HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2018 STUDY SESSION PACKET______________________________________________________________
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 Phone (360) 473-5280
* * *A M E N D E D * * *
NOVEMBER 14, 2018
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
5:00 PM in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603
The Study Session is open to the public, but there will be no opportunities for input or participation; no
action is anticipated during the Study Session except when deemed appropriate; and the content of
these items is subject to change. If approved by the Council, Items A3 and A4 will be placed on the
November 20, 2018 City Council “Special Meeting” Agenda…
A.BRIEFINGS & FULL PRESENTATIONS
1.Update on Salvation Army Programs and Opening of Winter Shelters – Bremerton Salvation
Army Board Member Jim Adrian and Major Scott Ramsey (Information only)
2.Preliminary review of Planning Commission's Recommendation on the 2018 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment docket and related Zoning Code changes – Allison Satter, Senior Planner
with the Department of Community Development (Information only)
3.Proposed Ordinance No. 5359 amending Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Persons Subject to Tax - Amount" to allocate Stormwater Fees or Taxes Collected
for Street Improvements
4.Proposed Public Hearing and Ordinance No. 5360 approving and adopting the Budget for the
Fiscal Year 2019
B.GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Public Safety & Parks Committee Briefing (11/14/18 Meeting) – Chair Leslie Daugs
2. Other General Council Business
C.ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION
Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations
should contact the City Clerk’s Office at (360) 473-5323 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Form Created 5/4/15
INFORMATION ONLY ITEM
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Update on Salvation Army
Programs and the Opening of Winter Shelters
Study Session Date: November 14, 2018
Presenter:
Jim Adrian and Major
Scott Ramsey with the
Salvation Army
Phone:
(360) 373-5550
SUMMARY: An update on current Salvation Army programs and the opening of Winter Shelters
(from December 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019).
HANDOUTS: Introduction and Notes
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ No Presentation ☒ Full Presentation
A1
Form Created 5/4/15
INFORMATION ONLY ITEM
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Preliminary review of the
Planning Commission’s recommendation
on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment docket and related Zoning
Code changes
Study Session Date: November 14, 2018
Presenter: Allison Satter
Senior Planner
Phone: (360) 473-5845
SUMMARY: This presentation at the Study Session will introduce the 2018 Comprehensive
Plan docket and associated zoning code amendments to the Zoning Code maps and
Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) Title 20. At this meeting, the Council will be presented
with the Planning Commission’s recommendation. After Council discussions on November
14, 2018, Staff will prepare the adoption ordinance for Comprehensi ve Plan and Zoning
Code changes for the November 28 Study Session and subsequent Public Hearing on
December 5, 2018.
There are seven categories that comprise the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Docket, and within those seven categories there are 12 amendments. After three workshops
and one public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of eight items,
approval of two proposals with minor modifications, and recommended denial for two
proposals.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation was based on information produced for their
October public hearing. That packet has important context information that the Council
should consider.
The Packet can be viewed at:
http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Commission-4
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Summary and Overview of each amendment to the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Docket
and associated changes to the Zoning Code
B. Public Comments received on this topic (1 through 17)
C. Minutes from Planning Commission process: May 21, 2018, July 16, 2018,
September 17, 2018 and October 15, 2018 (Draft)
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ No Presentation ☒ Full Presentation
A2
2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Summary:
Initial Proposal and Planning Commission’s Recommendation
Initial Proposal to Planning
Commission’s Public Hearing
Planning Commission’s
Recommendation to Council
Document that would
be Amended, if passed
1 Affordable Housing Initiatives
1(a) Revise Medium Residential Density from
10 to 18 dwelling units per acre and
character description
Approve as proposed •Comp Plan
•Zoning Code
1(b) Allow more housing types within the Low
Density Residential
Approve as proposed •Comp Plan
•Zoning Code
1(c) Remove density requirements in General
Commercial
Approve as proposed •Comp Plan
•Zoning Code
2 Downtown Subarea Plan Amendments
2(a) Parking increase to 1 parking space per
unit and allow reduction incentive for
providing affordable units in
Downtown Waterfront and Downtown
Core zones.
Approve with modifications:
Allow reduction incentive for
providing affordable units in
Downtown Waterfront and
Core zones. Maintain parking
requirement for 0.5 parking
space per unit.
•Downtown Subarea
Plan
2(b) Limit building heights to 75’ unless
affordable housing is provided.
No change to height,
recommended denial of
proposal.
•Downtown Subarea
Plan
2(c) Clarify Design Review Board process Approve as proposed •Downtown Subarea
Plan
2(d) Rename Warren Avenue Corridor and
revise to better address previous
amendments.
Approve as proposed
•Downtown Subarea
Plan
3 Gravel “Paving”
3 Allow Gravel “paving” within the Puget
Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton
within the Subarea Plan
Approve as proposed •Puget Sound
Industrial Center
Subarea Plan
4 Equivalence Table
4 Update Equivalence Table to correct
omissions
Approve as proposed •Comp Plan
5 through 7 Map Changes
5 Change Land Use designation at 3027
Olympus Drive from General
Commercial to Medium Density
Residential
Approve with modifications:
Change Land Use designation
from General Commercial to
Low Density Residential
•Comp Plan
•Zoning Code
6 Change Land Use designation at 3530
and 3536 Arsenal Way from
Neighborhood Business to General
Commercial
No change and maintain
Neighborhood Business,
recommended denial of
proposal.
•Comp Plan
•Zoning Code
7 Change Land Use designation at Kitsap
Way from Freeway Corridor to General
Commercial
Approve as proposed •Comp Plan
•Zoning Code
Attachment A
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #1:
PROPOSAL: Provide affordable housing initiatives in relationship to
density and allowed uses within the Comprehensive Plan and associated
Zoning Code amendments.
All changes are shown in legislative mark-up with strikethroughs being deletion and
underlined text proposed to be added.
1(a) Medium Density Residential increase the maximum density
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of 1(a):
Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, specifically the Medium Density
Residential density on page LU-33.
Intensity/Density
•10 18 dwelling units per acre
Character
The designation consists of neighborhoods that are currently developed
predominantly with duplexes. As many of these duplexes were constructed from the
World War II boom, much of this area could benefit from redevelopment. By
outrightly allowing duplexes, this area may be able to be revitalized and continue to
provide a wide variety of housing types, including single family homes, duplexes and
townhouses.
This designation is similar to LDR in regards to density and scale, however medium
density type development is encouraged.
Amend the Zoning Code to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendment,
specifically Bremerton Municipal Code 20.78 the Medium Density Residential zone, in the
following ways:
1.Amended BMC 20.78.065 ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND LOT AREA specifically:
a.BMC 20.78.065(a) Minimum density. The minimum required density is five
(5) dwellings per acre.
b.BMC 20.78.065(b) Maximum density. The maximum allowed density is ten
(10) eighteen (18) dwellings per acre.
2.Revise Zoning Maps and Chapter BMC 20.78 to change the acronym for the zone
from “R-10M” to “R-18”
#1
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Code Amendment Attachment A
1(b) Allow variety of housing types within the Low Density Residential
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of 1(b):
Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, specifically the LDR’s characterization on
page LU-31 and LU-32.
Land Uses
Single family residential homes, well-designed duplexes and townhouses, and low
intensity compatible uses such as churches, schools, senior housing, and parks.
Accessory dwelling units are encouraged.
Low Density Residential Specific Policies (portion):
LU1: Plan for Growth
LU1-LDR(A): Promote neighborhoods that foster interaction among residents, contribute to
well-being of citizenry, and create and sustain a sense of community and personal safety.
LU1-LDR(B): Use front yard averaging to encourage residential infill that is consistent with
the existing neighborhood’s built environment.
LU1-LDR(C): Allow accessory units associated with, and subordinate to, existing or new single
family dwellings when appropriate.
LU1-LDR(D): Allow a variety of small residential development in the LDR as infill
development, including duplexes and townhouses, provided the underlying density is
met and design criteria within the Zoning Code is adopted to safeguard the character
of the neighborhood.
Amend the Zoning Code to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Specifically BMC 20.60 the Low Density Residential zone, in the following ways:
1. Amend BMC 20.60.010 Low Density Residential zone’s intent as described:
“The intent of the low density residential (R-10) zoning district is to accommodate
single-family housing by infilling at a range of lot sizes consistent with urban growth
patterns. Some attached single-family housing, duplexes and townhouses may be
appropriate when responding to sensitive areas or with innovative design.
Residential development at higher densities is encouraged at the edge of designated
centers.”
2. Amend BMC 20.60.020 PERMITTED USES as described:
(j) Residential Uses.
(1) Single-unit dwelling unit, detached;
(2) Single-unit dwelling unit, attached (zero (0) lot lines) per BMC
20.60.060(b);
(3) Duplex that meets BMC 20.60.060(f);
(4) Townhouse that meets BMC 20.60.060(f);
3. Add subsection (f) to BMC 20.60.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS as follows:
(f) A duplex and townhouse may only be permitted as follows:
(i) The underlying density of the zone is met; and
(ii) Within 500’ of a commercial district or center, or on the same numbered
block as an existing legally established duplex or multiunit building.
#1
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Code Amendment Attachment A
1(c) Remove Density requirements in General Commercial
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of 1(c):
Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, specifically the General Commercial’s
“Density” on page LU-26.
Intensity/Density
• 30 units per acre No identified density
• Three to five stories
Amend the Zoning Code to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Specifically Bremerton Municipal Code 20.62 the General Commercial zone, in the following
ways:
Amend BMC 20.62.060(a)(4) General Commercial Development Standards as described:
4) No residential density requirements Maximum residential density: thirty (30)
units per acre; provided, that any project with residential development has:
(i) Site design provides for internal circulation connections for both
pedestrians and vehicles between all portions of the site;
(ii) Landscaping and/or screening adjacent to residential zones shall be
provided per BMC 20.50.040(c).
#1
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Code Amendment Attachment A
Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2
Downtown Subarea Plan Amendments
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2:
SPECIFIC PROPOSAL: Amend the Downtown Subarea Plan in four
different proposals.
All changes are shown in legislative mark-up with strikethroughs being deletion and
underlined text proposed to be added.
2(a) Increase parking required for multi-family housing but provide
parking reduction for each affordable housing unit provided
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH
MODIFICATION FROM INTIAL PROPOSAL FOR 2(a)
Proposed Modification:
•Reject proposal to require 1 space per residential unit and
maintain the current standard of 0.5 parking spaces in the
Downtown Core and Downtown Waterfront zones;
•Accept parking reduction to incentivize affordable housing; and
•Revise affordability timeframe of 20 years to 15 years
Revise Downtown Core (page 6-103) and Downtown Waterfront (page 6-108) as follows:
“6.3.9 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(1) Nonresidential uses per 1,000 GSF
Minimum 1 space
Maximum 4 space
(2) Residential uses Minimum .5 spaces per residential unit 1 space per residential unit
unless the following is met:
(a) Parking spaces may be reduced to market-rate for each unit that is developed as
affordable units (households serving under 80% area median income for Kitsap County) for
a minimum of twenty years;
(3) The first 3,000 ground floor GSF retail area shall be exempt from off street parking
requirements.”
#2
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W Downtown Subarea Plan Amendment Attachment A
Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2
Downtown Subarea Plan Amendments
2(b) Limit building heights to 75’ unless affordable housing is provided
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS DENIAL of 2(b)
6.11 Amend Bonus Amenity Program (starting on page 6-143) as follows:
6.11 BONUS AMENITY PROGRAM
The purpose of the Bonus Amenity Program is to ensure that downtown Bremerton is
developed with quality structures. The program is utilized to ensure that the design of
structures are less bulky and that they contain public amenities. The Bonus Amenity Program
is utilized to achieve additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which results in increased building
height. The City has determined that it desires to limit building heights for Downtown Core
and Downtown Waterfront districts at 75’ unless affordable housing is incorporated into the
development. Chapter 6 Figure 6.3 shows maximum building heights, however no building
may be constructed over 75’ without the incorporation of affordable housing pursuant to
Section 6.3.3 and 6.4.3.
Within the Downtown Core and Downtown Waterfront Zones a special amenity is required to
be provided whenever a proposed development increases its floor area ratio FAR above the
base the requirements established in each district.
Heights within the DC and DW areas are pursuant to Chapter 6 figure 6.3.
The design of each feature amenity will be reviewed to ensure that it is appropriate for the
proposed location and provides for a public benefit. Developers are encouraged to
collaborate with CDC DCD and the Design Review Board to prioritize and choose from the
amenities listed in the Bonus Amenity Table table following.
Development bonuses are calculated according to the ratios below at (x) sq ft of amenity
space to (y) sq ft of proposed development area.
To participate in the Bonus Amenity Program, the following items shall be met:
(1) A prerequisite to participation in the Bonus Amenity Program will be at least forty
(40) percent of square footage must originate from Tier One of the Bonus Chart 1-6;
and
(2) Building height that averages over 75’, the development shall incorporate housing
as follows:
a.Twenty (20) percent of the all the units shall be workforce housing
(households serving between 50% to 80% area median income for Kitsap
County) for a minimum of twenty years; or
b.Five (5) percent of all the units shall be for deeply affordable units
(households serving less than 50% of the area median income for Kitsap
County) for a minimum for twenty years.
(Proposal continues to next page)
#2
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W Downtown Subarea Plan Amendment Attachment A
Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2
Downtown Subarea Plan Amendments
(Amendment 2(b) proposal continued from previous page)
Within the Bonus Amenity Program Table (portion of table) on page 6-144, remove the existing
criteria that incentivizes affordable housing as it is now required.
Public Amenity or
Benefit
Tier Two
Land Use
Ratio
Exemption
from FAR
Calcs
Design Criteria
DC DW
7 Workforce Housing:
Serving households
between 80% to
120% median
income
1:10 N/A Area of units to be rented or sold (in
per-petuity) to households meeting
this income requirement per the local
metropolitan statistical area generally
used by HUD to establish income
limits for federal programs.
8 Low Income
Housing: Serving
households below
80% median income
1:10 N/A Area of units to be rented or sold (in
per-
petuity) to households meeting this
income requirement per the local
metropolitan statistical area generally
used by HUD to establish income
limits for federal programs.
9
(7)
Ground Related
Townhouse
Terraces:
1:10 1:5 On side streets, in mid-block crossings
or activated alleys. Raise terrace 18”
minimum above sidewalk. Min 10’
deep from sidewalk to face of
townhouse, with private terrace and
landscaping buffer.
Within BOTH the Downtown Core (page 6-102) and Downtown Waterfront (page 6-106) zones
add a clarifying provision to “Lot Requirements” as follows:
6.3.3 LOT REQUIREMENTS
(1) Development shall comply with the following floor area ratio, defined as the net floor
area divided by the lot area.
Maximum Base FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 3.25
Minimum FAR 1.0
(2) FAR may be increased beyond 3.25 when a public amenity is provided as pursuant to
Chapter 6.11 Bonus Amenity Chart in collaboration with the Design Review Board, and
provided design guidelines and design standards are met. Buildings may not exceed 75’ in
height without providing amenities outlined in the Bonus Amenity Program.
(3) Maximum Lot Coverage for structures above 45’………………75%
#2
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W Downtown Subarea Plan Amendment Attachment A
Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2
Downtown Subarea Plan Amendments
2(c) Clarify Design Review Board process
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of 2(c):
Page 3-20 of the DSAP, under 3.3 Design Review:
This Plan expands the Design Review boundary to cover the full Subarea for all projects
achieving the following threshold;
1.Residential units of four or greater;
2.Commercial projects of 5,000 sq. ft. or greater;
3.For projects meeting (1) or (2) above, and are:
a.Retrofitting the exterior of an existing building that increase
nonconformity with the design standards of the Subarea Plan; or
b.The placement of accessory structure, addition of a building, or other
similar applications that does not comply with the design standards of
the Subarea Plan.
2(d) Warren Avenue Corridor Rename
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of 2(d):
Amend the Warren Avenue Corridor as proposed:
1.Rename the Warren Avenue Corridor zone to Downtown Support District (DSD)
throughout the subarea plan.
2.Revise the intent of the Warren Avenue Corridor: The intent of the Warren
Avenue Corridor is to provide a commercial district of medium density to
transition to lower scaled uses outside of the downtown. Commercial and mixed
uses are anticipated close to downtown and at street intersections of 6th Street
& Warren Avenue and Burwell Street & Warren Avenue and then transitioning
to residential uses at the edge. Residential uses are considered secondary to
commercial uses.”
3.Revise 6.10.2 USE STANDARDS within the Warren Avenue Corridor as follows:
6.10.2 USE STANDARDS
(1) Pursuant to BMC Chapter 20.74.020
(2) Requirement for mixed-use or commercial. For parcels at the intersections of
6th Street & Warren Avenue and Burwell Street & Warren Avenue development
shall have ground oriented commercial uses at the street. At least 50% of the
ground floor area facing the public sidewalk shall be “pedestrian oriented.”
(2) (3) Prohibited Uses: Automobile sales, services, and repair, strip clubs and
adult cabaretsDowntown Subarea Plan Amendment Downtown Subarea Plan Amendment #2
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
Attachment A
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #3:
SPECIFIC PROPOSAL: Amend the Puget Sound Industrial Center-
Bremerton’s Subarea Plan to allow gravel “pavement” in specific
situations.
All changes are shown in legislative mark-up with strikethroughs being deletion and
underlined text proposed to be added.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of #3
Amend the PSIC Subarea Plan to allow gravel “paving” in specific circumstances as follows:
Gravel “paving” exception: The intent of this code is to allow gravel “paving” for Industrial
complexes and similar uses and developments in areas that do not typically have to-and-go
daily traffic, but shall be for those areas that are driven on infrequently or have
vehicles/equipment that will be typically parked/stationary for an extended period of time.
Gravel “paving” shall not be used for daily customer parking. The following is minimum
standards to allow gravel paving:
(a) Gravel paving is allowed within Industrial complexes and similar uses, and developments
in the following areas.
i. Surplus parking. This is parking beyond what is required for the development,
such as a special event parking for occasional events.
ii. Areas used primarily for industrial sales or rentals provided it does not require
frequent trips on-and-off the gravel area onto the all-weathered surface.
iii. Contractor storage yard,
iv. Logging/mining access road, or
v. Similar applications that do not require frequent trips on-and-off the gravel area.
(b) An issued site development permit or a building permit with associated parking is
required for the establishment of a gravel parking lot or driveway. At no time shall a
gravel parking lot or driveway be installed without a permit approval.
(c) The gravel paved areas are intended to run with the land regardless if the property or
business is sold or re-occupied. However, for the life of the project, any on-site changes
to the occupancy, business or use that utilize the gravel “paving” that violates any
portion of this code, will require the gravel “paving” to be paved with an all-weather
surface.
(d) The property owner provides a letter of request, provides a site plan (to scale) that
clearly indicates where gravel or other pervious surfacing area will be placed,
quantification of the area and can demonstrate that the gravel or other pervious
surfacing areas are designed and will be maintained in accordance with or exceeding the
requirements contained in the City currently adopted Stormwater manual (or as
amended);
(e) Gravel parking facilities shall be surfaced with no less than three inches of crushed gravel
and shall be maintained on a regular basis;
(Proposal continued onto next page)
#3
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton Subarea Plan Amendment Attachment A
(f) Dust is controlled throughout the site, and measures are provided and accepted by the
City;
(g) Rock and other debris is not tracked off site; and
(h) To ensure pollution generating equipment is controlled within the area of gravel paving,
an emergency spill control plan shall be prepared and implemented.
