The URL can be used to link to this page

10/19/2010 - Work Study - PacketAll .WIN CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Mayor: Lary Coppola Administrative Official Councilmembers: Fred Chang Chair: LTAC Staff: Clerk's Office Tourism Committee Public Property Committee Jerry Childs Chair: Tourism Committee Staff: Clerk's Office Finance Committee John Clauson Chair: Finance Committee Staff: City Treasurer Utilities/SAC Committee Kitsap County Health Jim Colebank Tourism Committee KRCC/PSRC/KEDA/PRTPO Fred Olin Chair: Public Property Committee Staff: Planning Department Utilities/SAC Committee Carolyn Powers Public Property Committee KRCC/TransPol Rob Putaansuu Chair: Utilities Committee Staff: Public Works Department Finance Committee Kitsap Housing Authority SAC Committee Department Director: Patti Kirkpatrick, CMC Administrative Services City Clerk Allan Martin City Treasurer Debbie Hunt Court Administrator James Weaver Development Director Al Townsend Police Chief Mark Dorsey, P.E. Public Works Director City Engineer Contact us: 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 (36o)876-4407 WORK STUDY SESSION AGENDA October 1Q, 2010 1. Discussion: Sign Code (Chang) Estimated discussion time: to Minutes 2. Discussion: McCormick Division Three (Weaver) Estimated discussion time: 5 Minutes 3. Update: 2011 Budget and Revenue (Martin) Estimated discussion time: 30 Minutes 4. Discussion: Parking Garage (Council) Estimated discussion time: 6o Minutes 5. Discussion: Long -Term Goals and Objectives (Council) Estimated discussion time: 30 Minutes 6. Executive Session: Labor Negotiations Pursuant to RCW 42.30.11o(d) Estimated discussion time: 20 Minutes FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS (Please advise City Clerk when an item needs to move to the next work study session agenda): Financial Plan Annexation Priorities Economic Revitalization and Tourism Parking Garage Parks Chain Parking Design Review Board City Face Book/Fan Page Council Budget Please turn off cell phones during meeting and hold your questions for staff until the meeting has been adjourned Meeting materials are available on the City's website: www.cityofportorchard.us or by contacting the City Clerk's Office, 36o.876.4407 October 19, 2010, Work Study Session Agenda Page 1 of 1 Brandy Rinearson From: Patricia J. Kirkpatrick Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:12 PM To: Lary Coppola; Fred Chang Cc: James Weaver Subject: RE: Attention: City Council I can put it on the October 19th work study session agenda. Thanks, Patti Kirkpatrick, CMC City Clerk/Asst to the Mayor Administrative Services Director City of Port Orchard 360-876-7024 360.536.0802 (cell) 360-895-9029 (fax) Please be aware that a -mails which pertain to City business may be considered public records and may be subject to public disclosure laws. Any information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender via e- mail or telephone at 360.876.7024. -----Original Message ----- From: Lary Coppola Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 11:58 AM To: Fred Chang Cc: James Weaver; Patricia J. Kirkpatrick Subject: RE: Attention: City Council I think this should be a work study topic. It needs to be discussed at some length, and I think the full Council should have an opportunity to weigh in. From: Fred Chang [councilmanfred@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:56 AM To: Lary Coppola Cc: James Weaver Subject: Fwd: Attention: City Council Hi Lary, I am interested in looking into signs from a merchant's perspective. I was not on council when they adopted the standards against clutter. Maybe at Econ Dev committee or full council? FC Sent from my iPhone 1 Begin forwarded message: From: Fred Chang <fchang@cityofportorchard.us<mailto:fchang@cityofportorchard.us>> Date: August 30, 2010 4:17:59 PM PDT To: "councilmanfred@yahoo.com<mailto:councilmanfred@yahoo.com>" <councilmanfred@yahoo.com<mailto:councilmanfred@yahoo.com>> Subject: FW: Attention: City Council From: James Weaver Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 11:38 AM To: Lary Coppola Cc: Katherine Woodside; Patricia J. Kirkpatrick; Childs; Jim Colebank; John Clauson; Lary Coppola; Subject: RE: Attention: City Council Hello Mayor, Carolyn Powers; Fred Chang; Fred Olin; Jerry Rob Putaansuu Thank you for the email and the support of your staff in implementing our required duties. This is one of the highest volume complaint issues that Code Enforcement deals with (both asking to remove temporary signs from the public ROW and why temp signs can't be placed wherever anyone deems fit). Code enforcement is charged with implementing the municipal code that City Council has adopted, which in this case, is that NO signs (temp or otherwise) are allowed in the public right of way per POMC 16.65.020. Any individual can place temporary signs on their own property. Also, any individual can request City Council approve their individual sign on City ROW. Illegal Signs in the ROW (temporary, political, garage sale, etc.) are removed each and every day by City staff and placed at City property to be secured or retrieved by the proper owners. This code and practice has been enforced since inception and adoption of the applicable sign code in 1998 (Ord 1741) and readopted in 1999 (Ord 1762) and again in 2007 (Ord 048-07). Code Enforcement staff deal each day with citizens which are sometimes disrespectful, angry, verbally insulting, and occasionally hostile regarding the duties that Code Enforcement are charged with carrying out. Often the citizen opinions (such as cited below) are contradictory or at odds with all manner of existing Municipal Code, whether it be a speeding citation, parking regulations, sewer rates, or sign code. Code Enforcement staff does not create theses rules, but only is changed with the day to day enforcement of the adopted municipal code. Code Enforcement staff regularly is very courteous, respectful, and patient with citizens in often what seems to be extremely emotionally charged situations. Education of the existing rules and regulations is a large part of the Code Enforcement responsibility and this is done with memos, handouts, copies of municipal code, and brochures. As was the case with this situation. Regarding this particular section of code, upon your direction and if desired by the Mayor, one alternative could be that the Department would cease to be as diligent in enforcement of this provision of code and will direct our limited resources to other aspects of the City responsibilities. Also if directed, I am more than happy to propose a removal of this section of code if there support with this particular business owners' cited opinions. Approval of a sign code change of this nature could be supported by the Department, given the negative responses received by the citizens such as noted below and the sheer volume of responsibility, city-wide in enforcement of this provision. Please note though with a code change of this nature, the aesthetic qualities of our City might result in a much less -than - desired outcome. Regarding this particular case, I am more than happy to follow up with this citizen, discussing with them of the Council Adopted regulations and illustrating what our g responsibility is as City employees is to enforce the approved municipal code. From multiple experiences though, I don't believe it may change any citizen opinions on the matter. I will also ensure her signs are returned and I look forward to your direction on the long term aspects of this code provision. Thank you again. James R. Weaver, AICP, LEED AP City Development Director City of Port Orchard 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 Phone: 360-876-4991 Fax: 360-876-4980 Email: jweaver@ci.port-orchard.wa.us<mailto:jweaver@ci.port- orchard.wa.us><mailto:jweaver@ci.port-orchard.wa.us> Website: www.cityofportorchard.us<http://www.cityofportorchard.us><http://www.cityofportorchard.us> From: Lary Coppola Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:34 AM To: James Weaver Cc: Patricia J. Kirkpatrick; Katherine Woodside Subject: FW: Attention: City Council Can you give me some help on this. Can we get the story straight, and get her signs back to her? I'll take them back myself if it comes to that, but I'd like to have the correct answers to her questions first Lary Coppola, Mayor City of Port Orchard 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 (360) 876-7025 - Direct Line themayor@cityofportorchard.us<mailto:themayor@cityofportorchard.us><mailto:themayor@cityofpor torchard.us> Please be aware e-mail pertaining to City business may be considered a Public Record and could be subject to public disclosure laws. For document retention purposes, the City Clerk may be copied on this message. Please think about our environment before printing this e-mail From: Brandy Rinearson Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:08 AM To: Carolyn Powers; Rob Putaansuu; Jim Colebank; Chang; Lary Coppola Cc: Patricia J. Kirkpatrick Subject: FW: Attention: City Council For your information. Brandy Rinearson Deputy City Clerk Administrative Services Jerry Childs; John Clauson; Fred Olin; Fred 3 Phone (360) 876-7030 Fax (360) 895-9029 From: Cindy Carroll [mailto:Cindy@beaditetc.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 6:17 PM To: City Hall Mailbox Subject: Attention: City Council I am a small town business owner... trying to stay in business today with all that is happening with unemployment, our economy, etc. you would think that the City of Port Orchard would help the business owners. Today, I had Kathy Woodside come into my store and inform me that I can not put the signs up in the City of Port Orchard, because of a stupid ordinance which she could not quote to me. I had called several weeks ago to ensure that I could put out the ad signs throughout Port Orchard for an event I was having at my store... the person on the phone asked are they temp signs, I answered yes. I was told since they were temp signs just like the political signs I could put them up and that they would have to be taken down within a day or two of my sale ending, that would be ok. No one informed me that I could not put them up or quoted me any city ordinance. I went out and purchased several signs and only put a few up. I put them with signs that already had advertisement for businesses down town. How in the yeck do you expect the businesses to stay open if we can't put signs out to advertise our stores for a short time period. I asked her were was my sign and her answer was that it was put in her trunk of her car and I would have to get it later. I don't understand why as businesses we can't put a temp sign to bring in customer who might know that we are open for business... I don't know if I want to be a business person downtown Port orchard anymore. The city is driving us out.... Cindy,owner Bead it etc & Just 4 Scrapbooking 713 Bay Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 360 876 4427 www.beaditetc.com<http://www.beaditetc.com><http://www.beaditetc.com> <Signs in the Right-of-way memo.doc> 4 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page I of 19 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Sections: 16.65.000 Title. 16.65.005 Purpose. 16.65.020 Signs prohibited. 16.65.030 Signs not requiring permits. 16.65.040 Permit required. 16.65.050 Application for permits. 16.65.060 Permit fees. 16.65.070 Issuance of permits — Inspection. 16.65.080 Requirements applicable to all signs. 16.65.090 Residential district signs. 16.65.100 Tremont Street corridor overlay district sign standards. 16.65.110 Commercial, mixed use, and employment district signs. 16.65.120 Downtown marquee signs. 16.65.130 Downtown business core sandwich/sidewalk signs. 16.65.135 Home occupation signs. 16.65.140 Real estate signs. 16.65.150 Political signs. 16.65.160 Temporary and special events. 16.65.180 Nonconforming signs. 16.65.190 Comprehensive design plan permits. 16.65.200 Variances. 16.65.210 Enforcement procedures. 16.65.230 Violations — Penalties. 16.65.000 Title. This chapter shall be known as the "sign code." (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.005 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards for the structural design, placement, size, and maintenance of all signs and sign structures within the city. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.020 Signs prohibited. The following types of signs are prohibited in the city: (1) Portable reader board signs; (2) Signs that create a safety hazard for pedestrians or motorists, as determined by the police chief or building official; (3) Signs imitating or resembling official traffic or government signs or signals, as determined http://www.codepublishing. conVdtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Docld=200&Index=D %3a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 2 of 19 by the building official or police chief; (4) Signs attached to trees, utility poles, street -lights, rocks, or other natural features; (5) Signs placed on vehicles or trailers which are parked or located on publicly owned property for the primary purpose of displaying said sign. This does not apply to signs or lettering on buses and taxis or vehicles which are advertising themselves for sale; (6) Rotating signs; (7) Displays for more than 30 consecutive days of banners, clusters of flags, posters, pennants, ribbons, streamers, strings of lights, spinners, twirlers, or propellers, flashing, rotating, or blinking lights, flares, balloons or inflated signs over 24 inches in diameter, and similar devices of a carnival nature are permitted on a limited basis pursuant to POW 16.65.160. The same displays as described above can only be on the same property three times a year with a minimum of 30 calendar days between each time the displays are erected (see also POW 16.65.160); (8) Searchlights and beacons, unless otherwise approved by conditions pursuant to POMC 16.65.160; (9) Video billboards; (10) Roof signs; (11) Signs that obstruct vision or which the building official determines to be a safety hazard for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Such signs may be removed if they already exist; (12) Signs containing statements, words, and pictures of an obscene character; (13) Signs which do not conform in structure or material to International Building Code and/or Uniform Sign Code; (14) Flashing signs or lights facing public property; (15) Signs emitting pollutants. Any sign that emits audible sound, odor, or visible matter; (16) Signs located in or on public right-of-way or public property, with the following exceptions: (a) Signs that are attached to the downtown marquee and sandwich/sidewalk signs which meet the city standards for the downtown business core area signs pursuant to Resolution No. 1884; (b) Public transportation and city -owned signs; (17) Billboard signs; (18) Off -premises signs except as specifically permitted in this chapter. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). http: //www.codepublishing.coin/dtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Dodd=200&Index=D %3 a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 3 of 19 16.65.030 Signs not requiring permits. The following types of signs are exempted from obtaining a sign permit, but must be in conformance with all other requirements of this chapter: (1) Real estate signs meeting the requirements of POMC 16.65.140. (2) Political signs meeting the requirements of POMC 16.65.150. (3) Temporary and special event signs meeting the requirements of POMC 16.65.160. (4) Nonelectric signs not exceeding three square feet per face which are limited in content to the name of occupant and address of the premises in residential zones. (5) On -premises directional signs, not exceeding six square feet per face, the sole purpose of which is to provide for vehicular and pedestrian traffic direction, limited to one sign per ingress and one sign per egress. (6) Regulatory, informational, identification, or directional signs installed by or at the direction of a government entity. (7) Signs required by law. (8) Official public notices, official court notices, or official sheriff's notices. (9) One off -premises identification sign, not exceeding three square feet per face, for any fraternal, civic, or religious organization with an established operation in the city, which must be placed on a common sign base approved by the city. (10) Signs or displays not visible from streets, ways, sidewalks, or parking areas open to the public. (11) The flag of government or noncommercial institutions, such as schools. (12) Point -of -purchase advertising displays, such as product dispensers. (13) "No trespassing," "no dumping," "no parking," "private" and other informational warning signs which shall not exceed six square feet in surface area. (14) Structures intended for separate use such as phone booths and recycling containers. (15) Reasonable seasonal decorations within the appropriate holiday season or civic festival season meeting the requirements in the definition for "Seasonal decorations" in Chapter 16.08 POMC. (16) Sculptures, fountains, mosaics, murals, and design features which do not incorporate advertising or identification. (17) All signs which are wholly within the interior portion of a building, including interior window signs; provided, that such signs shall not be in one of the categories prohibited by POMC http://www.codepublishing.comldtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Docld=200&Index=D%3a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 4 of 19 16.65.020. (18) Signs located on the interior sides of sports field fencing. (19) Garage sale signs. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.040 Permit required. No sign, except for those exempted in this chapter, shall be erected, reerected, attached, structurally altered or relocated by any person, firm or corporation without a sign permit issued by the city. In the case of electric signs, compliance with the National Electrical Code shall be included as a requirement of the sign permit. All sign permits shall be issued by the building official. No permit shall be required for repair, cleaning, repainting or other normal maintenance, nor for changing the message on a sign designed for changeable copy, as long as the sign structure is not modified in any way. In cases where a new business has moved into a building with existing signage, any refacing or repainting over an existing sign for the purposes of a new business requires a sign permit. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.050 Application for permits. Applications for sign permits shall be made to the building official upon forms provided by the city. Such applications shall require: (1) Name, address, and telephone number of the sign owner; (2) Street address or location of the property on which the sign is to be located, together with the name and address of the property owner; (3) The type of sign or sign structure as defined in this chapter; (4) A site plan showing the proposed location of the sign, together with the locations and square footage areas of all existing signs on the same premises; (5) Specifications and scale drawings showing the materials, design, dimensions, structural supports, and electrical components of the proposed sign. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.060 Permit fees. All applications for permits shall be paid when permit is picked up. Fees are based upon the city -adopted fee schedule in accordance with the International Building Code. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.070 Issuance of permits — Inspection. (1) The building official shall issue a permit for erection, alteration or relocation of a sign within 30 days of receipt of a complete application; provided, that the sign complies with all applicable laws and regulations of the city. In all applications, where a matter of interpretation arises, the more specific definition or higher standard shall prevail. The building official may suspend or revoke an issued permit for any false statement or misrepresentation of fact in the application. A sign permit issued by the building official becomes null and void if work is not http://www.codepublishing.com/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Dodd=200&Index=D%3a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 5 of 19 commenced within 60 days of issuance and is not completed within 180 days of issuance or is abandoned for a period of 180 days. Proof of ordering the sign constitutes commencement of work. Permits may be renewed one time with an additional payment of one-half of the original fee. (2) Any person installing, altering, or relocating a sign for which a permit has been issued shall notify the building official upon completion of the work. No sign shall be deemed approved until the building official has conducted a final inspection and indicated approval on the face of the sign permit. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.080 Requirements applicable to all signs. (1) For the purpose of determining if a proposed sign permit should be issued pursuant to this section, the following criteria shall apply. In addition, signs shall be in compliance with the Uniform Sign Code of the International Conference of Building Officials, as adopted by the city. This section specifies, unless otherwise stated in this chapter, design criteria, construction standards, requirements for materials, and limitations on the projection and clearance of signs. Not less than one copy of said codes is on file in the office of the city clerk. Compliance with the Uniform Sign Code shall be a prerequisite to issuance of a sign permit under this chapter. (2) Electrical Requirements. Electrical requirements for signs within the city shall be governed by the National Electrical Code, 1984 Edition (or any superseding edition adopted by the city), promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, which is adopted and made a part hereof by this reference. Compliance with the National Electrical Code shall be required by every sign utilizing electrical energy as a prerequisite to issuance of a sign permit under this chapter. (3) Sign Illumination. Illumination from or upon any sign shall be located, shaded, shielded, directed, or reduced so as to avoid undue brightness, glare or reflection of light on private or public property in the surrounding area, so as to avoid unreasonably distracting pedestrians or motorists, and from bodies of water as defined in the shoreline master program. "Undue brightness" is illumination in excess of that which is reasonably necessary to make the sign reasonably visible to the average person on an adjacent street. (4) Sign Maintenance. All signs, including signs heretofore installed, shall be continually maintained in a state of security, safety, and repair. If any sign is found not to be so maintained or is insecurely fastened or otherwise dangerous, it shall be the duty of the owner and/or occupant of the premises on which the sign is located to repair or remove the sign within five days after receiving notice from the building official or his designee. The premises surrounding a freestanding sign shall be free and clear of rubbish and landscaped area free of weeds. (5) Landscaping for Freestanding Signs. All primary freestanding signs shall include landscaping at their base to prevent automobiles from hitting the sign -supporting structure and to improve the overall appearance of the installation. The planting area shall be a minimum of one square foot for each square foot of sign surface area and shall include a mix of native shrubs and groundcover (see Chapter 16.50 POMC) so that at the time of installation a http://www.codepublishing.con/dtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Dodd=200&Index=D%3a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 6 of 19 minimum of 25 percent of the required planting area is covered by plant material. If the landscaping is not installed concurrently with the sign, the applicant for a sign permit shall provide a performance assurance device. All required landscaping must be installed within 60 days of completion of the sign installation, unless the building official grants an extension in writing for reasons of weather, good planting practices, or unforeseeable construction delay. (6) Sign Inspection. All sign users shall permit the periodic inspection of their signs by the city upon request pursuant to this section. (7) Height of Signs. See district requirements, POMC 16.65.090, 16.65.100 and 16.65.110. (8) Placement of Signs. All signs must be properly supported and secured as determined by the building official. Signs may only face streets and parking lots. Signs may not be mounted on the backs of buildings or areas not generally accessed by the public. Multiple occupancy complexes shall provide for a comprehensive signage plan, coordinating sign design, and placement. Signs shall be located on the premises unless otherwise authorized within this chapter. Signage placed or projecting into the public right-of-way shall be approved by the city council or as otherwise authorized by this chapter. No sign shall be located as to obstruct or create hazardous conditions for motorists or pedestrians. All signs shall comply with the sight distance requirements of the land use code. (9) Sign design shall provide continuity with signage on the same or adjacent properties with respect to mounting location and height, proportions, materials, and other significant qualities. (10) Painted Signs — Mounting. Murals and graphics may be painted on plywood or other backing material or directly on the building wall itself (as approved by the building official). (11) Appearance of Signs. All signs shall have a professional appearance (as approved by the building official). (12) Abandoned Signs. Abandoned signs shall be removed or message coated out by the property owner or lessee within 30 days after the business or service advertised by the sign is no longer conducted on the premises. If the property owner or lessee fails to remove it, the building official shall give the owner 10 days' written notice to remove it. Upon failure to comply with this notice, the building official may cause the sign to be removed at cost to the owner of the premises. The cost of removal will be twice the total cost of all labor, equipment, and material costs incurred by the city to include 100 percent labor overhead and 15 percent materials markup. Foundations, posts, and structure of the sign, with all advertising copy removed, may remain on the premises for up to three years with the owner's written consent, on the condition that same must be continuously maintained pursuant to this section. (13) Position of Signs. Signs shall face or be placed fronting public avenues or customer parking areas so as to not adversely affect neighboring properties. (14) Conflicting Provisions. Whenever two provisions or interpretations of this code overlap or conflict with regard to the size or placement of a sign, the more restrictive provision or interpretation shall apply. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). http: //www.codepublishing.con/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Dodd=200&Index=D%3 a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 7 of 19 16.65.090 Residential district signs. Signs established in any "R" zone must comply with the following provisions: (1) No sign in a residential district shall extend more than six feet above the elevation of the address street. (2) Street Address. All dwelling units in residential districts shall display house numbers, no less than four inches in height, readable from the street. (3) Temporary Sale Signs (Garage Sale, Estate Sale, Etc.). (a) May contain up to three square feet per side and may be double -sided. (b) May be displayed no more than three days prior to the event and shall be removed 24 hours after the event is completed. (c) May not be displayed in or on public property. (d) There shall be no more than two such events advertised with temporary sale signs for any residence per year. (e) No such event shall continue for more than six days within a 15-day period. (4) Directional Signs. (a) May contain up to three square feet per side of allowable area and may be double - sided. (b) Limited to one sign per ingress and one sign per egress. (5) Residential Subdivisions and Multiple -Family Development Signs. (a) One monument sign up to 15 square feet in area per face at each entrance to the development or a single monument sign up to 32 square feet in area per face per development. (b) Directional and informational signs for the convenience of tenants and the public relative to parking, office, traffic movement, etc. (c) Sign height not to exceed six feet, measured from the ground to the top of the sign. (6) Real Estate for Sale or Rent Signs. See POMC 16.65.140. (7) Home Occupation Signs. See POMC 16.65.135. (8) Churches, Health Care Facilities, or Multi -Unit Group Residence Signs. (a) Shall be limited to monument signs, which are no higher than six feet above the ground. http://www.codepublishing.cornldtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Docld=200&Index=D%3 a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 8 of 19 (b) Size must comply with subsection (5)(a) of this section. (9) Conditional Uses. Signs for conditional uses shall comply with residential sign requirements. (10) Allowable Combinations of Sign Types. (a) There shall be no combination of permanent sign types on a single street frontage. (b) Total combined area of all exempt signs on any lot on a residential district shall not exceed three square feet. (11) Setbacks. No permanent sign shall be located closer than 10 feet to an internal property line or closer than 10 feet from the right-of-way line unless attached to a fence that meets all city codes. (12) Signs which are attached to fences shall not extend higher than the fence. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.100 Tremont Street corridor overlay district sign standards. The purpose of this section is to regulate signs to create a common design theme within the Tremont Street corridor special overlay district (TRMT). No person shall erect, reerect, construct, enlarge, move, improve, remove, convert, or equip any sign or sign structure, or cause or permit the same to be done without a permit granted through the TRMT permit process. (1) General Sign Regulations. (a) No sign or any contrivance shall be devised or constructed so as to rotate, gyrate, blink or move in any animated fashion. (b) Internally illuminated signs are prohibited. All signs shall be constructed of natural materials. (c) No flags or pennants of any type may be utilized to draw attention to any use or structure on a permanent basis. Colored flags which contain no written insignias may be displayed two times a year for periods not to exceed 30 days. NOTE: This does not preclude national, state, or local flags, pennants, or banners which are displayed in observance of recognized holidays. (d) Signage on awnings shall be painted on the awning surface and be restricted to the awning's flap (variance) or to the end panels of angled, curved, or box awnings. (e) The identification of each building or store's address in six -inch -high numbers over the main entry doorway or within 10 feet of the main entry is required. (f) Corporate painting schemes (e.g., colored stripes, etc.) are considered a form of advertising and are considered a sign under these guidelines. http://www.codepublishing.con-ldtSearchldtisapi6. dll?cmd=getdoc&Docld=200&Index=D%3 a%o5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS (2) Specific Signs Regulations. Page 9 of 19 (a) Monument Signs. (i) Monument signs shall be measured by a rectangle around the perimeter, excluding the base. Under no circumstances may the sign exceed six feet in height or 24 square feet in size, excluding the base. One monument sign is permitted per each development or lot of record. (ii) Each monument sign shall be located within a planted landscaped area which is of a shape and design providing a compatible setting and ground definition, to a ratio of four square feet of landscaped area for each square feet of sign area (one side only). (iii) Monument signs shall be constructed of natural materials, or appear to be constructed of natural materials, unless inconsistent with the building architecture. (iv) Backlit, neon and fluorescent lighted signs are not permitted. (b) Freestanding Signs. (i) All tenant signs shall be uniform in size and color. One style of typeface is preferred. (ii) The sign area for each tenant on a freestanding sign shall be proportional to the size of their respective store (large stores have larger signs compared to smaller stores and smaller signs). (iii) The number of tenant signs per freestanding sign shall be limited to the three largest tenants based on floor area. In no case will a freestanding sign identify more than three tenants. (iv) A minimum of 10 percent of the sign area of freestanding signs for large multi- story buildings or developments should be devoted to identification of the center or building by address and name. (v) Shall be placed perpendicular to traffic. (vi) Shall be placed in raised planters with two square feet of landscaped area per each square foot of sign area whenever possible. (vii) Shall be constructed of natural materials, unless inconsistent with the building architecture. (viii) Backlit, neon and fluorescent lighted signs are not permitted. (c) Wall Signs. (i) The area around a painted wall sign, logo or any facsimile drawing attention shall http://www.codepublishing.conildtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=200&Index=D%3a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 10 of 19 be calculated by measuring a rectangle around the outside of letters or mural. (ii) The use of logos, corporate insignias, and corporate colors is permitted on any wall sign; provided, that these do not occupy more than 25 percent of the sign area. (iii) No building signs shall be allowed above the bottom of the second floor window line (where one exists) except where a multi -story building has a sign panel just below the roofline for its name or a major tenant's name. (iv) The use of a graphic consistent with the nature of the product to be advertised is encouraged, e.g., hammer symbol for hardware store, mortar and pestle for a drug store. (v) Direct and indirect lighting methods are allowed providing they do not cause harsh or unnecessary glare. The use of can -type box signs with translucent backlit panels are not permitted on any structures. (vi) Individual backlit single -cut letter signs are allowed. (vii) Sign colors are required to be compatible with individual building signs, freestanding and monument signs. (viii) The use of permanent sale or come-on signs is prohibited. The temporary use of these signs is limited to 30 days within a 90-day period. Signs affixed to windows may not occupy more than 20 percent of the window area. Each business is permitted a total of not more than 120 days of temporary signs per calendar year. (3) Sign Area. The area of a wall sign is calculated as follows: (a) Single Tenant. One square foot of sign area per lineal building frontage. Not to exceed 50 square feet. (b) Building Identification. One per street frontage. One-half square foot of lineal building lot frontage. Not to exceed 40 square feet. (c) Multiple Tenants. One per tenant. Not to exceed 10 square feet. (d) Wall Name Plate. One per tenant. Not to exceed four square feet. (e) Window signs are considered wall signs. One per window is permitted; not to exceed 25 percent of window area. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.110 Commercial, mixed use, and employment district signs. In all commercial districts, the following regulations and standards shall apply. (1) Each business building shall display a street address number identification sign readable from the street. The minimum height of the street address numbers shall be six inches. (2) Temporary signs: allowed. See POMC 16.65.160. http://www.codepublishing.conVdtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Doctd=200&Index=D %3a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 11 of 19 (3) Directional signs, such as entrance and exit signs, may contain an allowable area up to three square feet per side, may be double -sided and are limited to one sign per ingress and one sign per egress. Directional signs may not contain advertising copy other than the business logo, if applicable. (4) Projecting signs shall not exceed 32 square feet per face; one sign per elevation per business is permitted; shall not project more than six feet from a building nor within two feet of the curb line; and shall not extend above the parapet or eaves line. (5) Freestanding Signs. (a) In a commercial and employment district the maximum height permitted is 12 feet and the maximum sign area may be equal to one square foot for each lineal foot of street frontage per sign face, not to exceed 90 square feet. (b) In a mixed use district the maximum height permitted is six feet and the maximum area permitted is equal to one square foot for each lineal foot of street frontage per sign face, not to exceed 50 square feet. (6) Wall sign standards are as follows: (a) Allowable Area. One square foot for each lineal foot of wall frontage. No single sign face shall exceed 90 square feet. (b) No more than one per wall with frontage to a public street or parking area. (c) No sign shall extend above the parapet or eaves line. (7) Sandwich Boards/Sidewalk Signs. Must meet the following criteria: (a) Signs shall not exceed 24 inches by 36 inches. (b) Signs shall be placed on and directly in front of premises being advertised. (c) Signs are placed only during hours the business is open. (d) Signs shall not be placed within the road right-of-way, unless otherwise stated in Resolution No. 1884. See POMC 16.65.130 regarding downtown Bay Street. (e) Signs limited to one per street frontage. (8) Buildings with multiple tenancies shall be limited to one sign per street frontage along with one per tenant space to be placed immediately adjacent to the business entrance. Businesses must allow unobstructed sidewalk or walkway width of four feet. (9) Gas station/convenience store signs must comply with the following standards: (a) Gas price signs must be permanently anchored and the sign area shall not exceed 12 square feet and no more than one per street frontage. http://www.codepublishing. conLIdtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Dodd=200&Index=D%3 a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 12 of 19 (b) Canopy signage shall not be included in determining the total sign area of a business, is limited to logo shields and no product advertising is permitted on spandrels, canopy, or columns. (10) On any street frontage, the only allowable combinations of signs are: (a) Wall sign and freestanding sign. (b) Projecting signs and freestanding sign. (11) Setbacks. Signs under this section may have zero -foot setbacks. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.120 Downtown marquee signs. (1) Abutting property owners can use that portion of the marquee which is within the extended property lines to advertise those businesses which are located on the subject property. All marquee signs shall have a building permit to confirm location, design standards, and structural connection. The city is authorized to relocate or remove any sign on the marquee or in the public right-of-way that does not conform to city standards. No sign shall advertise a business that is not located on the abutting Bay Street property. No temporary signs or banners shall be allowed on the marquee, except those installed by the city. No display of merchandise shall be hung from the marquee. (2) Allowable Area for Marquee Signage. One square foot for each lineal foot of wall frontage. Marquee sign is part of the total usable signage for the site. No single sign face shall exceed 32 square feet. The property owner of a multiple occupancy building will be responsible for the division of usable signage and signs shall be spaced evenly. (3) Design Criteria. (a) The signs shall be mounted flush to the marquee railing. (b) The sign is to be centered on the horizontal plane of the marquee and shall not extend above the top or bottom of the marquee railing face. Sign shall be placed directly in front of business. Proportional size length to width approximately with ratio of 2:1 minimum. (c) All signs shall have a professional appearance. (d) No sign is to have a right angle corner. (e) Exterior lighting directed from the top portion of the sign is allowed. A clearance of 14 feet for commercial vehicles must be permitted. The lighting must be shielded from traffic and avoid undue brightness. See POMC 16.65.080(3). Subject to permit and design criteria. (f) Signs under the marquee shall be placed to allow seven feet clearance above the sidewalk. The sign shall be rectangular in shape, not to exceed six square feet, corner http://www.codepublishing.conVdtSearchldtisapi6. dll?cmd=getdoc&Dodd=200&Index=D%3 a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS treatment is as follows, and shall be installed per city standards. Page 13 of 19 (g) Any movie theater with more than 150 seats is exempt from the standards of this section, but must meet requirements of POMC 16.65.110. (h) Changeable letter strips may be added to a marquee sign for those businesses that pay a state/local admission tax for use of entertainment advertising only. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.130 Downtown business core sandwich/sidewalk signs. (1) Existing and proposed sidewalk signs are permitted only within the mixed use district, between Water Street and Harrison Avenue on Bay Street. These signs shall meet the specific standards and requirements in this section. (2) Sidewalk signs require a sign permit. A copy of the approved sign permit shall be legibly attached to the underside of the sign at all times. Any applicant for a sidewalk sign permit shall be required to sign a hold harmless/indemnification agreement and shall provide evidence that the applicant maintains liability insurance in an amount as required by the building official naming the city of Port Orchard as an additional insured. Said coverage shall not be canceled or modified without 30 calendar days' prior written notice to the building official. Failure to maintain such insurance coverage shall result in revocation of the permit. Any applicant for a sidewalk sign permit shall sign a statement that the applicant agrees to adhere to the standards and requirements set forth in this chapter, and if not, the sign may be removed by the city and/or the sign permit revoked. (3) Number, Size and Location. Maximum of one sidewalk sign per business permitted, including businesses having more than one street frontage. The sign shall be placed in front of and on the same side of the street as the building or establishment which it advertises. (a) Buildings with multiple tenants who have access from a common entrance are permitted one sidewalk sign per building upon which all interior tenants may be advertised. (b) Maximum size of sidewalk sign shall be six square feet per sign face, with a maximum of two sign faces per sign. (c) Maximum height of sign shall be 36 inches above the sidewalk, walkway, or plaza upon which it is placed, and no materials (such as paper, balloons, windsocks, etc.) may be added to the sign to increase its height. The height of such signs may not be artificially increased above the allowed maximum by the placement of material underneath. Maximum width of sign shall be 24 inches. (d) No sign may be placed in such a way as to reduce the continuous unobstructed width of a sidewalk or walkway to less than four feet. http://www.codepublishing.com/dtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Dodd=200&Index=D%3a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 14 of 19 (e) No sign may obstruct an entrance to a building or any steps. (f) No sign may be placed within a required vision clearance triangle, as defined by this chapter, or within 20 feet of a wheelchair ramp. (g) No second -party advertising shall be permitted on such signs. (h) Owners are responsible for the removal of their sidewalk sign following business hours and during periods of strong winds. (4) Materials. Signs shall be constructed of weather -resistant materials, such as wood, plastic, or metal. Signs constructed of impermanent materials, including but not limited to cardboard and paper, are prohibited. No sign shall contain foil, mirrors, bare metal, or other reflective materials, which could create hazardous conditions to motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians. No sign may contain lights of any kind. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.135 Home occupation signs. (1) The sign shall not exceed four square feet. (2) The sign shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line, unless sited on an otherwise permitted fence. (3) Freestanding and fence -mounted signs can be no higher than six feet as measured from the top of the sign to the ground. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.140 Real estate signs. All exterior real estate signs must be of a durable material. Only the following real estate signs are permitted: (1) Residential For Sale or Rent Signs. Signs advertising residential property for sale or rent shall be limited to one single -faced or double-faced sign per street frontage. Such signs shall not exceed four square feet per face, and must be placed wholly on the subject property. Such signs may be displayed while the property is actually for sale or rent. A sold sign may remain up for 10 days after the occupancy of residential property. (2) Residential Directional Signs. Signs advertising an open house and the direction to a residence for sale or rent shall be limited to three single -faced or double-faced off -premises signs. Such signs may not exceed four square feet per face. Such signs are permitted only when a real estate agent or seller is in attendance at the property for sale, and not overnight. Such signs may not be placed in the public right-of-way, nor shall they be placed on a sidewalk or in any location where they would cause a public hazard as determined by the police chief and/or building official. (3) Commercial or Employment For Sale or Rent Signs. Signs advertising commercial or employment property for sale or rent shall be limited to one single -faced or double-faced sign per street frontage. Signs may be displayed while the property is actually for sale or rent up to one year. If at that time property is not sold or rented, a permanent sign is required. The signs shall not exceed 32 square feet per face. If freestanding, the signs shall not exceed five feet in http://www.codepublishing.comldtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=200&Index=D%3a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 15 of 19 height and shall be located at least 15 feet from any abutting interior property line and wholly on the property for sale or rent. In applications where constant leasing/rentals occur, a permanent sign may be erected on the property in accordance with the permanent sign requirements. (4) Temporary Subdivision Signs. Signs advertising residential subdivisions shall be limited to one single -faced or double-faced sign per street frontage. Such signs shall not exceed 32 square feet per face and shall not exceed 10 feet in height. They shall be set back at least 10 feet from any abutting interior property line and shall be wholly on the property being subdivided and sold. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.150 Political signs. Signs, posters, or bills promoting or publicizing candidates for public office or issues that are to be voted upon in a primary, general, or special election may be displayed on private property in accordance with the following restrictions: (1) Political signs can be posted 120 days before a special election and 60 days prior to the primary or general elections, and shall be removed within seven days after the election. (2) Prohibited on Public Property. It is unlawful for any person to paste, paint, affix, or fasten any political sign on a utility pole or on any public right-of-way, property, building, or structure. (3) Responsibility for Compliance. It shall be presumed that any violation of this section was done at the direction and request of the political candidate and/or campaign director. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.160 Temporary and special events. Except as otherwise provided below for certain special categories, temporary and special event signs shall not exceed 32 square feet in area per face. In addition, temporary and special event signs shall not be allowed without first being requested in writing and reviewed by the building official or his designee, who may impose conditions of approval. (1) Construction Signs. Construction signs identify the architects, engineering, contractors, or other individuals or firm involved with the construction of a building and announce the character of the building or the purpose for which the building is intended. Such signs may be displayed only after a building permit is obtained and during the period of construction on the construction site. Only one such sign is permitted per street frontage. No construction sign shall exceed 32 square feet per face or 10 feet in height, nor shall it be located closer than 10 feet from an interior property line. Construction signs shall be removed by the date of first occupancy of the premises, or upon expiration of the building permit, whichever first occurs. (2) Grand Opening Displays. Temporary signs, posters, banners, strings of lights, clusters of flags, blinking lights, balloons, searchlights, and beacons are permitted for a period not to exceed 30 days to announce the opening of a completely new enterprise or the opening of an enterprise under new ownership. All such signs and materials shall be located on the premises being advertised and shall be removed immediately upon expiration of said 30-day period. http://www.codepublishing.conVdtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Dodd=200&Index=D%3a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 16 of 19 (3) Special Sales and Events. Temporary signs, posters, banners, strings of lights, clusters of flags, balloons, searchlights, and beacons are permitted for the limited purpose of announcing a retail sale or special event in business or commercial zones, but not on a routine basis. All such advertising material shall be located on the premises being advertised limited to one per road frontage per business or multiple occupancy complex and shall be removed immediately upon expiration of said special sale or event. Such special sale or event shall be limited to a 30-day period. (4) Quitting Business Sales. Temporary signs, posters, and banners are permitted for a period of 30 continuous days for the purpose of advertising quitting business sales, liquidation sales, or other events of a similar nature. All such signs shall be located on the premises being advertised and shall be removed immediately upon expiration of the 30-day period, or conclusion of the sale, whichever occurs first. (5) Seasonal lighting shall be permitted on the downtown marquee and over the street for a period of 30 days. (6) Product Advertising Signs. A banner whose primary objective is to advertise a specific product or brand name and is located outside the business building shall be limited to 30 days per product and/or sign every six months. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.180 Nonconforming signs. (1) Signs existing on the date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter, which do not conform to the specific provisions of this section, shall be deemed to be legal nonconforming signs which are exempt from the provisions of this section only on the following conditions: (a) The sign was lawfully erected in full compliance with all codes which were then applicable. (b) The sign does not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare. (c) The sign does not lose its nonconforming status as provided in subsection (2) of this section; provided, that nonconforming status shall not apply to temporary, special event, real estate, or portable signs, or to any sign on public right-of-way; provided further, that portable reader board signs which meet the nonconforming criteria specified in subsection (1) of this section shall be granted a phase -out period of 12 months from the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter or until they lose their nonconforming status as provided in subsection (2) of this section, whichever occurs first. (2) A legal nonconforming sign may lose said designation if any of the following occur: (a) If the sign is not continuously maintained and repaired as required by POMC 16.65.080. (b) If the sign structure is relocated or replaced (not to include a mere change of advertising copy). http://www.codepublishing.comldtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Doctd=200&Index=D %3a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 17 of 19 (c) If the structure or size of the sign is altered in any way to make it more nonconforming with the provisions of this section. This does not refer to a change of copy or normal maintenance. (d) If the sign suffers more than 50 percent appraised damage or deterioration. (3) A sign permit shall not be issued if the application requests a nonconforming sign to be modified, enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered in such a manner that would continue to keep the sign out of conformance with this chapter. (4) The owner may continue using the nonconforming sign for a period determined by use of the table contained in this section. At the expiration of any such period, the owner shall at his/her expense either remove the sign and its supporting members or modify or replace it so as to bring it into compliance with the requirements and standards of this chapter. As used in the table, "time limitation" means the period which begins to run when the building official mails notice of the valuation of the sign to the owner of real property on which it is situated, as disclosed by the most recent county assessor's rolls. The "value of sign" means the valuation determined by the building official, who may consider evidence of the sign's original cost, replacement cost, salvage value, adjusted basis for income tax purposes and fair rental value, to the extent such evidence is available. The owner may appeal to the city council. Such appeal shall be filed within 60 days of the building official's notice and shall present evidence that the sign was in accordance with the requirements of the municipal code in force at the time the sign was erected. Value of Sign Time Limitation $1,000 or less One year More than $1,000, but Three years less than $10,000 $10,000 or more Five years (5) The owner may appeal to the building appeal board. Such appeal shall be filed within 14 days of the date of the building official's notice. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to establish that the sign was in compliance with city codes that were in force at the time the sign was erected, reerected, or otherwise altered. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.190 Comprehensive design plan permits. Application may be made to the hearing examiner for special consideration whereby deviations from the requirements and restrictions of this chapter may be permitted when an applicant is using a comprehensive design plan to integrate signs into the framework of the building or buildings, landscaping, and other design features of the property, utilizing an overall design theme. Comprehensive design may be used on an existing building where the facade is being altered, when there is new construction, or in freestanding signs. These permits are not to be confused with the procedures for obtaining variances for hardship or unusual circumstances. Rather, these permits are based upon the applicant satisfying the http://www.codepublishing.conVdtSearchldtisapi6.dl l?cmd=getdoc&Dodd=200&Index=D%3 a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 18 of 19 hearing examiner that an exceptional effort has been made toward creating harmony between the sign, the building, and the site where it is located through use of a consistent design theme which complements and enhances surrounding natural beauty of the area. The comprehensive design plan shall be presented to the hearing examiner with a narrative describing the proposed plan. (1) Comprehensive Design Plan Permits Criteria. The hearing examiner shall assess the applicant's information using the following criteria: (a) The proposal manifests exceptional visual harmony between the sign, buildings, and other components of the subject property through the use of a consistent design theme. (b) The sign or signs promote the planned land use in the area of the subject property and enhance the aesthetics of the surrounding area. (c) The sign and its placement do not obstruct or interfere with any other sign or property in the area or obstruct natural scenic views. (d) The proposed plan is aesthetically superior to what could be installed under existing criteria in this chapter. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.200 Variances. (1) Variance applications shall be processed pursuant to the procedures for zoning variances specified in POMC 16.35.150. (2) Variances for height of signs in a residential district, POMC 16.65.090, may be processed as an administrative variance by the planning director. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.210 Enforcement procedures. (1) The building official or his designee shall have jurisdiction to administratively enforce the provisions of this chapter. Upon presentation of proper credentials, the building official or his duly authorized representative may, at all reasonable times, enter upon any premises to inspect the same for violations of this chapter. All signs for which a permit is required are subject to periodic inspection by the code enforcement officer. (2) The building official may use the following administrative methods of enforcing the provisions of this chapter: (a) In cases where the building official determines that a sign presents an immediate threat to the safety of the public, or a sign is unlawfully located on public property, the building official may order the sign to be immediately removed by the owner or by the city at the owner's cost. (b) In cases where a sign is erected or installed without a permit in violation of this chapter, the building official shall give written notice by certified mail to the owner to comply with the provisions of this chapter or remove the sign within 48 hours. If compliance within 48 hours is not obtained, the building official may order the sign to be http://www.codepublishing.corn/dtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Dodd=200&Index=D %3 a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 Chapter 16.65 SIGN REGULATIONS Page 19 of 19 removed by the owner or by the city at the owner's cost. These 48 hours serve as the administrative warning period. (c) In all other cases where the building official identifies a violation of any provision of this chapter, he shall give 10 days' notice, in writing by regular and certified mail, to the owner to bring the sign into compliance with this chapter or to remove it. Upon failure to comply with said notice, the building official may issue a civil infraction and order the sign removed by the owner or by the city at the owner's cost. (3) As used in this section, the term "owner" shall refer to the owner of the sign in question; provided, that if the building official is unable, after reasonable efforts, to determine the identity of the owner of the sign, the building official may notify, instead, the owner of the real property on which the sign is located, and may rely upon the name and address of such owner as it appears in the records of the Kitsap County assessor. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). 16.65.230 Violations — Penalties. After the administrative warning period referred to in POW 16.65.210(2)(b) has expired, any person, business, or corporation violating a provision of this chapter shall be construed as having committed a civil infraction and, upon a finding of liability, shall pay a civil penalty of not more than $250.00. Each day a violation exists shall be considered a separate infraction. Any person, firm, or corporation interfering with the code enforcement officer's enforcement of this chapter may be cited under the city's criminal code for the offense of obstructing a public officer. (Ord. 011-10 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)). This page of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 018-10 and legislation passed through August 24, 2010. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Port Orchard Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: http://www.cityofportorchard.us City Telephone: (360) 876-4407 Code Publishing Company http://www.codepublishing.conVdtSearchldtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&Dodd=200&Index=D%3 a%5cProg... 10/ 15/2010 'lll'41 KIl'lla: Fil MJ 1 IIllyl►`K1a:10k l :1' :. GP'SxiG`3.Rt 1 jjj,,, qqq / 40 ..cam✓` ' i'�., -eb .k �:' � �. _ �r'.ci-r::.- �—d,-... .