerton2035-Work Program Summary 21. Explore options to remove parcel from PSIC-Bremerton Southeastern lot District 7 designation,since wetlands and topography make it an of PSIC- isolated parcel which only has access through residential Bremerton, neighborhood (Sunnyslope). Redesignation would be located near required. Sunnyslope Rd SW and SW Rhododendron 22. Determine how to address existing multifamily (1) South of (1) District 1 developments that are not in conforming land use Sylvan/Pine (2)&(3) designations.This could include expansion of some Neighborhood District 2 centers or the creation of a new land use designation in Center; (2)south (4)&(5) the Comprehensive Plan. of Perry Avenue District 3 Neighborhood (6) District 5 Center(3) Sylvan Way and Spruce Avenue; (4)west of Downtown Regional Center; (5) Manette Center and area just south; (6) southeast of Charleston Neighborhood Center 23. Consider the area south of Olympic College campus to Chester Avenue District 4 allow housing that supports the college,such as to Warren multifamily or dormitories. Avenue and 11th Street to 13th Street 24. Consider split designations (commercial and residential Wheaton Way District 1 designations) for lots that fronts on both: (1) major and Eagle Avenue arterials and (2) residential neighborhoods (through-lot) between to reduce neighborhood impacts. Sheridan Road and Dibb Street 25. City of Bremerton Public Works building may be sold in 3027 Olympus District 2 the next 20 years;an alternate designation other than Drive Industrial may be considered,due to surrounding residential neighbors. 26. Explore options to redesignate Westsound Technical Parcels along District 6 Skills Center and the Washington Youth Academy from National Avenue and 7 the existing Industrial Park(IP) designation,due to the and Union educational use of these properties Avenue Page 4 of 5 November 5,2014 Exhibit C Bremerton2035—Work Program Summary 27. Consider Higher Education designation to be expanded North of 17th District 3 to include all parcels owned by Olympic College. Street(Sophie and 4 Bremer Childcare and old Sons of Norway building) and west of Warren Avenue (WSU En ineerin 28. Evaluate options for reuse of existing nonconforming Citywide.(1) on Citywide commercial structures. Potentially add goals and policies 4th Street at the (1) District 3 to help expedite the permitting process and corners of Anoka and 4; consideration for redevelopment and reuse of existing Avenue,High (2) District 5 buildings within the City Avenue and and 7 Chester Avenue (and (2)bottom floor of 11th Street and Callow Avenue (Little Caesars/7- Eleven) or Kitsap Way and Harlow Drive (old Abbey Carpet bldg). To Find More Information: The Work Program Summary consists of analysis from eight separate documents, which are listed below. Those documents they can be found at www.Bremerton2035.com or for convenience,just click on the links below. • District 1 Profile • District 2 Profile • District 3 Profile • District 4 Profile • District 5 Profile • District 6 Profile • District 7 Profile • State Law and Policy Compliance Checklist • Public Comments for Bremerton2035. Have comments or questions about the Work Program Summary, please contact Allison Satter, Senior Planner: CompPlan@ci.bremerton.wa.us or(360)473-5845 or check out the website for more information: www.Bremerton2035.com Page 5 of 5 November 5, 2014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Allison Satter, Senior Planner Date: November 5, 2014 Subject: Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan Update: Work Program and Public Participation Plan PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of Bremerton is at the beginning process of updating our Comprehensive Plan. A major update like this happens every ten years and is focused on evaluating which aspects of the plan are working and what needs to be adjusted. The Update is called Bremerton2035 as we are looking towards how Bremerton will grow over the next 20 years (2016 to 2035). The overarching principles and general concepts within the 2004 Comprehensive Plan continue to be applicable, however some minor alterations are necessary to reflect the changes related to the economic climate and overall goals of the community. MEETING PURPOSE The purpose of this hearing is to officially introduce Bremerton2035 as the Comprehensive Plan Update and to set a public participation plan, and to establish the scope of work for this process, called the Work Program. The Work Program, officially fulfills the Growth Management Act requirement of evaluating the Comprehensive Plan for compliance review, and provides guidance for proposed amendments to the Plan for Staff and Planning Commission to consider. The proposal also includes limiting the time that complete Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications from the public can be received for the Update because this process is due to be completed in June 2016, it will not be timely to accept applications during 2016 (discussion on page 3 of this memo). ATTACHMENTS • Attachment I— Planning Commission Minutes (Workshop 9/16/14 and Hearing 10/21/2014 (Draft)) OTHER DOCUMENTS OF INTEREST(NOT ATTACHED) All the below documents have helped establish the Work Program and can be seen at www.Bremerton2035.com under the"Project Documents"tab, or click below for the hyperlink. • District 1 Profile • District 6 Profile • District 2 Profile • District 7 Profile • District 3 Profile • State Law and Policy Compliance Checklist • District 4 Profile • Comments Received for the Work Program • District 5 Profile PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends that City Council review the materials provided, conduct a Public Hearing, consider testimony and approve the proposed Resolution for the Work Program, Schedule, Public Participation Plan and limiting Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications to 2015. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The update to the City's Comprehensive Plan focuses on ensuring that the Plan meets the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and its consistency with both the multi-county planning policies in Puget Sound Regional Council's (PRSC) Vision 2040 and Kitsap County's Countywide Planning Policies. Many communities amend their comprehensive plan annually and regularly adopt changes to the development regulations that implement them. In addition to these regular amendments, the state GMA requires cities and counties to update comprehensive plans every eight years; however legislation approved an extension due to the economic recession. In the City of Bremerton's case, an updated plan must be approved by June 30, 2016 to comply with State GMA(RCW 36.70A.130(5)). As identified in the Schedule, there are 25 public meetings where public can provide comments. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The GMA requires that each Washington city and county establish a public participation program and procedures for amendments, updates and revisions of comprehensive plans and development regulations. The Public Participation Program describes the methods and opportunities for early, open and continuous citizen participation. The proposed Public Participation Plan has been attached to the proposed Resolution as Exhibit A. Please note that this document will be Planning Commission and Staff's guidelines for our continual reach to access the public and encourage public participation throughout this process. In addition to public meetings, staff will continually update the City's project website: www.Bremerton2035.com. WORK PROGRAM It is anticipated that the Comprehensive Plan update process will utilize the existing Comprehensive Plan as the overarching core vision for the City's growth, though some minor alterations are necessary to reflect the changes related to Washington State law and consistency with county and multi-county planning policies, as well as to incorporate updates desired by the community. The Work Program identifies the major steps or phases of the planning process and identifies key themes to be reviewed within the Update. The Work Program consists of multiple documents which help establish the scope of work:Work Program Summary, District Profiles and a Checklist for State Laws and Regulations Compliance. DISTRICT PROFILES: The District Profiles include graphs and data on trends of development, age of structures, assessed value, and other such items for each individual district. It also includes the Land Use Designations descriptions from our current Comprehensive Plan. The reader could use the document to learn about land use designations near their home such as: I live next to Commercial Corridor(CC) designation, what are CC targets with density, design, and development in the next 20 years? The analysis portion identifies what staff saw out in the field and recommendations. The Planning Commission was tasked with reviewing these documents and consider staff recommendations at the end of each District Profile as part of the Work Program recommendation to Council. For convenience and simplicity, Staff has consolidated all recommendations from each of the District Profiles and identified it as the Work Program Summary which is attached to the 0 Page 2 Resolution as Exhibit C. Please note that this is a summary and to see detailed analysis on why the Planning Commission is recommending the items or specific locations (including maps), please review the specific District Profiles. There are consistent themes throughout the District Profiles that provide direction for the plan update. To summarize those themes, they are: General Concepts: The overarching principles and general concepts within the 2004 Comprehensive Plan continue to be applicable, including the Centers Concept; • Revising: Streamlining or simplifying the current Comprehensive Plan into a more compact Plan that is more user friendly and manageable for the public and staff, and making updates to old data and changes required by regional policies or State law Conforming: Proposing to consider reducing nonconforming properties due to improper designations for existing commercial, industrial and residential structures provided smart planning principles are used; and • Reducing: While still ensuring commercial uses are conforming, look at ways to decrease some Centers designations, especially Neighborhood Centers, as the City has excess land capacity to accommodate commercial and residential uses as identified in the Updated Land Capacity Analysis that was conducted in 2014. STATE REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE: This task is also part of the Work Program and is to review relevant plans and regulations that are required by the State and regional plans. The Washington State Department of Commerce has provided jurisdictions a periodic update checklist to help assist in this task. Filling out the checklist has helped staff and Planning Commission compare our plan against the latest requirements, determine what needs to be reviewed in greater detail, and what may need to be added, deleted, and amended in our plan to maintain compliance with the Act. Staff has reviewed the Department of Commerce Expanded Comprehensive Plan Checklist and has provided an analysis. That analysis provides feedback on how the current Comprehensive Plan sufficiently does or does not address the regulations within that analysis. If the regulation is not addressed sufficiently or if updates are required, Staff has provided a recommendation to address those items. To review this document, it can be located on the www.Bremerton2035.com website under"Project Documents". COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS In addition to the major comprehensive plan review and updates that are required every eight years, many local jurisdictions consider proposed amendments on a more frequent basis. As per RCW 36.70A.130(2)cities and counties may consider proposed amendments no more frequently than once every year, with some exceptions. Rather than adopting changes on a piecemeal basis, proposed amendments must be considered "concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained." The City of Bremerton considers such amendments (typically as docket of proposed amendments) on an annual cycle pursuant to Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.10.010. Pursuant to the Bremerton Municipal Code filing of application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is only accepted between the first business day in January to the end of the first business day of April. 0 Page 3 The city will accept applications to be considered as part of the 2016 Major Update of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the above stated BMC for 2015, but Planning Commission recommendation is to limit application to 2015 and not accept Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications in 2016. Because the plan update is due in June 2016, it will not be timely to accept applications during 2016, and therefore it is recommended that the City Council pass a resolution to suspend acceptance of amendment applications in 2016 pursuant to the provisions in BMC 20.10.040. If approved, applications will only be accepted between January 5, 2015 (first business day) and April 1, 2015. Please see www.Bremerton2035.com for details on how to make an amendment application for this major update. •Page 4 Attachment I — Planning Commission Minutes • Planning Commission Workshop - September 16, 2014 • Planning Commission Hearing — October 21, 2014 (Draft) I Attachment I CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING September 16, 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 Allison Satter,Senior Planner,Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Garrett Jackson,Planner I,Department of Community Development Commissioner Nethery Commissioner Simpson Commissioner Wofford Commissioners Absent Commissioner Strube(excused) Quorum Cerdfled APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER WOFFORD MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER WOFFORD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 15, 2014 AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public(public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Tift issued a call to the public for comments on items other than those listed on the agenda. He noted that a number of citizens were present to speak on the casino proposal. This item is related to the Comprehensive Plan Update, which is scheduled as the last item on the agenda. He emphasized that no formal proposal for a casino has been submitted to the City, and the specific issue is not scheduled on the Commission's agenda for discussion at this time. However,he acknowledged that the use could be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update if an application is received. To respect the citizens' time,the Commission agreed to accept public comment regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update now rather than waiting until the end of the agenda. I Attachment I Bob Dryer, Bremerton, said he and his wife are the Neighborhood Watch Block Captains for the 1700 block of North Wycoff, where they have lived for 8 years. He noted that his block is a heavily-traveled road without sidewalks and 20 children. Within a half mile radius from his home during the months of July and August there were 6 assaults, 14 civil and domestic disturbances and 19 burglaries and thefts;and statistics demonstrate that bringing a casino into the residential area would result in increases across the board. Although THE KITSAP SUN reported that the Mayor and City Council are opposed to a casino use, an article in last night's SEATTLE TIMES demonstrates that the discussion is not over. He shared the following data to support his opposition to casino uses: • Based on data from the United States Agriculture's Report on Expenditures on Children by Families in 2013,Bremerton was listed as the 0 worst city in the country for raising children in economic terms. • In 1997,the Kansas City Star reported on a survey of 184 Gamblers Anonymous members, which indicated that 56% admitted to some illegal act to obtain money to gamble, 58% wrote bad checks, and 44% stole money from their employers. • In 1999,the National Gambling Impact Commission's Study recommended a national moratorium on the expansion of gambling and more study of its cost benefits and effects. • A 2001 report evaluating industries with externalities,particularly in the case of casinos,stated that studies that purport to evaluate the economic impact of casinos commonly exhibit a great deal of misunderstanding about what should be included among benefits and costs. • A 2006 Washington Post report on casinos,crime and community costs stated that crime began to rise after the first year until it had far surpassed what it would have been if the casino has never opened. By the 5th year,robberies were up 136%,aggravated assault 19%,auto theft 78%,burglary 50%,larceny 38%and rape 21%. The report provided evidence that casinos create crime locally and don't merely attract it from somewhere else. • In 2014,the Ohio Casino Control Commission's Criminal Statistics identified 319 criminal incidents in one year directly related to their casinos. Mr.Dryer summarized that the statistics say nothing about the subsequent destruction heaped on local families. Along with crime and increased foot traffic, vehicular traffic will increase where street parking is already limited, thus making the neighborhood all the more dangerous for children. With the combination of increased crime and continued economic loss, housing values continue to drop and struggles only intensify for families working to build their lives in the community. As researcher Earl Grinols said, "Gambling is a loser from society's point of view and carries social costs that outweigh the benefits." As a local government,the Commission has a moral responsibility to protect the citizenry. He urged them not sacrifice the citizens for the sake of economic illusions. Pete Cann, Bremerton, said he lives just two or three blocks from the site where a casino has been proposed on Callow Avenue. While the area needs-to be cleaned up, he expressed his belief that the subject property is too small and not an appropriate place for a casino. A much larger area is needed for this type of use. Lowell Yoxsimer,Bremerton,commented that the City is on a positive path of revitalization from its downtown core to its farthest outlying neighborhoods. Years of hard work and ground work are in motion to ensure the best possible results in creating a strong,positive and inviting city for people to invest in with their dreams of a better future. He said most would agree that more could and should be done to help this along,but rezoning of residential properties to commercial properties to potentially allow a tribal casino would undermine the long-term image and success of the City. He encouraged the City to stay on track and not gamble away its future. Celeste Beaumont, Bremerton, asked that her property and other residential properties be referred to as homes and not simply properties. The homes are located in a neighborhood, and the person proposing the casino should find somewhere else to locate his business. She suggested that the casino proponent is using his Native American status to get what he wants, and it is very unjust. Heidi Yoxsimer,Bremerton,said she and her husband have owned and operated the Hi-Lo 15th Street Cafb for the past 8.5 years. She has reviewed Mr.Ragge's proposal to build a tribal casino starting at 1321 Callow Avenue and branching out in various directions throughout the neighborhood; and she does not support the development in any way,shape or form. She was pleased to read in THE KITSAP SUN that the City Council listened to the citizens and is looking out for the best interest Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 2 of 13 Attachment I of the community. While working on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update she asked that rezoning to allow a tribal casino in the neighborhood be denied. Isaiah Hoffstetter,Bremerton,said