(i) Protection of Roads & Trails. To ensure non-bound materials, such as gravel, does not
enter into a lane of travel, the criteria below is applicable.
i. This requirement is only for those parcels that access directly to a public or
private street. This requirement is not applicable to areas that access a gravel
easement or tract unless there is an approved Site Plan or Planning Document
that identifies that the area is becoming a private or public street.
ii. Driveway and similar road approaches shall be paved with an all-weather paved
surface, from at least 100 feet back from the property line of the paved right-of-
way to ensure gravel or other non-bound material has been removed from the
vehicle and tires.
iii. If the gravel drive lane crosses an existing or under-construction paved urban
trail for pedestrians and/or bicyclist, a minimum of fifteen (15) feet on both
sides of the trail shall have an all-weather paved surface.
#3
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton Subarea Plan Amendment Attachment A
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #4:
PROPOSAL: Amend the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Element’s
Equivalence Table to be consistent with Kitsap County designations.
All changes are shown in legislative mark-up with strikethroughs being deletion and
underlined text proposed to be added.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of #4
The following is changes to the Land Use Element’s Equivalence Table on page LU-44 and LU-
45. The proposed changes to the Equivalence Table is provided after this section. Please
note that only a portion of the Table has been provided.
Kitsap
County Land
Use District
Kitsap
County
Zoning
Allowed Uses City of Bremerton
(COB) Land Use
Equivalent
COB Land
Consistent
Zoning
Urban High
Intensity
Commercial
Commercial Provides for those commercial
establishments which serve the
shopping and service needs for
large sections of the county and
provides visitor services and
accommodations for both
destination and en route travelers
General Commercial General
Commercial
Public
Facilities
Parks Parks and County facilities are
located within this zone. The City
does not have a Parks specific zone
and delineates these areas to low
density residential.
Low Density
Residential
Low Density
Residential
Urban
Restricted
Areas within urban growth areas
that have been identified with a
significant concentration of critical
areas, greenbelts, or watershed
protection properties.
Watershed Watershed
#4
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W Comprehensive Plan Amendment Attachment A
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #5:
SPECIFIC PROPOSAL: Amend the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Map
and Zoning Code Map for 3027 Olympus Drive:
Current: GENERAL COMMERCIAL
Initial Proposal: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Planning Commission’s Recommendation: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
#5
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Code Map Amendment Subject property shown in red-dashed lines. Subject properties are 3027 Olympus and
surrounding City of Bremerton property (two City of Bremerton owned lots)
Attachment A
Comprehensive Plan Amendment #6
Land Use Map Change for Arsenal Way
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #6:
SPECIFIC PROPOSAL: Amend the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Map
and Zoning Code Map for the area near Arsenal Way:
Current: NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
Proposed: GENERAL COMMERCIAL
Planning Commission’s Recommendation: DENIAL OF LAND USE CHANGE
#6
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
Subject property shown in red-dashed lines. Four properties comprise of approximately 5.7
acres: 3530 and 3536 W Arsenal Way (tax id number 222401-2-104-2002). Formerly the
Perl’s Dance Hall. Two undeveloped properties that are adjacent to 3530 W Arsenal Way (tax
id number 222401-2-105-2001 and 222401-2-103-2003). 3515, 3517, and 3517 Arsenal Way
including a business complex with Peninsula Servmart, and Western Technology (tax id
number 222401-2-109-2007).
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #7:
SPECIFIC PROPOSAL: Amend the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Map
and Zoning Code Map for the area near Kitsap Way and State Highway 3:
Current: FREEWAY CORRIDOR
Initial Proposal: GENERAL COMMERCIAL
Planning Commission’s Recommendation: APPROVE AS PROPOSED as
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
)
#7
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
Area proposed for Map Change shown in a purple dashed line. Subject area parcel
numbers: 3719-001-031-0007, 3719-001-029-0308, 3719-001-029-0001, 3719-001-
029-0506, 3719-001-028-0101, 3719-001-027-0508, 3719-001-027-0409, 3719-001-
027-0300, 3719-001-026-0509, 3719-001-026-0608, 3719-001-027-0201, 3719-001-
027-0102, 3719-001-027-0003, 3719-001-026-0400, 3719-001-026-0103, 3719-001-
026-0004, 3719-001-023-0007, 3719-001-023-0106, 3719-001-023-0304, 3719-001-
020-0802, 3719-001-020-0505, 3719-001-020-0703, 3719-001-020-0604, and 3719-
001-020-0406. Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Code Map Amendment Attachment A
COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL UPDATECommenter Date Specific Amendment RE commentComment SummaryStaff's Response(1) Affordable Housing Incentive; (2) Downtown Subarea Plan; (3) Gravel "paving"; (4) Kitsap County Equivalence Table; (5) Revise Map on Olympus Drive; (6) Revise Map on Arsenal Way; (7) Revise Map on Kitsap Way1 Garrett Nobb 7/16/2018#1 and #2Strongly supports Mayor Wheeler's prioritization of affordable housing. Also supports requiring residential development in excess of 60 feet to include the specified minimums of affordable housing for households earning less than the median income as specified in the proposal. "While I understand and agree with the current comprehensive plan’s reasoning that the Downtown Core should be allowed to be built up to avoid sprawl and preserve the character of existing neighborhoods—with the exception of buildings of historic and aesthetic importance—I still believe that there should be a specific and reasonable height limit in the Downtown Core rather than keeping it as “Market‐Driven.”"Noted for the record. (comment above)#5Support Land use zoning change from General Commercial to Neighborhood BusinessNoted for the record. 2 Dan Lathrop 7/16/2018#7Owns two parcels within the Kitsap Way rezone area and are excited by the changes. Noted for the record. 3 Claire Brownstein 7/18/2018#1 and #2Opposes 22 story building in downtown, especially when the City has existing vacant commercial space. Affordable housing should include those beyond the 80% AMI (should consider serving the 30, 40 and 50% AMI)The Eagles Tower has received land use approval for a 22 story building in the downtown, and therefore it is a vested project. This vested project does support the Downtown Subarea Plan (adopted in 2007) which intent is to build denser development in downtown to reduce the impact elsewhere in the City. Comment on affordable housing is important and will be further defined through this process. 4Eric Stewart 7/20/2018#1 and #2Long‐time resident who does not believe that Downtown is where we should directly address the affordable housing crisis (though he acknowledges that high density housing will help as it will add to the housing stock). The city should concentrate its efforts on affordable housing not in new construction of affordable housing, but in encouraging the development of new housing stock that will force the market to address its over‐inflated prices. Is opposed to further parking reductions as parking is already an issue in downtown. Appreciate comments and this information will considered when developing proposed code for Planning Commission to consider. 5Geoff Wentlandt 7/25/2018#1 and #2Slowing production of housing downtown, or making it more costly to build would negatively affect housing affordability in our city. The new downtown homes relieve price pressure on other homes and reduce economic displacement. Building many more homes is probably the most important thing that can be done to address housing affordability and displacement pressure. Provided specific suggestions for Downtown Subarea Plan amendments on parking, height and affordability level for incentives. Concerned that any changes that would slow the City's construction momentum, and exacerbate the issues. Appreciate comments and this information will considered when developing proposed code for Planning Commission to consider. 6Virgil Elkinton 9/7/2018#1Encourages governments to reduce regulatory impediments. Code amendments should support the development of more units. Is supportive of allowing ADUs as rentals, allowing more housing types in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone, and if the lot is large enough, allow more development opportunities without additional process. Appreciate comments and this information will considered when developing proposed code for Planning Commission to consider. Staff's proposal for Comprehensive Plan amendment for 2018 includes considering allowing a variety of small housing in LDR provide there are additional design criteria to safeguard the neighborhood. 7Leif Bensten 9/17/2018#2Request that the City limit height in Downtown Core to 6 stories and 4 stories within the Downtown Waterfront zones as additional height would conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and intent for health communities, accommodating human scale and urban livability, and environmental goals (provided multiple articles that identifies impacts of high‐rise buildings). Recommends that the City Council hold a short moratorium on development on high rises. Also, not applicable to the currently proposal, but he promotes expanding the Sustainability District to the entire City, encouraging the use of mass timber or cross‐laminated timber in building construction, and would like to see easier use of City documents and wondering if the documents are updated. Staff is requesting revisions to the Bonus Amenity Program to ensure thta building are capped at 75' unless affordalbe houisng is provided. Staff disagrees that Comprehensive Plan is in conflict for high‐rise buildings due to livability as the City Downtown Subarea Plan requires the Bonus Amenity Program for taller building which requires collaboration with public spaces and activation/coordination of the public realm (example: the proposed 22 story building is providing a rooftop amenity space and midway up the building a cafe/community space). As for the moratorium, City Council has recently considered a moratorium and Council was not supportive of stopping the momentum of development. All other comments not applicable to the Comprehsnive Plan amendments are not addresses here.8Diane Manning9/18/2018#5Would like to see the City property at 3027 Olympus Drive become a park or community area with trails. At this time, there is no know future proposal for 3027 Olympus Drive. The proposed land use designation would allow parks and trails. 9Olympus Neighbors9/29/2018#5For the City owned parcel on Olympus, a neighbor provided 18 signatures of neighbors who support this area to be Low Density Residential instead of the Staff's proposal of Low Density Residential. Provide 24 signatures of neighbors who support this area becoming a park. Appreciate the neighborhood outreach. Staff is supportive of either proposal for Low Density Residential or Medium Density Residential. As for the Park, that is a City Council decision that is beyond the scope of this proposal, but a park could be establish in the Low or Medium Density Zones. 10Lisa and Norm Tindall 9/18/2018#5Would like to see the Olympus property become a park. Concerned about potential development. At this time, there is no know future proposal for 3027 Olympus Drive. The proposed land use designation would allow parks and trails. Attachment B11/8/18 Page 1 of 84
Commenter Date Specific Amendment RE commentComment SummaryStaff's Response11Kevin Futrell9/21/2018 #1Would like to have Residential zones allow multiplexes of 4 or more units; especially in Medium Residential Zone. The Medium Residential Zone does allow multiplexes include Townhouses which have to share a common wall(s), but is defined as "three or more units in a row." It does have to meet underlying density, so that will be a limiting factor depending on the lot (current density in MDR is 10 dwelling units per acre; proposal is to go to 18 dwelling units per acre. 12Charles Martin 10/11/2018#5Supports Land Use change that neighbors are proposing for 3027 Olympus Drive of Low Density Residential, and supports a park. See Staff's Response for Comment #9. 13Jadwiga Kellock 10/14/2018#5Supports Land Use change that neighbors are proposing for 3027 Olympus Drive of Low Density Residential, and supports a park. See Staff's Response for Comment #9. 14 Tim Curley 10/13/2018#5Supports Land Use change that neighbors are proposing for 3027 Olympus Drive of Low Density Residential, and supports a park. See Staff's Response for Comment #9. 15Charles Murray10/14/2018#5Supports letter/Comment #12. See Staff's Response for Comment #9. 16 Kevin Futrell 10/15/2018#1Would like to allow multiplexes within Medium Density Residential.See Staff's Response for Comment #11. At this point, Staff has proposed to allow a variety of housing types within Low Density Residential zone, and increase the density within Medium Density Residential (MDR). The proposal to allow all multiplexes within MDR is beyond Staff's request at this time for Planning Commission. 17Diane Manning 10/16/2018#5Would like 3027 Olympus Drive to be a park, and to be desingated as a least intense zoning district. Would like to maintain neighborhood as is. Ms. Manning read her comment outloud at Planning Commission Public Hearing, and Planning Commission revised Staff's Proposal of Medium Density Residential, and suported Low Density Residential as Ms. Manning had proposed. There is no designation less than Low Density Residential zone. The history of the zoning of this property is: currently: General Commercial, 2005‐2016 Industrial Park district, prior to 2005 (at least to 1989) Single Family 3 (which allowed single family homes and larger community gathering spaces (church, gym, stadium, and public buildings such as fire or police station). Attachment B11/8/18 Page 2 of 84
1
Allison Satter
From:Garrett Nobbs <g.b.nobbs@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 16, 2018 4:06 PM
To:Allison Satter
Subject:2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Workshop - Public Comment
Ms Satter,
I’m writing to voice my comments as a Bremerton resident regarding the proposed amendments to the comprehensive
plan.
I strongly support Mayor Wheeler’s prioritization of affordable housing among the City’s goals for the immediate future.
I especially support requiring residential development in excess of 60 feet to include the specified minimums of
affordable housing for households earning less than the median income as specified in the proposal. And while I
understand and agree with the current comprehensive plan’s reasoning that the Downtown Core should be allowed to
be built up to avoid sprawl and preserve the character of existing neighborhoods—with the exception of buildings of
historic and aesthetic importance—I still believe that there should be a specific and reasonable height limit in the
Downtown Core rather than keeping it as “Market‐Driven.”
I also support revising land use zoning near Olympus Drive from General Commercial to Neighborhood Business.
Thank you for taking the time to read and note my comments in the record.
Best,
Garrett Nobbs
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 3 of 84
1
Allison Satter
From:Dan Lathrop <yodler581@outlook.com>
Sent:Monday, July 16, 2018 11:35 AM
To:Allison Satter
Subject:Freeway corridor proposal
I own two land parcels within the area and am excited about the changes. I am not going to attend your meeting
tonight but meets my approval. Dan Lathrop, yodler581@outlook.com or 10970 Lathrop ln nw, Silverdale, Wa.
98383. Thank you.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 4 of 84
1
Allison Satter
From:Claire Brownstein <claire5of6@msn.com>
Sent:Wednesday, July 18, 2018 9:58 AM
To:Allison Satter
Subject:Planning meeting
Catching up on.my email.
In short 22 story building? NO. 10 sure...22 not yet. Lets fill in the blanks before we go high. QfC/RiteAid
building is empty still, Kmart and Rite aide empty, sizzler building left behind. 2 buildings on Pacific and 4th
neglected. The 22 stories will only be good for Seattle transplants (yes I am one but I came when we had
decent ferry service).
Affordable housing is a fun word to throw around for tax credits but we have to serve more than just the 80%
AMI
What are we doing for those on just disability? Or the workers at walmart? If we are going to talk affordable it
would be great if the buildings weren't creaming those just below qualifying and actually housing some of our
poorest and forest dwellers.
I'm writing in my phone, hope this makes sense.
22 stories is 12 too many. Tax credits for housing willing to serve 30, 40 or even 50% AMI as a requirement.
Get Outlook for Android
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 5 of 84
1
Allison Satter
From:ericstewart@saellestudio.com
Sent:Friday, July 20, 2018 12:31 PM
To:Allison Satter
Subject:Planning Meeting 7-16-2018
Dear Ms. Satter
After the Town Hall on the 16th of July, this year, I spoke with you briefly expressing my concerns for the development
plan of Bremerton’s Downtown Core and you asked that I send you an email detailing those concerns.
As a long‐time resident of Bremerton, I can remember the era in which Bremerton was the shopping center for Kitsap
County and most of the Peninsula. The Glory days of Bremerton as the retail center of the region are long behind us and
we must develop a plan for the future that is not only achievable, but beneficial for the city and its residents.
Over the last several months the city council and planning meetings that I have attended have focused on the Affordable
Housing Crisis that Bremerton, and much of western Washington, is suffering through. I am sympathetic to the needs of
our less fortunate, but I do not believe that the Downtown Core region of our city is where we should directly address
the Affordable Housing Crisis. I say directly because I believe that the development of High Density Housing in our
Downtown Core will result in an increase of affordable housing stock, just not within the Downtown Core.
The reality is that Bremerton is still recovering from the Housing Market Crash which occurred nearly a decade ago. For
many years there was a lack of new housing construction and development, which has led to a significant shortage of all
housing, not just affordable housing. This lack of supply, coupled with the increasing demand, has resulted in rent prices
that are over‐inflated. Older homes that five years ago would have rented for under $1000 a month are now being
leased for close to double that, and I feel that these are the entry level homes that should be affordable; not brand new
construction with a waterfront view and walking distance to the ferry. The Increase of housing stock that the High‐
Density housing of the Downtown Core will receive from projects like the Eagles Nest will result in forcing the owners of
older rental properties to lower their lease prices in order to maintain occupancy. It is my opinion that this is where the
city should concentrate its efforts on affordable housing; not in new construction of affordable housing , but in
encouraging the development of new housing stock that will force the market to address its over‐inflated prices.
While I do not believe that the Downtown Core is where any incentives to affordable housing should be given, the idea
of allowing developers the ability to circumnavigate the parking requirements by conceding to affordable housing is a
particularly bad idea in my opinion. Parking, anywhere within walking distance of the shipyard is already a problem. To
allow a developer to creating housing without allotting parking for that housing will magnify the parking problems within
the downtown area. I live on fourth street near state and parking in my neighborhood during high operating hours of
the shipyard is already impossible. Parking enforcement is limited, and as a result, there are shipyard worker who find
paying the infrequent fines less expensive than the daily parking fees.. Without increasing parking enforcement, adding
cars to public parking areas will exasperate the already existing parking crisis. This will also amplify the difficulties that
business within the Downtown Core already face.
I have other concerns and ideas about the future of our city but I thought I would limit this initial email to the subjects
proposed at the planning meeting. My ideas concern Accessory Dwelling Units, Parking, Traffic Patterns, as well
Affordable Housing, but I think to try to address all of those subjects here would be overwhelming and inappropriate. I
am not a civil engineer or planner so my ideas are formed around the limited scope of my experience and likely do not
include information that is available to the city planning office, but I am always willing to share an opinion if it is asked
for.
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 6 of 84
2
Regards,
Eric N Stewart
Bremerton Resident
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 7 of 84
1
Allison Satter
From:Geoffrey Wentlandt <gwentlandt@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, July 25, 2018 6:19 PM
To:Allison Satter; Andrea Spencer; Allison Satter; Greg Wheeler
Subject:Housing incentive comments
Attachments:Geoff Wentlandt comments to Planning Commission.docx
Hi Allison et all,
If it's not too late, here are written comments on the housing incentive proposals. I was too long winded and
didn't finish my comments at the Commission meeting. I'd really appreciate if you provide the comments in full
to the Commission.
If there are any future opportunities for members of the community to dive into these issues a little deeper
please loop me in.
Best,
Geoff
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 8 of 84
July 25, 2018
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Please consider these comments, which I didn’t finish during the 3-minute comment period at your
meeting. Thanks for your work on these important issues.
Sincerely,
Geoff Wentlandt
1248 7th St.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Housing being built in Downtown Bremerton is workforce housing accessible to low- and moderate-
income households. The market rate rents charged at buildings including the 606 Apartments and the
Spyglass Apartments are affordable to renters at or below Area Median Income (AMI). Some
apartments rent at levels close to 80%1 – considered to be low-income housing in the region. Slowing
production of housing downtown, or making it more costly to build would negatively affect housing
affordability in our city.