� ... Please Note: This Prospectus document is a preliminary draft and is intended to serve the City of Port Orchard for funding purposes in a conceptual manner as a living document, consistently updated as new information becomes available and as new funding sources are identified. Please take this into consideration when referencing this document and any information provided wherein. Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 2 of 39 Introduction The City of Port Orchard is in the transition from a small historic city to a mid -sized city on the shores of Puget Sound shown to have exponential employment, recreation, and economic development potential as the growth center for South Kitsap services. The City s historic core was built at the turn of the century to benefit the prosperous maritime industries, and like many waterfront communities and was focused around Bay Street as the city center. The City has conducted numerous studies and plans in the identification of a unified goal for the revitalization of the historic community downtown. PORT ORCHARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN STREETSCAPE AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS CONCEPT RAN A component of accomplishing that downtown revitalization effort has been identified as the construction of a parking facility and new library to serve as the Revitalized Town Center and as a gathering place for Port Orchard residents, commercial activity and civic engagement. The location of this project adjacent to the existing City Hall and nearby the historic commercial core, allows the creation of a municipal campus that can serve multiple roles for the citizens and maximize the benefits of both commercial and civic needs of the community. This project is specifically oriented to activate the historic downtown area, improve pedestrian access in Port Orchard, and enhance the appearance of pedestrian spaces within the Town Center. In addition to encouraging pedestrians to use the downtown commercial areas, this project serves to reduce the need for parking as they will encourage visitors to park once and Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus w .cityofporlorchard.us Page 3 of 39 use the Library and walk the entire downtown, rather than move to another parking space. Unlike auto -oriented shopping areas, a pedestrian friendly space such as this can foster spontaneous purchases as shoppers see other items of interest. This document serves as an initial project analysis intended to provide a description of the proposed project. The document includes the background and history of the downtown revitalization efforts, an evaluation of the identified site, abstract of a project program, conceptual cost estimates and a financial proposal, and estimated approval process, project phasing schedule, and time line of the potential project. This document may serve as the initial prospectus for the beginning of a public project that will serve as the catalyst for the revitalization of downtown Port Orchard and begin the exciting improvement and transformation of a unique waterfront City. Background & History The revitalization efforts of the City of Port Orchard have been a goal of the citizens and the City officials for many decades. Previous Port Orchard planning documents have all supported the downtown revitalization efforts and identified goals, objectives, and policies that would support a project such as the Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project. A brief list of the previous documents and sections that support the proposed project are included below: 2965 Port Orchard Urban Area Plan Collaboration by the City of Port Orchard, School District 402, and Kitsap County In late 1965 and early 1966 a cooperative planning process between the City of Port Orchard, School District 402, and Kitsap County yielded a General Plan to guide future development for both the urban and rural areas of South Kitsap. Residing within an area considered as one of the remaining frontiers of contemporary urban settlement in the United States, the citizens of the Planning Area undertook a Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofporlorchard.us Page 4 of 39 planning program to prevent the haphazard urban growth which has occurred in many areas of the Puget Sound Region. The 1965 Plan recognized the increasing pressure for urban growth and provides a scheme for the future designed to accommodate new people in the Planning Area while protecting the beauty and character of South Kitsap County cherished by its inhabitants." The City of Port Orchard was recognized as the "continuing dominant commercial and cultural center of South Kitsap County, to be enhanced by an expanded and unique waterfront oriented, community commercial center which will provide a new variety of quality goods and services. Gorst, Manchester, Southworth, Long Lake, Olalla, and Burley are recommended as outlying convenience commercial centers to serve and compliment the population immediately surrounding them." 1995 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Produced by City of Port Orchard The City of Port Orchard and many other cities and counties in Washington State updated or develop new Comprehensive Plans in compliance with the Growth Management Act of 1991 The 1995 Plan coordinated with Kitsap County and ensured that implementation policies and mechanisms were consistent between jurisdictions. The focus of the plan included Capital Facilities, Utilities and Open Space, Housing, Transportation and Land Use, and Growth Management and Vision. The Plan provided downtown revitalization goals, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies to help define the City's direction. 2005 Port Orchard Economic Development Plan Produced by EDAW, Incorporated and Property Counselors In 2003, the City applied for and obtained a grant from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to conduct a market analysis for downtown Port Orchard and develop a plan for the redevelopment. The 2005 Economic Development Plan was a product of that work and evaluated demographic and economic trends to identify future changes in the South Kitsap area that may affect the economic development of the downtown area in terms of how visitors and local residents use the space and when or where they connect to the place and to each other. The study notes that the area has a rich history reflected by original buildings in the retail core and connections to the natural environment. Opportunities include: creative re -use of existing structures, facade improvements, historic markers, environmental education signs, creation of plazas and meeting spaces, and increasing residential uses near to the retail core to add potential shoppers within walking distances. The plan identified catalyst projects that represented specific ways that these principles can be implemented for the successful economic development of downtown Port Orchard The Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project includes the application of a combination of primary Principles identified in the Economic Development Plan and maximizes the economy of scale by providing these improvements in one public project. • Principle #2: Provide Public Investment to Stimulate Private Reinvestment: • Principle #7: Foster New Development • Principle #8: Enhance Downtown as the Center of Activity Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 5 of 39 • Principle #9: Attract Interest with Education and Interpretation • Principle #10: Enhance Greenspace and Walkability The Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project also includes the application of a combination of key catalyst projects identified in the Economic Development Plan including: • Project #14 Build New Library with Meeting Rooms and Activity Center • Project #15 Relocate City Library and Reuse Site for Retail and Restaurant • Project #17 Expand and Enhance Pedestrian Connections • Protect #18 Enhance Waterfront Parking Lot, and • Project #19 Extend and Enhance Waterfront Greenwav, 2007 Port Orchard Parking Feasibility Study: Downtown Overlay District Produced by Art Anderson, Associates The City of Port Orchard tasked Art Anderson Associates to conduct a study to evaluate access, circulation and parking issues in the City's downtown area and to prepare a feasibility study based on the scope of work. The study was intended to be comprehensive, factoring in development scenarios described in the Economic Development Plan produced in 2004 and include minimum and full build -out scenarios under the proposed Downtown Overlay District Ordinance. Minimum build -out includes development of 50%of all soft and medium properties. Soft properties are vacant land or buildings; medium properties may be dilapidated but still have an active business; hard properties are buildings in good condition with an active business or residence. Maximum build -out assumes all properties will be developed to maximum potential. The results of the study as briefed at both Public Forums include the following conclusions: • Approximately 794 parking spaces will be required to accommodate potential minimum build -out development with waterfront parking removed. • Approximately 1,172 parking spaces will be required to accommodate potential full build - out development with waterfront parking removed. • The above requirements are reduced by approximately 300 parking spaces if waterfront parking is not removed. • No changes in existing traffic/road configurations are necessary to assure proper access and circulation to/within DOD Core Zone. • Improvements to roads outside the DOD are required to reduce traffic volume on Bay Street to allow it to become more pedestrian -friendly. Virtually all public input expressed some degree of support for economic development of the Downtown Overlay District. Common themes expressed during the public process included: • Waterfront parking should be reduced, concentrated or eliminated and be replaced with green space and park amenities. • Business owners emphasized the need for higher -density development along Bay Street to make development projects viable. • Traffic flow on Bay Street should be reduced to facilitate a more pedestrian friendly downtown. The 2007 Art Anderson Associates Port Orchard Parking Feasibility Study: Downtown Overlay District document recommend that the City select sites for a due diligence study for a parking structure, Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 6 of 39 incorporate retail/residential/business development within the DOD be accomplished in conjunction with and adjacent to new parking structures, and the City reduce, concentrate, or eliminate existing waterfront parking, replacing it with green space and park amenities, in conjunction with construction of the selected parking structure and related development. 2007 Creation of the Downtown Overlay District Produced by the City of Port Orchard The City of Port Orchard created a special district overlay designation to facilitate the specific goals and policies of downtown revitalization and to identify special opportunities for achieving public benefits by permitting or requiring alternative uses and development standards that differ from the underlying zoning designations. The fourteen "Purposes" of the Downtown Overlay District were developed with extensive public input in 2005-2006. The vision of downtown is a vibrant center for transportation, culture, civic government, commerce, retail, and recreation. The specific purposes of the Downtown Overlay District were to: • Implement the land use goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. • Provide for the development of an integrated mixed use downtown district that contains office, service, retail, residential and recreational uses within close proximity to one another. • Encourage imaginative site and building design and development while maintaining view corridors and a small town feel. • Identify significant environmental impacts and ensure appropriate mitigation with attention to sustainable or low -impact development. • Encourage environmentally sustainable development. • Promote economic development and job creation in the City. • Encourage energy conservation in building design and layout. • Promote an integrated system of pedestrian -friendly walkways and parking areas. • Enhance the City's waterfront character while maintaining the maritime presence. • Encourage the development of buildings with ground floor retail with office uses and residential uses above. • Promote a walkable community by encouraging the development of public open spaces, waterfront access, and pedestrian -friendly walkways. • Locate and combine parking areas in order to minimize the number of points of access to and from Bay Street. • Encourage architectural and site designs that serve as gathering places in wet and dry conditions. • Promote greater public transportation availability within Port Orchard and across Sinclair Inlet during the evening hours to improve access to/from the DOD. Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 7 of 39 24,244E 27-24-IE� I �_ - CRYOF PORT OROHMO: DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DismcTS Q�-- 4�•!- ��•••••• `+�2"'� 1 T Y •T City of Port Orchard 2007 Down Town Overlay District Additional documents that may have influence in the interaction and development of the town center revitalization project would include: the 1983-1985 Port Orchard Waterfront Revitalization and Urban Waterfront Walkway Project Plan, the 1998 City of Port Orchard Pedestrian Plan, the 1998 Port Orchard Downtown Design Charrette and Action Plan, the 1999 Downtown Port Orchard Suggestions for Revitalization, and the 2008 draft Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update. These documents have guided the City in determining the vision and direction of the revitalization efforts of the City of Port Orchard. The action by City Council to select a site further implements the goals, objectives, and policies for the Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project. Site Description Although many sites were considered by the 2007 Art Anderson Associates, Port Orchard Parking Feasibility Study, six potential parking structures were identified. For the study, all of the parking sites were considered to be three stories for the purpose of illustration and appearance only... Many potential sites were evaluated, and of the several developed below, there remains the possibility of moving a proposed building around on the site or increasing the number of stories. The proposed site Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus w .cityofportorchard.us Page 8 of 39 selected by the Port Orchard City Council on October 14, 2008 (Resolution 048-08) is identified as Site #3 within the Port Orchard Parking Feasibility Study: Downtown Overlay District. The City Council selected site #3 is located on Prospect Street and is adjacent to Kitsap Street and Sidney Avenue via Council Resolution 048-08, but exempting the Sidney Gallery & Museum site via City Council Resolution 009-10. Since the site is on the hillside it was identified that the structure can be mostly underground with the library located at grade with the surrounding structures and streetscape. Having the location south of and not on Bay Street is a plus. Its central location to the DOD Core Zone has the potential to stimulate development in the core business district, specifically along Bay Street between Frederick and Sidney. The structure could be relatively concealed from the core business district and partially underground. While this site would likely be relatively expensive because of the extensive excavation required, it could provide direct support to businesses along the South side of Bay Street via a mall access from the lowest garage level. The site configuration was identified as may not optimal for a parking structure without the use of adjacent City owned right-of-way for egress, and construction. The site based on Option 1 has an estimated capacity of 300 cars, and 450 cars based on Option 2 (additional underground parking). Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 9 of 39 Project Description The Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project is composed of multiple components including an underground 300 space parking structure, potential for 7,500 square feet of retail space, a new 13,500 square foot City Library with associated meeting spaces, and a pedestrian plaza/civic space along the Prospect Street corridor as well as on the roof of the proposed buildings. Cost Estimates The proposed Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project could include a conceptual costs ranging from $24 to $35 million dollars depending upon the alternatives chosen in the final design and the amount of retail and library space proposed. The potential project was segmented into three development phases; Phase 1: Acquisition and Entitlements, Phase 2 Parking Structure Construction, and Phase 3 Retail and City Library Construction. Hard Costs and Soft cost would be identified for each portion of the proposed project phase. Phase 1 Acquisition and Entitlements The Acquisition and entitlements phase includes the project soft costs including financing, acquisition costs of the parcel assemblage, the design and land use permitting associated with the project, and the preparation of the project for construction. In 2007, the City of Port Orchard purchased and has secured ownership of one parcel, (APN 4650-015-003-0109) that comprises 0.19 acres of the proposed site. Pre -design and entitlement costs are estimated at generally 2% of construction costs. Design is estimated at 10%of construction costs. Construction Management could be estimated at 7%of construction costs. Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 10 of 39 Phase 2 Parking Structure Constructions Within the 2007 Art Anderson Associates Port Orchard Parking Feasibility Study, parking structure construction cost estimates were prepared for all six parking structure locations. The cost estimates within this prospectus include costs for only the parking structure portion for the Site locations #3. As site 3 has a different topographic format from all the other structures, a sketch of its profile is provided below. Construction Cost estimates were estimated in the $45-$65 range based upon national data bases. Costs vary by complexity of construction and the need for artificial lighting and ventilations. r', i La..rtn.LP i IWO rl v I j I f l i I I 1 1 �� iIWdAI � I I l i � I 6TCrjj1 f� i r p lj 1 i ,T i i f I �•� 41 Art Anderson Associates Port Orchard Parking Feasibility Study; Appendix H Phase 3: City Library Construction The City of Port Orchard library proposal is based upon the discussion with the Kitsap Regional Library and providing the similar capacity, square footage, improvements, and quality of construction as noted for the construction of a similar facility for the City of Poulsbo. The Poulsbo library proposal construction was 13,500 square feet of remodeled space is anticipated to provide a basis of construction estimate at a minimum of $125 per square foot. Further analysis would be required for a Phase 3library and retail space cost estimate as the project phase is further identified. Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 11 of 39 Financing Options A successful program for this proposed economic development project requires the cooperation and involvement of many players and leadership with a vision of the future that will pull people, agencies, and opportunities together to make it happen. A number of financing options may be available for both portions of the project including the acquisition and entitlements phase, the parking structure construction phase, and the city library construction phase. The most viable financing sources for the all or a portion of the project may include: 1. The Port of Bremerton, a major stakeholder that needs approximately 100 spaces, has indicated a desire to provide commensurate funding of portions of one or more parking structures. 2. Federal funding through Congressional earmarks or programs. 3. Kitsap Transit, another major stakeholder that could seek funding through many sources to support transit improvements and parking requirements for bus and ferry users. 4. Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority, as the Port Orchard designated development authority for New Market Tax Credits and which can pursue both low interest loans and grants in conjunction with arrangements with private developers. S. The City of Port Orchard, which can obtain funds via a bond issue, sale of the existing library parcel, and pursue grants and loans on its own. Additional possible funding opportunities may include 6. Washington State Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) funding opportunities 7. Potential New Market Tax Credit financing 8. Potential Federal Economic Stimulus financing 9. Potential Federal Appropriations 10. Potential Public / Private Partnerships 11. Potential Community Development Block Grant and other potential funding sources. Directly allocating tax revenues may possibly be an effective stimulus for either redevelopment or economic development. General funds, local sales tax, and bond measures can be excellent sources of funding for projects that enable additional development to occur. Direct tax revenue funding is often limited to infrastructural improvements, property acquisition, and related programs and staffing. As such, these investments often set the stage for additional private investment and interest. In many cases, directing these funding sources to particular projects or targeted areas requires voter approval, but this technique can be a powerful tool for revitalization. More complete funding investigations and identification of funding sources will be provided as the project continues. Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 12 of 39 Construction Schedules / Project Phasing Construction of the parking structure, with the full option with underground excavation, could take 18 months due to the necessary utility rerouting. These timeframes assume permits are issued and no other development occurs except the structure. Any schedule that includes both the library and the parking structure must accommodate many of the tasks that must be considered when the decision is made to move forward with site development. The intermediate task completion dates and final delivery date are dependent on the start date. Additionally, the amount of time for some tasks, especially the permitting, design and construction periods, could increase depending on public input and possible appeals of the land use decisions. Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 13 of 39 RESOLUTION NO. 048-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, IDENTIFYING A PREFERRED SITE FOR A DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE WHEREAS, in 2007 the City commissioned the preparation of a feasibility study to evaluate traffic and parking issues within the Downtown Overlay District (DOD); and WHEREAS, the "Port Orchard Parking Feasibility Study: Downtown Overlay District" (Anderson Associates; October 18, 2007) identified six potential parking structure sites; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on October 14, 2008 for the purpose of receiving public comment regarding the options discussed in the parking feasibility study and the City Council intends that there will be future opportunities for the public to comment as the process continues for determining a final site, as well as addressing design and financing issues; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the public comment and its own deliberations regarding the options for a downtown parking structure; now, therefore; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: THAT: the City Council has identified parking structure site #3 on Prospect Street (adjacent to Kitsap Street and Sidney Avenue) as its preferred site based in part on its proximity to downtown Port Orchard and its potential to be built entirely or partially underground; and FURTHER THAT: The Public Works Director is authorized to obtain preliminary geotechnical data to determine the site's suitability. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, SIGNED by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this 14th day Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 14 of 39 Introduced by: Drafted by: Reviewed by: Introduced: Adopted: RESOLUTION NO. oog-10 Development Director Development Director Development Director February g, 2010 February q, 2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, EXCLUDING THE SIDNEY GALLERY AND MUSEUM, PARCEL NUMBER 4650-015-013-02o6, FROM CONSIDERATION AS A PREFERRED SITE FOR A DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE WHEREAS, in 2007 the City commissioned the preparation of a feasibility study to evaluate traffic and parking issues within the Downtown Overlay District (DOD); and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the public comment and its own deliberations regarding a downtown parking structure and approved Resolution 048-08 designating a Preferred Site for a Downtown Parking Garage. WHEREAS, in consideration of the requests from the Sidney Gallery and Museum Board and the expressed public opinion regarding the civic value of the Sidney Gallery and Museum located at 202 Sidney Avenue and identified as Assessor Parcel Number 4650-015-013-0206; and WHEREAS, the City Council supports the Board efforts to pursue potential future designation of a historical status for the Sidney Gallery and Museum located at 202 Sidney Avenue; now, therefore; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: THAT: the City Council has identified that the site selection for a downtown parking garage shall specifically exclude the Sidney Gallery and Museum, located at 202 Sidney Avenue and identified as Assessor Parcel Number 4650-015-013- 0206. FURTHER THAT: This resolution is an expression of the sentiment of the City Council at this point at time and shall Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 15 of 39 Resolution No. oog-lo 2 Of not be identified as an instrument that may bind the future decisions of this or a future City Council. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, SIGNED by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this 9th day of February 2010. A T: Patricia J. Ki atrick, CMC, City Clerk Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus w .cityofportorchard.us Page 16 of 39 Coppola Asks Port to Partner with Port Orchard on Parking Garage By Chris Henry Friday, May 8, 2009 PORT ORCHARD — Port Orchard Mayor Lary Coppola has asked the Port of Bremerton to help finance the city's proposed Town Center Revitalization Project, but the response has been less than favorable. The proposed project includes a parking garage, new library and community meeting space on a campus -like setting. In a letter dated May 6 to port commission president Cheryl Kincer, Coppola asked the port to cover half the cost of the Town Center, currently estimated at $18 million. Coppola, in his letter, said there was an informal agreement made before he took office that the port would help finance the parking garage. The city plans to move parking off the waterfront and create a public park there. Coppola said the port had agreed to purchase parking spaces in the new structure. In his letter, Coppola cited the port's investment the Bremerton Marina expansion and its intention to purchase property from Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority for a Bremerton parking garage, saying now it's Port Orchard's turn Coppola estimated the port's total investment in Bremerton, including the cost of the parking lot property, to be $17.38 million. By comparison, he said, the port "has not spent any sizable amount of money in Port Orchard in almost a decade." "They've spent an enormous amount in downtown Bremerton," said Coppola. "We feel strongly that downtown Bremerton is not the only place they should be looking to provide economic development." Both Kincer and South Kitsap Port Commissioner Larry Stokes took strong exception to the implication that Port Orchard has been neglected by the port. Commissioner Bill Mahan was unavailable for comment. "I was appalled and disappointed when I read the letter," said Kincer. "I'm insulted to think that the mayor didn't think we're committed to making an investment in the City of Port Orchard and South Kitsap." Kincer cited "millions" spent on Port Orchard since she took office in 1998. Projects she noted include improvements to the port's waterfront park and gazebo, upgrades to the fuel dock, replacement last year of a fuel tank, improvements to the boardwalk and harbormaster's office, as well as the port's contribution to festivals promoting the city's tourism. Shortly before Kincer took office, the port invested heavily in a compete rebuild and expansion of the Port Orchard Marina. Stokes said he, too, was taken aback by the mayor's lack of recognition for the port's contributions to Port Orchard. He also resented the tone of Coppola's request. "Rather than trying to work together, he's trying to shove all these things down our throat," said Stokes. "He's like a bull in a china closet, and I'm not going to put up with it." Stokes brought up tension that resulted last year when Coppola, backed by the city council, demanded a role in providing sewer to the South Kitsap Industrial Area. Much of the area is owned by the port. Port Orchard's position complicated negotiations on annexation of SKIA into the City of Bremerton. The matter of who will provide sewer to the area has not yet been resolved. "He's decaying the relationship between the Port of Bremerton and the City of Port Orchard," Stokes said. Kincer questioned the "agreement" Coppola cited saying no such guarantee has been made during her tenure. Port Orchard City Councilman John Clausen said there was discussion between port and city officials late in former Mayor Kim Abel's tenure in which the port expressed willingness to pay for its share of parking spaces in the garage, but he did not recall commitment of a specific percentage or amount. Clauson said he knew Coppola planned to write the letter, but he said it did not necessarily represent the council's views. Kincer said Coppola's estimate of the port's recent and proposed spending on Bremerton includes a figure for a real estate purchase currently under negotiation with the housing authority. She objected to Coppola's citing the figure in his letter, which was sent to members of the press, especially considering he serves on the housing authority's board. Becky Swanson, the port's chief financial officer, said the port currently has a