he opposes the establishment of a casino on Callow Avenue. Barbara Strassburg,Bremerton,said she owns property next to the HiLo 15`h Street Cafd. She has maintained her property and kept her rents low. She screens her tenants very closely,and she is definitely opposed to the casino. She suggested that special consideration should be given to the neighborhood, itself, and the people who have maintained their properties even though they are rentals. Although the City Council has gone on record that they do not support a casino in this location, it could still be considered an option in the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Tift clarified that there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan or on the Commission's agenda at the moment with regard to a casino. However,the property owner could submit a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment at some point in the future that would allow casinos. Ms. Strassburg pointed out that the property is tribal land,so the City does not have the ability to govern it. Ms. Strassburg said she thought the obligation of City Council Members was to represent the needs of their district,and she does not believe that Council Member Runyon has done that. Instead of working for the people,he appears to be working for Mr.Ragge,who has indicated his desire to push forward with the casino plan. She questioned when the public would have an opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposal. Rich Connell, Bremerton, said he owns a duplex at 1339 Callow Avenue and was present to voice opposition to the proposed casino. He said he is opposed to selling his properties because the assessed value would be less than half of fair market value. Donna Nielson,Bremerton,said she owns property at 1333 North Callow Avenue and supports the proposed casino because it would improve the site and the entire neighborhood. While several property owners testified at a recent City Council Meeting that they had improved their properties,very few of the homes are well-kept. She acknowledged that her house on Callow Avenue is not well maintained. It is a very small home,and they would like to redevelop the site. Bremerton needs more people,and what has been done so far has not encouraged new residents. Tiffany Gay, Bremerton, said she owns property at 1309 North Montgomery and has lived in the neighborhood for six years. During that time,there.has not been a lot of improvement. Many of the units are rentals,and there is an abandoned house next to her that she has tried to care for. She voiced concern that the Mayor and City Council have already issued an opinion before a proposal has even been submitted. She said she can't form a definite opinion either for or against the concept until more information is available. However,at this time she is leaning towards being in favor of the idea because it would result in improvements to the area. James Robertson,Bremerton,said he and his wife own the house at 1334 North Callow Avenue,which is near the property in question. His understanding is that the City is at a stalemate with the property owner, and the casino proposal could present a potential resolution. While he is not ready to voice either support or opposition for the proposal, it should at least be considered finther. Doug Whittle,Bremerton,said he owns a rental property at 1303 North Callow Avenue. He said he also is leaning in favor of the casino. While the Mayor commented that it would be better to see the properties fixed up, it is important to keep in mind that it is a low-income neighborhood and most of the properties are in poor condition. The casino proposal could address this issue. People who sell their residential properties would have money to move elsewhere and the neighborhood could be fixed up. Caroline Stein, Bremerton, said she was present to represent herself and her mother who own property at 1327 Callow Avenue. She encouraged the Commissioners to think about opportunities for both residential and commercial uses in this area. She voiced concern that focusing solely on the casino could taint future discussions about other potential rezones in the area that would allow desirable commercial and residential development. David Richards,Bremerton,said he owns property at 1718 North Callow Avenue. He expressed concern that if a casino is developed on property that is tribally owned, the City would not have any control over the use and it could continue to spread. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 3 of 13 Attachment I Barbara Strassburg, Bremerton, agreed that the neighborhood is blue collar, but there are hard-working families living there. Again,she said the casino does not belong in the neighborhood,and property owners should be given an opportunity- to fix up their properties if they can afford to. Chair Tift thanked the citizens for their comments,but emphasized that there is no proposal for a casino currently before the Commission. Director Spencer referred to the City's website www.Bremeiton2035.com, which provides a link to district profiles. Each profile provides a preliminary analysis of what staff anticipates is going to change in the Comprehensive Plan Update. In'addition to amendments initiated by the City, citizens can also propose amendments between January 1" and April 1"of next year. She particularly invited those present to view District Profile 6 and submit comments to staff. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the work plan for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update in October. Those who sign up on the website can become parties of record and receive notices as the update process moves forward. Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments for Subdivision Regulations Ms.Satter reviewed that the Commission conducted a workshop in July to discuss proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations to reflect economic changes and improve the clarity and flexibility of the City's code requirements. She explained that the subdivision process is broken into three steps: • Preliminary Approval. This conceptual review evaluates project plans and determines if they are feasible and able to comply with all applicable regulations. A Preliminary Approval is valid for five years. • Site Development. At this point, the applicant submits plans for the construction of infrastructure (sewer lines, water lines, roadways, parks, sidewalks, street lighting, etc.). This approval grants the applicant the ability to begin construction,but only for infrastructure,not homes. The infrastructure must be completed within a five-year window. • Final Approval. A developer will not be permitted to create the new lot lines until all the required infrastructure has been completed and approved by the City. This final step includes the recording of all the separated lots and the granting of new addresses and tax lot numbers. This allows each lot to be sold and developed. Ms. Satter reviewed that at their July workshop, the Commission directed staff to research other jurisdictions and prepare amendments that address the following topics related to the processing and permitting of subdivisions: • Clarify the differences and requirements for "major" and "minor" amendments to,preliminarily approved subdivisions. There are numerous preliminarily approved new lots in Bremerton that have not been finalized,and most are under new ownership. In many cases,the new owners want to maintain the code vesting of the existing approval but substantially change the project's scope,size, layout,etc. The existing code language is vague and does not adequately differentiate a "major amendment" from a "minor amendment." In addition, it does not clearly identify what would trigger an entirely new project approval. Staff recommends modifying the code to allow minor amendments as an administrative approval, but require major amendments to re-apply for preliminary plat approval. The revised code language also lists the following criteria for determining whether or not an amendment is minor: o No changes to the conditions of approval given at preliminary approval o Minor reduction of lots(no more than 5) o No increase in lots o Minor alteration of layout(no more than 10%overall change) o Changes to phasing are not permitted with a minor amendment • Add language to allow for project phasing beyond five years for new subdivision applications. Economic changes as a result of the recession have increased the popularity of phasing. However, only a few jurisdictions have specific code language to address the concept. After reviewing other jurisdictions and assessing the State code regarding the topic, staff recommends-modifying Bremerton's code to allow for phasing, but limit the number of phases to four, require the first phase to be completed in five years,and establish a two-year time limit on each subsequent phase. Staff also recommends adding criteria to establish how phasing is to be reviewed and what needs to be submitted for the phasing plan. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014---Page 4 of 13 Attachment I • Increase flexibility by adding language to allow for extended time to install required infrastructure for existing projects struggling to achieve completion of requirements. As per State Law,plats approved before 2008 have a 10- year completion timeline,those approved before 2015 have a 7-year completion timeline,and those approved after 2015 will have a 5-year completion timeline. The City has approximately 2,000 lots with preliminary approval that would have expired already had it not been for the State doubling the time allowed for project completion. Many of these existing projects have not progressed since their original approval nearly 10 year ago,and little or no infrastructure has been installed. As the expiration date of the State extension nears, developers are beginning to request extensions in order to further extend the life of preliminary plat approvals so they do not have to comply with the more stringent requirements in place today. Extensions are requested for projects with existing land use approval and are typically granted under extenuating circumstances when project construction is near completion but cannot be fully completed in the time allotted. Consistent with many other jurisdictions, staff is proposing the City allow two, one-year extensions over the life of the project if o The application for an extension is filed at least thirty days prior to the preliminary subdivision expiration. o It can be demonstrated that tangible progress and reasonable diligence is being made towards infrastructure completion such that it is clear the project completion will occur within the timeline of the extension requested. o It can be demonstrated that the extension requested is the minimum necessary to finalize the necessary infrastructure improvements required for final subdivision approval. Ms. Satter explained that, when reviewing the proposed amendments, the Commission should carefully consider the combined impacts of extensions and phasing. For example, because the amendments would significantly extend the time a new project remains valid, the combined impact may encourage developers to gain preliminary plat approval without the intent of developing in the near future so that the project is vested to the older,less strict regulations. Chair Tift issued a call to the public to participate in the public hearing. Mark Kuhlman,Bremerton,said he is the owner of Team 4 Engineering and has been doing subdivisions in Kitsap County since 1976. He expressed concern that although the subdivision process has gotten far more difficult over the years, the timeline has remained the same. He pointed out that 60%of a project's engineering is related to stormwater issues, and it takes much longer to do a design that complies with the codes. In addition, it takes longer for staff to review the more complex designs. He said it is not unusual to have a two-year period between the time an application is submitted and the time a construction plan is approved. They try to focus their work in the dryer summer months,and construction is further complicated by water/fish windows. Even a good project in Kitsap County will only have four or five sales per month, so large projects will likely be phased. Five years is definitely not enough time to complete a plat of 100 to 200 lots. He said he supports the proposed amendments,which provide more clarity to staff. Isaiah Hoffstatter,Bremerton,said he was present to support the idea of building more residential housing in Bremerton. Development projects will provide more work for members of his local Union 528 to install the concrete foundations. The public comment period was closed. Commissioner Wofford asked if the City requires developers to provide irrigation for street trees and if they must be replaced if they die. Ms. Satter answered that the City requires developers to provide irrigation for street trees that are planted on site and in the rights-of-way,but there is a temporary provision for irrigation on soils that take deep moisture. At least 80%of the landscaping must survive a minimum two years, and the trees should remain for the life of the project. If not,the City can require tree replacement. Commissioner Albright referred to the proposed amendments to Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.12.140(2)(b), and asked if an amendment would automatically be considered"major"if the Director determines that a new State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist would be required. Director Spencer explained that the intent of this statement is that subdivisions that have already gone through the SEPA process and received preliminary approval could use the existing environmental documents for the subdivision amendment as long as the proposed change would not increase the environmental impacts. Commissioner Albright voiced concern about allowing the Director the discretion to make this determination. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 5 of 13 Attachment 1 Chair Tift observed that,as currently proposed,a project approval would have an 11-year time limit,with two potential 1- year extensions,for a maximum total of 13 years. Ms.Satter concurred and clarified that while an applicant could break the project into a maximum of four phases,only two extensions would be allowed for the entire project. Commissioner Simpson asked if a developer would be required to complete infrastructure for the entire subdivisions before he/she would be allowed to sell the lots and begin development in phases. Ms.Satter clarified that a developer must submit a plan for all of the infrastructure required on the site,but completion of the infrastructure improvements could be done in phases. Chair Tift observed that the.objective of the proposed amendments is to save original projects from having to start over when minor changes are proposed. Director Spencer clarified that the proposed language would provide clarification and codify how staff has been processing minor versus major amendments. Commissioner Simpson recalled that at their study session in July,she expressed concern about limiting minor amendments to no more than five lots, regardless of the project's size. She asked if it would be possible to base the change on a percentage of the lot capacity. Director Spencer said staff researched this option and was unable to get a percentage approach to work because 5% of a very large subdivision is a significant change. Capping the change at 5 would be the easiest approach for implementation. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO BMC 20.12 AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT I, BASED UPON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT H. COMMISSIONER WOFFORD SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Workshop: Zoning Code Amendments for Sign Regulations Mr.Jackson reviewed that the sign code was last changed in May of this year in order to avert the impending scheduled amortization and removal of nonconforming signs citywide. During the review process for the changes, staff received comments from the public, Planning Commission, and City Council requesting increased visibility for freestanding signs along Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way. Since that time,staff has considered options for making the sign code more flexible, while maintaining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. At this workshop, staff is seeking feedback from the Commission on increasing sign visibility. Other workshop topics-include additional language to permit a limited number of way-fording signs as required by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the revised nonconforming sign code. • Freestanding Signs Mr. Jackson reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan mandates that there is a balance between the size and number of freestanding signs. Currently, there are a large number of signs on Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way, but they must be relatively small in stature. This has resulted in a streetscape that is obscured by signage. Not only is the streetscape cluttered,but it defeats the purpose of advertising in general. He advised that,as per the current code,properties fronting on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way are permitted signs up to 8 feet in height and 60 square feet in area. While this is more conservative than in neighboring jurisdictions, Bremerton allows a higher number of signs per parcel on.large properties. Currently,parcels with less than 50 feet of street frontage are limited to one freestanding sign,but parcels over 50 feet are permitted multiple freestanding signs,provided they are setback 25 feet from the property line and spaced fifty feet apart. He provided examples of current signage,noting that although large properties are allowed additional signage,most developers are choosing to have only one or two signs along the street front. Consistent with neighboring jurisdictions, Mr. Jackson said staff is proposing that the code be amended to permit fewer signs with increased height and area on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way only. As currently proposed, the maximum sign height would be increased to 15 feet and the maximum area to 100 square feet. The number of signs permitted would be limited to one per parcel's street frontage,and the 25-foot setback and 50-foot spacing requirements would be eliminated. In addition,staff is recommending a limited number of exceptions to permitting one sign per each street frontage: Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 6 of 13 Attachment 1 o One additional sign would be permitted for properties with over 500 feet of continuous street frontage. o Permit a new variety of signage (Co-Op) that would provide businesses that do not have street frontage on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way a reasonable opportunity to advertise. A business would only be allowed one co- op sign per street frontage, and the properties participating in the program must share a property line. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,this opportunity to advertise would not result in an increase in overall signage,as the property owner would relinquish the right to have a freestanding sign on the non-fronting parcel. He shared several examples to illustrate where this exception could be applied, and suggested that the option would provide incentive for business owners to replace signs that are in disrepair with new, more visible signage on major arterials. Commissioner Wofford asked if a strip mall on Kitsap Way with several businesses would be limited to just one sign. Mr. Jackson answered that only one sign would be allowed per street frontage. However, he emphasized that the proposed amendment would dramatically increase the square footage and height limits allowed. He specifically referred to the proposed amendment to BMC 20.52.100(c),which would remove language that permits additional freestanding signs. Also, instead of requiring 300 linear feet to qualify for a shopping center sign,a minimum of 8 acres would be required. • Nonconforming Signs Ms. Satter reviewed that earlier in 2014 the City replaced its amortization requirement with a nonconforming code that is tied to activities occurring on a site-by-site basis. As currently written, off-premise signs lose their legal, nonconforming status if they are altered. On-premise signs lose their legal, nonconforming status if alternations to the sign are made that exceed 25%of the replacement cost of the sign,alterations are made to the associated business or site that exceed 75%of the assessed improvement value of the site or$50,000 dollars,or the sign has not advertised an existing business on the subject property for one year or more. Ms. Satter explained that while the guiding concept for nonconforming signage represents a drastic improvement over amortization, fine tuning is required in its application to ensure consistency with all signage and with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is specifically seeking feedback from the Commission about when the City should require property owners to remove signs. For example,how should they handle situations where multiple tenants advertise on a single sign or there are multiple tenants on a site? Also,should the City require that a nonconforming sign be removed at the time of building permit or when the actual improvements are made? • Way-Finding Signs Mr. Jackson explained that WSDOT has a program for posting informational signage along highways to aid motorist in finding off-highway opportunities. In some cases, when a business is not within a reasonable distance from the highway, WSDOT will require it to post way-finding signs to help motorists locate the site. These signs require the permission of the local jurisdiction. Currently, the City does not permit this type of off-premise sign, and staff is suggesting the code be amended to permit them for recreation and tourist activities. However, it is important for the City to have an organized program that includes design standards and limits the placement and number of signs. He invited the Commission to provide feedback regarding what the appropriate design standards might be. Chair Tift invited members of the public.to comment on the proposed sign code amendments. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate,and the public comment period was closed. Commissioner Simpson asked if staff would propose design criteria for co-op signs. If so, how would it address what happens to the sign when one business changes and a portion of the sign needs to be altered. Director Spencer clarified that co-op signs would not be a combination of signage between two property owners. It is essentially taking the freestanding sign that is allowed on the back parcel and moving it to the street front. The front parcel would be allowed to have a separate freestanding sign,as well. Mr.Jackson added that each nonfronting parcel would be allowed just one street front sign. Commissioner Albright commented that property owners in the downtown core are extremely interested in amending the code to allow for way-finding signs. They are currently seeking funding to introduce way-finding signage to direct people Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 7 of 13 Attachment I from the ferry into the downtown core. She suggested the Commission invite the downtown businesses to comment on the issue. Director Spencer reminded the Commission that the current code does not allow off-premise signage. While basic directional signs are allowed,they cannot include business logos,etc.that identify certain businesses. Commissioner Wofford asked if there would be a space requirement between co-op signs and signs advertising a street front business. Mr.Jackson answered that no spacing requirement as been proposed. The number of signs allowed is determined by the number of street frontages a property owner has. Where they are placed is up to the developer. Staff has found that spacing requirements can be confusing and serve little purpose. Director Spencer added that there are placement requirements associated with driveways to ensure that clear vision triangles are maintained. Commissioner Dinkuhn said that in an effort to reduce clutter and maintain visibility,she would prefer a lower overall size limit that is consistent with Port Orchard and Kitsap County. Perhaps 90 square feet would be better. Commissioner Wofford concurred. Commissioner Nethery asked if a co-op sign would require an agreement between the fronting and nonfronting property owners. Director Spencer answered that both property owners must be willing,and the agreement must be submitted to the City. Commissioner Nethery asked if the agreement could be voided if properties and/or businesses change hands. Director Spencer cautioned that the logistics of the concept still have to be worked out. Commissioner Nethery noted that,as proposed,larger shopping center signs would only be allowed on properties that are at least eight acres in size. He expressed concern that the proposed size limit would not be enough for smaller shopping centers with multiple tenants. Ms.Satter explained that staff considered how the proposed amendments would be implemented on existing shopping centers. All of them are greater than eight acres,which means that a sign of up to 300 square feet would be allowed. She pointed out that the current code allows pole signs for businesses along the freeway corridor. Commissioner Nethery said he supports the proposed amendments,which allow greater flexibility. He commented that the current sign limitations have driven away several prospective buyers. Commissioner Dinkuhn asked if code language could be added to require actual property owners to deal with derelict signs rather than the tenants that are no longer there. Director Spencer agreed that is a significant issue,and the current code does not mandate removal. Staff has made the interpretation that if a sign has not been used for signage in the past year,it can no longer be used. However,there are situations where other businesses have advertised on the same sign pole. Should they be allowed to continue to use the same pole,and simply remove the portion of signage that is no longer used? Commissioner Simpson questioned the cost of removing and/or replacing the old"Baskin Robbins"sign. The current code eliminates the property owner's ability to use the existing sign, and the proposed amendment would require the sign to be eliminated. Yet the City cannot even guarantee that the area where the current sign is located is large enough to accommodate a new monument sign at the dimensions proposed. She is leaning towards allowing replacement of the "Baskin Robbins"portion of the sign until such time as the property owners are willing to remove and/or replace the entire sign. Director Spencer recalled that until recently, all nonconforming signage had to be removed by a certain date. This amortization process was replaced with new nonconforming provisions. Commissioner Simpson asked if staff could provide a cost estimate for removing an existing nonconforming sign and replacing it with a code-compliant sign. Commissioner Dinkuhn expressed her belief that cost is irrelevant. The bigger issue is whether or not the City should hold property owners responsible for the contributions they make to the community. If a sign is visually atrocious, the City should have the ability to require something better. Commissioner Albright suggested that perhaps the replacement criteria could be based on whether or not the anchor tenant and/or anchor use has changed. Chair Tift commented that because the Commission recommended and the City Council adopted code language that replaced the amortization provision with the nonconforming provision, they must come up with reasonable guidelines to guide future implementation. Director Spencer summarized the Commission's feedback as follows: Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 8 of 13 Attachment I o The Commission offered support for amending the code to permit fewer freestanding signs with increased height and area on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way. The total number of freestanding signs would be limited to one,except one additional sign would be allowed for properties with over 500 feet of continuous street frontage. o The Commission indicated support for amending the code to permit a new variety of signage(co-op)that would provide business that do not have street frontage on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way a reasonable opportunity to advertise. Commissioner Nethery agreed to provide information to staff about how real estate transactions work. o Additional work is needed to address criteria for multi-tenant signs that are nonconforming. o Staff will continue to work on a proposal for off-premise way-finding signage. The Commission took a short recess at 7:27 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:34 p.m. Workshop: Comprehensive Plan Update Introduction and Work Plan Ms. Satter said the purpose of the workshop is to introduce the Planning Commission to the Comprehensive Plan Update. Topics of discussion will include the work program, public participation process, and an overview of the schedule. She reviewed the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan,explained why it must be updated on a regular basis,and advised about the timeline for completing the update. The Legislature approved an extension due to the economic recession, and the City's deadline for completing its update is now June 30, 2016. She emphasized that the City must have an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Ms. Satter referred to the proposed Work Program (Attachment C), which identifies the major steps or phases of the planning process,the roles and relationships among the participants in the process,a timeline for program execution,specific major technical tasks,and products of each phase. She noted that a total of 24 meetings have been identified, including 14 Planning Commission workshops throughout 2015 wiih staff presentations and opportunity for public comments. Ms.Satter reviewed the overall vision of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. She explained that the City of Bremerton has been identified as a Regional Growth Center in the multi-county and county-wide planning policies. Because the City is a metropolitan area, it needs to plan for additional development. The intent was to protect and promote the single-family neighborhoods,provide more choices and opportunities,improve efficiency and insure compatibility throughout the area. A significant element of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan was the "centers concept," which calls for having development and infrastructure in the core areas, with supporting residential uses around it. The goal was to create stronger neighborhoods surrounding the centers and promote walkability, a mixture of uses, different housing types and more transportation options within the centers. Ms. Satter provided a map of the City, particularly identifying the various Centers. She referred to the Land Capacity Analysis that was presented to the Commission in July. She reminded the Commission that the State Office of Financial Management,Puget Sound Regional Council,and Kitsap County have indicated that the City of Bremerton must have a plan in place to accommodate about 19,000 additional jobs and 14,000 additional residents in the next 20 years. A preliminary Land Capacity Analysis indicates that, based on current zoning, the City can accommodate 34,000 additional people and 20,000 additional jobs. Because the City has excess capacity with the current zoning, staff does not anticipate any Comprehensive Plan changes will be needed to allow increased growth. Ms. Satter encouraged Commissioners to visit the project website at www.Bremerton2035.com, which will be continually updated as the process moves forward. It will provide access to all of the documents provided to the Planning Commission, and outline the various opportunities for public involvement. Ms.Satter explained that the Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program will consist of three different review types: • State Regulation Compliance. Staff reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for compliance with all of the State and regional plans and regulations that have come out since the last update in 2004. The Washington State Department of Commerce has provided a checklist to assist in this task. Attachment C of the Staff Report provides feedback on how the current Comprehensive Plan does or does not address the new state regulations. A common theme throughout the Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014 Page 9 of 13 Attachment I checklist is the need to update with current data. It is also important to incorporate newly adopted City plans. In addition, staff is currently participating in a joint land-use study to address military operations, which is being lead by Kitsap County.. Policies and documents that result from this study will also be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. • District Profiling. Staff and City Council Members walked through each of the seven districts in the City and a profile was created for each one. Each of the district profiles includes graphs and data on trends of development, age of structures,assessed value,etc. They also include the land-use designation descriptions from the current Comprehensive Plan. She provided a brief overview of the key findings of each of the district profiles as follows: o District 1 —The Sylvan/Pine Neighborhood Center is located in this district, and the Armin Jahr School and Blueberry Park are its key features. The idea is to have commercial uses around the key features,transitioning into higher-density residential and the single-family neighborhoods. Since adoption in 2004, minimal development has happened within this center, and it does not currently have any existing commercial development. Staffs recommendation is to remove the Sylvan/Pine Neighborhood as a center and reallocate the growth targets. A possible solution is to designate the Lebo Neighborhood as a center. The area provides key services such as a grocery store,shops and professional offices,with moderately intense residential uses incorporated above the commercial spaces and near the center core. However,there is also a significant number of duplexes north of Lions Park, and many are in need of major renovations. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan discourages duplex development citywide, and they are considered nonconforming in the residential zones in the Lebo Neighborhood. If the neighborhood is identified as a center, perhaps the Comprehensive Plan could be modified to allow duplexes in certain zoning designations. There are also a few lots abutting Wheaton Way that are considered through-lots with frontage on both Eagle Avenue and Wheaton Way. Currently,the lots are designated as Commercial Corridor(CC),which means that a business developed on the site could have its primary access and building orientation provided from Eagle Avenue rather than Wheaton Way. This could have a negative impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is recommending a split zoning designation to limit the potential impacts to Eagle Avenue. o District 2 _This district includes the Wheaton Way Corridor, Wheaton/Sylvan Neighborhood Center, Perry Avenue Neighborhood Center,Harrison Employment Center,and East Park. The Perry Avenue Neighborhood Center contains commercial on the north end and residential to the south, and there are a large number of multifamily homes located south of the center. Staff is recommending the Commission consider enlarging this neighborhood center to include the primarily nonconforming multifamily structures as the neighborhood center designation supports higher-density development. o District 3—This district includes the Downtown Regional Center and the Manette Neighborhood Center, as well as a limited commercial area where the Police Station is located. Staff is recommending that the Downtown Regional Center be expanded to include the area along 6'h Street,Park Avenue and Warren Avenue. Although the area is primarily developed as commercial business, the current multifamily zoning does not outright support commercial uses. Staff is also recommending that the area between 6th Street,Burwell Street and Chester Avenue warrants further consideration of the appropriate designation. This area already contains numerous parking lots, a mixture of churches and-church commercial uses, and multifamily residential uses. Possible consideration could be given to allowing multifamily with some limited commercial opportunities to transition the downtown into the surrounding neighborhoods. The Manette Neighborhood is considered a neighborhood center that promotes higher density residential and commercial uses. However, the center includes good stock single-family homes which are unlikely to redevelop as they have a very established and developed neighborhood between Scott Avenue and Perry Avenue and l lm Street and 13th Street. Staff is recommending that this area be removed from the neighborhood center and be re-designated as single family. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 10 of 13 Attachment I A portion of the Olympic College property is located in District 3 and has been used by the college for a number of years. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as Low Density Residential(LDR),which allows educational uses through a conditional use permit process. Located north of the college property is the City's former Cencom Building. Staff receives many requests for commercial use of this space. However,due to the LDR designation,commercial uses cannot be permitted. One intent of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan was to promote homeownership by encouraging single-family homes in LDR areas and limiting duplexes and multifamily structures to center designations. However, there are numerous types of housing, including multifamily structures in this area that are currently classified as nonconforming uses. Staff is proposing the Commission consider re-designating this area and modifying the Comprehensive Plan policies to allow duplexes and townhouses. o District 4— This district encompasses a small portion of the downtown and most of Olympic College. It also includes properties designated as Neighborhood Business (NB)and Marine Industrial (MI). Because there is access to the water, the code requires that any improvements in the MI area must be functionally linked to water-dependent activities. However, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is currently working on a Superfund clean-up plan for the waterfront properties within this designation. Since the EPA may take over 10 years to complete the clean up, the majority of the MI area does not have access to the water. Staff is recommending the Commission consider an Industrial Park designation for the interim. Two lots to the west of the NB designation have commercial uses but are designated LDR. Staff recommends the map be revised to include these parcels in NB. A lot to the east has an NB designation,but is developed as a house. While the lot could be used for commercial, the home was recently remodeled and is not likely to redevelop in the next 20 years. Staff recommends the map be revised to change this parcel to the LDR designation. A lot to the north is also designated as NB but contains a single-family home. Due to topography, it is unlikely this lot will redevelop to commercial, and staff recommends that re-designating the property to LDR may be appropriate. Nonconformities exist within the LDR designation that were built prior to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, including comer markets. These properties are vacant and if the use is reestablished, it would be required to comply with the nonconforming provisions. However, the Comprehensive Plan is silent about supporting existing nonconforming uses within the LDR areas. Staff is recommending that the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies be amended to address existing nonconforming uses within the LDR areas that have lost their nonconforming status. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Higher Education(HE)as a designation for the land on and surrounding the Olympic College campus. This designation provides for growth of the college campus,but promotes growing up rather than occupying lands in the surrounding areas. Currently, the college owns four parcels that are located beyond the HE designation. Staff recommends that consideration be given to identifying all the parcels owned by Olympic College as HE. The area south of Olympic College contains vacant and underutilized parcels,and staff has had to deny requests to construct dormitories in this location due to the LDR regulations. Staff recommends that this area be considered for potential multifamily and/or institution designations to support housing for the college. o District 5 — This is the Charleston District Center, which has some industrial designations and limited commercial. The neighborhood just southeast of the center is LDR but is primarily developed with multifamily structures. Staff recommends the Commission consider expanding the Charleston District Center to incorporate this neighborhood and other properties that have nonconforming uses. o District 6 — This district includes the Haddon and Oyster Bay Neighborhood Centers, and parts of the Charleston District Center. There are also some commercial designations. The area around the Haddon Neighborhood Center is primarily established single-family residences under separate ownership.Although the area has the ability to grow commercial uses, it is not necessary or a benefit to have this location considered a Neighborhood Center and staff does not see the advantage of creating a specialized plan with significant Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014—Page 11 of 13 Attachment 1 population growth for this area targeted. Staff is recommending removing this area as a center. The existing lots with commercial uses should be classified as some form of commercial designation and the residential uses as LDR. Just south of the Haddon Neighborhood Center and north of the Charleston District Center is an area that is designated LDR. The neighborhood contains established single-family residences. There have been proposals to expand the Charleston District Center to include this area. Based on their study and the condition of the neighborhood housing stock, as well as the fact that the growth targets don't require additional redevelopment land area,staff is not recommending an expansion of the Charleston District Center into this established single- family neighborhood. The Commercial Corridor (CC) straddles Kitsap Way. While this designation seems appropriate, specific parcels were identified as inappropriately designated: For example, the parcel just north of the Total Video Building is vacant and available for redevelopment. Due to topography,this commercially designated parcel is above the existing building located on Kitsap Way and can only be accessed from Wilbert Avenue near a 90- degree tum in the road. Staff recommends the property be designated as LDR rather than CC. Across Kitsap Way from this parcel is a single-family residential property that sits about 40 feet above Kitsap Way due to topography. This parcel is also designated as CC, but access for the parcel is on the bend down to the 11th Street light on Kitsap Way. Staff is also recommending that the parcels between 11th Street and 9th Street between Adele Street and where Charleston Avenue starts should be re-designated to a CC designation. The properties are already developed with commercial-type uses. The Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center has not been redeveloped within the last decade.If development were to occur, the area would not necessarily warrant additional planning elements. Staff is recommending that this center be re-designated to a commercial designation. o District 7—This district is the largest district in land area,with approximately 2,600 acres of LDR zoning and not a lot of commercial. The district includes the employment center for the Puget Sound Industrial Center- Bremerton and Bay Vista. The district also includes 323 acres of Industrial(I) designation, which is bordered by properties with LDR designations that are developed with single-family homes. It is not likely these properties will be developed with industrial uses. Staff is recommending that all of the single-family properties in the I designation be reviewed and considered for potential re-designation,if appropriate. There is a triangular parcel in the Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton that is separated by a wetland and the only access is from Sunnyslope Road through a residential neighborhood. The property is zoned Industrial, which promotes heavy industrial uses. Staff recommends the Commission consider removing this property from the Manufacturing/Industrial Center(MIC)designation and re-designating to some type of residential. • Public Participation. Again,Ms.Satter,reviewed that 24 meetings are scheduled for the draft update. Members of the public can submit written comments on the postcards that will provided at each meeting. The postcards will provide contact information for staff,as well. Those who view and comment on their district profiles will be eligible to receive a prize. She encouraged the Commissioners to accept public testimony at this meeting, recognizing that no Planning Commission action is required. The Commission will conduct a public hearing regarding the proposed work plan for the Comprehensive Plan Update on the October 21d. After the hearing,the Commission will forward a recommendation to the City Council. She invited Commissioners and the public to forward their additional comments to staff or to the www.Bremerton2035.com website. She reminded the public that the timeline for submitting applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan is between January 1 and April 1, 2015. No amendment applications will be accepted in 2016. Chair Tift issued a call to the public to provide comments. Ron Ragge,Liberty Lake,said he is the person promoting the concept of a Native American casino on Callow Avenue. He said he was previously told by staff that a Comprehensive Plan amendment related to his proposal was going to be included Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014-Page 12 of 13 Attachment I 1 in the 2015 update,but he just learned today that it was ndllonger included in the list of potential amendments. He pointed out that Council Member Runyon has also indicated support for a more expanded area than what he is proposing. He requested that this option remain open for additional discussion. Chair Tift closed the public portion of the workshop. Chair Tift observed that, as per the preliminary Land Capacity Analysis, the City can accommodate 34,000 additional people,which would nearly double the current population. Ms.Satter said the current population is about 39,000,but there are large parcels of vacant land that could be developed at a rate of 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre. Some of the additional population could also be allocated into the centers. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Tift did not have any additional items to report. Director Report Director Spencer announced that the Bremerton Port Commission and the Bremerton City Council took action in August to rename the South Kitsap Industrial Area(SKIA)to the Puget Sound Industrial Center—Bremerton. Director Spencer summarized that the staff spent many hours conducting district tours with City Council Members, and getting out in the field was quite useful. When the Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2004, the staff was relatively new to the City. Most of the current staff has now been on board for seven to nine years, and they did not want to make decisions based on maps while sitting at their desks. Director Spencer said people who review their District Profile, answer the questions, and provide comments will win a prize. She encouraged the Commissioners to advertise the City's website and encourage public participation. Chair Tift complimented staff and said the individual documents for each district were very helpful. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business No new business was scheduled on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Resp vely Submitted by: Ric and Ti Ex et Planning Commis on Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes September 16,2014--Page 13 of 13 Attachment I DRAFT Su�jcct to Noveniher 17,2014-Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING October 21, 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 Allison Satter, Senior Planner,Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Garrett Jackson,Planner 1,Department of Community Development Commissioner Nethery Commissioner Simpson Commissioners Absent Commissioner Strube(excused) Commissioner Wofford(excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR DINKUHN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 AS AMENDED. VICE CHAIR DINKUHN 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. Public Hearing on Proposed Chapter 20.52 Sign Code Amendments Mr. Jackson reviewed that the Planning Commission held a workshop on September 16`h to discuss potential Zoning Code amendments related to the sign code. The proposed amendments (Attachment I) are based on feedback provided by the Commission regarding the following topics: Attachment I • Wayfinding Signs: Mr.Jackson advised that the current code has provisions for traffic signs when erected by the City or other public authority as a traffic control device. However, the language is vague and wayfinding is not specifically called out. Staff is proposing that "wayfinding signs" be added to the language to make it clearer. Planning staff will work with the Public Works Department to fine tune how the wayfinding signs will be placed. • Sign Height: Mr.Jackson said currently,signs are measured from the base to the top of the structure the sign is housed in. The proposed new method would measure the sign from the bottom of the structure to the top of the sign(where the advertising ends). The amendment is intended to promote architectural diversity for more attractive signage citywide. • Freestanding Sign Revisions: Mr.Jackson advised that staff is recommending that the maximum height of freestanding signs along Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way be increased to fifteen (15) feet. Staff also recommends that the maximum sign area be increased to 100 square feet. In order to balance the proposed increase in height and area, staff proposes that the number of signs be limited to one per street front. The current code, which allows many small signs, is confusing and can create clutter. Not only would the amendment clarify the code and make it easier to implement, it would also be consistent with the requirements of neighboring jurisdictions. • Shopping Center Signs: Mr.Jackson noted that, currently, the code permits additional freestanding signs for shopping centers or multi-occupancy developments. Staff is recommending that this language be removed to ensure continuity with the proposed one-sign-per-street frontage maximum. • Co-Op Signs: Mr. Jackson explained that "co-op" is a new variety of signage proposed by staff, which would permit properties that do not directly front on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way,but share a property line with a fronting business, an opportunity to advertise on fronting parcels. As proposed, the non-fronting parcel owner would transfer his/her right to develop a freestanding sign on the non-fronting parcel to the owner of the front parcel. This transfer of development right would ensure there is not an overall increase in the amount of signage allowed. Based on the Commission's concerns, staff is proposing language that would require a Notice to Title for both properties that details the agreement between the two property owners. Also, in the event that the fronting and non-fronting parcel owners agree to a single, shared freestanding sign,they could receive a 25%bonus in permitted sign area. • Nonconforming Signs: Mr. Jackson reviewed that the current nonconforming section requires that a sign either be removed or brought into compliance with the code under three circumstances (when alterations are made to the sign, when alterations are made to the business or overall site,and cessation). To address concerns voiced by the community, as well as the City Council and Planning Commission, staff is proposing that the language be amended to remove the one year cessation requirement. Staff recognizes that cessation may be too aggressive of an approach. Mr.Jackson concluded his presentation by recommending the Planning Commission review the materials provided,conduct a public hearing,consider testimony and move to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. Chair Tift opened the public hearing and invited the public to provide testimony regarding the proposed amendments to the sign code. Teresa Osinski,Executive Vice President,Home Builders' Association, said the association is generally supportive of the proposed amendments, but there is concern that the proposed amendments might prohibit off-premise event signage. She noted that the Home Builders' Association holds two large home expos each year,and off-premise signs are used from time- to-time to promote the events. Off-premise signs might also be used to direct traffic to a development or residential plats. These signs are extremely important for promoting the construction industry and the opportunities available to the public, as well as increasing the City's tax base. She agreed that cessation is an extreme provision, and she encouraged the Commission to recognize that businesses, for any number of reasons, might have vacancies for more than a year. The cessation provision could hinder the further ability of properties to be marketed if the new owners are required to invest in new signs. She emphasized that signs are costly, and the City should be cautious about imposing such an expense on a property sale. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 21,2014 Page 2 of 7 Attachment I Ron Raggee, Liberty Lake, asked if the proposed amendments would alter the provisions for signs on buildings. He cautioned the Commission to be very careful when applying the proposed amendments retroactively to existing businesses. Requiring property owners to do certain things may end up forcing them out of business. Teresa Osinski referred to the requirement that property renovations of more than$50,000 would require property owners to upgrade signage to meet the current code requirements. She expressed concern that$50,000 is not very much in the scope of the cost of construction, and she asked that the threshold be raised. She inquired if the $50,000 threshold would include tenant improvements. Chair Tift closed the public comment period and invited the Commissioners to share their comments and questions. Commissioner Simpson referred to the proposed provision that would allow a 25% bonus in sign area when non-fronting and fronting parcels combine signage. She asked if 25% would be the maximum bonus allowed, or if an additional bonus would be offered if more than one non-fronting parcel participates in the co-op sign. Mr.Jackson answered that the bonus would be capped at 25%. Commissioner Nethery asked if subsequent purchasers would be required to accept the co-op sign agreement as it is recorded on the title. Mr. Jackson answered that the agreement would become part of the Notice of Title and would run with the parcel. Any prospective purchaser would be aware of the requirement,and the agreement would remain valid unless authorized by City staff. If a property owner is no longer interested in having a co-op sign, it would have to be removed and subsequent signage would have to comply with the current code. Chair Tift invited staff to respond to Ms. Osinski's questions regarding off-premise signs. Mr.Jackson answered that the City would not regulate off-premise signs (7 or less days) for temporary events as described by Ms. Osinski. Real estate signs are also exempt as per current code. Chair Tift asked staff to respond to Ms. Osinski's suggestion that a $50,000 threshold for nonconforming signs would be unreasonable. Commissioner Nethery questioned if the threshold would pertain only to the structure or if tenant improvements would also be a factor. If tenant improvements are included,the dollar amount would need to be substantially higher because$50,000 could easily be spent to adapt a building for a new tenant. Vice Chair Dinkuhn suggested that the language be amended so that the threshold would only apply to exterior improvements. Commissioner Simpson suggested that the dollar amount of the threshold should also be increased. Outside improvements, such as parking lot renovations, can be costly, as well. She invited Ms. Osmski to share her insight on what an appropriate dollar amount would be. Ms. Osinski said she does not know what the right number is now, but she agreed to provide assistance to the Commission in making this determination. She said it is also important to be clear whether the number refers to pre-tax or post-tax construction costs. Director Spencer reminded the Commission that the threshold provision for nonconforming signs was added to the code when the amortization component was eliminated. The current threshold has been in place since earlier this year. The only proposal on the table is to remove the cessation provision. Rather than changing the numbers without additional work, she recommended the issue be placed in the Commission's "bullpen" of code changes. This would allow the staff and Commission an opportunity to further research and discuss the issue to identify the best solution. The Commission concurred. Commissioner Simpson asked if the proposed amendments would alter a property owner's ability to place a sign on his/her building. Director Spencer answered that staff has not heard any concerns about building signage from customers at the counter. This portion of the code is working, and no changes are being proposed at this time. Vice Chair Dinkuhn asked if the same would be true for blade signs that extend from the building and hang over the sidewalk. Mr. Jackson answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Dinkuhn said she is uncomfortable with the idea of removing the cessation provision at this time. She asked if staff is recommending removal because it is too hard to enforce. Commissioner Nethery pointed out that there are numerous buildings in the City that are vacant much longer than one year. The cost of signage is a significant factor for new Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 21,2014--Page 3 of 7 Attachment I tenants,and existing suitable signs should be allowed to continue. Removing a sign's nonconforming status just because the site has been vacant for more than one year could hinder a lot of business potential. While they would all like to see the signs renovated and brought up to today's code,it is really cost prohibitive in a lot of cases. Vice Chair Dinkuhn asked at what point the City should require removal of derelict signs. She questioned if an alternate time frame would be more appropriate. She also questioned how the City would enforce the requirement. Director Spencer said it is likely that,given the poor quality of some signs,re-facing them would require significant structural changes. There are provisions in the code related to structural changes that would not allow a property owner to reuse the existing sign. She is confident that the City could require the signs that are in significant disrepair to be replaced, and she is comfortable with the current threshold related to structural changes. Chair Tift said his view on this issue was largely changed by Commissioner Netherly's comments about the hardship the cessation requirement places on businesses that want to relocate to Bremerton. He said he would support removing the cessation provision. He said he is more concerned with businesses that tag additional signs to existing pole signs. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) 20.52 AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT I AND BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT 11. VICE CHAIR DINKUHN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program and Public Participation Plan Ms. Satter reviewed that the purpose of the hearing is to discuss the work program and public participation plan for the Comprehensive Plan Update. She briefly explained that the Comprehensive Plan is the umbrella policy that guides virtually all decisions made by the City and, in many cases, local organizations and individual citizens when they are considering developing. It seeks to assure that each community decision, expenditure and action is consistent with the shared vision, values and goals. The City's Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2004, and the State's Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that it be updated again by June 30, 2016. The update is necessary in order for the City to be eligible for grants and/or loans for infrastructure and programs. The goal is to keep the vision current and comply with the multi-county and countywide planning policies. She said staff recommends the Commission hold a public hearing, consider testimony, and consider passage of the following four motions: • Move to recommend the Comprehensive Plan Update Schedule as detailed in Attachment A. Ms. Satter briefly reviewed the schedule for the two year process that started last spring and is anticipated to end June 30, 2016. She specifically identified what staff needs to provide, as well as when public meetings will take place related to each of the separate Comprehensive Plan elements. She asked the Commission for feedback on whether or not the proposed schedule is feasible. • Move to recommend the Comprehensive Plan Update Public Participation Program as detailed in Attachment B. Ms. Satter explained that a public participation plan is required by GMA to outline how the City will get the public involved in the update process. She advised that the purpose and mission of the proposed plan is for early and continuous participation. Requirements in the plan address public meetings,distribution of documents for public review, open discussions, and information on the City's website. The plan calls out specific procedures, identifies the various stages in the process, and indicates the role staff will play. She provided a quick overview of the information provided on the City's website (www.Bremerton2035.com), and encouraged Commissioners to help inform the public of where they can find up-to-date information regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update. • Move to recommend the Department of Commerce Review Checklist, Expanded District Profiles Analysis and District Profiles as presented at the September 16`x' Planning Commission Workshop, with the Errata presented in Attachment C-1, the revised Errata for District 3, and any direction amendments from the Planning Commission for Council adoption. Ms. Satter advised that the Washington State Department of Commerce has provided jurisdictions a periodic update checklist to help assist in the task of reviewing relevant plans and regulations that are required by the state and regional plans. The checklist has helped staff compare the City's current Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 21,2014—Page 4 of 7 Attachment I Comprehensive Plan against the latest requirements and determine what needs to be reviewed in greater detail,as well as what may need to be added, deleted or amended in the plan to maintain GMA compliance. She advised that staff and most of the City Council Members toured the districts throughout the City to compare the current code to existing development. This effort resulted in individual district profiles,which include a detailed analysis of each district,as well as staff field notes and recommendations. Ms. Satter recalled that the district profiles were presented to the Commission on September 16th. Since that time, minor changes have been proposed to District 7 as per Commissioner Wofford's written comments. In addition, the Department of Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) staff has identified Downtown Bremerton as meeting the Department of Housing and Urban Development's(HUD) "slum and blight"criteria. While this is not a requirement of the Comprehensive Plan Update, staff felt it would be great to add specific goals and policies to acknowledge this condition. Also the District 3 Profile proposes that additional parcels be added to the Downtown Regional Center designation to help promote redevelopment. In addition to these parcels, staff has recommended that the area designated Limited Commercial along Burwell warrants further consideration to include in the downtown regional center. Possible consideration could be given to allow multifamily with some limited commercial opportunities to transition the downtown into the surrounding neighborhood. Lastly, she advised that revisions have been proposed to a map in the District 4 profile. She referred to the Errata Sheets for Districts, 3,4 and 7,which outline the above mentioned changes. If approved, the changes will be incorporated into the district profiles that are presented to the City Council for final approval. • Move to recommend the summarized Comprehensive Plan Schedule Work Program as detailed in Attachment C- 2. Ms. Satter explained that the Work Program Summary Report summarizes the staff recommendations contained within each of the District Profiles to help establish a work program for the Comprehensive Plan Update. She summarized that goals for the Comprehensive Plan Update include maintaining the general concepts but making updates to comply with state laws and regulations; streamlining and simplifying the plan; reducing nonconformities; and decreasing the number of smaller neighborhood centers. Ms. Satter advised that public comments will be solicited throughout the process, and Commissioners will be notified of all comments received. The comments will also be posted to www.Bremerton2035.coni as they are received. She referred to Attachment D, which summarizes all of the public comments received to date. She summarized that the majority of the comments were related to the casino proposal on Callow Avenue. Other comments included keeping Wheaton Way as a District Center and expanding the Downtown Regional Center to existing nonconforming uses (District 3 Errata). Lastly, there was a comment about police patrols and red light cameras that was forwarded to the Police Department. Ms.Satter concluded her presentation by announcing that staff is planning to present the Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program to the City Council on November 19`h. The Commission will discuss the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan at their November 18'h and January 201h meetings. Again, she reminded the Commission that information regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update can be found at www.Bremerton2035.com,and citizens can become interested parties of record by sending an email to CompPlan(ci.bremerton.wa.us. Postcards for comments were available during the meeting at the back of the room and at the front counter of the Department of Community Development. Chair Tift opened the public hearing and invited members of the public to comment on the Comprehensive Plan Update items presented in the Staff Report. Doug Johnson, Bremerton, said he owns a rental home on Wycoff Avenue. When he lived in the neighborhood in the 1950s and 1960s, it was extremely well maintained. It has been discouraging watching it decline over the years, and he is encouraged by the recent improvements people have made to their homes and yards. He is in the process of fixing up his home,as well. He expressed concern that allowing a Casino on Callow Avenue will detract from the family atmosphere and have a negative impact on the community. He indicated he would follow up his comments with a letter. Ron Raggee,Liberty Lake, said he understands how Mr. Johnson feels having grown up in the neighborhood,and that may be the one saving grace for the anti-casino movement. When someone likes an area they grew up in,they will typically have a negative view of any proposed changes. However, it is important for the Commission to consider the economic benefits a casino would provide for the City of Bremerton as a whole such as 200 fobs,$5 million payroll,more than$10 million being Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 21,2014--Page 5 of 7 Attachment I spent locally, and probably more than $1 million given to local charities and service groups. Mr. Raggee asked how to submit written comments regarding the Comprehensive Plan update. Chair Tift encouraged him to submit his comments to the Planning Commission. Chair Tift closed the public portion of the meeting. Commissioner Dinkuhn referred to the Comprehensive Plan Update Schedule (Attachment A) and asked if the land use discussions will focus on land use as it pertains to each of the neighborhoods or as it might change in the neighborhoods indicated in the summary. Ms. Satter said the intent is to focus on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the staff recommendations in each of the district profiles. Director Spencer added that it is also staffs intent to simplify the numerous goals and polices in the Land Use Element. There will be a lot of discussion about the language in the plan,as well as how they will"paint the map." Chair Tift asked if the summary of staff recommendations (Attachment C-2) has been presented to the City Council Members for comment. Ms. Satter answered that, prior to preparing the district profiles, staff visited each of the districts with Council Members. The ideas have been discussed with City Council Members, but they have not approved or denied any of the recommendations. However, they have received a copy of the draft profiles, and staff will present the updated profiles,along with the Planning Commission's recommendations,to the City Council on November 19`h. Chair Tift referred to the District 2 Profile, which recommends removing the reference to Harrison Hospital from the Employment Center Designation. He noted that there is currently a group meeting to discuss repurposing the Harrison Hospital Campus, and it may be premature to make this decision. Ms. Satter said the current Comprehensive Plan calls for using the Harrison Hospital Master Plan as a guiding principle in this area, and this may no longer be the case in the future. Perhaps they could remove references to "Harrison" but still support hospital uses. This is an opportunity to make the designation more vague to support uses other than Harrison Hospital. Director Spencer added that this entire section of the Comprehensive Plan is very hospital specific, and the intent of the District 2 Profile is to maintain the employment center concept without speaking to a specific type of employment. Vice Chair Dinkuhn requested clarification for the repeated references in the district profiles to smart planning principles. Ms.Satter answered saying this term implies that the City would not"willy-nilly"change property designations just because someone thinks it is a good idea. It is important to discuss why the proposed changes represent good planning and what the benefits would be. Director Spencer said it can be thought of as no spot zoning and making sure that uses across the streets from one another are consistent,etc. Chair Tift asked if the Errata Sheet for District 3, which declares it a blighted area, would be a positive step for the City. Downtown has been making a resurgence, and calling it blighted seems extreme. Ms. Spencer explained that this is a traditional HUD designation that is defined as "vacant buildings." She noted that, for numerous years, the City has had an ordinance on the books that actually designates the downtown as a slum and blighted area because of the vacancy rate. The City still meets the HUD definition,even with all the improvements that have been made. CDBG staff is expected to go to Council to renew the slum and blight ordinance, and it is expected that downtown will remain the target area. There are potential benefits to the designation, and the City Council will be weighing options on how to use block grant funds in the future. At this time,the City is an entitlement community, with its own allocation from HUD for their CDBG program. The designation might allow the City to be more strategic in how the CDBG funds are used. The other benefit is getting it into the Comprehensive Plan so it is integrated with the City's long-term vision. Commissioner Simpson pointed out that the first sentence in the last paragraph on Page 4 of the Staff Report has incorrect dates. Ms.Satter clarified that"January 5,2016"should be replaced with"January 5,2015." COMMISSIONER SIMPSON MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE SCHEDULE AS OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENT A TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 21,2014—Page 6 of 7 Attachment I VICE CHAIR DINKUHN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM AS OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENT B TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE EXPANDED DISTRICT PROFILES ANALYSIS AND DISTRICT PROFILES AS PRESENTED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2014, WITH THE ERRATA PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT C-1 AND THE REVISED ERRATA SHEET FOR DISTRICT 3 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. COMMISSIONER NETHERY SECONDED THE MOTION,WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER NETHERY MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE SUMMARIZED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SCHEDULE WORK PROGRAM AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT C-2 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Tift commented that he is always very impressed with the minutes. They are very well done. Chair Tift noted that the Commission would elect new officers for 2015 at their November meeting. Director Spencer recalled that the Commission moved "election of officers" to November of each year, as they do not typically conduct a regular meeting in December. She noted that Commissioners can serve as Vice Chair and Chair for a period of two terms. Chair Tift and Vice Chair Dinkuhn are just completing their first year, so both are eligible for reappointment if the Commission so chooses. Chair Tift announced that Governor Inslee was in Bremerton earlier in the day,and he had an opportunity to attend some of the meetings where he was present. Director Report Director Spencer did not have any additional items to report. However, she thanked Ms. Satter for all of her hard work preparing all of the materials for the meeting. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business No new business was scheduled on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: Andrea L Spencer,AICP Richard L.Tift,Chair Executive Secretary Planning Commission Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes October 21,2014—Page 7 of 7 , . 0 -0 0E E C) n C) r O O z z U Cn Q Topics to Consider Recommend that City Council adopt a resolution : Public Participation Program Work Program Schedule Scope of Work for Update Affirming Public Amendment Applications for Update 0 `i�^`� ��\1 ��i'� I�-�� i� \✓ C nrl Public Participation Plan Resolution - Exhibit A - Purpose &,Mission Early and continuous participation Procedures Stages of process Roles of Staff Requirements Public Meetings Distribution of documents for public review Open discussions Bremerton2035.com Project Document Tab: BremeMrton 2035 , Department of Community Development Work Program _. �� ., � - District Profiles �, .. State Compliance FIChecklist r c e ue Public Participation Plan Home About the Plan News&UpdatesProject Documents A Project Documents 2004 Comprehensive Plan As documents are prepared as part of the City of Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan Update,they will be posted here for public review and comment.The City of Bremerton encourages and welcomes your Input!Click on a document fide to download and All comments received view the file. ' u:[' 1[_i Buildable Lands:ala Land J'_11 'nalval for Planning n Workshop In July 2014 Planniog Commissi Wo=issslio.2 Packet for Seplember 16-2014(36 MB) o Public Comprehensive.l[i 1:1 .rom _rsOther Important Stuff:* Work Program(includes eight documents under separate cov ) . DistrictProfile_ Ways to contact Staff/- District Profile District PProprovide comments District.ProfileI . District Current(20101 Camorehensive Plan Upcoming Meetings Comprehensive Plan Update — Plan Schedule 2014-2016 6 ' BRE ERTON2035 :<:.a.:•, .,i.� :r-.%•'`k :fit � �•.� ¢,M1s,r �. e Spring Summer Fall winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Data Collection Applications acct pted Conduct 1EPA inventory of L - • Trends and proVision and 1/5/15—4/]/ Comment Period Local Ado ion Growth Strategy Update Elements and Regulations DOC District Tours GO-day,Notice DOC DOC ■ ■ P.C.Documents Resolutio of Work Plan Sut mtt to State ■ 1C days after Dept of Cc nmerce(DOC) x1option Notice I f IntentionPSRC P n Certificate work Tra uportation Shot eline O Deliberation . Work F rograrn • . FacilitiesCapital fed Use risft updated M wk . erns Program . . 21 Pubrk HoWng Fad0des Optfonal . is Comp Plan Rev ew Land Use E Economic int Parks • . Ado on Recreation He ifing A L LEGEND Schedule Prepared:Augtat 2034 ,-Planning Commission Public Workshop A-City Council General Business Please nate that dates are subject to change .-Planning commission Public Hearing .-City Council Hearing r e e o n z 3� 5 P r o g a M Stope o Work State Law & Regulation Compliance Department of Commerce >> Extended Checklist of Comprehensive Plan - U pdates District Profiles = Work Program Summary Report ( Exhibit C ) -- CL O c 0 U Q IL IL Ln � 4- Q � '� •�, U HE w (2V) wu- LUQ ' L1J +- 7C) Oil CL._ SIU' -� J E Q' co C� U U C� • � � O O � 0 -0 L Z, '1 OL4— �� C OU N _ G� �. � - ''� r it f t •� 'f�—/� / Q nl N �`_� � , ,U U •� 0 Z nill 4. O o l � �P� C��; Com' �i`ton2035 _ VVor",--- .= �o� �°' %`� C� Work Program Summary Report Resolution - Exhibit C General Concepts Will remain Revising - Streamlining/simplifying the Plan Conforming - Reduce existing Nonconforming Reducing - Decrease smaller/neighborhood- " Centers Complete detailed analysis in District Profiles A,c-)) jam% II � �� to <, � ��� 0 COMP R BMC 20 . 1 0-,.outlines time for submittal pp Accept a licatibns from January 5 - April 1 , 2015 Suspend in 2016 Cumulative Impacts Citywide Adopt Comp Plan by June 2016 e i! ,. P/an nin Commission Workshopg Discussing' —. Land Use Chapter January 20, 21014 Done : 3 Workshops, 1 Public Hearing To do : 9 Workshops,' - 2 Public Hearings City Council General Business Starting early 2015 EX IT 0 3 THE FUTURE NEXT EXIT 00 o � v � ori N (Y)(DO N O NC: 0-11 0 � - � C N � N � m 3 O 3 U 3 m AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Revenue Budget Workshops: November 6, 13 & 17 Sources for the 2015 Proposed Budget COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 Department: Financial Services Presenter: Cathy Johnson Phone: 360-473-5296 SUMMARY: Tonight's public hearing is to take comments on the proposed revenue sources for the 2015 Proposed Budget. The proposed budget anticipates property and EMS levy increases of the full 1% allowed by law, leaves the utility taxes/PILOT rates unchanged leaves commercial parking tax rates unchanged, adjusts for the annual$20,000 increase to the BSO tax exemption rate, adjusts anticipated utility rate increases includes interfund transfers between funds where appropriate, etc. Overall, revenue projections throughout all funds remain conservative. ATTACHMENTS: None. The 2015 Proposed Budget and related budget workshop presentations may be found on the City's website at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Total proposed general fund revenue, without beginning fund balance, is $36,197,394. With beginning fund balance, total general fund revenue is $40,555,877. Total proposed revenue city wide, without beginning fund balance, is$102,828,342. With beginning fund balance, total revenue citywide is $135,793,166. BUDGET WORKSHOPS AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation N Full Presentations BUDGET WORKSHOPS ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business N Public Hearing KEGUMMENUEU MU I IVa: t4one.