Housing being constructed in Downtown Bremerton is not causing direct displacement. Recently built
and pipeline construction in downtown totals over 700 new homes to around 12 replaced homes. This
is an excellent ratio (much higher than Seattle). Development is occurring on underused sites, which is
very good policy.
Building many more homes is probably the most important thing that can be done to address housing
affordability and displacement pressure. Each of the 700+ new homes are (or would be) occupied by
households who would otherwise bid up the price of another housing unit in the Bremerton area. The
new downtown homes relieve price pressure on other homes and reduce economic displacement. This
short video from Sightline Institute is a good illustration of how it works. Research shows that the
effects of economic displacement are much more important than direct displacement – especially in the
Bremerton context where very few home are being directly displaced.
1 I see now that the regulatory Kitsap rent and income limits are lower than those used for the Seattle-Bremerton-
Tacoma metro area, so the rents at downtown apartments are around 100% AMI by Kitsap numbers. But you
should also consider that employment is regional and you should look at the regional rent and income limits.
Downtown Bremerton apartments are around 80% AMI rent levels using regional income levels. Producing
apartments that are affordable at 80% AMI to people working in Seattle is good policy for Bremerton.
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 9 of 84
SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE CODE PROPOSAL
I do not think the City should make the parking or height limit changes, but if it does make them, please
consider these suggestions for minor revision to support the goal for affordable housing without
impacting the feasibility of building homes as much.
An overarching comment is that the amendments for parking and height should be complementary, and
harmonize with each other (see below).
Parking
If you increase the parking requirement from 0.5 stall / unit to 1.0 stall / unit, do so with the staff-
recommended approach. Allow for a reduction down from the 1.0 per unit requirement to as low as
zero if rent-restricted homes are reserved for households at 80% AMI. (60% AMI for this policy would be
way too low, especially using Kitsap numbers, see below.) Structured parking costs $30K - $50K per stall
to build – a cost that will be passed on to renters or kill feasibility of some developments.
Height
If you add the requirement for affordable housing in buildings above a certain height please consider the
following.
Make the height threshold 70’ or 75’ (not 60) for when the requirement kicks in. At 60’ the requirement
will affect the construction of the top floor in buildings that use wood-framing over a concrete base,
sometimes referred to as five-over-one, or five-over-two construction. With recent changes to the
International Building Code five-over-two will become more common. At 60’ builders will cut off the top
wood-framed story to avoid the requirement, or will squish down all of the building’s floor-to-floor
heights, resulting in low-ceiling apartments. If you set the height threshold for the incentive at 70’ (or
better yet 75’) the new regulation would affect tower developments that uses highrise construction
types (like the proposed Eagles Tower) without unintended consequences on wood framed construction
types. The building code height limits for wood-framed construction is 75’. Matching the zoning
standard with the building code would be good policy.
Affordability Levels for Incentives
Make the affordability level 80% AMI for all the incentives. 60%AMI is too low and would almost
certainly impact feasibility.
Using Kitsap numbers2 the maximum 1BR rent at the 80% AMI level would be about $1,080, about a
$170 monthly discount or 15% discount from an assumed market rent of $1,250. On just one rent-
restricted apartment, the capitalized value of this rent discount would cost the builder about $37,000
2 I calculated these based on a BHA document about Kitsap AMIs online. I don’t know for sure what AMI levels the
City will use. The numbers I used may not be exact, but they should be in the ball park, and illustrate the point.
5.5% Cap Rate assumed.
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 10 of 84
dollars. This is about 19% of the total cost to construct an apartment assuming development cost at
about $200,000 per unit.
Using Kitsap numbers the maximum 1BR rent at the 60% AMI level would be about $810, about a $440
monthly discount or 35% discount from an assumed market rent of $1,250. On just one rent-restricted
apartment, the capitalized value of this rent discount would cost the builder about $97,000 dollars. This
is about 48% or almost half of the total cost to construct an apartment assuming development cost at
about $200,000 per unit.
The differential between 80% AMI levels and 60% AMI levels is significant. 80% is a moderate financial
impact that could be absorbed in some proformas. The impact of 60% levels is far greater, and would
stop any developments that are close to the margins.
Please consider 80% AMI levels for the incentives, to avoid stopping residential construction, which
would have a far greater negative impact on displacement and affordability, because fewer new homes
would be built.
Affordability Duration for Incentives
Specify the duration of the affordability term as 25 years. The memo didn’t specify duration so I don’t
know what’s intended. But a good policy is to have long term affordability in the incentivized units. This
works because it assures the public the affordable units will stay for a long term. At the same time, it
works well for builders because as buildings age, rents tend to go down. The cost of the requirement
will be less onerous to the building owner over time as all the market rents in the building come down
towards the affordable level.
Don’t ‘Stack Up’ the Costs of the Incentives
Harmonize the required AMI level for the height incentive with that of the parking incentive and with
the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE). If you do, the cost of the requirements/incentive would not
‘stack up’ and be additive. Give builders the option of satisfying all three of: parking incentive, height
incentive, and MFTE 12-year exemption with the same set of rent restricted affordable housing units.
Don’t require an additional basket of units to satisfy each incentive.
MFTE
Though not on the agenda, Mayor Wheeler has proposed MFTE reforms. An MFTE reform that gets rid
of the 8-year exemption, but retains the 12-year exemption could harmonize with the parking and
height reforms that are proposed. If you set the AMI level for all three at 80% AMI, developers will have
the benefit of MFTE to offset the added costs of the parking and height incentives. The City would
benefit from extending the duration of MFTE program affordability from 12 to 25 years through the
parking and height incentives.
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 11 of 84
If a proposal is crafted with parts that fit together (the land use changes and MFTE changes) in a way
that has a moderate impact on project feasibility and is grounded by data, perhaps it would be
supportable by more stakeholders and would be more palatable to the Council.
SUMMARY
As currently proposed, the code standards (not to mention the proposed MFTE reforms) would slow
Bremerton’s momentum and stop most new residential construction in Downtown. This would make
housing affordability and displacement problems worse than they are today, because fewer new homes
would be built. It would increase rent pressure on other units in the market and contribute to economic
displacement.
You can improve the proposal by making minor changes that still would add affordability incentives but
would have a less jarring effect on the feasibility of building new homes.
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 12 of 84
From: info@wc-mt.com [mailto:info@wc-mt.com]
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 4:55 PM
To: Greg Wheeler <Greg.Wheeler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Bremerton affordable housing
Dear Mayor Greg Wheeler:
Thanks for leading the charge on this issue. Sometimes smart planning is too smart.
I believe the best way to knock a dent into the affordable housing issue, is to ask the government to get
our of the way and allow entrepreneurs to solve the problem. It is, as you say, supply and demand. Let
me explain.
Presently, with zoning laws, government controls supply. With growth management’s smart growth
initiatives, available buildable land is reduced. Further complicating the issue are zoning requirements
within the city, which stifle growth further. Demand grows, because supply is reduced. I have been able
to raise my rent s 40% in the last few years. You have seen what then happens with property
values. These spiraling values, cause increased assessments and a higher tax bill for the landlord – all of
which are passed on to the tenant. Since many permits are based on the value of the home – especially
new builds, this further adds to the tax. The tenant always pays.
The way to break this spiral up is to change the slope of the demand curve. This can happen one of two
ways. The shipyard shuts down and federal workers go find new areas to work outside our market OR
we increase housing significantly.
We see major projects going on around town, however, I believe those will not keep up with
demand. We have to look to private home owners and the common citizen. There are many more
available lots with home owners, than there are developers.
1. I like your ideas utilizing ADU’s as rentals. ( Don’t kid yourself, people are already doing that.)
2. Find ways to change the zoning allowing for duplexes or triplexes to be built and get rid of the
designation of multiple family.
3. IF a lot is zoned for duplex, and the land area is available for parking and the structure, allow it
to have a wing added on to make a triplex or 4 plex. These are all very affordable to build.
Let me give and example of this. Presently, I am looking at having to spend a 1031 tax exchange for a
property I have recently sold. One property I am looking at buying, is a duplex on 0.28 ac of land. There
is plenty of room to add a third wing to the land and make it a triplex, where I could be another section
person or other low income person in, but NO! – planning sees the zoning of R-10 and will not allow it.
Its funny, on an R-10 lot with 0.28 sq feet, I could build a 3800 sq ft house, but I am not allowed to build
a 2400 sq foot triplex. – Even in an neighbor full of duplexes.
Imagine if, per year, your idea was implemented and private citizens did one-offs with adding a duplex
or increasing to triplex. What if 100 of these affordable project per year came into existence? All
government has to do is think it through and step out of the way.
Let me know how I can help.
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 13 of 84
Virgil
Capt VS Elkinton, MBA, MSML, MSHRM
Maritime Expert and Business Consultant
Master – Oceans Unlimited tonnage/MOT/OIM/DP Unlimited
742 South Summit Ave
Bremerton, WA 98312
Mobile: 360-621-7975 Res: 360.479.7636 email: virgilelkinton@outlook.com
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 14 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 15 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 16 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 17 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 18 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 19 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 20 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 21 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 22 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 23 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 24 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 25 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 26 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 27 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 28 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 29 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 30 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 31 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 32 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 33 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 34 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 35 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 36 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 37 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 38 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 39 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 40 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 41 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 42 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 43 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 44 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 45 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 46 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 47 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 48 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 49 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 50 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 51 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 52 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 53 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 54 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 55 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 56 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 57 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 58 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 59 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 60 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 61 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 62 of 84
1
Allison Satter
From:MDM <MDM4711@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, September 17, 2018 1:47 AM
To:Allison Satter
Cc:'Leslie Daugs'; Greg Wheeler
Subject:RE: Notice of Upcoming Planning Commission Meeting
Allison,
I’m unable to attend today’s meeting, so am submitting my comments below. I appreciate you keeping all of us
informed and giving us an opportunity to participate in this process.
Thanks,
Diane
September 17, 2018
Bremerton Planning Commission,
Re: Olympus/Sanders Green Space
A few neighbors and I are interested in preserving the Sanders green space as a District #2 community
park. District #2 does not currently have a community park, so this would be a wonderful addition. I have met
with Council Member Daugs to discuss this idea and she fully supports us in this effort.
At this time, we want to keep it very simple for cost and maintenance purposes. First and foremost we want to
preserve the natural environment. As part of our Neighborhood Watch efforts, we have conducted two Earth
Day cleanups and one Beautify Bremerton cleanup of this space, focusing on removing invasive plants – ivy,
blackberry, and holly. We plan to continue our annual Earth Day cleanups, and if it becomes a community
park, we would establish more frequent regular cleanups as is being done in many other city community parks.
We would like to create a walking trail through the wooded area once the invasive plants are removed/under
control. We are also interested in creating an area where events like “Poetry in the Park,” etc. could be
held. Our future discussions would be on whether we want to bring games to the park like outdoor ping pong
tables, chess/checker tables, etc., and a small play area for younger children. We would like this park to offer
quieter activities like that and be very thoughtful in the design, since it is so close to homes.
The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of low and medium income families, including 11 nearby Bremerton
Housing units. These families and their children have nowhere nearby to play and recreate. Transforming this
area into a community park, within walking distance of many homes, would fill a need within the neighborhood
and preserve a beautiful, natural green space.
We are pursuing finding someone to take aerial photographs of this space. One of our residents is contacting
View Ridge Elementary, which has been approved as an Arts academy, to see if the 5th graders could create a
concept for the park. One of our residents has designed a park before, so will also work on a design or two,
once we get dimensions of the area. We will also be pursuing adding more supporters’ names to the list below
of those who currently support this effort.
Thanks for your consideration. We look forward to future discussions.
Diane Manning
Names of those who support maintaining this space as a community park:
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 63 of 84
2
Norm and Lisa Tisdale
Jim Baxter
Tim Curley and Kathey Willoughby
Jenifer Sheckler
Council Member Leslie Daugs
From: Allison Satter [mailto:Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 5:11 PM
To: Allison Satter
Subject: Notice of Upcoming Planning Commission Meeting
Dear Interested Parties of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments,
Attached is the Planning Commission packet for the 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments. You have receive this
notice as you have requested or participated in this process. This packet will be discussed in details on Monday,
September 17, 2018 at 530PM at 345 6th Street, first floor (Bremerton) at the Planning Commission Workshop.
Plan ahead: next Planning Commission meeting to discuss this topic will be on October 15, 2018 at 530 (same location).
Best Regards,
Allison f atter
Senior Planner
City of Bremerton | 345 6th Street | Bremerton, WA 98337
Physical Location: Suite 600 | Mailing: Suite 100
(360) 473‐5845
Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 64 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 65 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 66 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 67 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 68 of 84
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 69 of 84
1
Allison Satter
From:Lisa & Norm Tindall <nltindall@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 18, 2018 12:43 PM
To:Allison Satter
Cc:MDM4711@comcast.net; CMartin@nbbj.com; teresalynngaines@gmail.com; Lisa;
barbradoll@comcast.net; tim@wilcur.com
Subject:Zoning amendments
Hello Alison,
Thank you for the great presentation last night. I learned a lot.
Here is a picture looking north to the intersection of our easement part of sanders that ends at Sheridan and 30th st and
the wider part of sanders that runs by the green space. If you imagine a vehicle sitting in the space in front of the fence
on the corner which happens you can see what a blind corner it is. Our easement is 19.5 feet wide. I have often feared
for children playing on the road and riding bikes because people regularly use our little easement to speed their way to
Sheridan. They whip around this corner. So you can imagine our concerns if the green space, and our entire
Neighborhood is rezoned to 18 units per acre. Its not just prospective development in the green space. We have
concerns on the impact this would have on the entire character of our neighborhood. We live here because of the view.
People are buying here and fixing up houses because of the view. If 3 and 4 story blocks are allowed to go up here we
could lose all that. People may hesitate to buy here because of that zoning. We wonder why our little neighborhood
with mainly narrow streets and easements and many houses that rely on alley access is medium density and olympus
and east is low density?
I think the planning commission should walk this neighborhood and really get a feel it before the next public discussion.
Thanks again for hearing our concerns!
Lisa and Norm Tindall
2833 Sanders Ave
Sent from Lisa’s iPhone
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 70 of 84
1
Allison Satter
From:Lisa & Norm Tindall <nltindall@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 18, 2018 12:49 PM
To:Allison Satter
Cc:MDM4711@comcast.net; teresalynngaines@gmail.com; tim@wilcur.com;
barbradoll@comcast.net; CMartin@nbbj.com; Lisa
Subject:This is the picture I meant to send
Sorry, going too fast!
Sent from Lisa’s iPhone
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 71 of 84
1
Allison Satter
From:Kevin Futrell <kevintylerfutrell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, September 21, 2018 10:45 AM
To:Allison Satter
Subject:Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2018
Allison,
Looking at the proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan, I noticed that there are some changes to encourage higher
residential density developments. The zoning website is down so I don't have access to it. But if I remember correctly,
fourplexes were not distinguished differently from a multiplex. I'd like to suggest a change that would allow "up to
fourplexes" in the medium-density residential as an unconditional permitted use similar to what I suspect a duplex is
classified as.
For financing and building purposes, fourplexes are still considered residential, whereas, anything above that is classified
as commercial. I can get a 30-year fixed-rate loan on a fourplex, but would be required to get a commercial loan (usually
a 5-year ARM) for properties with dwelling units above four. My builder is also certified to build up to a fourplex, but
would have to get a different level of insurance to build anything larger than that. Because of FHA restrictions (limitation
of four loans), it makes more sense for me to purchase/build fourplexes over duplexes.
If it is already a permitted use, please disregard this email. The website was down and I didn't want to forget to comment.
Thanks in advance for your consideration in this matter.
Kevin Futrell, J.D.
509-594-7270
UW Business - WU Law
Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 72 of 84
1
Allison Satter
From:Charles Martin <CMartin@nbbj.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 11, 2018 4:17 PM
To:City Council; Allison Satter
Cc:Aaron Besson; Barbra Williams; Charles Murray; Cheryl Egbert; Diane Manning; Gary
and Diane Graff; Jadwiga Kellock; Jenifer Sheckler; Jessica Quigley; John P. Confar;
Joyce Hawkins; Julie Hamner; Justin and Amber Novak; Leia Olson; Lisa Schnabel;
maconfar@hotmail.com; Martin Lewis; Mike Bomgren; Nick Rivers; Norm & Lisa Tindall;
Rebecca (Becky) McIntire; Robert and Sharon Mclean; Robert and Susie Meria; Shayna
& Shawn Hartley; Terri Gaines; Tim Curley
Subject:Olympus/Sanders Rezone Area - Review and Re-Zoning Hearing
Attachments:Sanders Park.pdf
Planning Commission Members;
I support designating the Olympus/Sanders Rezone area as Low Density Residential Zone and preserving a
Sanders “green space” (southern red-hatch zone bordered in yellow - approximately 4.12 acres) as a District
# 2 Community Park (see attachment). I furthermore support using the existing parking (noted in the red
bordered area) for this park and recreation use. Additional parking, if required later, could augment this use
and be created along the southern Olympus Drive side of this green space zone.
The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of low and medium income families, including 11 nearby Bremerton
Housing units. These families and their children currently do not have access to nearby and safe play
opportunities nor City of Bremerton recreation facilities. Designating this area as a Community Park, within
practical walking distance of many families, would fill a void within the neighborhood as well as preserve this
natural green space. Natural green space is an amenity which has been neglected in past planning for many
communities. I urge you to preserve this green space.
Respectfully;
Charles Martin AIA ACHA
2811 Sanders Ave // PO Box 3097
Bremerton, WA 98310
206.790.5236
Charles Martin, AIA, ACHA Principal
NBBJ 223 Yale Avenue North SEATTLE WA 98109
Direct: 206.223.5236 Mobile: 206.790.5236
www.nbbj.com / @nbbjdesign / http://meanstheworld.co
Comment #12Attachment B
11/8/18
Page 73 of 84
Proposed Olympus/Sanders
Rezone Area
Proposed designated
District # 2 Community
Park
Parking Zone
High Intensity Zone
Low Intensity Zone
From:Jadwiga Kellock
To:City Council; Allison Satter
Cc:Aaron Besson; Barbra Williams; Charles Murray; Cheryl Egbert; Diane Manning; Gary and Diane Graff; Jenifer
Sheckler; Jessica Quigley; John P. Confar; Joyce Hawkins; Julie Hamner; Justin and Amber Novak; Leia Olson;
Lisa Schnabel; maconfar@hotmail.com; Martin Lewis; Mike Bomgren; Nick Rivers; Norm & Lisa Tindall; Rebecca
(Becky) McIntire; Robert and Sharon Mclean; Robert and Susie Meria; Shayna & Shawn Hartley; Terri Gaines;
Tim Curley; Charles Martin
Subject:Olympus/Sanders Rezone Area - Review and Re-Zoning Hearing
Date:Sunday, October 14, 2018 9:58:34 PM
Planning Commission Members;
I am writing to fully support designating the Olympus/Sanders Rezone area as Low Density
Residential Zone and preserving a Sanders “green space” (southern red-hatch zone bordered
in yellow - approximately 4.12 acres on subject parcel map) as a District # 2 Community Park.
Living directly across from the green space on Sanders Ave., I see firsthand everyday what an
important community destination and frequently visited place this is for area residents. It is a
safe, quiet, accessible, unique, wooded outdoor space for recreation and play for people of all
ages. As a neighborhood, we’ve been dedicated to enhancing this outdoor green space by
organizing an annual clean up and brush removal of the green space. By creating a Community
Park here, we would be recognizing and formalizing a location for the activity that already
takes place here daily. Loss of this open green space, through rezoning and potential
development, would be an irreplaceable loss for our community.
Simply put - Bremerton is not lacking space for building things; what is lacking is natural green
space for outdoor recreation and the enjoyment of all. This is an opportunity to preserve a
small pocket of natural green space and habitat for numerous wildlife in central Bremerton. By
doing so, we can only enhance the natural beauty of the neighborhood and contribute to a
positive overall image of Bremerton.
I urge you to please preserve this green space.
Respectfully,
Jadwiga Kellock, resident
3011 Sanders Ave. Bremerton WA 98310
From: Charles Martin <CMartin@nbbj.com>
Sent: October 11, 2018 4:17 PM
To: citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us; Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Cc: Aaron Besson; Barbra Williams; Charles Murray; Cheryl Egbert; Diane Manning; Gary and Diane
Graff; Jadwiga Kellock; Jenifer Sheckler; Jessica Quigley; John P. Confar; Joyce Hawkins; Julie Hamner;
Justin and Amber Novak; Leia Olson; Lisa Schnabel; maconfar@hotmail.com; Martin Lewis; Mike
Bomgren; Nick Rivers; Norm & Lisa Tindall; Rebecca (Becky) McIntire; Robert and Sharon Mclean;
Comment #13
Robert and Susie Meria; Shayna & Shawn Hartley; Terri Gaines; Tim Curley
Subject: Olympus/Sanders Rezone Area - Review and Re-Zoning Hearing
Planning Commission Members;
I support designating the Olympus/Sanders Rezone area as Low Density Residential Zone
and preserving a Sanders “green space” (southern red-hatch zone bordered in yellow -
approximately 4.12 acres) as a District # 2 Community Park (see attachment). I
furthermore support using the existing parking (noted in the red bordered area) for this park
and recreation use. Additional parking, if required later, could augment this use and be
created along the southern Olympus Drive side of this green space zone.
The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of low and medium income families, including 11
nearby Bremerton Housing units. These families and their children currently do not have
access to nearby and safe play opportunities nor City of Bremerton recreation facilities.
Designating this area as a Community Park, within practical walking distance of many
families, would fill a void within the neighborhood as well as preserve this natural green
space. Natural green space is an amenity which has been neglected in past planning for
many communities. I urge you to preserve this green space.
Respectfully;
Charles Martin AIA ACHA
2811 Sanders Ave // PO Box 3097
Bremerton, WA 98310
206.790.5236
Charles Martin, AIA, ACHA Principal
NBBJ 223 Yale Avenue North SEATTLE WA 98109
Direct: 206.223.5236 Mobile: 206.790.5236
www.nbbj.com / @nbbjdesign / http://meanstheworld.co
Comment #13
1
Allison Satter
From:Tim Curley <tim@wilcur.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 13, 2018 12:49 PM
To:City Council; Allison Satter
Cc:'Aaron Besson'; 'Barbra Williams'; 'Charles Murray'; 'Cheryl Egbert'; 'Diane Manning';
'Gary and Diane Graff'; 'Jadwiga Kellock'; 'Jenifer Sheckler'; 'Jessica Quigley'; 'John P.
Confar'; 'Joyce Hawkins'; 'Julie Hamner'; 'Justin and Amber Novak'; 'Leia Olson'; 'Lisa
Schnabel'; maconfar@hotmail.com; 'Martin Lewis'; 'Mike Bomgren'; 'Nick Rivers'; 'Norm
& Lisa Tindall'; 'Rebecca (Becky) McIntire'; 'Robert and Sharon Mclean'; 'Robert and
Susie Meria'; 'Shayna & Shawn Hartley'; 'Terri Gaines'; 'Charles Martin'
Subject:Olympus/Sanders Rezone Area - Review and Re-Zoning Hearing
Planning Commission Members:
I agree with the earlier note to you from Charles Martin dated October 11, 2018. In other words, I support designating
the Olympus/Sanders Rezone area as LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE and preserving a Sanders “green space” as a
District #2 Community Park.
Respectfully,
Timothy Curley
2821 Sanders Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98310
From: Charles Martin [mailto:CMartin@nbbj.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 4:17 PM
To: citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us; Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Cc: Aaron Besson; Barbra Williams; Charles Murray; Cheryl Egbert; Diane Manning; Gary and Diane Graff; Jadwiga
Kellock; Jenifer Sheckler; Jessica Quigley; John P. Confar; Joyce Hawkins; Julie Hamner; Justin and Amber Novak; Leia
Olson; Lisa Schnabel; maconfar@hotmail.com; Martin Lewis; Mike Bomgren; Nick Rivers; Norm & Lisa Tindall; Rebecca
(Becky) McIntire; Robert and Sharon Mclean; Robert and Susie Meria; Shayna & Shawn Hartley; Terri Gaines; Tim Curley
Subject: Olympus/Sanders Rezone Area - Review and Re-Zoning Hearing
Planning Commission Members;
I support designating the Olympus/Sanders Rezone area as Low Density Residential Zone and preserving a
Sanders “green space” (southern red-hatch zone bordered in yellow - approximately 4.12 acres) as a District
# 2 Community Park (see attachment). I furthermore support using the existing parking (noted in the red
bordered area) for this park and recreation use. Additional parking, if required later, could augment this use
and be created along the southern Olympus Drive side of this green space zone.
The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of low and medium income families, including 11 nearby Bremerton
Housing units. These families and their children currently do not have access to nearby and safe play
opportunities nor City of Bremerton recreation facilities. Designating this area as a Community Park, within
practical walking distance of many families, would fill a void within the neighborhood as well as preserve this
natural green space. Natural green space is an amenity which has been neglected in past planning for many
communities. I urge you to preserve this green space.
Respectfully;
Charles Martin AIA ACHA
2811 Sanders Ave // PO Box 3097
Comment #14
2
Bremerton, WA 98310
206.790.5236
Charles Martin, AIA, ACHA Principal
NBBJ 223 Yale Avenue North SEATTLE WA 98109
Direct: 206.223.5236 Mobile: 206.790.5236
www.nbbj.com / @nbbjdesign / http://meanstheworld.co
Comment #14
1
Allison Satter
From:Charles Murray <invariant244@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 14, 2018 2:13 PM
To:City Council; Allison Satter; Tim Curley
Cc:'Aaron Besson'; 'Barbra Williams'; 'Cheryl Egbert'; 'Diane Manning'; 'Gary and Diane
Graff'; 'Jadwiga Kellock'; 'Jenifer Sheckler'; 'Jessica Quigley'; 'John P. Confar'; 'Joyce
Hawkins'; 'Julie Hamner'; 'Justin and Amber Novak'; 'Leia Olson'; 'Lisa Schnabel';
maconfar@hotmail.com; 'Martin Lewis'; 'Mike Bomgren'; 'Nick Rivers'; 'Norm & Lisa
Tindall'; 'Rebecca (Becky) McIntire'; 'Robert and Sharon Mclean'; 'Robert and Susie
Meria'; 'Shayna & Shawn Hartley'; 'Terri Gaines'; 'Charles Martin'
Subject:Re: Olympus/Sanders Rezone Area - Review and Re-Zoning Hearing
Thank you, Charles, for the excellent letter.
-Jim
On Saturday, October 13, 2018, 9:48:09 PM CDT, Charles Murray <invariant244@yahoo.com> wrote:
I also agree with Charles.
On Saturday, October 13, 2018, 2:49:37 PM CDT, Tim Curley <tim@wilcur.com> wrote:
Planning Commission Members:
I agree with the earlier note to you from Charles Martin dated October 11, 2018. In other words, I support
designating the Olympus/Sanders Rezone area as LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE and preserving a
Sanders “green space” as a District #2 Community Park.
Respectfully,
Timothy Curley
2821 Sanders Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98310
From: Charles Martin [mailto:CMartin@nbbj.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 4:17 PM
To: citycouncil@ci.bremerton.wa.us; Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us
Cc: Aaron Besson; Barbra Williams; Charles Murray; Cheryl Egbert; Diane Manning; Gary and Diane Graff; Jadwiga
Kellock; Jenifer Sheckler; Jessica Quigley; John P. Confar; Joyce Hawkins; Julie Hamner; Justin and Amber Novak; Leia
Olson; Lisa Schnabel; maconfar@hotmail.com; Martin Lewis; Mike Bomgren; Nick Rivers; Norm & Lisa Tindall; Rebecca
Comment #15
2
(Becky) McIntire; Robert and Sharon Mclean; Robert and Susie Meria; Shayna & Shawn Hartley; Terri Gaines; Tim Curley
Subject: Olympus/Sanders Rezone Area - Review and Re-Zoning Hearing
Planning Commission Members;
I support designating the Olympus/Sanders Rezone area as Low Density Residential Zone and preserving a
Sanders “green space” (southern red-hatch zone bordered in yellow - approximately 4.12 acres) as a District
# 2 Community Park (see attachment). I furthermore support using the existing parking (noted in the red
bordered area) for this park and recreation use. Additional parking, if required later, could augment this use
and be created along the southern Olympus Drive side of this green space zone.
The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of low and medium income families, including 11 nearby Bremerton
Housing units. These families and their children currently do not have access to nearby and safe play
opportunities nor City of Bremerton recreation facilities. Designating this area as a Community Park, within
practical walking distance of many families, would fill a void within the neighborhood as well as preserve this
natural green space. Natural green space is an amenity which has been neglected in past planning for many
communities. I urge you to preserve this green space.
Respectfully;
Charles Martin AIA ACHA
2811 Sanders Ave // PO Box 3097
Bremerton, WA 98310
206.790.5236
Charles Martin, AIA, ACHA Principal
NBBJ 223 Yale Avenue North SEATTLE WA 98109
Direct: 206.223.5236 Mobile: 206.790.5236
www.nbbj.com / @nbbjdesign / http://meanstheworld.co
Comment #15
1
Allison Satter
From:Kevin Futrell <kevintylerfutrell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 15, 2018 11:46 AM
To:Allison Satter
Subject:Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2018
Allison,
Thank you for considering my request. I was able to look at the zoning code today and I'm not seeing any provisions for
fourplexes in the current Medium Density Residential zone. I'm more or less asking that "Multifamily (up to 4 units)" be
classified separately from "Multifamily" and be considered as an Outright Permitted Use in the Medium Density
zone. Even if it was considered as a Conditional Use that would be better than what currently exists, but I believe
"Multifamily (more than 4 units)" should also be considered in Medium Density, possibly as a conditional use. The only
option as I read the current zoning code is for multifamily for special population groups (like seniors or disabled).
I won't be able to attend the hearing tonight as I have a conflict on my work schedule.
Kevin Futrell, J.D.
509-594-7270
UW Business - WU Law
On Friday, October 12, 2018, 10:25:33 AM PDT, Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us> wrote:
Kevin,
Thank you for your comment and attached is the packet for the upcoming Planning Commission public hearing
that will be this upcoming Monday, October 15, 2018 at 5:30PM at 345 6th Street, Bremerton.
I have also added this comment into the record and added you as an interested party.
But to respond to your questions:
Your request to allow multiplexes into Medium Density Residential: The Planning Commission is considering a
couple proposals that can relate to that: Proposal 1(b) is to allow more housing types within the Low Density
Residential including duplexes and townhomes provided they meet underlying density (of 5 to 10 dwelling units
per acre). Townhomes are defined as a row of homes that is 3 or more. The Medium Density Residential zone
already allows duplexes and townhomes provided they meet the underlying density. Proposal 1(a) is to raise
the underlying density of Medium Density Res to 18 dwelling units per acre instead of the current maximum
density of 10.
Comment #16
2
I appreciate your comment, and thank you for your time.
Best Regards,
Allison Satter
Senior Planner
City of Bremerton | 345 6th Street | Bremerton, WA 98337
Physical Location: Suite 600 | Mailing: Suite 100
(360) 473-5845
Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us
From: Kevin Futrell [mailto:kevintylerfutrell@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 10:45 AM
To: Allison Satter <Allison.Satter@ci.bremerton.wa.us>
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2018
Allison,
Looking at the proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan, I noticed that there are some changes to encourage higher
residential density developments. The zoning website is down so I don't have access to it. But if I remember correctly,
fourplexes were not distinguished differently from a multiplex. I'd like to suggest a change that would allow "up to
fourplexes" in the medium-density residential as an unconditional permitted use similar to what I suspect a duplex is
classified as.
For financing and building purposes, fourplexes are still considered residential, whereas, anything above that is classified
as commercial. I can get a 30-year fixed-rate loan on a fourplex, but would be required to get a commercial loan (usually a
5-year ARM) for properties with dwelling units above four. My builder is also certified to build up to a fourplex, but would
have to get a different level of insurance to build anything larger than that. Because of FHA restrictions (limitation of four
loans), it makes more sense for me to purchase/build fourplexes over duplexes.
If it is already a permitted use, please disregard this email. The website was down and I didn't want to forget to comment.
Comment #16
3
Thanks in advance for your consideration in this matter.
Kevin Futrell, J.D.
509-594-7270
UW Business - WU Law
Comment #16
October 15, 2018
Commissioners:
I believe our neighborhood should be changed back to low density, and that includes the green space. Low
density residential appropriately supports the existing character of this neighborhood. A medium density
residential designation has the potential to devastate this neighborhood and the lives of the current and future
residents.
Most of us purchased our homes in our neighborhood because of the location to our work, the quiet, and the
spectacular mountain view that we enjoy. I bought my home with the intent of it being the place in which I
would retire. It is a neighborhood where I’ve been able to meet and know my neighbors, many of whom are
now friends. A neighborhood where I feel safe, and enjoy peacefulness and a view of the Olympic mountain
range that feeds my soul.
If someone were to build a 3 or 4-story home right in front of my property, it would block the sky, the horizon,
certainly the mountains, and would cast a shadow over my home and property. If they built that behind me, it
would shut out the morning light and cast a shadow over my property. That would be devastating to me and to
my enjoyment of my home. Imagine if that were to happen to you in your house. How do you suppose you
would feel?
Low density building height would more appropriately be “Two stories and conditionally allowed uses may be
three stories” to support the existing character of this neighborhood and to ensure there is no negative impact
to existing views, property value, or the quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood residents. The City does not
need to build three- or four-story homes in existing one- and two-story neighborhoods. Most people do not
need that much space.
It is uplifting to see how families who have recently bought in our neighborhood have worked to improve their
property. It just keeps getting better and better. More children are in these families moving into our
neighborhood and that brings a new kind of life to it. That’s one of the reasons a community park in the
Sanders green space would be so beneficial.
On Wednesday, I heard that the Planning Commission would make a final decision tonight on whether this
neighborhood should be changed back to low density. On Thursday, I spent my own time and money and
mailed letters to many neighbors in the area of concern informing them of this meeting and the decision that
would be made regarding zoning in our neighborhood. Hopefully that gave them time to submit comments.
Today I learned that you are deciding only on the green space zoning.
However, I believe that you made a mistake in changing the zoning of this neighborhood. I hope that you will
come to realize that and change this neighborhood to the low density zoning that it should have remained.
I believe the City is trying to do their best and is meeting the letter of the law by posting notices in the Kitsap
Sun printed paper. Unfortunately, those notices are not published online. I believe the City should do more
and that our residents deserve that. I would like to see our elected officials notifying us through U.S. mail or e-
mail when a change will impact our property. Why are residents not hearing directly from the city...from their
elected representative? The silence we hear is deafening. I think we can do better. I hope the City will work
to find ways to do that.
In closing I ask that you please vote to go back to the appropriate zoning for the neighborhood, low density,
and that includes the green space.
Diane Manning
2819 Sanders Avenue
Comment #17
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
Attachment C
DRAFT
Subject to November 19, 2018 Approval
CITY OF BREMERTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
October 15, 2018
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
Vice Chair Wofford
Commissioner Davis (arrived at 5:32)
Commissioner Jones
Commissioner Nerf
Commissioner Pedersen
Commissioners Excused
Quorum Certified
Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Allison Satter, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
VICE CHAIR WOFFORD MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER
PEDERSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR WOFFORD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 AS PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN 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: 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Related Zoning Code Changes (BMC Title 20)
Ms. Satter advised that because the Commission discussed the proposed amendments at their April, May, July and September
meetings, staff’s intent is to provide a high-level overview of the proposed changes. The purpose of tonight’s meeting is for
the Commission to receive public testimony, discuss the proposed amendments, and provide a recommendation to the City
Council for each one. She explained that when changes are made to the visions, goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan,
Attachment C
the Zoning Code must also be amended to be consistent. Changes to the zoning code can be done concurrently or after a
Comprehensive Plan amendment has been adopted.
Ms. Satter reviewed the criteria the Commission must consider when reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments. She
summarized that the Commission can recommend approval of an amendment if an obvious technical error exists in the pertinent
Comprehensive Plan provisions or if the following criteria can be met:
1. The amendment is consistent with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA).
2. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or other goals and policies of the City.
3. If the amendment was reviewed but not adopted as part of a previous proposal, circumstances related to the proposed
amendment have changed or the needs of the City have changed, which support an amendment.
4. The amendment is compatible with existing or planned land uses and the surrounding development pattern.
5. The amendment will not adversely affect the City’s ability to provide urban services at the planned level of service and
bears a reasonable relationship to benefitting the public health, safety and welfare.
Ms. Satter also reviewed the criteria the Commission must consider when reviewing Zoning Code amendments:
1. The amendment does not conflict with other City, State and Federal codes, regulations and ordinances.
2. The amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Satter presented each of the amendments as follows:
Affordable Housing Amendments
Mayor Wheeler directed staff to evaluate the affordable housing goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan and
add strategies to increase affordable housing, if necessary. To help facilitate this review, staff developed Bremerton’s
Assessment of Affordable Housing Policies and Regulations. The assessment is intended to provide common terminology,
report on development successes, evaluate the Comprehensive Plan, and develop an infill toolkit that provides a blueprint for
change to encourage more infill and affordable housing.
• Amendment 1a – Medium Density Residential (MDR) maximum density. When the Comprehensive Plan was updated
in 2016, duplexes and townhomes were allowed in some residential neighborhoods (Lebo, Perry Avenue and Corbet Drive)
to reduce nonconformities and to encourage infill opportunities. However, because this was a substantial change, the
proposal maintained the same Low-Density Residential (LDR) density of 5 to 10 units per acre. The change did not result
in the level of redevelopment the City anticipated. Staff is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
to increase the maximum density allowed in the MDR zone from 10 to 18 units per acre. This would be consistent with
Kitsap County’s urban MDR land use designation. The change would also require an amendment to the MDR description
in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is proposing that the last sentence be changed to read, “By outrightly allowing duplexes,
this area may be able to be revitalized and continue to provide a wide variety of housing types, including single family
homes, duplexes and townhomes.” To be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendment, staff is proposing to amend
Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.78.065(b) to change the maximum density allowed from 10 to 18 units per acre. In
addition, the Zoning Maps and BMC 20.78 would be amended to change the acronym for the zone from “R-10M” to “R-
18.”