- After consideration of public comments, proceed with Ordinance No. 5264 to adopt the 2015 property and EMS levy rates;Resolution No. 3238 to adopt 2015 general rates and fees; and Ordinance No. 5265 to adopt the 2015 utility rates (all under"General Business"). COUNCIL ACTION: ❑Approve ❑ Deny ❑Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 11/02/12 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 5264 levying Study Session Date: November 12, 2014 property taxes for collection in 2015 COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 Department: Financial Services Presenter: Cathy Johnson Phone: 360-473-5296 SUMMARY: Cities over 10,000 in population are allowed to raise their annual property tax collection by either 1% or the amount of the July Implicit Price Deflator(IPD), whichever is lower. This year, the IPD was 1.591%. As presented during the public hearing earlier this evening, the City is requesting the full 1% increase to our general property tax levy over the prior year's collection, as allowed by law. This increase, along with the amounts anticipated for new construction, has been included in the 2015 Proposed Budget. In addition, we are also requesting an EMS levy at the rate of$0.50 per$1,000 as authorized by the voters in August 2014. The EMS amount anticipated in the 2015 Proposed Budget includes this amount. RCW 84.52.020 requires all taxing districts to "certify to the county legislative authority, for the purpose of levying district taxes...the amounts to be raised" by property taxes. RCW 84.55.120 requires that the certification includes the enabling tax ordinance setting the property tax rate. These documents must be submitted to the county by November 30, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: • Ordinance No. 5264 establishing the amount to be collected in 2015 by taxation on the assessed valuation of taxable property within the City limits of Bremerton and setting the property levy rate. • 2015 Tax Year Levy Limit Calculations (from Kitsap County Assessor's Office) 2015 General Property Tax Levy Calculation FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The proposed 2015 budget anticipates passage of this ordinance. For the general property tax levy, 2015 anticipated revenue is $7,035,000 after adjustment for collection rate and delinquent taxes. For the EMS levy, 2015 anticipated revenue is $1,191,065 after adjustment for collection rate and delinquent taxes. For the Public Safety bond voter approved levy, 2015 anticipated revenue is $891,000 after adjustment for collection rate. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation ® Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ® General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 5264 of the City Council of the City of Bremerton,Washington, establishing the amount to be collected in 2015 by taxation on the assessed valuation of taxable property within the City limits of Bremerton and setting the property levy rate. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 11/02/12 ORDINANCE NO. 5264 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, establishing the amount to be collected in 2015 by taxation on the assessed valuation of taxable property within the City limits of Bremerton and setting the property levy rate. WHEREAS, the City Council attests that the population of the City of Bremerton for 2015 is 38,180; and WHEREAS, the City Council has properly given notice of the public hearing held on November 19, 2014, to consider the City's revenue sources for the City's General Fund budget; and WHEREAS, the City's actual levy amount from the previous year, including any refunds and abatements levied was $6,764,817; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2014 qualified voters of the City of Bremerton authorized to continue it emergency medical services property tax levy at fifty cents ($.50) per thousand dollars of the assessed value of real and personal property located within the City. WHEREAS, the City Council, after hearing and duly considering all relevant evidence-and-testimony presented,has determined that the City of Bremerton requires a regular levy and EMS levy in the maximum amounts allowable, which is a one percent (1%) increase to the highest lawful levy allowed by law. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That an increase in the regular property tax levy is hereby authorized for the levy to be collected in the 2015 tax year. The dollar amount of the increase over the actual levy from the previous year shall be $6,420 which is an effective percent increase of 0.09491% from the previous year. This increase is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, and any additional amounts resulting from. any annexations that have occurred and abatements and refunds made. SECTION 2. That an EMS levy is hereby authorized for the levy to be collected in the 2015 tax year. The amount levied shall be set at the statutory maximum allowable rate of$0.50 per$1,000 of assessed valuation. SECTION 3. That a property tax levy for debt redemption of the 2010 Public Safety UTGO Refunding Bonds, as previously authorized by the voters, is hereby authorized to levy property taxes to be collected in 2015 at a rate sufficient to provide $905,000 needed to meet debt service obligations in 2015. 1 2015 PropertyTax SECTION 4. Severabilitv. 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 5. fffective 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 12014 GREG WHEELER, Council President Approved this day of 12014 PATTY LENT, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney PUBLISHED the day of , 2014 EFFECTIVE the day of 2014 ORDINANCE NO. R\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Finance\2015 Property Tax Ordinance.doc 2 2015 Property Tax 2015 TAX YEAR LEVY LIMIT CALCULATION CITY OF BREMERTON District#8700 Previous Year's Levy Including Any Refunds &Canceled Taxes Levied =6,764,817 The district's resolution or ordinance must authorize any increase in terms of both the dollars and percentage over the previous year's levy. This increase is exclusive of new construction, increases in state assessed property(utilities), any annexations and refunds requested. Highest Allowed Levy Since 1986 = 6,704,195 Differences between this amount and the previous year's levy are refunds and canceled taxes levied last year which are not included in this amount and/or any banked capacity your district may have. 1% Increase to Highest Allowed Levy= 6,771,237 This is the maximum allowed but may change to match what is authorized by resolution or is lawfully allowed for your district. It is exclusive of the items listed under the previous year's levy.The dollar and percent increase over the previous year's actual levy to collect this amount is$6.420 and 0.09491%. Amount due to New Construction = 59,423 New construction assessed value 20,142,057 X 2.950202 (the prior year's levy rate)=59,423 Amount due to Increase in Utilities =0 This amount will be zero until the values are received from the Department of Revenue. Since this amount may be unknown when you have your budget hearings,you may want to add an amount in your budget or levy certification in order to collect any unknown amount due to an increase in utilities. AV of Annexed Property =0 Amount due to Annexations=0 The amount due for annexations is set when assessed values are final in January. Districts with annexations may want to add an amount in the budget or levy certification for any Increases allowed. Current Total Assessed Value = 2,345,012,788 This amount may fluctuate until values are final in January. Tax Refunds & Canceled Taxes Less Supplements = 711678 Please include a dollar amount for refunds and canceled taxes in your budget and or levy certification to show the district's intent to collect these amounts. Projected Levy Rate=2.912161 Maximum Levy Rate =3.425000 Maximum levy rates for cities are estimated until final levy rates for Fire and Library Districts are known. ESTIMATED TOTAL LEVY LIMIT AMOUNT= 6.902,338 Kitsap County Assessor's Office,Shannon Lewis(360)337-7094 slewis@co.kitsao.wa.us 2015 TAX YEAR LEVY LIMIT CALCULATION CITY OF BREMERTON EMS District#8701 Previous Year's Levy including Any Refunds &Canceled Taxes Levied Not applicable for the first year of the EMS Levy renewal. Highest Allowed Levy Since 1986 Not applicable for the first year of the EMS Levy renewal. 1% Increase to Highest Allowed Levy Not applicable for the first year of the EMS Levy renewal. Amount due to New Construction Not applicable for the first year of the EMS Levy renewal. Amount due to Increase in Utilities Not applicable for the first year of the EMS Levy renewal. AV of Annexed Property =0 Amount due to Annexations = 0 The amount due for annexations is set when assessed values are final in January. Districts with annexations may want to add an amount in the budget or levy certification for any increases allowed. Current Total Assessed Value = 2,345,012,788 This amount may fluctuate until values are final in January. Tax Refunds & Canceled Taxes Less Supplements The amount is$12,771. However, if the district intends to levy at the voter approved$0.50 per$1,000 this first year,there is no need to reQuest that refunds and canceled taxes be levied. The maximum statutory rate allowed is S0.50 and may not be exceeded. Projected Levy Rate = .500000 Maximum Levy Rate = .500000 Maximum levy rates for cities are estimated until final levy rates for Fire and Library Districts are known. ESTIMATED TOTAL LEVY LIMIT AMOUNT= 1,172,506—Check for an updated assessed value prior to your budget hearing. Kitsap County Assessor's Office,Shannon Lewis(360)337-7094 slewis@co.kitsao.wa.us 2015 GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY CALCULATIONS 2014 Assessed Valuation 2,293,000,729 2015 Estimated Assessed Valuation 2,345,012,788 2014 Property Tax Levy 6,764,817 2014 Tax Refunds & Cancelled Taxes (60,622) Highest Allowed Levy since 1986 6,704,195 1% Increase to Highest Allowed Levy 67,042 6,771,237 Amount due to New Construction Assessed value per$1,000 $20,142,057 X 2.950202 59,423 Tax Refund & Canceled Taxes Less Supplements 71,678 Estimated 2015 Total Levy Limit Amount 6,902,338 Projected 2015 Levy Rate 2.912161 2014 Levy Rate 2.950202 Section 1 of the Ordinance Levy including 1% increase 6,771,237 Less: 2014 Tax Levy (6,764,817) Increase to Tax Levy 6,420 0.09490% loll AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Resolution No. 3238 amending Study Session Date: November 12, 2014 and re-establishing City Rates and Fees for. COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 19, 2014 2015 Department: All Presenter: Cathy Johnson Phone: 473-5296 SUMMARY: Each year, as part of the budget process, the various City departments review their charges, rates and fees for services and make recommendations on any changes needed. The attached includes recommended changes to fees charged by the various departments. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 3238 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Impacts to revenue are dependent on the demand for services. The 2015 proposed budget does anticipate the approval of the resolution and related rate tables. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ® No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ® General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 3238 amending and re-establishing City Rates & Fess for 2015. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/25/13 RESOLUTION NO. 3238 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending and reestablishing rates and fees for services relating to the Department of Financial Services, Municipal Court, Department of Community Development, Police Department, Fire Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Department of Public Works and Utilities and Bremerton Kitsap Access Television(BKAT). WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend and reestablish the rates and fees established in prior Resolution Nos. 3209 and 3228, by this resolution;NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Resolutions Repealed. Resolution Nos. 3209 and 3228 are hereby repealed in their entirety. SECTION 2. Rate Tables amended. Rates and fees for services relating to the Department of Financial Services, Municipal Court, Department of Community Development, Police Department, Fire Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Department of Public Works and Utilities and Bremerton Kitsap Access Television(BKAT), as established and amended by Resolution Nos. 3209, and 3228, are hereby amended and reestablished herein by this Resolution as set forth in the rates tables attached hereto as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Effective Date of Sections I and 2. The repeal of resolutions as set forth in Section 1 above and the amendment and restatement of rate tables as set forth in Section 2 above shall be effective January 1, 2015. SECTION 4. 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 5. 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:\Legal\Legal\Resolutions\Finance\2015 Rates and Fees Tables\2015 Resolution establishing Rate Tables.doc 1 2015 Rates and Fees EXHIBIT A FINANCIAL SERVICES— RATE TABLE A All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees A. FINANCIAL SERVICES 1. REGULATORY LICENSE FEES RATE BMC 5.17 Charitable Solicitation Non-Profit $25/60 days Professional Fundraiser $675/60 days BMC 5.22 Dance/Public $265/yr or$70/30 days BMC 5.96 Erotic Dance Studios $700/yr Dancers $100/yr BMC 5.16 Mobile Food Vendor $150/veh/yr BMC 5.16 Peddlers $75/yr or$25/30days BMC 5.36 Special Events $100.00/event BMC 5.08 Street/Sidewalk Vendors $250/yr BMC 5.16 Temporary Merchant $400/30 days 2. BUSINESS LICENSE FEE RATE BMC 5.02 $75/yr 3. PARKING On-Street Locations Not to Exceed $20/3 hrs $30/10 hrs Off-Street Location Not to Exceed $20/3 hrs $30/10 hrs Parking Garage Not to Exceed $160/mo Resolution No. FINANCIAL SERVICES—RATE TABLE A All Rates Listed are"Not To Exceed" Fees 4. UTILITY/LIEN SEARCH FEES RATE Per Parcel $30/search per parcel 5. DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION FEES (Including scanning to Electronic Format) Per Page -8'/z x 11, 8'/z x 14 and 11 x 17 paper size (No fee for $0.15/pg first 50 pages) Video Reproduction Actual Costs including personnel time CD/DVD $2.00 USB 2 GB $5.00 Certification $5.00 Oversized Plans, Aerial Photos, Drawings, and Maps (Black and $8/pg White) Color GIS Plotted Maps $5/sq. ft. Other Documents: Medical Records Fees shall be pursuant to RCW 70.02.010(12) Budget (Hard Copy) $50 (Electronic Version) $10 Annual Report (Hard Copy) $25 (Electronic Version) $10 In addition to the above fees,each department may establish fees for records that do not fall into one of the above categories. Each department and the City Clerk shall have the department's fee schedule available for inspection upon request. 6. CHECK HANDLING FEE $40 7. ANIMAL CONTROL FEES Licenses for Dogs and Cats For Each Cat Spayed or Neutered $7.50 (Upon Proof of Spaying or Neutering) For Each Dog Spayed or Neutered $12.50 (Upon Proof of Spaying or Neutering) For Each Cat Not Spayed or Neutered $37.50 For Each Dog Not Spayed or Neutered $37.50 Resolution No. FINANCIAL SERVICES— RATE TABLE A All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees Senior Permanent Dog/Cat $12.50 License for Chickens For up to five(5) chickens $12.50 Senior permanent for up to five (5) chickens $12.50 Impound and Redemption Fees - Domestic Animals Impound $45 Vaccination 45 Boarding (per day) 20 Medical care Case dependent Microchip $30 Impound and Redemption Fees - Livestock Impound $60 Boarding(per day) $40 Medical care Case dependent Special Transportation fee $120 Resolution No. MUNICIPAL COURT—RATE TABLE B All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees B. Municipal Court RATE 1. HEARING EXAMINER APPEAL $65 2. PARKING PENALTIES Overtime or Reparking 1"Violation in 30 Days $25 2"d Violation in 30 Days $50 3rd Violation in 30 Days $100 Non-Payment in Collection Devices $25 Loading Zones $25 No Parking $45 Wrong Way $45 Parked on Sidewalk $45 Fire Hydrant $45 12" From Curb $25 Physically Disabled(Public and Private) $450 Counterfeiting or User of Counterfeit Permits, $500 Tokens or Script Unauthorized Use of Permits $250 Replacement of parking permit $10 Blocked Driveway $45 Expired Tabs $45 30 Foot to Stop Sign $45. Double Parked $45 No Stopping/No Standing $45 Failure to Respond—Additional Penalty $25 1 Resolution No. All parking infractions set forth in Chapter 10.10 BMC not $30 identified above 3. PARKING FEES Residential Parking Permits—Each additional permit issued in $100 excess of two permits per dwelling unit Petition for Creation of Residential Restricted Parking Zone $100 Administrative Immobilization Fee (i.e. boot) $100 4. TRAFFIC PENALTIES Inattentive Driving $124 Automated Traffic Safety Camera Violations $124 2 Resolution No. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees C. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RATE 1. SUBDIVISIONS Preliminary Short $1000+$150 per lot Preliminary Formal Plat/Binding Site Plan $2500+ $150/lot(1-100 lots) $100/lot(10 1-200 lots) $75/lot(201 +lots) Final Short $630+$40/lot Final Formal Plat/Binding Site Plan $945 +40/lot Minor Amendment $630(no lot fee) Extension $630(no lot fee) 2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Substantial Development Permit $1,300 Conditional Use Permit—Type II $850 Conditional Use Permit—Type III $1750 Shoreline Variance $1750 Permit Revision $325 Shoreline Exemption $100 3. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA) Checklist $320 Environmental Impact Statement Review/Adoption $650+additional cost of expertise 4. APPEAL(to Hearing Examiner) $350 5. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE $100 6. ABATEMENTS Dangerous Building $900+Direct Service and Supply Cost Garbage&Weed $640+Direct Service and Supply Cost 7. ABANDONED PROPERTY FINES&PENALTIES Failure to Register S 1,000+$100 per day Failure to Inspect, Maintain,and/or Secure $1,000+$100 per day Resolution No. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees RATE 8. RENTAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION FINES& PENALTIES Failure to Register and File a Declaration of Compliance as Required $1,000+$100 per day Failure to Obtain a Certificate of Inspection When Required $1,000+$100 per day 9. BUILDING PERMIT FEES Refer to Exhibit 1 10. PLAN REVIEW FEE 65%of the building 9 permit fee as set forth in Exhibit 1 11. ESTABLISHED"BASIC"PLAN REVIEW Pursuant to DCD policy 50%of Plan Review Fee 12. MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Residential Refer to Exhibit 2 Commercial/Non-Residential/Multifamily Valuation and Refer to Exhibit 1 13. PLUMBING PERMIT FEES Residential Refer to Exhibit 3 Commercial/Non-Residential/Multifamily Valuation and Refer to Exhibit 1 14. GRADING PERMIT AND PLAN REVIEW FEES Refer to Exhibit 4 15. ZONING ORDINANCE Ordinance Amendments Text $740 Rezone(Map Amendment) $740 Variance Administrative $325 Public Hearing/Single Family $500 Public Hearing/Other $1750 Development Agreements $1600 Conditional Use Permit Single Family Residential Type 11 $350 Single Family Residential Type 111 $500 Resolution No. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees RATE Commercial/Non-Residential/Multifamily—Type 11 $850 Commercial/Non-Residential/Multifamily—Type 111 $1750 Non-Conforming Use Determination $275 Director's Code Interpretation $175 16. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Text or Map Amendment $1500 Combined Text and Map Amendment $2500 17. SITE PLAN REVIEW Commercial/Non-Residential/Multifamily—Type II $500 18. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT $500 (Fee waived if concurrent with Site Plan Review) 19. MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION Application $1500 20. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Conceptual Design Conference $500 Design Response Conference $500 21. CRITICAL AREA REVIEW Hourly Rate (Dangerous trees,tree removal in sloped area,etc.) 22. FORESTRY Hourly Rate Conversion Harvest Option Plan 23-1. MISCELLANEOUS FEES Hourly Rate $56.00 Stop Work Fee 100%of permit fee Resolution No. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—RATE TABLE C All Ratcs Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees EXHIBIT 1 BUILDING AND OTHER PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION FEE $1.00 TO$500.00 $26.00 $501.00 TO$2,000.00 $26.00 for the first$500.00 plus$3.00 for each additional $100.00,or fraction thereof,to and including$2,000.00 $2,001.00 to$40,000 $69.00 for the first$2,000.00 plus $11.00for each additional$1,000.00, or fraction thereof,to and including$40,000 $40,001.00 to S100,000.00 $487.00 for the first$40,000; plus $9.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof,to and including$100,000.00 $100,001.00 to$500,000.00 $1,027.00 for the first$100,00.00 plus$7.00 for each additional $1,000.00,or fraction thereof,to and including$500,000.00 $500,001.00 to$1,000,000.00 $3,827.00 for the first$500,000.00 plus$5.00 for each additional $1,000.00,or fraction thereof,to and including$1,000,000.00 $1,000,001.00 to 5,000,000.00 $6,327.00 for the first$1,000,000.00 plus$3.00 for each additional $1,000.00,or fraction thereof,to include $5,000,000.00 $5,000,001.00 and over $18,327.00 for the first$5,000,000.00;plus$1.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof Other Inspections and fees: 1 Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees . charge—two hours) 2 Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of this Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees . chapter shall be as follows(per inspection): 3 Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees . (minimum charge—one-half hour) 4 Additional plan review required by changes,additions or Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees . revisions to plans(minimum charge—one-half hour) 5 For use of outside consultants for plan checking and Actual Costs' . inspections, or both 6 Manufactured Home Setup Fee Bid Price valuation used in Exhibit 1 7 Moved Building Permit Fee(not including other required $100.00 . permits) 8 Demolition permit Fee: 3 cents per square foot,with a $56.00 . minimum charge of 9 Energy Code Plan Review Surcharge for New Single $50.00 Family Residences 'Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. Resolution No. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees EXHIBIT 2 MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Permit Issuance and Heaters Fee 1. For the issuance of each mechanical permit $25.00 2. For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original permit has not expired, been canceled or finaled $7.25 Unit Fee Schedule(Note: The following do not include permit-issuing fee) 1. Furnaces For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) $14.80 For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/h(29.3 kW) $18.20 For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace,including vent $14.80 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor- mounted unit heater $14.80 2. Appliance Vents For the installation,relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit $7.25 3. Repairs or Additions For the repair of,alteration of,or addition to each heating appliance,refrigeration unit, cooling unit,absorption unit,or each heating,cooling,absorption or evaporative cooling system,including installation of controls regulated by the Mechanical Code $13.70 4. Boilers,Compressors and Absorption Systems For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including 3 horsepower(10.6 kW),or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h(29.3 kW) $14.70 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three horsepower (10.6 kW)to and including 15 horsepower(52.7 kW),or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h(29.3 kW)to and including 500,000 Btu/h (146.6 kW) $27.15 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower(52.7 kW)to and including 30 horsepower(105.5 kW),or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h(146.6 kW)to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h(293.1 kW) $37.20 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower (105.5 kW)to and including 50 horsepower(176 kW),or each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h(293.1 kW)to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h(512.9 kW) $55.45 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower(176 kW),or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h(512.9 kW) $92.65 5. Air Handlers For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute(cfm) (4719 L/s),including ducts attached thereto Note: This fee does not apply to an air-handling unit which is a portion of a factory- assembled appliance,cooling unit,evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code $10.65 For each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm(4719 :s) $18.10 Resolution No. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees 6. Evaporative Coolers For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $10.65 7. Ventilation and Exhaust For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $7.25 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit $10.65 For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust,including the ducts for such hood $10.65 8. Incinerators For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type incinerator $18.20 For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type incinerator $14.50 9. Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical Code but not classed in other appliance categories,or for which no other fee is listed in the table $10.65 For each gas piping system $10.00 Other Inspections and Fees Inspections outside of normal business hours,per hour(minimum charge—two hours Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of this chapter shall be as follows(per inspection): Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated,per hour(minimum charge—one-half hour) Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans or to plans for which an initial review has been completed (minimum charge—one-half hour) Hourly rate per Rate Table C—Miscellaneous Fees Resolution No. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees EXHIBIT 3 PLUMBING PERMIT FEES Permit Issuance 1. For issuing each permit $25.00 2. For issuing each supplemental permit $10.00 Unit Fee Schedule(in addition to items 1 and 2 above) 1. For each plumbing fixture on one trap or a set of fixtures on one trap(including water,drainage piping and backflow protection therefore) $7.00 2. For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $15.00 3. Rainwater systems-per drain(inside building) $7.00 4. For each cesspool (where permitted) $25.00 5. For each private sewage disposal system $40.00 6. For each water heater and/or vent $7.00 7. For each gas piping system $10.00 8. For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, except kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps $7.00 9. For each installation,alteration or repair of water piping and/or water treating equipment,each $7.00 10. For each repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $7.00 11. For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter including backflow protection devices therefore $7.00 12. For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in item 12: 1 to 5 $5.00 Over 5,each $1.00 13. For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers: 2 inch(51 mm)diameter and smaller $7.00 Over 2 inch(51 mm)diameter $15.00 14. For each graywater system $40.00 15. For initial installation and testing for a reclaimed water system $30.00' 16. For each annual cross-connection testing of a reclaimed water system(excluding initial test) $30.00' 17. For each medical gas piping system serving one to five inlet(s)/outlet(s) for a specific gas $50.00 18. For each additional medical gas inlet(s)/outlet(s) $5.00 Other Inspections and Fees 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours Hourly rate per Rate Table C- Miscellaneous Fees 2. Re-inspection fee Hourly rate per Rate Table C- Miscellaneous Fees 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated Hourly rate per Rate Table C- Miscellaneous Fees 4. Additional plan review required by changes,additions or revisions Hourly rate per Rate Table C- to approved plans(minimum charge-one-half hour) Miscellaneous Fees Resolution No. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-RATE TABLE C All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees EXHIBIT 4 GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES 50 cubic yards(38.2 m) or less No fee 51 to 100 cubic yards(40 m'to 76.5 m) $23.50 101 to 1,000 cubic yards(77.2 m3 to 764.6 m) $37.00 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards(765.3 m3 to 7645.5 m3) $49.25 10,001 100,000 cubic yards(7646.3 m3 to 76,455 m) $49.25 for the first 10,000 cubic yards(7645.5 In plus $24.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards(7645.5 m)or fraction thereof 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards(76,456 m3 to 152,911 $269.75 for the first 100,000 cubic yards(76,455 m3) m3),plus$13.25 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards(7645.5 m3)or fraction thereof 200,001 cubic yards(152,912 m3)or more $402.25 for the first 200,000 cubic yards (152,911 m),plus$7.25 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards(7645.5 m3)or fraction thereof Other Fees: Additional plan review required by changes,additions or revisions to approved plans(minimum charge-one- Hourly rate per Rate Table C-Miscellaneous half hour) Fees GRADING PERMIT FEES' 50 cubic yards(38.2 m3)or less $23.50 51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m'to 76.5 m3) $37.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards(77.2 m3 to 764.6 m3) $37.00 for the first 100 cubic yards(76.5 m) plus$17.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards (76.5 m3)or fraction thereof 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards(765.3 m3 to 7645.5 m3) $194.50 for the first 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m),plus$14.50 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards(764.6 m3)or fraction thereof 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards(7646.3 m3 to 76,455 m) $325.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards(7645.5 m3),plus $66.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards(7645.5 m)or fraction thereof 100,001 cubic yards(76,456 m)or more $919.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards(76,455 m3),plus $36.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards(7645.5 m)or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge-two hours) Hourly rate per Rate Table C-Miscellaneous Fees 2. Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of this chapter shall be as follows(per inspection): Hourly rate per Rate Table C-Miscellaneous Fees 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated(minimum charge-one-half hour) Hourly rate per Rate Table C-Miscellaneous Fees 'The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project. Resolution No. I POLICE DEPARTMENT—RATE TABLE D All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees D. POLICE DEPARTMENT RATE 1. TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORTS $10.00 2. FINGERPRINTS— 1 s'Card $10.00 Each Additional Card $10.00 3. CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK $10.00 4. PHOTO PRINTS Actual Cost of 5. ALARM COMPLIANCE FEE 1 st False Alarm in any 1 Quarter $60.00 2nd False Alarm in the same Quarter $80.00 3rd False Alarm in the same Quarter $160.00 or Subsequent Alarms in a Calendar Quarter 6. SERVICE FEE FOR ANTI-HARASSMENT ORDER $50.00 7. SERVICE OF ARREST WARRANTS AND SUBPOENAS Arrest Warrant $15.00 plus mileage Subpoena $6.00 plus mileage Preparation of return of service $5.00 Mileage (for each mile actually and necessarily traveled by a current business member of the Police Department in going to or returning from mileage rate any place of service, or attempted service) allowed by the Internal Revenue Service 8. TAXICABS Taxicab Business Certificate $30.00/yr Taxicab Driver's Certificate $30.00/yr Vehicle Decal $10.00/veh/yr Resolution No. FIRE DEPARTMENT—RATE TABLE E All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees E. FIRE DEPARTMENT RATE 1. REGULATORY LICENSE FEES BMC 9.48 Fireworks Stands/Displays $100/stand/yr BMC 18.06 Ambulance Services Ambulance Inspections S60/veh 2. AMBULANCE TRANSPORT FEE ALS Residents $700 ALS—2 $750 ALS Non-Residents $750 BLS Residents $500 BLS Non-Residents $550 Mileage $14.00/mile 3. EMS SERVICE CALL TO ASSISTED LIVING,LONG $100 After first response per TERM CARE AND ADULT CARE FACILITIES quarter 4. RE-INSPECTION FEE $56.00 5. HAZARD MATERIALS RESPONSE Rice Hull Ash Actual Cost per Bag Absorbent Pads Actual Cost per Bag 6. STAND-BY-TIME Per crew of 3 $98/hour Fire Engine—Crew of 4 S 1 15/hour 7. ACTIVE FIREFIGHTING Fire Engine Washington Fire Chiefs Published Rate* Aerial Ladder Washington Fire Chiefs Published Rate* 8. SPRINKLER/FIRE ALARM PLANS IFC Rates** 9. FIRE WATCH 550.00/hour 10. AFTER HOURS INSPECTION Actual Cost 11. RUSH PLAN REVIEW Actual Cost 12. OPERATIONAL PERMIT 5100.00 13. OPERATIONAL PERMIT INSPECTIONS Actual Cost *Washington Fire Chiefs Association Wage&Equipment Rates for the Washington State Fire Service **International Fire Code Resolution No. PARKS RECREATION DEPT—RATE TABLE F All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees F. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT NON-RESIDENT FEE-BASE FEE PLUS 25% 1. FACILITY USE RENTAL RATES • Facility use policies apply. • Appropriate taxes are included in rates unless otherwise noted. • Regular Groups(10 or more meetings a year,reserved in advance)may receive a 20%discount on Facility and Park Rental Fees. • Non-Profit Groups may receive a discount on Facility and Park Rental Fees with proof of Non-Profit status. Discount will be determined at time of rental request. (a) SHERIDAN COMMUNITY CENTER—ROOM RENTAL RATES RATE (Group A)NON-COMMERCIAL—Rental Rates Recreation and/or educational purposes only. Per hour,two(2)hour minimum Daytime(Monday—Friday: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM) Lounge $10.0010.50 Room A,B/C,Conference Room $8008.50 Gym $24.0025.00 Evenings(Monday—Thursday: 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM) Lounge $24.0025.00 $14.00 Room A,B, Conference Room $ 0017.00 Gym $26.5030.00 Room Package(Lounge&Gym) $45.0050.00 Entire building—Up to eight(8)hours* $655.00668.00 Friday Evening(5:00 PM to 10:00 PM)&Saturday and Sunday Lounge $29.0030.00 Room n WC $16.00 Room A, B,Conference Room $19.0020.00 Gym $36.00 Room Package(Lounge&Gym) $54.-0060.00 Entire building—Up to eight(8)hours* $6300690.00 * Entire building rental for events with 250 or more participants requires additional staff charges at$16.5016.85 per hour. Resolution No. PARKS RECREATION DEPT—RATE TABLE F All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees (a) SHERIDAN COMMUNITY CENTER—ROOM RENTAL RATES RATE (Group B)COMMERCIAL—Rental Rates Recreational and/or educational purposes only. Per hour,two(2)hour minimum Lounge $34.8045.00 Room A $26r.50 Room AB/C—,Conference Room $31.50 Gym $53.0054.00 Room Package(Lounge&Gym) $93.00 Entire Building-Up to eight(8)hours* 51,054.00 * Entire building rental for events with 250 or more participants requires additional staffing fee at$16-5016.85 per hour. (b) BREMERTON SR.CITIZENS CENTER-ROOM RENTAL RATES (Group A)NON-COMMERCIAL—Rental Rates Per hour,two(2)hour minimum Cardroom/Meeting Room $20.0020.50 Main Room $400040.75 Kitchen $20.0020.50 Additional staffing per hour $36.5016.85 Entire Facility up to eight(8)hours $200290.00 (Group B)COMMERCIAL—Rental Rates Per hour, (two)2 hour minimum Cardroom/Meeting Room $40040.75 Main Room $80.0081.50 Kitchen $40.0040.75 Additional staffing per hour $16..5016.85 Entire Facility—Up to eight(8)hours $566.00577.00 (c) PARK SHELTERS—RESERVATION FEES Four(4)hour sessions per reservation unless otherwise noted. Bremerton residents may reserve park shelters beginning January 1"for the upcoming year. Non-resident reservations will be accepted beginning February V. (Group A)NON-COMMERCIAL—Rental Rates Bataan Shelter $26-5027.00 Blueberry Shelter $46.0047.00 Evergreen Shelter 1 $69.0069.50 Evergreen Shelter 2 or 3 $34034.75 Evergreen Shelter 4(not reservable,first come first served) no charge Resolution No. PARKS RECREATION DEPT—RATE TABLE F All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees (c) PARK SHELTERS—RESERVATION FEES Evergreen Shelter 5 or 6 $36.0036.75 Evergreen Amphitheatre with Amplified Sound S170.00173.50 Kiwanis Park Shelter $34.0034.75 Lions Park Shelter 1 $46-0047.00 Lions Park Shelter 2 $34.0034.75 Matan Park Shelter $26.5027.00 Upper NAD $26.5027.00 Lent Landing Gazebo $34.0034.75 Reserve portion of a park not having a shelter. $34.0034.75 (Group B)COMMERCIAL—Rental Rates Bataan Shelter $30040.50 Blueberry Shelter $60.0070.50 Evergreen Shelter 1 $100.00104.25 Evergreen Shelter 2or 3 $455.0052.00 Evergreen Shelter 4(not reservable) no charge Evergreen Shelter 5 or 6 $49.0055.00 Evergreen Amphitheatre with Amplified Sound $225.00229.50 Kiwanis Park Shelter $43-0052.00 Lions Park Shelter 1 $60.0070.50 Lions Park Shelter 2 $45.0052.00 Matan Park Shelter $355.0040.50 Upper NAD $35.0040.50 Lent Landing Gazebo $40052.00 Reserve portion of a park not having a shelter. $45-0052.00 (d) SPECIAL EVENTS,CELEBRATIONS,WEDDINGS Louis Mentor Boardwalk $264.00270.00 (e) ATHLETIC FIELD—RESERVATIONS Per hour unless noted (Group A)NON-COMMERCIALnem $24.00 Youth Use $12.50 Adult Use $25.00 (Group B)COMMERCIAL Dental nates $49.0550.00 Game Fees Game Fee—SoihAlBaseball/Softball $35.0036.00 Game Fee Soccer $54.5055.00 Resolution No. PARKS RECREATION DEPT—RATE TABLE F All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees (f) BLUEBERRY PARK—P-PATCH ANNUAL RATE RATE Non-commercial gardening only. Raised Beds $ 00012.50 10 x 20 Beds $400050.00 16 x 30 Beds) $60.0070.00 (g) LIONS TENNIS COURT LIGHTS 1 token(1 hour) $2.00 6 tokens(6 hours) $9.00 2. PROGRAM FEES & CHARGES (a) NEW PROGRAMS See Section 3, subsection(a) (b) ATHLETIC PROGRAM FEES VOLLEYBALL League Play per team,per game $24-.6029.25 Open Gym (Oct.