• Amendment 1b – Allow all housing types within the Low Density Residential (LDR) zones. Currently, properties in
the LDR zones are only allowed one single-family home and one ADU. The proposed policy change would allow other
housing types, including duplexes and townhomes, in the LDR zone, as long as the maximum density of 10 units per acre
is not exceeded and the project is designed to fit into the character of the neighborhood. This proposed amendment would
allow more housing types and reduce the number of nonconformities. The proposed amendment would change the
paragraph under Land Uses to read, “Single family residential homes, well-designed duplexes and townhomes, and low
intensity compatible uses such as churches, schools, senior housing and parks. Accessory dwelling units are encouraged.”
It would also add Policy LU1-LDR(D), which would read, “Allow a variety of small residential development in the LDR
as infill development, including duplexes and townhomes, provided the underlying density is met and design criteria within
Attachment C
the Zoning Code is adopted to safeguard the character of the neighborhood.” To be consistent with the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment, staff is proposing that BMC 20.60.020(j) be changed to add: “(3) duplex that meets
BMC 20.60.060(f) and (4) Townhouse that meets BMC 20.60.060(f).” It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will
consider specific criteria to ensure that development fits with the character of the neighborhood at some point in the future.
In the meantime, staff is proposing to add Subsection (f) to BMC 20.60.060 (Development Standards) to make it clear that
duplexes and townhomes must meet the underlying density of the zone and be within 500 feet of a commercial district or
center or on the same numbered block as an existing legally established duplex or multi-unit building.
• Amendment 1c – Remove density requirements for general commercial zones. There are three General Commercial
(GC) zoning designations: Freeway Corridor (FC), General Commercial (GC), and Neighborhood Business (NB).
Currently, the GC zone is the only district that has a minimum density requirement and there is no clarity for maximum
density. Staff is proposing to remove all of the density requirements within the general commercial zones to allow a variety
of housing types. The zoning code would be changed by amending BMC 20.62.060(a)(4) to eliminate the residential
density requirement as long as projects meet the listed conditions (height limitations, circulation for pedestrians, buffered
landscaping, etc.).
Downtown Subarea Plan Amendments
The changes proposed in Amendment 2 are intended to provide more consistency and predictability for the developer, citizens
and staff and to encourage the creation of more affordable housing.
• Amendment 2a – Re-assess off-street parking standards. The City Council has asked the Commission to re-assess the
parking standards in the Downtown Subarea Plan based on the concern that they are too low. Because of close proximity
to public transit, ferry, job sources and amenities, the current code only requires 0.5 parking spaces per unit in the
Downtown Core. However, 1 or 2 parking spaces per unit are required elsewhere in the Downtown Subarea as you get
further away from the core. The proposed amendment would increase the parking requirement in the Downtown Core
from 0.5 parking spaces per unit to 1 parking space per unit. However, in an effort to encourage more affordable housing,
the amendment would also add an incentive that allows the parking requirement to be reduced to market rate for each unit
that is developed as affordable (below 80% AMI) for a minimum of 20 years.
• Amendment 2b – Limit heights to 75 feet unless affordable housing is provided. Currently, the Downtown Core
allows tower-like structures to be market-driven height, and the Downtown Waterfront allows tower-like structures to be
up to 170 feet. The maximum height gets lower as you move away from these two areas. The amendment proposes to
limit heights at 75 feet and revise the Bonus Amenity Program to require affordable housing in order to exceed the 75-foot
height limit. As proposed, any building that contains residential units that is requesting a height above 75 feet must provide
20% workforce housing (less than 80% AMI) for 20 years or 5% deeply affordable housing (less than 50% AMI) for 20
years.
Commissioner Davis noted that the Downtown Waterfront Zone has a 170-foot height limit, but there appears to be no
maximum height limit for other zones in the Downtown Subarea. Ms. Satter explained that the upper height limit for
development in the Downtown Subarea is based on Floor Area Ratio (FAR). For example, the base FAR in the Downtown
Waterfront Zone is 2.0, which means the base height would be 2 stories. The base FAR in the Downtown Core Zone is
3.25, which means the base height would be 3.25 stories. Building beyond the base FAR requires participation in the
Bonus Amenity Program (open space, promenade, public access, wider sidewalks, etc.) Each public amenity that is
provided adds to a development’s floor area. For example, the floor area would increase by 10 square feet for every 1
square foot of additional sidewalk width. To further clarify, she explained that if a developer in the Downtown Waterfront
Zone only wanted to use half of a lot and left the other half as open space for a public amenity, instead of having two floors
from lot line to lot line, the footprint would be reduced by half and the building would be four stories instead of two.
However, developers can obtain greater floor area by providing public amenities through the Bonus Amenity Program.
Director Spencer reminded the Commission that Amendment 2a is not about the calculation of FAR. It is about limiting
buildings to 75 feet in height unless an affordable housing component is incorporated into the development.
Attachment C
• Amendment 2c – Provide clarification to the Design Review Board process. The Design Review Board (DRB)
provides recommendations on project design based upon their interpretation of applicable Urban Design Principles.
Currently, the code requires a DRB process for projects greater than 4 residential units or commercial projects over 5,000
square feet that are located within the Downtown Subarea. However, when it comes to retrofitting or changing the façade
of an existing building or adding development onto the site, it becomes unclear whether DRB review is required. Staff is
proposing clarifying language to address these two situations. As proposed, DRB review would be required for retrofitting
an existing building that increases nonconformity with the design standards of the Subarea Plan. DRB review would also
be required for placement of accessory structures, additions to buildings, or other similar applications that do not comply
with the design standards of the Subarea Plan.
• Amendment 2d – Add consistency to the Warren Avenue corridor Land Use Designation’s intent and code
requirements. The boundary of the Warren Avenue Corridor was expanded in June of 2016. Since that time, it has come
to staff’s attention that the Warren Avenue Corridor land use designation’s intent does not directly match the allowed
use/development standards. The intent of the Warren Avenue Corridor is to provide a commercial district of medium
density to transition to lower-scaled uses outside of the downtown. Although residential uses are allowed in the zone, the
current language does not encourage them. Staff believes it is appropriate to encourage residential development along the
corridor, with the exception of two key intersections (6th Street and Burwell Street). Staff is proposing to rename the
Warren Avenue Corridor to “Downtown Support District” and to revise the intent of the corridor by replacing the last
sentence with, “Commercial and mixed uses are anticipated close to downtown and at street intersections of 6th Street and
Warren Avenue and Burwell Street and Warren Avenue and then transitioning to residential uses at the edge.” In addition,
staff is proposing to revise BMC 6.10.2 (Use Standards) to require commercial uses at key intersections.
Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton (PSIC-B) Subarea Plan Amendments
• Amendment 3 – Amend the PSIC-B Subarea Plan to allow gravel paving in specific circumstances. The current code
requires that driveways and areas used for loading, parking and maneuvering motorized vehicles must be paved. Due to
this requirement, many proposed businesses are struggling to locate in the subarea. Staff is recommending the Commission
consider adding exceptions for industrial storage yards or long driveways on the site for industrial traffic. As proposed,
the PSIC-B Subarea Plan would be amended to allow gravel parking lots if a permit is obtained, it complies with the
Stormwater Manual, is not less than 3” gravel, dust is controlled, rock and debris are controlled, an Emergency Pollution
Control Plan is on site, and there is protection from gravel entering lanes of travel for roads or urban trails.
Kitsap County Equivalence Table Amendments
• Amendment 4 – Update the Kitsap County Equivalence Table. The City utilizes the Kitsap County Equivalence Table
as a tool to help provide clarity to applicants and the County on what the equivalent zoning would be when Kitsap County
properties are annexed into the City of Bremerton. It was recently noted that the table is not up-to-date and needs to be
corrected. Staff is recommending that the table to updated to be consistent with Kitsap County Land Use Designations.
The amendment would add the “Urban High Intensity Commercial” land use district as equivalent to the City of
Bremerton’s “General Commercial” land use designation. In addition, the amendment would add Kitsap County’s “Urban
Restricted” zoning into the table and the City’s equivalent zoning would be “Watershed.”
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Land Use Map Amendments.
• Amendment 5 – Revise the Land Use Map for City-owned properties near Olympus Drive. The proposed amendment
would revise the land use designation on City-owned parcels at 3027 Olympus Drive from GC to MDR. Currently, there
is Kitsap County LDR density to the northeast, Kitsap County MDR density to the southeast and Bremerton MDR to the
west. The subject parcels are currently developed with two water reservoirs and a fire department building. This request
was formalized after hearing from many neighbors that the City should consider a less intensive zoning for the City-owned
parcels than the current GC. An MDR land use designation would still allow public facilities, so the current uses on the
properties would be allowed. At this time, the City has no plans to sell the property. If that were to occur at some point
in the future, the proposed amendment would allow the properties to be redeveloped as MDR. The City received multiple
comments from the neighbors over the past week, including a proposal to change the land use designation to LDR. The
Attachment C
neighbor’s proposal strongly encourages a park, which would be a City Council decision outside of the Planning
Commission’s authority. However, parks are allowed in all residential zones, and staff supports either LDR or MDR.
• Amendment 6 – Revise the Land Use Map for properties on Arsenal Way and Marion Avenue. The subject parcels
are located adjacent to the City’s Urban Growth Area (Navy Yard City) and the County’s land designation adjacent to this
area is Urban High Intensity Commercial, which is comparable to uses allowed within the City’s GC land use designation.
In addition, access to the site comes from Arsenal Way, which also provides access from National Avenue to the freeway.
Staff is proposing that the land use designation for the subject properties be changed from NB to GC. The proposed
amendment is consistent with comments received from the two property owners, as well. The GC zone requires a buffer
from any LDR zone, ensuring protection to the single-family neighborhoods.
• Amendment 7 – Revise the Land Use Map to allow residential uses within a specific area of the Freeway Corridor
(FC) zone. The subject parcels are located between Kitsap Way and State Highway 3, and the proposed amendment would
change the land use designation from FC to GC. Currently, the FC zone prohibits residential uses in order to minimize
impacts and conflicts. Because the City is experiencing a lack of quality housing supply, staff is supportive of allowing
residential development within this area. There is already housing in the area, including a large apartment complex and
single-family homes. A GC designation would allow residential uses outrightly. It would also allow commercial uses that
have less impact than the commercial uses allowed in FC.
Ms. Satter concluded her presentation and invited the Commissioners to take public testimony, deliberate the amendments and
then forward a recommendation to the City Council. It is anticipated the City Council will make a final decision on December
5th. She noted that those who sign up will receive notice of upcoming meetings before the City Council.
Chair Tift briefly reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing.
Diane Manning, Bremerton, referred to Amendment 5 and expressed her belief that the subject parcels, including the green
space, should be changed to LDR. She said LDR would appropriately support the existing character of the neighborhood, and
MDR has the potential to devastate the neighborhood and the lives of the current and future residents. Most of the neighbors
purchased their homes because of their proximity to work, the quiet, and the spectacular mountain view. She purchased her
home with the intent of it being the place where she would retire. She has been able to meet and know her neighbors, and many
are now her friends. She feels safe and enjoys peacefulness and a view of the Olympic Mountain Range. She voiced concern
about a potential 3- or 4-story building in front of her property, as it would block the sky, horizon and mountains and cast a
shadow over her home and property. If it were built behind her, it would shut out the morning light and cast a shadow over her
property. The LDR building height of 2 stories would support the existing character of the neighborhood and ensure there is
no negative impact to existing views, property values or the quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood residents. She said people
in the neighborhood are working to improve their properties, and families with children are moving in. That’s one of the
reasons that a community park in the Sanders Green Space would be so beneficial. She said she mailed letters to her neighbors
informing them of the proposed change to MDR. While the City has met the letter of the law by publishing notice of the
hearing in the local newspaper, the notice was not posted on line. She felt the City should do more to keep residents informed
by sending notices via U.S. mail or email.
Note for the Record: In addition to the required notification requirements, the City did notify all property owners within
300’ of the proposed areas to have a Land use designation change and posted the information online at:
http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/193/Comprehensive-Plan-Amendments.
Tom Cowdery, Bremerton, referred to Amendment 6 and voiced concern about changing the zoning from NB to GC. He
pointed out that Arsenal Way does not provide direct access from National Avenue to the freeway, as a left-hand turn is
required. Due to shift changes at the shipyard, traffic backs up twice a day on Arsenal Way, and allowing more commercial
development seems like an error. He referred to the route that kids currently use to walk to school, noting that they must walk
through an 8-inch rut before reaching the sidewalk at the ServMart. Adding more traffic would make this walking path even
more unsafe. He asked the Commission to recommend against the proposed change from NB to GC.
Attachment C
James Baxter, Bremerton, also referred to Amendment 5. He said he was responsible for gathering signatures for the
neighbor’s proposal, and 100% of the people he spoke to were in favor of LDR rather than MDR zoning. They want their
neighborhood to remain the same.
Regina Adamson, Bremerton, referred to Amendment 2a and 2b and said that, as a business owner in the Perry area, she
understands that growth and development is very important. However, as a native of Bremerton, she is more interested in
maintaining the current character of the City. When considering opportunities to expand, the City should not lose site of what
brings people into the community. Shipyard workers and others will not be interested in living in Bremerton if they cannot
have amenities such as yards, privacy and a place to park. She stressed that height restrictions are very important, and she
asked how high above 75 feet a development with affordable units would be allowed. Ms. Satter answered that the proposal
allows projects with affordable units could be 170 feet in the Downtown Waterfront Zone and the maximum height limit in the
Downtown Core Zone would be market driven (whatever you can provide with the required public amenities). Ms. Adamson
asked about the height limit along the Manette Waterfront. Ms. Satter answered that the height limit is 50 feet for most
commercial districts along the shoreline. Ms. Adamson noted that in other countries people live in small houses or apartments,
and the living conditions are often substandard. When considering density and height limits, the City should think about how
people will be impacted mentally.
Chair Tift closed the public portion of the hearing.
THE COMMISSION THEN BEGAN TO REVIEW THE AMENDMENTS INDIVIDUALLY, DELIBERATE, AND
MADE MOTIONS FOR EACH ONE.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 1A AS PRESENTED.
VICE CHAIR WOFFORD SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VICE CHAIR WOFFORD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 1B AS PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER JONES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 1C AS PRESENTED.
VICE CHAIR WOFFORD SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VICE CHAIR WOFFORD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 2C AS PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VICE CHAIR WOFFORD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 2D AS PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER JONES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VICE CHAIR WOFFORD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 3 AS PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER PEDERSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 4 AS PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER NERF SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VICE CHAIR WOFFORD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 5 AS AMENDED TO
CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM GC TO LDR (NOT MDR). COMMISSIONER DAVIS
SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Nerf referred to Amendment 6 and noted that, other than one business to the south, the remainder of the area
feels very residential. The location where the functional business is located is already designated as commercial. Director
Spencer pointed out that the property owner hasn’t done anything with the vacant property, and it will be offered for sale soon
during a legal process. Several individuals are bidding on the property with the understanding that it is commercially
designated. If the rezone does not go forward, redevelopment of the site may be compromised. She recalled that in 2004, the
subject properties were designated as Industrial, but the commercial zoning districts were consolidated into just two (CG and
NB) when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2016. She reminded them that the GC zone in this area has significant
Attachment C
buffering requirements away from residential. Ms. Satter added that because of the building size limitations in the NB zone,
redevelopment would likely result in a lot of smaller commercial buildings on this very large lot.
Commissioner Pedersen referred to Mr. Cowdery’s comments about safety issues along the roadway, including kids walking
to school. He asked if sidewalk improvements would be required if the site is redeveloped as GC. Ms. Satter agreed that safe
routes are critically important to the students and there is a lot of room for improvement in the area. The Westhill STEM
Academy is actually located within Kitsap County’s jurisdiction, and the City’s Public Works Department has been working
on a coordinated effort with the county to obtain Safe Routes to School funding to improve safety. With the exception of very
small projects, any development on the subject parcels would require a traffic impact analysis and frontage improvements such
as sidewalks.
Commissioner Davis observed that the intersection of Marion Avenue, Arsenal Way and Constitution Avenue is already very
difficult. The intersection is misaligned and people traveling northbound on Constitution Avenue cannot go any direction but
east. With any revitalization of the property, this intersection, as well as the intersection of Arsenal Way and Loxie Eagans
Boulevard, will need traffic control improvements regardless of whether it is zoned GC or NB. If the property is zoned GC
and redeveloped with a large building and parking lot, the impacts would be significant and disrupt the character of the
neighborhood. It would also reduce the buffer for LDR directly to commercial uses. Director Spencer noted that, as per
Amendment 1c, GC zoning would require internal circulation connections for pedestrians and screening adjacent to residential
zones. Ms. Satter explained that the buffer requirement for GC zones that abut residential zones is currently 10 to 20 feet of
heavy vegetation, depending on what is being proposed.
Chair Tift said he travels the road every day it has become a relief valve at end of shift for the shipyard since the freeway
interchange was put in. The rest of the day it is pretty open. While he is also concerned that commercial development on the
subject site could further impact the safety of kids walking to school, he is not sure that changing the zoning from NB to GC
would make a lot of difference. He would like to see the area revitalized, and if GC zoning would encourage redevelopment
into something that is compatible with the neighborhood, it would be better than leaving it the way it is.
Commissioner Nerf voiced support for staff’s recommendation to change the zoning from NB to GC. Director Spencer said
that, based on inquiries staff received, most people who have expressed interest in the site have indicated the GC gives them
more flexibility. Staff believes the current code provides sufficient protection for the residential neighborhoods via setbacks,
etc.
Chair Tift expressed his belief that the property appears to be more conducive to companies that provide wholesale services
and products rather than a large retail store. Director Spencer said those who have placed bids on the property have expressed
commercial intentions for the site. She would be concerned about taking something away in the middle of that process.
Commissioner Davis said he believes the subject parcels feel more like a neighborhood, with residential uses on three sides
and a school nearby. Only ½ of one side abuts a commercial zone. He said he would error on having a less intense zoning
designation. While he appreciates staff’s commerce-driven concern, he is more concerned with the flavor of the neighborhood
and what is happening at the school.
COMMISSIONER JONES MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND DENIAL OF AMENDMENT 6.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chair Tift asked what uses would be allowed in the GC zone. Ms. Satter provided a list. Chair Tift asked if the City Council
could overrule the Commission’s recommendation to deny the amendment, and Ms. Satter answered affirmatively. She
reviewed the list of uses allowed in the NB zone for the Commission’s information, noting that they are similar to the uses
allowed in the GC zone.
THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF AMENDMENT 6 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair Tift referred to Amendment 7 and noted that under its current designation of FC, auto dealership and gas stations would
be allowed, but neither use would be allowed in the proposed GC zone. He noted that there are some environmental areas
tucked into the area, which presents another obstacle for development under FC zoning.
Attachment C
COMMISSIONER DAVIS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 7 AS PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER JONES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Davis referred to proposed Amendment 2a. He suggested it is counterintuitive to increase density in other
zones in the City while decreasing density in the Downtown Subarea. He explained that in the Downtown Core, density would
be limited by lot size, and requiring more parking would be onerously expensive. It would basically double the cost of
development in what is considered the most walkable neighborhood in all of Bremerton.
Commissioner Davis said that while he believes it is a noble idea to incentivize affordable housing, the 20-year timeframe
would be particularly onerous and serve the exact opposite of its intended goal. He works for Habitat for Humanity, which
builds subsidized homes, and their requirement to remain in affordable housing is only 15 years.
Commissioner Davis observed that with both Amendments 2a and 2b, staff used Kitsap County numbers to justify the
affordability index, which is correct most of the time. However, the demographic in the Downtown Core is not necessarily
tied to the Kitsap County workforce. Generally, the units in the Downtown Core will be more targeted at the commuters and
people who are looking to downsize and/or simplify their lives.
Commissioner Davis voiced concern that requiring more parking and a 20-year affordability requirement would result in fewer
properties being redeveloped. There will be more rental properties and fewer new condominiums. Using the affordable index,
a builder would have to pay such a significant hit on the price of the affordable units that the project would be unfeasible. It
would not be possible for a for-profit developer to build affordable units without some type of subsidy. To carry the
affordability requirement forward for 20 years is too great of a requirement in return for a single parking stall. Developers will
either build to the prescribed code or take their money and build elsewhere. That would be unfortunate when the City is just
now seeing a wave of developers from outside the area looking to develop in the Downtown Core. He voiced his opinion that
the current requirement of 0.5 parking spaces per unit is generous for the neighborhood, and increasing it to 1 parking space
per unit would kill any future development with the exception of extremely large projects.
Commissioner Jones asked if the City issues parking permits for people who own or rent in the Downtown Core. Ms. Satter
answered that the City does do parking permits but they are for existing residents, not for new development.
Commissioner Nerf said he would prefer that Bremerton be a walkable, transit-driven City, but Kitsap Transit doesn’t deliver
that service yet. Whatever the Commission recommends, the City Council will have to deliberate the issue and make the final
decision. He asked if staff has evidence that developers will trade the parking spots for affordable housing units. Director
Spencer responded that staff heard from the developers of the Fourth Street North Project that they were able to offer the B-
Flats units at the lower price point because they didn’t have to supply as much parking. In addition, the residential development
on top of the City’s Parking Garage was able to provide some affordable units because the City built the garage and the
developer did not have to spend $30,000 to $60,000 to construct each of the required parking spaces. The goal is to strike a
balance that both addresses the Council’s concern about parking and encourages affordable housing. With proposed
Amendment 2b, regardless of how the timeframe is structured (15 or 20 years), a developer could build all affordable units
with no parking. People who live in the affordable units tend to not have cars and use transit services. However, full
participation by Kitsap Transit is needed to make Bremerton a truly walkable community.
Commissioner Pedersen said he finds the proposed parking requirement in the Downtown Core abhorrent, and he would like
the Council to reconsider their desire to raise the requirement as proposed in Amendment 2a. Director Spencer responded
that this hearing is the Commission’s opportunity to have its voice heard by the City Council. They could certainly recommend
that the Council deny Amendments 2a or 2b, or they could recommend changes to either of the two amendments. Staff will
represent the Commission’s position when the amendments are brought forward to the City Council.
Vice Chair Wofford voiced concern that increasing the parking requirement would require developers to use substandard or
lesser-quality materials in the affordable units in order for projects to pencil out. On the other hand, the lack of housing
opportunities results in higher-income workers choosing to live outside the City. They need market-rate housing in the
downtown for people with enough discretionary income to support a vibrant business community.
Attachment C
Chair Tift expressed his belief that proposed Amendments 2a is a way to incentivize affordable housing in the downtown.
However, parking is a huge issue in the Downtown Core, and he is not convinced that current residents are ready to give up
their vehicles. He observed that decisions made by previous Commissions have been overturned when it was discovered they
were not working as intended. Adjustments can be made in the future if Amendment 2a is approved and ends up discouraging
development.
Commissioner Davis voiced concern that the ramifications of Amendment 2a will stymie the incubation level of larger
development that is currently coming into the Downtown Core. Director Spencer pointed out that the proposed change would
not impact development that has already been permitted. Commissioner Davis commented that Bremerton is still 10 to 15
years behind the level of development that has and is occurring in other cities in the region. He is concerned about the damage
that the increased parking requirement would inflict on future investors who may see the change as a punitive reaction to a few
developments the community does not fully support.
Director Spencer suggested another option for Amendment 2a based on commission’s deliberation that they could recommend
retaining the 0.5 per unit parking requirement in the Downtown Core but also add a proviso that allows the parking standard to
be reduced to market rate for each unit that is developed as affordable. The timeline could also be reduced from 20 to 15 years
to address Commissioner Davis’ concern. She stressed the importance of creating incentives for affordable housing. The
housing needs of lower income people are being addressed to a degree via programs like Habitat for Humanity, as are people
at market rate. However, there is not a lot of help for those in the middle that are not provided subsidies. Amendments 2a and
2b are intended to address these situations.
Commissioner Jones voiced support for the amended language for Amendment 2, with the intent of encouraging affordable
housing for the middle-income bracket. Increasing the parking requirement in the Downtown Core would likely discourage
development, particularly affordable housing units. Commissioner Davis said that when the Council discussed the issue
previously, the developer of the Harborside Project indicated that the cost per underground parking space was $35,000.
VICE CHAIR WOFFORD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 2A AS REVISED TO
RETAIN THE CURRENT 0.5 PER UNIT PARKING STANDARD AND ADD A PROVISO THAT ALLOWS THE
PARKING STANDARD TO BE REDUCED TO MARKET RATE FOR EACH UNIT THAT IS DEVELOPED AS
AFFORDABLE FOR A 15-YEAR PERIOD. COMMISSIONER JONES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Pederson clarified that Amendment 2b would impose a height restriction where none currently exists in the
Downtown Core and Downtown Waterfront zones. Ms. Satter responded that there is currently no maximum height limit in
most of the Downtown Core and a 170-foot height limit in the Downtown Waterfront zone. However, development beyond
the base FAR would be determined via the Bonus Amenity Program. As proposed in Amendment 2b, no development in these
zones could exceed 75 feet in height without incorporating an affordability component.
Vice Chair Wofford suggested that Amendment 2b should be amended to change the timeframe from 20 to 15 years to be
consistent with the Commission’s recommendation relative to Amendment 2a.
Commissioner Davis cautioned that the cost of constructing the portion of building above 75 feet is significantly more, and
the Downtown Core and Downtown Waterfront zones are prime real estate. He does not foresee any large, higher-end buildings
being constructed if the height limit is slashed to 75 feet in these areas unless an affordable housing component is included.
While he agreed that affordable housing is needed, he is not sure that requiring 20% of the portion of the building above 75
feet to be affordable is the right approach. Developments above 20 units use more of an investor-based model to construct the
building, and asking investors of a very large building to take a 20% hit on their investment for the next 20 years seems
unreasonable. He suggested that rather than encouraging a large number of rental units, which is what Amendment 2b would
do, the City needs to figure out a way to incentivize units that are occupied by permanent families who are going to support the
community on a long-term basis. The view areas in the Downtown Core should be something special and perhaps the standards
should be different than those that apply to other areas in the Downtown Subarea.
Commissioner Davis asked how many developers have taken advantage of the Multifamily Tax Exemption, and Director
Spencer answered only one project with an affordability component has used this 12-year exemption (606 Apartments). She
Attachment C
expressed her belief that the developer was only able to take advantage of the tax exemption because the City constructed the
parking garage. All other developments that took advantage of the Multifamily Tax Exemption were market rate, which only
offers an 8-year exemption. Commissioner Davis concluded that market data indicates that developers are not using the
exemption and are going elsewhere to develop.
Commissioner Nerf asked if it would be possible to modify the amendment so that the affordability component is calculated
on just that portion of the building above 75 feet rather than the entire building. Director Spencer said staff considered this
option but couldn’t find any easy code language to incorporate this scenario. She suggested it would be easier to just decrease
the percentages. She reminded them that the provision could always be changed at a later time if it doesn’t work as intended.
Commissioner Davis did not believe that adjusting the percentages or the building height limit would address his concern.
Vice Chair Wofford moved to recommend denial of Amendment 2b. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. The
motion carried by a vote of 4-1-1, with Commissioners Davis, Nerf, Wofford and Tift voting in favor, Commissioner
Pedersen voting in opposition, and Commissioner Jones abstaining.
Commissioner Pedersen said he supports staff’s suggestion that perhaps a better option than denying Amendment 2b would
be to reduce the percentages of affordable housing required to go above 75 feet.
BUSINESS MEETING
Chair Report
Chair Tift advised that the Commission would elect officers for 2019 at their November 19th meeting. Director Spencer said
she would review the bylaws and send a message to the Commissioners regarding the rules and procedures for the elections.
Chair Tift noted that there is a still a vacancy on the Commission. Director Spencer said the City received several
applications. She typically interviews each applicant and forwards highlights about each one to Mayor Wheeler. Mayor
Wheeler will make a recommendation to the City Council for confirmation. She advised that Commissioner Pedersen’s term
expires at the end of December, and he has expressed a desire to be reappointed. Commissioner Nerf’s term also ends in
December, and he hasn’t decided whether or not he wants to continue.
Director Report
Director Spencer did not have any items to report.
Old Business
There was no old business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Attachment C
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Respectively Submitted by:
______________________________ ______________________________
Andrea L Spencer, AICP Rick Tift, Chair
Executive Secretary Planning Commission
Attachment C
2018 Comprehensive Plan
Proposed Amendments
Prep for Public Hearing
City Council Study Session (1 of 2)
November 14, 2018
Tonight’s Topics:
Proposed Amendments (#1-7) Summary:
1(a, b, c), 2(a, b, c, d), 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
Planning Commission’s
Recommendation to Council & Initial
proposal
Approve, Approve with modifications, Deny
Comprehensive Plan Docket
for 2018
Comprehensive Plan amendments including:
Subarea Plan amendments
Zoning Code Consistency
Amendment 1 (A through C)
Focuses on Affordable Housing initiatives:
Density modifications and variety of housing
Amendment #1(a):
Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposals 1(a):
Medium Density Residential Maximum Density
Proposal 1(a)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
1(a): Medium Density Residential Maximum Density
Amend Comprehensive Plan’s Medium Density Residential
Characterization to:
Intensity/Density
•10 18 dwelling units per acre
•Three to four stories
CharacterThe designation consists of neighborhoods that are currently developed predominantly with duplexes. As many of these duplexes were constructed from the World War II boom, much of this area could benefit from redevelopment. By outrightly allowing duplexes, this area may be able to be revitalized and continue to provide a wide variety of housing types, including single family homes, duplexes and townhouse.
This designation is similar to LDR in regards to density and scale, however medium density type development is encouraged.
Proposal 1(a)
Zoning Code Amendment for Consistency:
1(a): Medium Density Residential Maximum Density
Amended BMC 20.78.065 ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND LOT AREA
specifically:
BMC 20.78.065(a) Minimum density. The minimum required
density is five (5) dwellings per acre.
BMC 20.78.065(b) Maximum density. The maximum allowed
density is ten (10)eighteen (18) dwellings per acre.
Change Lot size to match amendment to density:
(d) Minimum Lot Area. The minimum allowed lot area is 4.300 2,500
square feet
Revise Zoning Maps and Chapter BMC 20.78 to change the
acronym for the zone from “R-10M” to “R-18”
Amendment #1(b):
Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposals 1(b):
Allow more housing types in Low Density
Residential
Currently: only allows Single Family Homes
(and an ADU). One house = one lot
Proposed: put a policy in the
Comprehensive Plan to support other
housing types in LDR including duplexes
and townhouses IF density is met AND it is
designed to fit into the neighborhood
Reduce nonconformities
Encourage quality housing
Amendment #1(b):
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Revise LDR’s Characterization:
Land Uses
Single family residential homes, well-designed
duplexes and townhouses,and low intensity
compatible uses such as churches, schools, senior
housing, and parks. Accessory dwelling units are
encouraged.
Add policy: LU1-LDR(D): Allow a variety of small
residential development in the LDR as infill
development, including duplexes and townhouses,
provided the underlying density is met and design
criteria within the Zoning Code is adopted to
safeguard the character of the neighborhood.
Amendment #1(b):
Zoning Code Amendment for Consistency
Amend BMC 20.60 LDR Zone to:
Intent: “The intent of the low density residential (R -10) zoning district is to
accommodate single-family housing by infilling at a range of lot sizes consistent with
urban growth patterns. Some attached single -family housing, duplexes and townhouses
may be appropriate when responding to sensitive areas or with innovative design.
Residential development at higher densities is encouraged at the edge of designated
centers.”
BMC 20.60.020 PERMITTED USES as described:
(j) Residential Uses.
(1) Single-unit dwelling unit, detached;
(2) Single-unit dwelling unit, attached (zero (0) lot lines) per BMC 20.60.060(b);
(3) Duplex that meets BMC 20.60.060(f);
(4) Townhouse that meets BMC 20.60.060(f);
Add subsection (f) to BMC 20.60.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS as follows:
(f) A duplex and townhouse may only be permitted as follows:
(i) The underlying density of the zone is met; and
(ii) Within 500’ of a commercial district or center, or on the same numbered block as an existing legally established duplex or multiunit building.
Amendment #1(b):
Amendment #1(c):
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
proposals 1(c):
Revise General Commercial
Density
Currently: Minimum 30
units per acre
Proposed: To remove
density requirements to
allow all variety of
housing within GC
Developers could construct all residential
development near commercial services.
Allows more opportunities for increase
housing.
Wheaton Way, Perry
Ave Mall, Penn Plaza,
Gateway Center,
Kitsap Way, Red Apple
Amendment #1(c):
Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Code Amendments
Revise General Commercial’s Characterization:
Intensity/Density
30 units per acre No identified density
Three to five stories
Revise Zoning Code, BMC 20.62.060(a)(4):
4) No residential density requirements Maximum
residential density: thirty (30) units per acre;provided,
that any project with residential development has:
(i) Site design provides for internal circulation connections
for both pedestrians and vehicles between all portions of the
site;
(ii) Landscaping and/or screening adjacent to residential
zones shall be provided per BMC 20.50.040(c).
Amendment #2:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposals summary
Downtown Subarea Plan Amendments
Amendment #2(a):
On-site Parking
What does current code
require?
0.5 parking spaces in core
Due to proximity to public
transit/ferry/job sources
and amenities
1 to 2 spaces elsewhere
City has desire to incentive
affordable housing
Amendment #2(a):
Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
Downtown Parking
Increase parking required for multi-family housing but
provide parking reduction for each affordable housing
unit provided
“6.3.9 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(1) Nonresidential uses per 1,000 GSF
Minimum 1 space
Maximum 4 space
(2) Residential uses Minimum .5 spaces per residential unit 1 space
per residential unit unless the following is met:
(a) Parking spaces may be reduced to market-rate for each unit
that is developed as affordable units (households serving under
80% area median income for Kitsap County) for a minimum of
twenty years;
(3) The first 3,000 ground floor GSF retail area shall be exempt
from off street parking requirements.”
Amendment #2(a):
Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
Downtown Parking
Increase parking required for multi-family housing but
provide parking reduction for each affordable housing
unit provided
“6.3.9 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(1) Nonresidential uses per 1,000 GSF
Minimum 1 space
Maximum 4 space
(2) Residential uses Minimum .5 spaces per residential unit 1 space
per residential unit unless the following is met:
(a) Parking spaces may be reduced to market-rate for each unit
that is developed as affordable units (households serving under
80% area median income for Kitsap County) for a minimum of
twenty years;
(3) The first 3,000 ground floor GSF retail area shall be exempt
from off street parking requirements.”
Amendment #2(a):
Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
Downtown Parking
Increase parking required for multi-family housing but
provide parking reduction for each affordable housing
unit provided
“6.3.9 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(1) Nonresidential uses per 1,000 GSF
Minimum 1 space
Maximum 4 space
(2) Residential uses Minimum 0.5 spaces per residential unit:
(a) Parking spaces may be reduced to market-rate for each unit
that is developed as affordable units (households serving under
80% area median income for Kitsap County) for a minimum of
fifteen years;
(3) The first 3,000 ground floor GSF retail area shall be exempt
from off street parking requirements.”
Amendment #2(b):
Limit heights to 75’
unless affordable
housing is provided
What does current code allow?
Downtown Core and
Downtown Waterfront allow
for towers-like structures to
market driven height.
Downtown Subarea Plan Example
60-70’250’522’
Amendment #2(b):
Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposals 2(b):
Limit building height in Downtown to 75’ unless
affordable housing is provided
“…no building may be constructed over 75’ without
the incorporation of affordable housing…”
20% Workforce Housing (less than 80% AMI) for 15yrs
5% Deeply Affordable (less than 50% AMI) for 15yrs
Planning Commission recommended
DENIAL of this proposal because they
want to maintain building heights and
continue the development momentum
in Downtown
Amendment #2(c):
Design Review Board in Downtown
DRB provides recommendations on project design based upon their
interpretation of applicable Urban Design Principles and the intent and
purpose of the design principles
Proposal: DRB is required when:
1. Residential units of four or greater;
2. Commercial projects of 5,000 sq. ft. or greater;
3. For projects meeting (1) or (2) above, and are:
Retrofitting the exterior of an existing building that increase
nonconformity with the design standards of the Subarea Plan; or
The placement of accessory structure, addition of a building, or other
similar applications that does not comply with the design standards of the
Subarea Plan.
Amendment #2(d):
Warren Avenue
Corridor
Warren Avenue Corridor:
Current code:
Intent: Commercial with
supporting residential uses
Allow uses: Stand-alone
commercial and residential
These are not consistent
Proposal:
Rename: Downtown Support
District (DSD)
Revise intent to promote
residential uses (instead of
secondary) except on corners
Revise Allowed Uses
Amendment #2(d):
Warren Avenue Corridor
2(d): Warren Avenue Corridor
Amend Downtown Subarea Plan’s Warren Avenue to:
1.Rename to Downtown Support District
2.Revise the intent of the Warren Avenue Corridor: The intent of
the Warren Avenue Corridor is to provide a commercial district
of medium density to transition to lower scaled uses outside of
the downtown. Commercial and mixed uses are anticipated close
to downtown and at street intersections of 6th Street & Warren
Avenue and Burwell Street & Warren Avenue and then transitioning
to residential uses at the edge. . Residential uses are considered
secondary to commercial uses.”