—June) per person $4.00 BASKETBALL Men's League Play per team,per game $59.4060.60 Boy's League Play per team,per game $32.0032.65 Boy's League(Individual Reg.) per individual $40.00 SOFTBALL Adult League Play per team,per game $42.0042.90 Adult League—Players fee per player,per game $ 51.85 TOURNAMENTS(SOFTBALL AND SOCCER) --INI'ITATIONAL TOURN.4MENTS Lions—One Day $38000388.00 Lions—Two Day $607.00619.00 Lions—Three Day $8900824.00 Pendergast—One Day $490.00500.00 Pendergast—Two Day $790.00796.00 Pendergast—Three Day $948:-00967.00 —STATE TOURNAMENTS* Lions—One Day $330.00540.00 Lions—Two Day $790.00806.00 Lions—Three Day $928-00938.00 Pendergast—One Day $685 00699.00 Pendergast—Two Day $93000938.00 Pendergast—Three Day $1,087.001,109.00 * Regional and National Tournaments cost to be negotiated depending on field preparation requirements. Resolution No. PARKS RECREATION DEPT—RATE TABLE F All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees 3. SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER AND RECREATION DIVISION PROGRAMS (a) PROGRAM FEE FORMULAS. Except for the Sr. Citizens Trip program,participant fees for activities(programs,classes,events,etc.)promoted by the Sr. Citizen Center and the Recreation Division are established by the following formulas: A. Activities when the instructor is on City payroll. *Based on"Not-to-Exceed"rates [(Total class hours including preparation)x(Instructor's hourly wage)x(1.5 Administration factor)] divided by(minimum#of students per activity)]+(the cost of group supplies divided by minimum#of students)+Cost of individual class supplies,if applicable=Student class fee for City of Bremerton Resident. B. Activities taught by contracted instruction. *Based on"Not-to-Exceed"rates [(Price per student required by the Instructor less class supply fees)x(1.5 Administration factor)]+Class supply fees=Student class fee for City of Bremerton Resident. C. Non-Resident Fees for Recreational Programs. For recreation classes,programs,and rentals—ranging from: $5.00 to$25.00 add on 25% $25.01 to$50.00 add a flat$6.25 550.01 to$100.00 add a flat$12.50 $100.01 to$200.00 add a flat$25.00 $200.01 +add a flat$50.00 (b) SENIOR CENTER ACTIVITIES(AGE 55+). RATE Couples Membership is for two people,at least one needs to be 55 or better, who reside at the same address. Community Members Member-ships are feF Seniff Living faoilifies o area OR.,heFe the Senor-Living„f edify is ieeatea Associate Memberships are for those individuals not yet 55 but still would like to participate in the programs,trips and classes offered at the Center. Senior Citizen—City Resident annual membership $12.0013.00 Senior Citizen—Non-Resident annual membership $ 26.00 Senior Center—City Resident Couples annual membership $ 0020.00 Senior Center—Non-Resident Couples annual membership $38-0040.00 Senior Center—City Resident Associate annual membership $i g.0019.00 Senior Center—Non-Resident Associate annual membership $36.0038.00 225%Cost (c) SENIOR CENTER TRIPS plus 25% Resolution No. PARKS RECREATION DEPT—RATE TABLE F All Rates Listed Are "Not To Exceed" Fees 4. IVY GREEN CEMETERY -FEES AND CHARGES (Non-Resident Fee=Listed Rate Plus 25%) RATE (a) GRAVE SITES Adult $1,200.001,224.00 Infant(Not in Infant Sections) $ 200.001,224.00 Infant Section $000.00306.00 Veteran $700.00714.00 (b) LINERS (Subject to sales tax) Casket Liner $730.00745.00 Cremation Liner $180.00184.00 Infant Liner $300.00306.00 Oversized Liner $9.80.001,000.00 (c) OPENING AND CLOSING Casket $700.00714.00 Cremation $250.00255.00 Infant $490.00500.00 Veteran $420.00429.00 (d) DISINTERNMENT Adult $1500:001,530.00 Infant $1,500.001 ,530.00 Urn $240.00245.00 Removal (only) $990.001,010.00 (e) MARKER SETTING FEES Setting Fee $160.00164.00 (f) GRAVE SIDE SERVICES Chairs & Awning $200.00204.00 (g) MARKERS (Subject to sales tax) Markers Value based on size and type of marker Resolution No. PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES—RATE TABLE G All Rates Listed Are"Not To Exceed" Fees G. PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT RATE 1. RIGHT-OF WAY USE PERMITS FEES Type A(Short Term Use)Regular(Misc. $160.00 Construction) Dumpster—Individual personal use No Charge Dumpster—Commercial/Construction $60.00 Type B(Disturbance of ROW) Sidewalk Repairs(2 inspections) No Charge Driveway,Transverse Street Patch and Spot $160.00 Patches(2 inspections) Frontage Improvements(curb,gutter, sidewalk, $3.15/ft with a$160.00 minimum illumination,etc.); Longitudinal Street Patch; and Utility Installation New Street $5.25/ft with a$625.00 minimum Water&Sewer Mains&Laterals(ROW Permit)(2 $160.00 inspections) Additional Inspection $50.00 Type C(Long Term Use) Application and Processing $65.02 Annual Renewal $65.02 Type D Regular(Franchised Utility Routine Maintenance) $100.00 Plan Reviews $0.25/foot of improvement with$105 minimum Additional Work $45.00/hour+equipment charges 2. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION $575.00 3. TELECOM MASTER PERMIT FEE $525.00/one time 4. TELECOM LICENSE FEE $210.00/one time 5. BMC 10.24 HOUSEMOVING/OVERSIZE $600+$65/mile to .10 of a mile LOADS Resolution No. BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION (BKAT)—RATE TABLE H All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees H. BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION (BKAT) 1. Pre-production RATE Equipment Consultation $100/per hour Program Development $100/per hour Research $100/per hour Location $100/per hour Scripting $100/per hour Graphics Development $100/per hour 2. PRODUCTION* Set-up $100 per hour Production $100/per hour Breakdown $100/per hour *minimum of 2 hours,for anv productions 3. Post Production Edit $100 per hour Voice Over $100 per hour 4. Training Studio $100 3 hours of camera and director training—max 4 people Edit $50 5 hours of Apple Final Cut 5. Miscellaneous Equipment Installation $100 per hour Equipment Troubleshooting and Repair $100 per hour DVD Duplication $35.84 (includes tax) Studio-with all equipment(must be certified with crew traning) $25 per hour(min 2 hours) 6. Membership (Annual) Individual Resident $25.00 Individual Non-Resident $35.00 Organization—Resident $75.00 Organization—Non-Resident $100.00 7. Rental Rate Field Equipment Tripod $25.00 Per Day ($300.00 Deposit) Resolution No. BREMERTON KITSAP ACCESS TELEVISION (BKAT)—RATE TABLE H All Rates Listed are "Not To Exceed" Fees 7. Rental Rate Light Kit $100.00 Per Day ($300.00 Deposit) Lavalier Microphone(ea) $20.00 Per Day ($300.00 Deposit) Video Monitor $35.00 Per Day ($300.00 Deposit) Camera $150.00 Per Day ($300.00 Deposit) Studio Equipment Studio $50.00 Per Hour ($1,000.00 Deposit) Lights $25.00 Control Room $50.00 Wireless mics (4) $25.00 Teleprompter $25.00 Misc $10 ea Tables, chairs, casels, table cloths 8. Public Service Announcement with voice over. A public service announcement $25.00 Proof of Special Events with voice over is an option as part of Permit also required the Special Event Permit through the City. The public service announcement will air on BKAT for a minimum of two weeks. Resolution No. loco AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 5265 Budget Workshop Date: 11/13/14 amending rates and fees for water, COUNCIL MEETING Date: 11/19/14 wastewater, stormwater and other related Department: Finance/Public Works services. Presenter: Cathy Johnson/Chat Martin Phone: 360-473-5296 SUMMARY: On April 3, 2013 the City Council adopted a new rate structure for residential water rates and implemented rates for the City's Water,Wastewater and Stormwater utilities based on the results of an extensive study to assess revenue requirements needed to fund their operating and capital programs. Each year, an annual review of the ongoing operations and capital programs is done and adjustments are made to reflect any changes to the capital and operational needs of the utilities. These changes are incorporated into the rate model to identify necessary rate changes to adequately fund utility programs. The attached ordinance reflects these adjustments for fiscal year 2015. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 5265 amending rates and fees relating to water, wastewater, Stormwater and other related services and Exhibit A—Rates Table FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): For water rates, the average bi-monthly increase is $3.82; for wastewater, the average bi-monthly increase is $4.11; and for stormwater, the average bi- monthly increase is $2.56.The total average monthly increase for a residential customer is $5.25. Proposed revenue budgets for 2015 reflect the proposed increase. BUDGET WORKSHOP AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation ® Full Presentation BUDGET WORKSHOP ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ® General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 5265 of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending rates and fees established in Ordinance No. 5213 regarding rates and fees relating to the Department of Public Works and Utilities for water, wastewater, stormwater and other related services. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 11/02/12 ORDINANCE NO. 5265 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending rates and fees established in Ordinance No. 5228 regarding rates and fees relating to the Department of Public Works and Utilities for water, wastewater, stormwater and other related services. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the rates and fees established in Ordinance No. 5228 by this ordinance, NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS. SECTION 1. Rate Tables established. Rates and fees for services relating to the Department of Public Works and Utilities for water, wastewater, stormwater and other related services, as established in Ordinance No. 5228, are hereby amended and reestablished as set forth in the rates tables attached as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. Rate Tables— Effective date. The rate tables as amended and set forth in Exhibit A shall be effective January 1, 2015. SECTION 3. 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 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this day of , 2014. GREG WHEELER, Council President Approved this day of , 2014. PATTY LENT, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney SHANNON L. CORIN, City Clerk PUBLISHED the day of , 2014. EFFECTIVE the day of , 2014. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit A ASSESSMENTS,RATES,FEES,AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE January 1,2015 Within Outside City Limits City Limits GENERAL FACILITY CHARGES Water(per Meter Size) 5/8"x 3/4" $ 2,511.00 $ 2,511.00 1" $ 6,276.00 S 6,276.00 1 1/2" $ 12,554.00 $ 12,554.00 2" S 20,084.00 $ 20,084.00 Greater than 2" Calculated based on usage Calculated based on usage Wastewater(per ERU) $ 3,801.00 $ 3,801.00 Stormwater(per IHSU) $ 1,019.00 N/A CONNECTION/INSPECTION FEES Water Connection Fees 5/8"x 3/4" S 2,055.00 $ 3,082.50 1" S 2,221.00 $ 3,331.50 11/2" S 4,357.00 $ 6,535.50 2" S 4,536.00 $ 6,804.00 Greater than 2" Actual Time&Materials 150%of Actual Time&Materials Field Inspection Fees Water main extensions(per foot) S 1.29 - $ 1.94 but not less than: S 477.00 $ 715.50 Pump Station S 629.00 $ 943.50 Miscellaneous(per hour) $ 53.00 $ 79.50 Wastewater Connection Fees Lateral Connection at P/L S 52.00 $ 78.00 Lateral Connection at Main S 308.00 $ 462.00 Conveyance Facility Ext.(Per Foot) $ 1 70 $ 2.55 but not less than: S 371.00 $ 556.50 Pump Station S 617.00 $ 925.50 Miscellaneous(per hour) $ 52.00 $ 78.00 1 of 8 Within Outside City Limits City Limits RETAIL WATER SERN7CE RATES General Service-Monthly Service Charge Meter Size 5/8 x 3/4 inches S 11.16 $ 12.11 $ 16.74 $ 18.16 1 inch S 12.76 $ 13.84 $ 113..-14 $ 20.77 1 1/2 inch S 15..i4 $ 19.68 y 2721 S 29.52 2 inch S 24.37 $ 26.44 y 36.56 S 39.66 3 inch S 46.23 $ 50.16 S 69.33 $ 75.24 4inch y 95.91 $ 93.21 $ 128.87 S 139.82 6 inch $ 393-47 $ 331.43 $ 435..2-1- $ 497.15 8 inch S 1,115.81 $ 1,210.65 $ 1,673.72 S 1,815.98 10 inch $ 3,979.59 $ 4,317.86 $ 5139 S 6,476.78 12 inch Qom-14,960.58 $ 16,232.23 $ 22,440.87 $ 24,348.34 Residential Commodity Charge(per HCF) Per HCF/Month ," 1-93 $ 2.09 S 2.90 $ 3.14 Non-Residential Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 174 $ 1.89 y 2.61 $ 2.83 Fire Protection-Monthly Service Charge Service Size I inch S 23.16 $ 25.13 S 34.:4 $ 37.69 l 1/2 inch S 34.86 $ 37.82 a 52.29 $ 56.73 2 inch $ 43.32 $ 49.17 ," 67.98 $ 73.76 3 inch S 49.94 $ 54.18 $ 74.9! $ 81.28 4 inch S 54.3 $ 59.06 $ 81.65 $ 88.58 6 inch S 67.94 $ 73.71 yr--101...91 S 110.57 8 inch S 90.3 $ 98.14 135.68 S 147.21 10-inch S -126.38 $ 137.34 $ 189.87 $- 206.01 12 inch S 180.83 $ 196.20 S 271.25 $ 294.30 Commodity Charge(per HCF) S 3.47 $ 3.79 $ 5.24 S 5.68 -For Usage Other Than Firefighting Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled Citizen-Monthly Service Charge Base Charge(per account) S 11.16 $ 12.11 $ 1-6.;4 $ 18.16 Commodity Charge 0-5 HCF/Month No Charge No Charge Over 5 HCF/Month S 1-93 $ 2.09 $ 2.99 $ 3.14 Temporary/Construction Meter 1"Meter Deposit $ 300.00 $ 300.00 Base Fee(per month) $ 12.76 $ 13.84 S 19.14 S 20.77 Set Up Fee $ 112.00 $ 112.00 Hydrant meter(3"Meter) Deposit $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Base Fee(per month) S 46.21 $ 50.16 S 6935 S 75.24 Set Up Fee $ 112.00 $ 112.00 Equipment Loss/Damage Actual Time&Materials 150%of Actual Time&Materials Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 974 $ 1.89 $ 2.61 S 2.83 2of8 Within Outside City Limits City Limits RETAIL WATER SERVICE RATES(cont'd) City Parks and Recreation Dept.-Irrigation Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 0.97 $ 0.94 Gold Mountain Golf Course Complex-Irrigation Commodity Charge_(per HCF) $ 1 Ia $ 1.28 3 of 8 Within Outside City Limits City Limits RETAIL WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES Monthly Service Charge Single Family Base Charge(per account) $ 32.20 $ 33.49 $- 48.30 S 50.23 Commodity Charge(per HCF) S 4.32 $ 4.49 $ 6.49 $ 6.74 a - Duplex on 1 Meter or 2 Bldgs on 1 Meter $ - Base Charge(per unit) $ 25.50 $ 26.52 $ 38.25 S 39.78 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 4.33 $ 4.49 $ -6.49 $ 6.74 a - Multi-Family $ - Base Charge(per unit) S 25-30 $ 26.52 $ 38i5 S 39.78 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 4.32 $ 4.49 $ 6.48 S 6.74 Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled Citizen Base Charge(per account) $ 11.1 7 $ 20.77 $ 29.96 $ 31.15 Commodity Charge(per HCF) 0-5 HCF/Month No charge No charge Over 5 HCF/Month $ 4.32 $ 4.49 ; 6.48 $ 6.74 Commercial I Base Charge(per account) $ 47.60 $ 49.50 ," 71.40 $ 74.26 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 4.45 $ 4.63 $ 6.69 $ 6.94 Commercial IT Base Charge(per account) $ 48.42 $ 50.36 $ 72.63 $ 75.54 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 6.96 $ 7.24 $ 10.44 $ 10.86 Commercial III Base Charge(per account) y 47.95 $ 49.87 $ 7j.93 S 74.80 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 55.70 $ 5.93 y 8.55 $ 8.89 Beverage Production Base Charge(per account) $ 48.42 $ 50.36 $ 7263 $ 75.54 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 4.32 $ 4.70 $ 6.78 $ 7.05 Commercial Fountains-Separately Metered Base Charge(per account) $ 47.60 $ 49.50 y 71.40 $ 74.26 Commodity Charge(per HCF) $ 1.47 $ 1.53 $ 2.21 $ 2.29 Septage Disposal(per gallon of tank capacity) $ 0z24 $ 0.25 $ 0.36 S 0.37 Leachate Per Gallon of Tank Capacity $ 0.i i $ 0.11 0.!7 S 0.17 Individual Residential Grinder Pumps Grinder Pump Surcharge $ 10:30 $ 10.71 $ 13-45 S 16.07 Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled Grinder Pump Surcharge $ 7..73 $ 8.04 $- 11.60 $ 12.06 4 of 8 Within Outside City Limits City Limits RETAIL STORMWATER RATES Monthly Service Charge Residential 1(Single Family/Duplex) Base Charge(per account) $ 9.83 $ 11.11 N/A Exception:Duplex with 2 Meters(per account) $ 4.95 $ 5.59 N/A Residential H Base Charge(per IHSU)+50%of the Base Charge $ 14.73 $ 16.64 N/A Residential Ill Base Charge(per IHSU)+ 100%of the Base Charge S 19. 4 $ 22.19 N/A Commercial I Base Charge(per IHSU) $ 9.93 $ 11.11 N/A Commercial 11 Base Charge(per IHSU)+50%of the Base Charge $ 14.73 $ 16.64 N/A Commercial III Base Charge(per IHSU)+ 100%of the Base Charge 8 19.64 $ 2 2.19 N/A Public School Districts(per account) $ 9.93 $ 11.11 N/A Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled Citizen Base Charge(per account) $ 5.99 $ 6.77 N/A Multi-Family&Commercial Rate Adjustment Water Quality(per IHSU) $ i.09 $ 1.23 N/A Water Quantity(per IHSU) $ 3.29 $ 3.72 N/A Stormwater Penalty New Multi-Family&Commercial development without on-site detention Charge(per IHSU) $ 2.18 $ 2.46 N/A 5of8 Within Outside City Limits City Limits MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES Park Reservation Fee S 50.00 $ 50.00 (non-refundable) Office Services New Account(includes water tum-on) $ 20.00 $ 20.00 Account Maintenance S 5.00 $ 5.00 Past Due Notice S 2.50 $ 2.50 Lien Recovery Charge S 100.00 $ 100.00 Close Account/Meter Read/Water Service Turn- off $ 20.00 $ 20.00 Field Services Pavement Restoration Charge (refundable,if assessed and not required) Asphalt Patch $ 694.00 $ 1,041.00 Concrete Patch S 1,248.00 $ 1,872.00 Asphalt Trench S 1,582.00 $ 2,373.00 Concrete Trench S 1,598.00 $ 2,397.00 County Road Permit N/A Cost Wet Tapping (Water Main Only)* 3"to 10"-excluding excavation&backfill S 2,860.00 $ 4,290.00 4"x 12"-excluding excavation&backfill S 3,179.00 $ 4,768.50 6"x 12"-excluding excavation&backfill S 3,584.00 $ 5,376.00 8"x 12"-excluding excavation&backfill $ 4,247.00 $ 6,370.50 12"x 12"-excluding excavation&backfill $ 5,484.00 $ 8,226.00 3"to 10"-service to property line $ 7,051.00 $ 10,576.50 4"x 12"-service to property line $ 6,952.00 $ 10,428.00 6"x 12"-service to property line $ 7,430.00 $ 11,145.00 8"x 12"-service to property line $ 8,222.00 $ 12,333.00 12"x 12"-service to property line $ 10,048.00 $ 15,072.00 Greater thane 12" Actual Time&Materials 150%of Actual Time&Materials Fire Ilydrant Installation* 8"x 6"and smaller-service to property line S 8,629.00 $ 12,943.50 6"x 10"and 6"x 12"-service to property line $ 9,574.00 $ 14,361.00 Greater than$"3r6"6"x 12" Actual Time&Materials 150%of Actual Time&Materials Water Meter Reinstallation 3/4"& 1" $ 80.00 $ 80.00 1-1/2"&2" S 132.00 $ 132.00 3"and greater Actual Time&Materials Actual Time&Materials Water Meter Reactivation $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Water Meter Tampering Tampering Removal $ 250.00 $ 250.00 Tampering Reinstallation Actual Time&Materials Actual Time&Materials Cross-Connection Control Inspection $ 56.00 $ 56.00 6of8 Within Outside City Limits City Limits MISCELLANEOUS(cont'd) Fire Service-Detector,Meter&MXU $ 436.00 $ 436.00 Storz Adapter $ 304.00 $ 304.00 Water Service Turn-off/Turn-on (Customer Request) Regular Hours S 20.00 $ 20.00 Atter Hours $ 175.00 $ 175.00 Delinquency Notice $ 10.00 $ 10.00 Water Service Turn-off/Turn-on (Delinquent Accounts) Regular Hours $ 50.00 $ 50.00 After Hours $ 175.00 $ 175.00 Flow and Pressure Test(Uncertified) 3/4"& l"meters only $ 56.00 $ 56.00 1-1/2"&2"meters only $ 102.00 $ 102.00 Larger than 2" Actual Time&Materials Actual Time&Materials Utility Plant Locates Regular Hours N/C N/C After Hours $ 191.00 $ 191.00 Emergency N/C N/C Meter Test Fee(based on meter size) 3/4"& 1" $ 132.00 $ 132.00 1-1/2"&2" $ 182.00 $ 182.00 3"or greater Actual Time&Materials Actual Time&Materials Engineering Services" Plan Check Fees Main Extensions: per foot $ 0.29 $ 0.44 BUT not less than $ 244.00 $ 366.00 (Includes hydrants and appurtenances and connection to water system) Pump Stations $ 613.00 $ 920.00 Firelme Extension $ 98.00 $ 147.00 Irrigation Systems $ 98.00 $ 147.00 Miscellaneous(per hour) $ 52.00 $ 78.00 7of8 Within Outside City Limits City Limits MISCELLANEOUS(cont'd) Storm Drainage Plan Review Fees*** Preliminary Drainage Plans Residential Development S 379.00 N/A Non-Residential Development S 262.00 N/A Plus per If ISU $ 11.41 Final Detailed Drainage Plans Residential Development(per lot) 0-20 Lots $ 41.07 N/A 21 -50 Lots $ 29.67 N/A 51 - 100 Lots $ 26.25 N/A 100+Lots $ 22.82 N/A Minimum Charge $ 291.00 N/A Non-Residential Development per IHSU S 22.82 N/A Minimum Charge $ 349.00 N/A Resubmittal Fees First Resubmittal No Charge N/A Subsequent Resubmittal $ 291.00 N/A Storm Drainage Inspection Fees*** Residential Development(per lot) $ 17.12 N/A Non-Residential Development(per IHSU) $ 17.12 N/A Minimum Charge $ 175.00 N/A Conveyance Facility Extensions(per foot) $ 0.91 N/A Minimum Charge - S - 349.00 N/A Unscheduled Inspections****(per site visit) $ 52.00 N/A Utility/Lien Search Fee(Manual)per parcel $ 30.00 $ 30.00 *Pavement Restoration Charge May Also Be Assessed **Fees include original review and one resubmittal review. Additional reviews will be charged at miscellaneous hourly rate(above). ***Does not apply to single family residence or duplex construction on an existing established lot. ****(Unscheduled inspections shall be tracked through the course of a project and billed after the final site inspection Fees for unscheduled inspections shall be paid prior to final occupancy approval.) 8 of 8 Monthly Utility Rate Comparison 120 113.92 109.79 101.84 100 r� 95.55 j 93.18 89.4 I 84.21 7-71 84.59 86.28 I 80 I I 60 f i ■2014 L1 2015 40 I I ' 20 0 � I I Bremerton Poulsbo Gig Harbor Renton Pt Orchard Based on Water usage at 6hcf and Sewer usage at 4.5hcf/ *Poulsbo is expecting to raise rates more than 2% in 2015