3.Amend Use Standards to require commercial on key
intersections: 6th & Warren Ave and Burwell & Warren Ave
Amendment #2(d):
Warren Avenue
Corridor
Key Intersections:
6th & Warren Avenue
Burwell Avenue & Warren
Avenue
Amendment #2(d):
Warren Avenue
Corridor
Amendment #2(d):
Warren Avenue
Corridor
Amendment #3 PSIC-Bremerton
Amendment for Gravel Surfacing
Within the Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton Subarea Plan
Allow Gravel Surfaces in specific circumstances
Current Code requires all areas for loading, parking and
maneuvering motorized vehicles shall be paved
Amendment #3
3: PSIC-Bremerton Gravel “pavement”
Amend Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton
Subarea Plan to:
Allow gravel parking lots if:
Permit required
Complies with Stormwater Manual
No less than 3” gravel
Dust is controlled
Rock and debris is controlled
Emergency Pollution Control Plan on site
Protection of gravel not entering lanes of travel for roads or
urban trails (all weather paved surface aprons)
Amendment #4: Correct Kitsap
County Equivalence Table
Within Land Use Element:
Amend the Kitsap County Equivalence Table to be
consistent with Kitsap County Land Use Designation
Annexation tool
Mineral
Resource
Amendment #4:
Kitsap County Equivalence Table Update
Amend Comprehensive Plan’s Equivalence Table to:
Kitsap
County
Land Use
District
Kitsap County
Zoning
Allowed Uses City of Bremerton
(COB) Land Use
Equivalent
COB Land
Consistent
Zoning
Urban High
Intensity
Commercial
Commercial Provides for those commercial establishments
which serve the shopping and service needs for
large sections of the county and provides visitor
services and accommodations for both destination
and en route travelers
General Commercial General
Commercial
Public
Facilities
Parks Parks and County facilities are located within this
zone. The City does not have a Parks specific zone
and delineates these areas to low density
residential.
Low Density
Residential
Low Density
Residential
Urban Restricted Areas within urban growth areas that have been
identified with a significant concentration of
critical areas, greenbelts, or watershed protection
properties.
Watershed Watershed
Land Use Map Changes
Proposal #5, 6 and 7 are map
changes
Change Land Use Designation for 3027 Olympus Drive from
General Commercial to less dense zoning district.
Amendment #5:
Revise Land Use Map (Olympus)
Amendment #5:
Revise Land Use Map (Olympus)
Revise City owned parcels’ Land Use Designation from GENERAL
COMMERCIAL to LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Amendment #6:
Revise Land Use Map (Arsenal Way)
6: Change Land Use Designation for two properties on Arsenal
Way from Neighborhood Business to General Commercial
Amendment #6:
Revise Land Use Map (Arsenal)
Revise two
parcels’ Land Use
Designation from
NEIGHBORHOOD
BUSINESS to
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
Planning
Commission
recommends
denial of this
proposal
Amendment #7: Revise Land Use
Maps (Freeway Corridor)
Request: Allow residential uses in this area (Freeway Corridor
between Miller Woodland and Freeway)
Freeway Corridor’s intent is for commercial activities that will typically be
region-serving in nature and scale that benefit from high visibility from
freeways serving the region, provide large areas for parking, and may
include large-scale structures and/or outdoor display or storage areas
Typically uses that could impact residential neighbor
Proposal: Change Land Use Designation from Freeway Corridor to
General Business
Amendment #7:
Revise Land Use
Map (Freeway
Corridor)
ED HEUSS COMMENT
~140’
Fish-bearing Streams have a 150’ buffer
Brentwood Mobile
Home Park
Next Steps:
Feedback and Questions from Council
Study Session #2 November 28, 2018
Public Hearing on December 5, 2018
Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Code Changes for 2018
1.Affordable Housing (Comp Plan & Zoning Code)
1(a) Medium Density Residential density increase,
1(b) allow a variety of housing in Low Density Residential,
1(c) remove General commercial density
2.Downtown Subarea Plan
2(a) Parking,
2(b) Limit height to 75’ unless affordable units are provided
2(c) DRB process, and
2(d) Warren Avenue Corridor rename
3.PSIC-B: Gravel “pavement” (PSIC-B Subarea Plan)
4.Land Use Element: Kitsap County Equivalence Table Update
Map Changes (Comp Plan & Zoning Code Maps)
5.Land Use Map (Olympus): General Commercial to Medium Density Residential
for City owned parcels
6.Land Use Map (Arsenal): Neighborhood Business to General Commercial (GC)
for 4 properties (two owners)
7.Land Use Map (Kitsap Way): Freeway Corridor to General Commercial
Page 1 of 13
2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
City Council’s Study Session – Guidance for the Ordinance preparation
#1(a): Medium Density Residential increase the maximum density
Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, specifically the Medium Density Residential density on page LU-33.
Intensity/Density
10 18 dwelling units per acre
Character
The designation consists of neighborhoods that are currently developed predominantly with duplexes. As many of these duplexes were
constructed from the World War II boom, much of this area could benefit from redevelopment. By outrightly allowing duplexes, this
area may be able to be revitalized and continue to provide a wide variety of housing types, including single family homes, duplexes and
townhouses.
This designation is similar to LDR in regards to density and scale, however medium density type development is encouraged.
Amend the Zoning Code to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendment, specifically Bremerton Municipal Code 20.78 the Medium
Density Residential zone, in the following ways:
1. Amended BMC 20.78.065 ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND LOT AREA specifically (b) and (d)
(a) BMC 20.78.065(a) Minimum density. The minimum required density is five (5) dwellings per acre.
(b) BMC 20.78.065(b) Maximum density. The maximum allowed density is ten (10) eighteen (18) dwellings per acre.
(c) Maximum Lot Area... (no change to this subsection of code)
(d) Minimum Lot Area. The minimum allowed lot area is 4.300 2,500 square feet
2. Revise Zoning Maps and Chapter BMC 20.78 to change the acronym for the zone from “R-10M” to “R-18”
Page 2 of 13
#1(b): Allow variety of housing types in Low Density Residential (LDR)
Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, specifically the LDR’s characterization on page LU-31 and LU-32.
Land Uses
Single family residential homes, well-designed duplexes and townhouses, and low intensity compatible uses such as churches, schools,
senior housing, and parks. Accessory dwelling units are encouraged.
Low Density Residential Specific Policies (portion):
LU1: Plan for Growth
LU1-LDR(A): Promote neighborhoods that foster interaction among residents, contribute to well-being of citizenry, and create and sustain
a sense of community and personal safety.
LU1-LDR(B): Use front yard averaging to encourage residential infill that is consistent with the existing neighborhood’s built environment.
LU1-LDR(C): Allow accessory units associated with, and subordinate to, existing or new single family dwellings when appropriate.
LU1-LDR(D): Allow a variety of small residential development in the LDR as infill development, including duplexes and townhouses,
provided the underlying density is met and design criteria within the Zoning Code is adopted to safeguard the character of the
neighborhood.
Amend the Zoning Code to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Specifically, BMC 20.60 the Low Density Residential zone, in
the following ways:
1. Amend BMC 20.60.010 Low Density Residential zone’s intent as described:
“The intent of the low density residential (R-10) zoning district is to accommodate single-family housing by infilling at a range of lot sizes
consistent with urban growth patterns. Some attached single-family housing, duplexes and townhouses may be appropriate when
responding to sensitive areas or with innovative design. Residential development at higher densities is encouraged at the edge of
designated centers.”
2. Amend BMC 20.60.020 PERMITTED USES as described:
(j) Residential Uses.
(1) Single-unit dwelling unit, detached;
(2) Single-unit dwelling unit, attached (zero (0) lot lines) per BMC 20.60.060(b);
(3) Duplex that meets BMC 20.60.060(f);
(4) Townhouse that meets BMC 20.60.060(f);
3. Add subsection (f) to BMC 20.60.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS as follows:
(f) A duplex and townhouse may only be permitted as follows:
(i) The underlying density of the zone is met; and
(ii) Within 500’ of a commercial district or center, or on the same numbered block as an existing legally established duplex or
multiunit building.
Page 3 of 13
#1(c): Remove Density Requirements in General Commercial
Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, specifically the General Commercial’s “Density” on page LU-26.
Intensity/Density
30 units per acre No identified density
Three to five stories
Amend the Zoning Code to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Specifically, Bremerton Municipal Code 20.62 the General
Commercial zone, in the following ways:
Amend BMC 20.62.060(a)(4) General Commercial Development Standards as described:
4) No residential density requirements Maximum residential density: thirty (30) units per acre; provided, that any project with
residential development has:
(i) Site design provides for internal circulation connections for both pedestrians and vehicles between all portions of the site;
(ii) Landscaping and/or screening adjacent to residential zones shall be provided per BMC 20.50.040(c).
Page 4 of 13
#2(a): Parking in Downtown
Planning commission recommends approval with modification from initial proposal for 2(a)
Proposed Modification:
Reject proposal to require 1 space per residential unit and maintain the current standard of 0.5 parking spaces in the Downtown Core
and Downtown Waterfront zones;
Accept parking reduction to incentivize affordable housing; and
Revise affordability timeframe of 20 years to 15 years
Initial Proposal:
Revise Downtown Core (page 6-103) and Downtown Waterfront (page 6-108) as follows:
6.3.9 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(1) Nonresidential uses per 1,000 GSF
Minimum 1 space
Maximum 4 space
(2) Residential uses Minimum .5 spaces per residential unit
(3) The first 3,000 ground floor GSF retail area shall be exempt from off street parking requirements.
Page 5 of 13
#2(b): Limit height to 75’ in the Downtown unless affordable units are provided – Planning Commission recommended
DENIAL of this proposal
This is how the initial amendment was proposed:
6.11 Amend Bonus Amenity Program (starting on page 6-143) as follows:
6. 11 BONUS AMENITY PROGRAM
The purpose of the Bonus Amenity Program is to ensure that downtown Bremerton is developed with quality structures. The program is utilized to
ensure that the design of structures are less bulky and that they contain public amenities. The Bonus Amenity Program is utilized to achieve
additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which results in increased building height. The City has determined that it desires to limit building heights for
Downtown Core and Downtown Waterfront districts at 75’ unless affordable housing is incorporated into the development. Chapter 6 Figure 6.3
shows maximum building heights, however no building may be constructed over 75’ without the incorporation of affordable housing pursuant to
Section 6.3.3 and 6.4.3.
Within the Downtown Core and Downtown Waterfront Zones a special amenity is required to be provided whenever a proposed development
increases its floor area ratio FAR above the base the requirements established in each district.
Heights within the DC and DW areas are pursuant to Chapter 6 figure 6.3.
The design of each feature amenity will be reviewed to ensure that it is appropriate for the proposed location and provides for a public benefit.
Developers are encouraged to collaborate with CDC DCD and the Design Review Board to prioritize and choose from the amenities listed in the
Bonus Amenity Table table following.
Development bonuses are calculated according to the ratios below at (x) sq ft of amenity space to (y) sq ft of proposed development area.
To participate in the Bonus Amenity Program, the following items shall be met:
(1) A prerequisite to participation in the Bonus Amenity Program will be at least forty (40) percent of square footage must originate from Tier
One of the Bonus Chart 1-6; and
(2) Building height that averages over 75’, the development shall incorporate housing as follows:
a. Twenty (20) percent of the all the units shall be workforce housing (households serving between 50% to 80% area median income
for Kitsap County) for a minimum of twenty years; or
b. Five (5) percent of all the units shall be for deeply affordable units (households serving less than 50% of the area median income
for Kitsap County) for a minimum for twenty years.
Page 6 of 13
#2(b): Continued…
Within the Bonus Amenity Program Table (portion of table) on page 6-144, remove the existing criteria that incentivizes affordable housing as it
is now required.
Public Amenity or Benefit
Tier Two
Land Use
Ratio
Exemption
from FAR
Calcs
Design Criteria
DC DW
7 Workforce Housing:
Serving households
between 80% to
120% median income
1:10 N/A Area of units to be rented or sold (in perpetuity) to households meeting this income
requirement per the local metropolitan statistical area generally used by HUD to
establish income limits for federal programs.
8 Low Income Housing:
Serving households
below 80% median
income
1:10 N/A Area of units to be rented or sold (in perpetuity) to households meeting this income
requirement per the local metropolitan statistical area generally used by HUD to
establish income limits for federal programs.
9
(7)
Ground Related
Townhouse Terraces:
1:10 1:5 On side streets, in mid-block crossings or activated alleys. Raise terrace 18” minimum
above sidewalk. Min 10’ deep from sidewalk to face of townhouse, with private terrace
and landscaping buffer.
Within BOTH the Downtown Core (page 6-102) and Downtown Waterfront (page 6-106) zones add a clarifying provision to “Lot Requirements” as
follows:
6.3.3 LOT REQUIREMENTS
(1) Development shall comply with the following floor area ratio, defined as the net floor area divided by the lot area.
Maximum Base FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 3.25
Minimum FAR 1.0
(2) FAR may be increased beyond 3.25 when a public amenity is provided as pursuant to Chapter 6.11 Bonus Amenity Chart in
collaboration with the Design Review Board, and provided design guidelines and design standards are met. Buildings may not exceed 75’
in height without providing amenities outlined in the Bonus Amenity Program.
(3) Maximum Lot Coverage for structures above 45’………………75%
Page 7 of 13
#2(c): Design Review Board Process Clarification
Page 3-20 of the DSAP, under 3.3 Design Review:
This Plan expands the Design Review boundary to cover the full Subarea for all projects achieving the following threshold;
1. Residential units of four or greater;
2. Commercial projects of 5,000 sq. ft. or greater;
3. For projects meeting (1) or (2) above, and are:
a. Retrofitting the exterior of an existing building that increase nonconformity with the design standards of the Subarea Plan;
or
b. The placement of accessory structure, addition of a building, or other similar applications that does not comply with the
design standards of the Subarea Plan.
Page 8 of 13
#2(d): Warren Avenue Corridor Rename
Amend the Warren Avenue Corridor as proposed:
1. Rename the Warren Avenue Corridor zone to Downtown Support District (DSD) throughout the subarea plan.
2. Revise the intent of the Warren Avenue Corridor: The intent of the Warren Avenue Corridor is to provide a commercial district of
medium density to transition to lower scaled uses outside of the downtown. Commercial and mixed uses are anticipated close to
downtown and at street intersections of 6th Street & Warren Avenue and Burwell Street & Warren Avenue and then transitioning to
residential uses at the edge. Residential uses are considered secondary to commercial uses.”
3. Revise 6.10.2 USE STANDARDS within the Warren Avenue Corridor as follows:
6.10.2 USE STANDARDS
(1) Pursuant to BMC Chapter 20.74.020
(2) Requirement for mixed-use or commercial. For parcels at the intersections of 6th Street & Warren Avenue and Burwell Street &
Warren Avenue development shall have ground oriented commercial uses at the street. At least 50% of the ground floor area facing
the public sidewalk shall be “pedestrian oriented.”
(2) (3) Prohibited Uses: Automobile sales, services, and repair, strip clubs and adult cabarets
Page 9 of 13
#3: Allow Gravel “pavement” in Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton
Amend the PSIC Subarea Plan to allow gravel “paving” in specific circumstances as follows:
Gravel “paving” exception: The intent of this code is to allow gravel “paving” for Industrial complexes and similar uses and developments in
areas that do not typically have to-and-go daily traffic, but shall be for those areas that are driven on infrequently or have vehicles/equipment
that will be typically parked/stationary for an extended period of time. Gravel “paving” shall not be used for daily customer parking. The
following is minimum standards to allow gravel paving:
(a) Gravel paving is allowed within Industrial complexes and similar uses, and developments in the following areas.
i. Surplus parking. This is parking beyond what is required for the development, such as a special event parking for occasional events.
ii. Areas used primarily for industrial sales or rentals provided it does not require frequent trips on-and-off the gravel area onto the all-
weathered surface.
iii. Contractor storage yard,
iv. Logging/mining access road, or
v. Similar applications that do not require frequent trips on-and-off the gravel area.
(b) An issued site development permit or a building permit with associated parking is required for the establishment of a gravel parking lot or
driveway. At no time shall a gravel parking lot or driveway be installed without a permit approval.
(c) The gravel paved areas are intended to run with the land regardless if the property or business is sold or re-occupied. However, for the life of
the project, any on-site changes to the occupancy, business or use that utilize the gravel “paving” that violates any portion of this code, will
require the gravel “paving” to be paved with an all-weather surface.
(d) The property owner provides a letter of request, provides a site plan (to scale) that clearly indicates where gravel or other pervious surfacing
area will be placed, quantification of the area and can demonstrate that the gravel or other pervious surfacing areas are designed and will be
maintained in accordance with or exceeding the requirements contained in the City currently adopted Stormwater manual (or as amended);
(e) Gravel parking facilities shall be surfaced with no less than three inches of crushed gravel and shall be maintained on a regular basis;
Page 10 of 13
#4: Update Equivalence Table
The following is changes to the Land Use Element’s Equivalence Table on page LU-44 and LU-45. The proposed changes to the Equivalence Table
is provided after this section. Please note that only a portion of the Table has been provided.
Kitsap County Land Use
District
Kitsap County
Zoning
Allowed Uses City of Bremerton
(COB) Land Use
Equivalent
COB Land Consistent
Zoning
Urban High Intensity
Commercial
Commercial Provides for those commercial
establishments which serve the shopping
and service needs for large sections of the
county and provides visitor services and
accommodations for both destination and
en route travelers
General Commercial General Commercial
Public Facilities Parks Parks and County facilities are located within
this zone. The City does not have a Parks
specific zone and delineates these areas to
low density residential.
Low Density
Residential
Low Density
Residential
Urban Restricted Areas within urban growth areas that have
been identified with a significant
concentration of critical areas, greenbelts, or
watershed protection properties.
Watershed Watershed
Page 11 of 13
#5: Change Land Use & Zoning Code Map for 3027 Olympus Drive from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential
Page 12 of 13
#6: Maintain Neighborhood Business at Arsenal Way and Loxie Eagans Blvd
Initial proposal: Change Land Use & Zoning Code Map from Neighborhood Business to General Commercial.
Page 13 of 13
#7: Change Land Use & Zoning Code Map for Kitsap Way near Highway 3 Blvd from Freeway Corridor to General
Commercial - Remove Heuss - FC
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 5359 amending
Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal
Code entitled “Persons Subject to Tax –
Amount” to allocate Stormwater Fees or
Taxes Collected for Street Improvements
Study Session Date: November 14, 2018
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 20, 2018
Department: City Council
Presenter: Eric Younger
Council President
Phone: (360) 473-5280
SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance amends Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled “Persons Subject to Tax – Amount” relating to the assessments of the utility taxes for water,
wastewater, and stormwater utilities amending language relating to the allocation of stormwater fees
or taxes collected to the Transportation Capital Fund and the Residential Street and Sidewalk Fund
for funding street improvements within the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Proposed Ordinance No. 5359 amending section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): REVISED
This action will change 2019 estimated ending fund balances for the following funds:
General Fund ($166,952)
Transportation Capital Improvement ($250,427)
Residential Streets Fund $417,379
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Brief Presentation (Full discussions held during Budget Workshops)
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☒ General Business ☐ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Ordinance No. 5359 amending Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled “Persons Subject to Tax – Amount” to allocate Stormwater Fees or Taxes Collected for Street
Improvements.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/07/15
A3
Page 1 of 3
Allocation of Stormwater Taxes
for Street Improvements
ORDINANCE NO. 5359
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending Section 3.50.050 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “ Persons Subject to Tax –
Amount” relating to the allocation of stormwater fees or taxes
collected for street improvements.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton
Municipal Code entitled “Persons Subject to Tax – Amount” to change the percentage of
stormwater fees or taxes collected by the City that is allocated to the Transportation Capital Fund
and the Residential Street and Sidewalk Fund for the purpose of funding street improvements
within the City and to make other related amendments; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 3.50.050 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
“Persons Subject to Tax – Amount” is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.50.050 PERSONS SUBJECT TO TAX - AMOUNT.
In addition to other taxes or fees that may be imposed or levied by the City, there is
hereby levied upon all persons (including the City) engaging in business within the City a fee or
tax to be collected as follows:
(a) Gas. Upon every person engaging in the business of transmitting, distributing or
the selling of manufactured or natural gas, a fee or tax equal to six percent (6%) percent of the
total gross income from such business conducted within the City.
(b) Water. Upon every person engaging in the business of providing water utility
service, a fee or tax equal to fifteen and one-half percent (15.5%) percent of the total gross
income from such business conducted within the City. The total gross income from the business
of providing water utility service includes the "gross income from timber sales" of the utility as
that term is defined in this chapter.
(c) Wastewater. Upon every person engaging in the business of providing wastewater
utility service, a fee or tax equal to twenty percent (20%) percent of the total gross income from
such business conducted within the City.
(d) Stormwater. Upon every person engaging in the business of providing stormwater
utility service, a fee or tax equal to twenty percent (20%) percent . of the total gross income from
such business conducted within the City. Eighty (80) percentAll of the fees or taxes collected
under this subsection shall be dedicated for street improvements with fifty percent (50%)
allocated and transferred to the Transportation Capital Fund and fifty percent (50%) allocated
and transferred to the Residential Street and Sidewalk Fundfor street improvements, unless
otherwise allocated by the City Council.
(e) Cable. Upon every person engaging in the business of transmitting television
signals by means of a cable distribution system commonly known as television cable service, a
Page 2 of 3
Allocation of Stormwater Taxes
for Street Improvements
fee or tax equal to seven percent (7%) percent of the total gross income from such business
conducted within the City.
(f) Solid Waste. Upon every person engaging in the business of providing solid waste
collection service, a fee or tax equal to nine and one-half percent (9.5%) percent of the total
gross income from such business conducted within the City.
(g) Electricity. Upon every person engaging in the business of producing,
transmitting, distributing or selling electricity, a fee or tax equal to six percent (6%) percent of
the total gross income from such business conducted within the City.
(h) Telephone. Upon every person engaged in carrying on a telephone business for
hire or for sale of a commodity or a service within or partly within the corporate limits of the
City, a tax for the privilege of so doing business equal to six percent (6%) percent of the total
gross income rendered within the City.
(1) Deductions. In computing the telephone tax, there shall be deducted from
the gross operating revenues the following items:
(i) Amounts derived from transactions in interstate or foreign
commerce or from any business which the City is prohibited from taxing under the Constitutions
of the United States or the State of Washington.
(ii) Amounts derived from that portion of network telephone service,
as defined in RCW 82.04.065, which represents charges to another communications company, as
defined in RCW 80.04.010, for connecting fees, switching charges or carrier access charges
relating to intrastate toll telephone services, or for access to, or charges for, interstate services or
charges for network telephone service that is purchased for the purpose of resale.
(iii) Adjustments made to a billing or to a customer account or to a
communications company accrual account in order to reverse a billing or charge that had been
made as a result of third-party fraud or other crime and was not properly a debt of a customer.
(iv) A complete deduction from gross income shall be allowed for
credit losses, only to cellular telephone service companies which keep their regular books of
account on an accrual basis, for cash discounts and credit losses actually sustained by a taxpayer
as a result of telephone service business.
(2) Allocation of Income - Cellular Telephone Service.
(i) Service Address. Payments by a customer for the telephone service
from telephones without a fixed location shall be allocated among taxing jurisdictions to the
location of the customer’s principal service address during the period for which the tax applies.
(ii) Roaming Phones. When the service is provided while a subscriber
is roaming outside the subscriber’s normal cellular network area, the gross income shall be
assigned consistent with the taxpayer’s accounting system to the location of the originating cell
site of the call, or to the location of the main cellular switching office that switched the call.
SECTION 2. Section 1 – Effective Date. The amendments to Section 3.50.050
of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled “Persons Subject to Tax – Amount” as set forth in
Section 1 above shall be effective January 1, 2019.
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.
Page 3 of 3
Allocation of Stormwater Taxes
for Street Improvements
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 ____________________, 2018.
_________________________________
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2018.
_________________________________
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ ________________________________
ANGELA WOODS, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the ________ day of ______________________, 2018.
EFFECTIVE the ________ day of ______________________, 2018.
ORDINANCE NO. ________.
R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Finance\BMC 3.50.050 Stormwater Taxes.docx
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Final Public Hearing and
Ordinance No. 5360 approving and adopting
the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2019
Study Session Date: Budget Workshops
COUNCIL MEETING Date: November 20, 2018
Department: Financial Services
Presenter: DeWayne Pitts
Phone: (360) 473-5296
SUMMARY: This is the final public hearing for the 2019 Proposed Budget. Budget workshops were
held on October 25, 30 and November 1 where an overview of the Mayor’s proposed budget was
presented to Council. The budget incorporates changes made by Council during the budget
workshop deliberations.
This is a second of two public hearings on the budget; the first public hearing was held on November
7, 2018. The attached ordinance represents the final proposed 2019 Fiscal Budget.
If adopted, this ordinance would become effective January 1, 2019.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance No. 5360; and 2) Exhibit A
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Total proposed general fund expenditures,
without ending fund balance is $44,938,212. With ending fund balance, total general fund
expenditures is 52,734,172. Total proposed expenditures city wide without ending fund balance, is
$128,119,782. With ending fund balance, total expenditures city wide is $163,552,981.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ Limited Presentation ☒ Full Presentation – Budget
Workshops
STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☒ Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to pass Ordinance No. 5360 approving and adopting the budget for the City of Bremerton for
the fiscal year 2019; and appropriating the amounts set forth in each fund in accordance with RCW
35.33.075.
COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action
Form Updated 01/02/2018
A4
1
2019 Annual Budget
ORDINANCE NO. 5360
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, approving and adopting the budget for the
City of Bremerton for the fiscal year 2019, and appropriating the
amounts set forth in each fund in accordance with RCW 35.33.075.
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Chapter 35.33 RCW, the City of Bremerton (“City”) is
required to adopt an annual budget and provides procedures for the filing of estimates, a
preliminary budget, deliberations, public hearings, and final fixing of the budget; and
WHEREAS, a proposed annual budget for the fiscal year 2019 has been prepared
and filed in the Office of the City Clerk for the City; public hearings have been held for the
purposes of fixing the final City budget; and the City Council, during its November 1, 2018
Budget Workshop meeting, deliberated and made adjustments and changes to the proposed
budget deemed necessary and proper; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The proposed 2019 annual budget for the City, as amended by the
City Council during its November 1, 2018 Budget Workshop meeting, (“2019 Annual Budget”),
on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. The 2019 Annual Budget, covering the period from January 1,
2019, through December 31, 2019, establishing;
1) authorized positions for employment,
2) the City-wide Capital Improvement Program, and
3) fund balances as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, including regular revenues and unencumbered fund balances of
$163,552,981.00 expenditures and ending fund balances of $163,552,981.00, and funding of
category groups pursuant to BMC 3.02.010,
is hereby adopted and approved, and the totals for these funds as noted in Exhibit
A are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 2019.
SECTION 3. Certain revenues received by the City shall be transferred to
specific funds as follows:
(a) The administrative fee, less the costs of administering the contract, received by
the City from the “Agreement for Garbage, Recycling and Compostable Organics Collection,
and Disposal” between the City of Bremerton and Waste Management of Washington, Inc. shall
be allocated and transferred to fund No. 314, the Residential Street and Sidewalk Fund, for street
improvements, unless otherwise allocated by motion or other action of the City Council.
2
2019 Annual Budget
(b) All rent and other revenues received by the City from the telecommunication
tower “Option and Lease Agreement” between the City of Bremerton and Vertical Bridge
Development, LLC shall be allocated and transferred to fund No. 310, the Park Facilities
Construction Fund, for capital improvements, for park capital improvements, unless otherwise
allocated by motion or other action of the City Council.
SECTION 4. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to require the City or
its officers to fill any vacancy in any of the positions established by this ordinance resulting from
the discharge, resignation or retirement of such employee. Nothing herein contained shall
require the City or its officers to pay the maximum amount budgeted for any position shown
therein.
SECTION 5. 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 sam e shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council the___________ day of ___________________________, 2018
_________________________________
ERIC YOUNGER, Council President
Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2018
_________________________________
GREG WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ ________________________________
ANGELA WOODS, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the________ day of ______________________, 2018
EFFECTIVE the_________day of ______________________, 2018
ORDINANCE NO
BEG LIC. INTER- CHARGES FINES 2019
FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL
FUND BAL. TAXES PERMITS REVENUE SERVICEFORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET
General Fund
General Government:
City Council 00 0139,001 00139,001
Executive 00 0131,511 00131,511
Financial Services 00 0740,912 00740,912
Legal 00 0537,546 00537,546
Human Resources 00 0249,199 00249,199
Community Development 3,284,250 1,075,800 200,000 461,500 50,000 0 5,071,550
Municipal Court 0018,857 199,900 259,250 25,400 503,407
City Auditor 00 032,178 0032,178
Law Enforcement 0 6,500 218,130 159,100 2,000 11,000 396,730
Fire/Emergency Medical 1,301,697 1,550 745,368 670,350 6,000 5,010 2,729,975
Police & Fire Pension 0062,341 00 062,341
General Facilities 00 0176,281 0 522,100 698,381
Parks 0 200 15,000 254,000 0 70,900 340,100
Engineering 0 49,000 0 1,755,647 001,804,647
Non-Departmental 28,209,505 27,000 845,450 92,044 800,000 106,100 30,080,099
Beginning Fund Balance 9,216,595 9,216,595
Total General Fund 9,216,595 32,795,452 1,160,050 2,105,146 5,599,169 1,117,250 740,510 52,734,172
Special Revenue Funds:
Street 627,600 750,000 0 910,015 95,000 0 897,000 3,279,615
Contingency Reserve 1,294,031 0000042,975 1,337,006
Lodging Tax 448,529 650,000 00004,000 1,102,529
Parking System 703,981 0000425,000 1,443,000 2,571,981
Comm. Dev. Block Grant 229,334 00727,000 0079,500 1,035,834
Abatement Revolving Fund 258,885 000025,000 500 284,385
Police Special Projects 316,037 000015,000 3,500 334,537
Public Access Television 672,468 0 273,000 0 123,047 0 54,600 1,123,115
Gift & Donations Fund 81,773 000008,200 89,973
Trial Improvement 71,721 0022,000 00500 94,221
One Percent for Arts 26,111 00 011,500 0 3,700 41,311
Conference Center Oper 38,496 00 01,498,846 0 463,000 2,000,342
Total Spec. Rev. Funds 4,768,966 1,400,000 273,000 1,659,015 1,728,393 465,000 3,000,475 13,294,849
Debt Service Fund:
2010 LTGO 316,222 330,000 0 101,040 0076,500 823,762
2010 UTGO/LTGO (B) 97,481 780,000 0 29,975 00174,000 1,081,456
Government Center LTGO 76,244 00000341,500 417,744
2015 Public Safety Bond 53,410 480,000 00001,000 534,410
Total Debt Service Fund 543,357 1,590,000 0 131,015 0 0 593,000 2,857,372
Capital Improvement Funds:
General Govt Capital Improv. 2,478,370 1,800,000 000020,000 4,298,370
Park Facilities Construction 97,585 0000039,500 137,085
Residential Street & Sidewalk Fund 1,278,778 1,017,379 125,000 000107,000 2,528,157
Transportation Projects Fund 1,703,278 417,379 0 2,748,545 001,202,007 6,071,209
Fire Public Safety Capital 976,531 000005,000 981,531
Affordable Housing Capital Fund 0 00000101,104 101,104
Total Capital Improv. Funds 6,534,542 3,234,758 125,000 2,748,545 0 0 1,474,611 14,117,456
Total General Gov't Funds 21,063,460 39,020,210 1,558,050 6,643,721 7,327,562 1,582,250 5,808,596 83,003,849
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BREMERTON
2019 REVENUE - ALL FUNDS
BEG LIC. INTER- CHARGES FINES 2019
FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL
FUND BAL. TAXES PERMITS REVENUE SERVICEFORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BREMERTON
2019 REVENUE - ALL FUNDS
Enterprise Funds:
Water Utility 2,157,316 00 013,910,775 50,000 543,000 16,661,091
Water Capital 3,278,180 000002,267,855 5,546,035
Wastewater Utility 2,165,214 102,000 0015,915,450 18,000 47,000 18,247,664
Wastewater Capital 7,782,512 000002,602,711 10,385,223
Stormwater Utility 560,391 0023,000 4,130,288 10,000 10,500 4,734,179
Stormwater Capital 2,447,793 00101,000 001,778,653 4,327,446
Utility Debt Reserve 1,637,490 0000014,500 1,651,990
Gold Mountain Golf Complex 257,114 00 04,429,730 0 16,500 4,703,344
Total Enterprise Funds 20,286,010 102,000 0 124,000 38,386,243 78,000 7,280,719 66,256,972
Internal Service Funds:
Risk Management 2,330,053 000001,847,336 4,177,389
Employment Security 356,135 000004,000 360,135
Accumulated Leave Liability 175,567 00000543,000 718,567
ER&R Operations & Maint. 161,087 00 01,868,227 0 3,000 2,032,314
ER&R Equipment Reserve 3,568,985 000001,464,550 5,033,535
Information Services 291,211 00 01,676,009 0 3,000 1,970,220
Total Internal Service Funds 6,883,038 0 0 0 3,544,236 0 3,864,886 14,292,160
Total Business Type Funds 27,169,048 102,000 0 124,000 41,930,479 78,000 11,145,605 80,549,132
Total All Funds 48,232,508 39,122,210 1,558,050 6,767,721 49,258,041 1,660,250 16,954,201 163,552,981
1/0/1900
2019
SUPPLIES & DEBT CAPITAL ENDING TOTAL
FUND PERSONNEL SERVICES SERVICE OUTLAY TRANSFERS FUND BAL. BUDGET
General Fund
General Government:
City Council 317,900 58,287 000 376,187
Executive 280,300 75,618 000 355,918
Financial Services 1,224,100 281,640 000 1,505,740
Legal Department 1,247,300 172,078 000 1,419,378
Human Resources 474,600 199,821 000 674,421
Community Development 1,639,500 620,242 0075,000 2,334,742
Municipal Court 920,596 539,816 000 1,460,412
City Auditor 79,000 8,085 000 87,085
Law Enforcement 10,090,100 1,704,452 000 11,794,552
Fire/Emergency Medical 9,462,900 1,185,919 000 10,648,819
Police & Fire Pension 1,350,000 347,700 000 1,697,700
General Facilities 472,600 1,177,921 0 180,000 0 1,830,521
General Parks 2,225,781 815,501 000 3,041,282
Engineering 2,273,400 346,880 000 2,620,280
Non-Departmental 456,000 3,565,096 001,070,079 5,091,175
Ending Fund Balance 7,795,960 7,795,960
Total General Fund 32,514,077 11,099,056 0 180,000 1,145,079 7,795,960 52,734,172
Special Revenue Funds:
Street 1,350,550 1,815,174 0 20,000 0 93,891 3,279,615
Contingency Reserve 000001,337,006 1,337,006
Lodging Tax 0 479,000 00350,000 273,529 1,102,529
Parking System 0 1,100,200 523,408 0 171,500 776,873 2,571,981
Comm. Dev. Block Grant 143,600 283,907 00287,500 320,827 1,035,834
Abatement Revolving Fund 0 57,500 000226,885 284,385
Police Special Projects 0 115,700 0 60,000 0 158,837 334,537
Public Access Television 378,300 72,140 0 100,000 0 572,675 1,123,115
Gift & Donations Fund 0 19,000 00070,973 89,973
Trial Improvement 0 26,000 00068,221 94,221
One Percent for Arts 0 18,000 00023,311 41,311
Conference Center Oper 0 1,860,717 100,000 0039,625 2,000,342
Total Spec. Rev. Funds 1,872,450 5,847,338 623,408 180,000 809,000 3,962,653 13,294,849
Debt Service Fund:
2010 LTGO 00532,766 00290,996 823,762
2010 UTGO/LTGO (B)001,053,302 0028,154 1,081,456
Government Center LTGO 00335,263 0082,481 417,744
2015 Public Safety Bond 00499,100 0035,310 534,410
Total Debt Service Fund 0 0 2,420,431 0 0 436,941 2,857,372
Capital Improvement Funds:
General Govt Capital Improv.00001,976,007 2,322,363 4,298,370
Park Facilities Construction 00039,500 0 97,585 137,085
Residential Street & Sidewalk Fund 348,100 406,242 0 445,000 0 1,328,815 2,528,157
Transportation Projects Fund 0 782,500 0 3,563,140 0 1,725,569 6,071,209
Fire Public Safety Capital 000981,531 0 0 981,531
Affordable Housing Capital Fund 000100,000 0 1,104 101,104
Total Capital Improv. Funds 348,100 1,188,742 0 5,129,171 1,976,007 5,475,436 14,117,456
Total General Gov't Funds 34,734,627 18,135,136 3,043,839 5,489,171 3,930,086 17,670,990 83,003,849
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BREMERTON
2019 EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS
1/0/1900
2019
SUPPLIES & DEBT CAPITAL ENDING TOTAL
FUND PERSONNEL SERVICES SERVICE OUTLAY TRANSFERS FUND BAL. BUDGET
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BREMERTON
2019 EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS
Enterprise Funds:
Water Utility 4,492,700 7,741,522 965,121 0 1,327,255 2,134,493 16,661,091
Water Capital 0004,288,582 0 1,257,453 5,546,035
Wastewater Utility 3,364,300 8,493,385 2,557,688 0 1,732,111 2,100,180 18,247,664
Wastewater Capital 0008,855,000 0 1,530,223 10,385,223
Stormwater Utility 1,432,376 2,282,954 154,575 0 350,093 514,181 4,734,179
Stormwater Capital 0003,195,747 0 1,131,699 4,327,446
Utility Debt Reserve 000001,651,990 1,651,990
Gold Mountain Golf Complex 0 4,010,443 436,230 00256,671 4,703,344
Total Enterprise Funds 9,289,376 22,528,304 4,113,614 16,339,329 3,409,459 10,576,890 66,256,972
Internal Service Funds:
Risk Management 290,000 1,548,491 0002,338,898 4,177,389
Employment Security 40,000 0000320,135 360,135
Accumulated Leave Liability 400,000 0000318,567 718,567
ER&R Operations & Maint 528,500 1,352,047 000151,767 2,032,314
ER&R Equipment Reserves 0 2,761 0 1,249,216 0 3,781,558 5,033,535
Information Services 872,500 823,326 000274,394 1,970,220
Total Internal Service Funds 2,131,000 3,726,625 0 1,249,216 0 7,185,319 14,292,160
Total Business Type Funds 11,420,376 26,254,929 4,113,614 17,588,545 3,409,459 17,762,209 80,549,132
Total All Funds 46,155,003 44,390,065 7,157,453 23,077,716 7,339,545 35,433,199 163,552,981