capacity of $13,429,362, with another $3,525,000 in capacity to become available at the end of the year. There's also an additional $10,955,000 available by the end of 2012. "Just because the port has a debt capacity does not mean it has an identifiable source of revenue to repay the debt," Swanson said. oil © 2007 Kitsap Sun Downturn won't deter downtown By CHARLIE BERMANT Port Orchard Independent Staff Writer Dec 10, 2008, 11:38 AM Plans for a downtown parking garage and community center in downtown Port Orchard are proceeding, even in the face of severe economic conditions and a building slowdown. "We're looking for funding sources that are not affected by the housing market," said Port Orchard Development Director James Weaver. "And grant money is available." While the vision is for a thriving downtown with a waterfront park and vibrant retail, the path toward this goal is prosaic. In order for downtown Port Orchard to grow, there needs to be a place to park. The Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project, which is now available on the city's Web site, begins with an underground parking structure to be constructed along Prospect Street. Once complete, the city can develop the waterfront, which is now used predominantly for parking, into a public park. City officials believe these steps will directly lead to a vital Port Orchard. And they are now laying the groundwork by continuing the planning process. "It's important to keep planning these steps," Weaver said, "so whatever happens, the staff will have something to work on." After farming out much of the grant application work, the city expects to bring it in house and delegate it to Weaver's staff. The steps will run concurrently. The first goal is the funding search, to be followed by site acquisition and design. The Prospect Street site still needs testing, in order to make sure it can accommodate underground parking. Once completed, the city will need to acquire some property in order to build the structure. In a related matter, Port Orchard Mayor Lary Coppola recently sent out a letter to local residents saying the city was not currently involved in any site acquisition and that any real estate developer claiming to act on the city's behalf for land purchases is lying. Weaver calls the parking garage "a catalyst project" that will stimulate downtown development. And removing parking from the waterfront in favor of a park will cost the city less due to money paid to the Department of Natural Resources. Depending on the design, the parking structure would house from 724 to 1,172 cars. It would be constructed underneath a community center that most likely would contain a library. The current library building, which the city owns, would be turned Into a retail store or a restaurant. Like the funding, the timing is also up in the air. The city estimates it will take three to five years to complete. After the grants are secured the public will have the opportunity to testify during the design and land acquisition process according to Weaver. "The draft prospectus document is intended to serve the city of Port Orchard for funding purposes in a conceptual manner and as a living document," Weaver wrote in a press release. "It will be updated as new information becomes available and as new funding sources are identified. The city of Port Orchard encourages public Input and review relating to the community desires as this project is conceptually explored." The statement goes on to project the new Port Orchard library structure could also contain 7,500 square feet of retail space and a pedestrian/vehicular boulevard that could be used for street fairs or farmer's markets on the Prospect Street right-of-way. Additional public plazas may be possible on the roof of these structures for panoramic views of the bay and the city. As the economy slides, Weaver said that Port Orchard could benefit from the WPA-like public works program, outlined this weekend by President-elect Barack Obama. "This has been a long time coming," Weaver said. "We benefited from the great infrastructure push in the 1960s and 1970s, but since then we have only maintained our failing infrastructure. This plan reflects a much -needed investment in our future." Port Orchard Independent Staff Writer Charlie Bermant can be reached at cbermant@portorchardindependent.com or (360) 576-4414. Parking garage the key to Bay Street redevelopment By LARY COPPOLA Port Orchard Independent Contributor Jul 02 2009, 4:07 PM UPDATED Bob Meadows has provided what is perhaps the most articulate argument to date against the idea of constructing a new parking garage in downtown Port Orchard. His June 26 column ("Would a parking lot revitalize Bay Street?") demonstrates the usual analytical skills and common sense logic he applies to most subjects. However, Bob is apparently unaware of a few facts that could make a difference in his view of the need for the proposed garage. There has been lots of private sector interest in the redevelopment of downtown. The economy has put a damper on a large part of it — for now — but the economy is cyclical, so the interest will return when the economic climate improves because the Port Orchard waterfront offers one of the last redevelopment opportunities in the Puget Sound region. For starters, one appropriate economic development generator for downtown would be a grocery store — something significantly larger than a mini -mart, but smaller than a Safeway or Albertsons. Downtown residents and visiting boaters alike have clamored for one for years. The nearest grocery store is approximately for miles away. Another is a full -service marine supply store. Located within sight of hundreds of boats, this would seem like a no-brainer, since the nearest ones are in East Bremerton and Gig Harbor. Two different grocery chains and a major marine supply retailer have expressed interest in locating outlets here. At the invitation of the city, they have sent representatives to have a look at Port Orchard and have met with me, city staff, and a small number of downtown merchants. However, all cited the lack of parking as the main reason for declining to locate here. All have indicated that if the parking problem were solved, they would be open to revisiting the possibilities. When shown the proposed design of the garage and asked if that would be an acceptable solution, all answered in the affirmative. Likewise, there have been several developers who have attempted to purchase large parts of our downtown for redevelopment. The major interest has been in developing mixed -use projects (retail at the Bay Street level and residential and business uses above) that would include purchasing all of the buildings on Bay Street between Sidney and Frederick Streets. There has been great interest to do this on both sides of Bay Street from different developers, but the main obstacles have been a refusal by three specific property owners to sell — and, of course, parking. However, there have also been proposed projects that could go forward even without the buildings where the owners are declining to sell. City development rules dictate that new residential units must have 1.5 parking stalls per unit. This means given the confines of the space available, it would be difficult to redevelop profitably. However, given the opportunity to purchase stalls in the proposed parking garage — especially on the upland side of Bay Street — developers acknowledge the projects once again become financially viable. As far as the library is concerned, the city owns the building that houses the library and is legally obligated to provide a location for it. It is also a major downtown pedestrian traffic generator, with more than 22,000 visitors per month. However, the library is bursting at the seams, needing considerably more space, and the building is in a major state of disrepair. It would cost more to repair it properly than the building is worth on the open market - which is not a prudent use of the taxpayer's hard-earned money. One existing downtown merchant has indicated significant interest in purchasing the library building at appraised value, tearing it down, and constructing a new building to house and expand their very successful business. In the meantime, they would lease the existing facility back to the city at a favorable rate until the new library is ready. Also included in the parking garage proposal is a community center and meeting room - something the city currently lacks, and sorely needs. The Boys & Girls Club has also indicated great interest in locating a Hope Center on the site and committing a seven -figure dollar amount to the project. It's not a case of "if' downtown redevelopment will occur, but "when." That's why we need to be vigilant in our efforts to plan for, and prepare in advance, so we can make the most of the opportunity when it presents itself. We have made great strides in that effort so far. The citizens have determined they want building heights restricted and existing views preserved. They have made it clear they want to preserve the small town character of our downtown. The city responded by passing the Downtown Overlay District (DOD) ordinance, which limits building heights to 39 feet maximum on the waterfront side of Bay Street and 55 feet maximum on the upland side, while implementing design standards for new construction that maintain a historic flavor. The permitting process has been completely overhauled so it is now the fastest in the county, as well as easy and certain. While development rules will not be bent and are strictly enforced, they no longer change in the middle of a project, either — something Port Orchard had a bad reputation for doing in the past, and significantly reduced interest in downtown redevelopment. The parking garage is the missing piece, and will be the glue to bind all of these efforts together. Financing will come through a combination of sources — some public, such as the federal and state government, grants, partnerships with other local public agencies, and low -interest loans. Other funding will come from private sector sources, such as developers proposing downtown projects that require additional parking. Port Orchard residents will also get a new downtown waterfront park that will generate additional pedestrian traffic, which will result in increased business for downtown merchants and increased sales tax revenue for the city. Given all of these facts, it appears to the city that the proposed garage, library and community center is a win -win situation that will allow our town to grow in a way we have control of, and preserve our small town atmosphere without leaving us at the mercy of outside developers who don't have our long term best interests at heart. Lary Coppola is the mayor of Port Orchard. Three Kitsap Projects in Line to Get Big Federal Loans By Bryan Grimley Wednesday, July 29, 2009 BREMERTON — Projects in Poulsbo, Silverdale and Port Orchard could get a jump start if they are approved for a combined $5 million in loans from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Members of the executive board of the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council heard presentations on those projects, along with a fourth planned for Bainbridge Island, on Wednesday. The board recommended the three be considered by HUD officials for $5.7 million that is available to the county under the Section 108 loan guarantee program. The Poulsbo request is from Westbury Inc., which wants $2 million to help build a plant to manufacture security and safety barriers systems primarily for airports; the Silverdale request comes from the county, which would use $1 million to help build a YMCA there the city of Port Orchard asked for $2 million to support a downtown revitalization project; and Martha and Mary asked for $1.5 million to help build a 12-suite rehabilitation facility on Bainbridge Island. That adds up to $6.5 million, which is why the council had to whittle the list down This is only the second time in recent history that the county has used the loan guarantee program, according to Shelley Kneip, attorney for the Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office. Previously, Section 108 loan money was used for renovations at the Admiral Theatre in Bremerton, she said. The county is responsible for paying back the low -interest loans and has to pledge current and future Community Development Block Grant allocations to cover the loan amount as security. To ensure the county is not on the hook for the loan payments, applicants had to prove they could pay back the total amount, or provide enough collateral to cover the cost. The benefit of the Section 108 loan program is it does not affect an agency's bonding authority, and provides flexibility to help a community jump-start development in areas that need it most, said Shannon Bauman, block grant program planner. To be eligible, applicants must meet Community Development Block Grant rules and regulations, as well as at least one of three national objectives: the project must benefit low- and moderate -income people, help to eliminate "slum and blight," or meet the urgent needs of the community. The regional council board determined the Poulsbo project and the Silverdale project were the two most prepared to move forward and suggested they receive the full amounts requested. County Commissioner Josh Brown expressed uncertainty about the city of Port Orchard's plan to repay the loan. Other board members echoed those concerns, which Mayor Lary Coppola — also a KRCC member — said was agreeable. The board stipulated the loans must be repaid in 10 years and that the projects must be ready to go no later than September 2010. Because the Martha and Mary project was not ready for immediate implementation, the board committed to supporting the project later. The three projects are now subject to a financial review by an independent financial consultant, which will make sure their payment plan is feasible. A 30-day comment period and a public hearing will also take place before a final loan application is sent to HUD. A second public hearing will be held once the funds are received. The Projects The projects recommended to receive Section 108 loans from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development include: Westbury Inc.: The company plans to build in Poulsbo's Twelve Trees Industrial Park, where it will manufacture security and safety barriers systems primarily for airports. It plans to employ 100 people, of which more than half will be from the low- to moderate - income bracket. Jobs would start at $16 an hour, plus benefits. The company requested $2 million, and will provide the remaining $500,000 it needs to get started. Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project: The city of Port Orchard requested $2 million to help with the purchase of land needed for the construction of an underground parking garage and new library on Prospect Street. The cost of the parking garage, including land acquisition and design is $5.3 million. The cost of the overall downtown revitalization project is estimated at $36.6 million. Kitsap County Silverdale Campus YMCA: The county requested $ I million for the proposed Silverdale YMCA. The county previously committed $5 million for the estimated $15 million project, which is projected to be between 50,000- and 70,000-square feet. The remaining $10 million will be funded by the YMCA of Pierce/Kitsap County. The new facility would create 74 full-time positions once open, of which 56 will be for low- to moderate -income individuals. il.A 0 2007 Kitsap Sun PROJECHIMEUNE AND PUBLIC INPUT OPPORRINMES: II PORTORCHARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN II PORTORCHARD PARKING SITE FEASIBILITY CITY COUNCIL i SELECTS SITE 3 AS PREFERRED = PORTORCHARD WR TOWN CENTER FUNDING RM PROSPECTUS CEO " r CONCEPTUAL DESIGN & SITE ACQUISITION PROCESS PRELIMINARY I I PROJECT DESIGN & DESIGN CONTRACT DOD PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS/ BUILDING PERMIT y� PUBLIC BID FOR l�liLS CONSTRUCTION The City of Port Orchard is a growing community with an ex- pected population growth to double by 2025. The Port Or- chard Town Center is proposed to include a much needed new City Library, a public plaza for community events such as the farmers market, serve as a catalyst for the waterfront park, and provide the much needed downtown parking for the port, local residents, community businesses, and down- town revitalization efforts. .EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Implements crucial elements of the 2005 Port Orchard Economic Development Plan, 2007 Parking Feasibility Study, 2007 Downtown Over- lay District, & 2009 Comprehensive Plan. • Project to be designed and constructed In Two Phases: Phase I: 400• Underground Parking Structure. Phase II: 13,500 Square Foot Library and Com- munity Center, 7,500 Square Foot Retail Space & Public Plaza. • Port of Bremerton reservation of 100 parking stalls for replacement of waterfront parking. • City of Port Orchard committed $500,000 in 2007 to purchase key Prospect Street parcel. • Total Project Cost Estimated at $35 Million with contingencies ($24 Million Phase I Parking Ga- rage and $7 Million Phase II Library/Public Plaza. • City of Port Orchard actively seeking Federal, State, and public/private funding alternatives. PROJECT #14: build New Library with Meeting Rooms or Activity Center LOCATION: Area 4rp Retail Core TTAAC CDAME: Mid term (3 to 9years) RESPONSIBILITY: City Bite Oar, -For p=rop ed library ECONOMIC BENEFIT: the proposed new library could be located in the Waterfront Paris. and support economic development of the downtown [iy encouraging more activity. The building could: Provide a location for Parke and Recreation and activities Provide a new library facility as a gathering place -For community cultural events. t Pro,nde a rental pavilion for weddings, reunio" and family event, CWah rental incorne to the city to cover a dmi.nl,�Vrative cam) Provide an all-weather sheker to foster use of the com~Uy park during all he. van_ DESCRIPTION: Relocation of the existing library from the water$ont location would release that site for other development and could provide {bnds for library development. the proposed now library would be. located ac�aceni to the waterfront park resCroom building and could be combined with meeting roa or a community activities facility. "Isis combined facility, together with the existing park and amphitheater, would farm the cultural heart of the city within a beauti-N landscaped waterfront site. STEPS: one: City to vw.-�tiga[e oPttoi to sell or le_a- the exviting library site -For development by the Port or private developers_ two: City to develop d� far the library. tNW: City io obtain grants or issue bonds for cor,4r ion Ara" - fmr: City to ovex covvtri ion of new building - Port Orchard economic development plan RAT Cityh Cost value Priority ,.. r Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 17 of 39 i PROJECT #15: Relocate City Library and Reu"e 4izz for Retail and kosAaurant LOCATION: Area +gyp Retail Core TIME FRAME: Mid-term RESPONSIBILITY: City and Private sector INOMIC BENEFIT: The library site ih an ideal location -For a sty of uses to attract additional waterfront users and vihitors wi o surrort other retail shoes and businesses. The current use does maximi2e the economic benefits of thth Prime location. DESCRIPTION: The library currently ocouries a building originally used as a post o-FAoo. Thih building !h approximately 7,000-8,000 square feet in site and ocoufi� a 0.3 acre site owned by the City. The library site i well situated at the end of Sidney Avenue with Iramatic views of the waterfront. Thih location, immediately ad�pcent ko the foot ferry and near the marina, offers a Prime orrortunity to views. � or retail use. both uses might include a co-Fn.e stand or take-out ood for ferry users and commuters, a small grocery store for marina sitors, and/or a quality restaurant to take advantage of the location t: City to identify the preferred develorment f arawoters. tMO: City to evaluate sale of site to Provide Ainds for a new library. thm: City to solicit development proposals. Port Orchard economic development plan RATING: Law _ Medium Hiyh City e Coat Value;, Prtorlti Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cilyofportorchard.us Page 18 of 39 C24 PROJECT ##19: Extend and enhance Waterfront Gre enway LOCATION: Areas ei through 4 TIME FRAME: Long term C& io 10 years) RESPONSIBILITY: City, Parks and Recreation Department extend exietin,3 development ECONOMIC BENEFIT: The proposed enhancement of the boardwalk. to become a Waterfront Gremnway would provide a continuous connection throughout the Downtown area that would: • Link, each of the 4 sub -areas of the Downtown VIAr-ict Pro✓iAe. pedestrian accesn throughout the area Encourage, public use of the water -Prow, Encourage pedestrian us- of the downtom retail core DESCRIPTION: The exivting boardwalk and Waterfront parks were built by the Port District in recent years. Under this program, the boardwalk would be extended west to the public dock and east to the City- new park. on Placklade Creek_. Land"ni q and interpretive sign- (se- Environmental Education Sign Program Proe--o would male- this Wa- terfront Greenway an attractiv- destination for residents and visitors. STEPS: One: coordinate with property owners as development occurs to obtain easements or to have improvements installed. iWo: explore -Feasibility of pedestrian bridgo over blackJacK. Creek 'i2V : design and construct improvements Port Orchard economic development plan Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsedus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 19 of 39 2 « � 0— � 2 w x (L O LU w U_ � z 0 z 0 U W CL O � « x U � O � � 0 (L 4 Cd \ Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project __m; Propsectus _ ___ Page 20,m City of Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project ART ANDERSON ASSOCIATES VALVE BEYOND ENGINEERING - 2007 Study r Port Orchard Padlip Fe.cIhad, Study: Down/tox OOOW.y Dlablcl �/�APW eAe MD[RS.cOX AFFOCIATFF Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 21 of 39 e 11 Site6 m L*, I ell View Looking North from Kitsap St. 0PwAN M—M ASS9 ES Sms a��.. View from Balcony on 319 Sidney E/ AE a i�o°.EEsox ASSOCIATEE Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 23 of 39 View Along Prospect 0AXTe MOEIISON AMSOCIA)ES View From Alley Looking North Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 24 of 39 View From Alley Looking North 0AM`AH�UeRfOH A550<ITES View of Garage Entrance from Bay St. MTi�o�irwMM Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 25 of 39 N01530 NOILYZI 11AW V31N30 NMOL '� 1 0 7 3 ONVNOUO LIM !O A110 - _ /I - _ - - - - _ _ - _ - - �I Cj l s go �r / \\ 4/ 7y i�p LL .i Jm 1 � ,ey � - g► W ZH IL LU I 1 1 1 1 ` I33WslJ3dsoad u� 1 Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 26 of 39 JINOIS30 NOUVZIIVMA3tl tl31N30 NMOl 30F?4 n I.I OtltlNOMO A20d 90 AAIO ® � s w 1 a J W w t G a o m a o G a N o 0 y o e =0�► o a a a LL� $ LL a a '^ n a p fcc wzz am IL >y d b G VA s. O 00 Q no q a4 e a e Q a e Q a 0 6 i Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us February 2010 Page 27 of 39 _ Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February m, Propsectus _ _«_ Page a«e �f 0_ L� g _ NOISBO NOIlVZ11Vl1A3N HUN30 NMOl C ;: �` V, � i. GHWIOVO lllOd JO ALM > r J p l $�� 3 9 J Z anxvvuxms . a u = > v~ai v~i a i Z ~t _ 4` am / ill - =-- ® 4,7 -A o _ Q 0 / a -- - - - - - - - --- \ 133tl15ll3d50tlE \. _I . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus w .cityofportorchard.us Page 29 of 39 Coppola Asks Port to Partner with Port Orchard on Parking Garage By Chris Henry Friday, May 8, 2009 PORT ORCHARD Port Orchard Mayor Lary Coppola has asked the Port of Bremerton to help finance the city's proposed Town Center Revitalization Project, but the response has been less than favorable. The proposed project includes a parking garage, new library and community meeting space on a campus -like setting. In a letter dated May 6 to port commission president Cheryl Kincer, Coppola asked the port to cover half the cost of the Town Center, currently estimated at $18 million. Coppola, in his letter, said there was an informal agreement made before he took office that the port would help finance the parking garage. The city plans to move parking off the waterfront and create a public park there. Coppola said the port had agreed to purchase parking spaces in the new structure. In his letter, Coppola cited the port's investment the Bremerton Marina expansion and its intention to purchase property from Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority for a Bremerton puking garage, saying now it's Port Orchard's turn. Coppola estimated the port's total investment in Bremerton, including the cost of the parking lot property, to be $17.38 million. By comparison, he said, the port "has not spent any sizable amount of money in Port Orchard in almost a decade." "They've spent an enormous amount in downtown Bremerton," said Coppola. "We feel strongly that downtown Bremerton is not the only place they should be looking to provide economic development." Both Kincer and South Kitsap Port Commissioner Larry Stokes took strong exception to the implication that Port Orchard has been neglected by the port. Commissioner Bill Mahan was unavailable for comment. "I was appalled and disappointed when I read the letter," said Kincer. "I'm insulted to think that the mayor didn't think we're committed to making an investment in the City of Port Orchard and South Kitsap." Kincer cited "millions" spent on Port Orchard since she took office in 1998. Projects she noted include improvements to the port's waterfront park and gazebo, upgrades to the fuel dock, replacement last year of a fuel tank, improvements to the boardwalk and harbormaster's office, as well as the pores contribution to festivals promoting the city's tourism. Shortly before Kincer took office, the port invested heavily in a compete rebuild and expansion of the Port Orchard Marina. Stokes said he, too, was taken aback by the mayor's lack of recognition for the port's contributions to Port Orchard. He also resented the tone of Coppola's request. "Rather than trying to work together, he's trying to shove all these things down our throat," said Stokes. "He's like a bull in a china closet, and I'm not going to put up with it." Stokes brought up tension that resulted last year when Coppola, backed by the city council, demanded a role in providing sewer to the South Kitsap Industrial Area. Much of the area is owned by the port. Port Orchw&s position complicated negotiations on annexation of SKIA into the City of Bremerton. The matter of who will provide sewer to the area has not yet been resolved. Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propseclus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 32 of 39 "He's decaying the relationship between the Port of Bremerton and the City of Port Orchard," Stokes said. Kincer questioned the "agreement" Coppola cited saying no such guarantee has been made during her tenure. Port Orchard City Councilman John Clauson said there was discussion between port and city officials late in former Mayor Kim Abel's tenure in which the port expressed willingness to pay for its share of parking spaces in the garage, but he did not recall commitment of a specific percentage or amount. Clausen said he knew Coppola planned to write the letter, but he said it did not necessarily represent the council's views. Kincer said Coppola's estimate of the port's recent and proposed spending on Bremerton includes a figure for a real estate purchase currently under negotiation with the housing authority. She objected to Coppola's citing the figure in his letter, which was sent to members of the press, especially considering he serves on the housing authority's board. Becky Swanson, the port's chief financial officer, said the port currently has a capacity of $13,429,362, with another $3,525,000 in capacity to become available at the end of the year. There's also an additional $10,955,000 available by the end of 2012. "Just because the port has a debt capacity does not mean it has an identifiable source of revenue to repay the debt," Swanson said. �M © 2007 Kitsap Sun Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 33 of 39 Downturn won't deter downtown By CHARLIE BERMANT Port Orchard Independent Staff Writer Dec t0, 2008, t 1:38 AM Plans for a downtown parking garage and community center in downtown Port Orchard are proceeding, even in the face of severe economic conditions and a building slowdown. "We're looking for funding sources that are not affected by the housing market," said Port Orchard Development Director James Weaver. "And grant money is available." While the vision is for a thriving downtown with a waterfront park and vibrant retail, the path toward this goal is prosaic. In order for downtown Port Orchard to grow, there needs to be a place to park. The Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project, which is now available on the city's Web site, begins with an underground parking structure to be constructed along Prospect Street. Once complete, the city can develop the waterfront, which is now used predominantly for parking, into a public park. City officials believe these steps will directly lead to a vital Port Orchard. And they are now laying the groundwork by continuing the planning process. "It's important to keep planning these steps," Weaver said, "so whatever happens, the staff will have something to work on." After farming out much of the grant application work, the city expects to bring it in house and delegate it to Weaver's staff. The steps will run concurrently. The first goal is the funding search, to be followed by site acquisition and design. The Prospect Street site still needs testing, in order to make sure it can accommodate underground parking. Once completed, the city will need to acquire some property in order to build the structure. In a related matter, Port Orchard Mayor Lary Coppola recently sent out a letter to local residents saying the city was not currently involved in any site acquisition and that any real estate developer claiming to act on the city's behalf for land purchases is lying. Weaver calls the parking garage "a catalyst project" that will stimulate downtown development. And removing parking from the waterfront in favor of a park will cost the city less due to money paid to the Department of Natural Resources. Depending on the design, the parking structure would house from 724 to 1,172 cars. It would be constructed underneath a community center that most likely would contain a library. The current library building, which the city owns, would be turned into a retail store or a restaurant. Like the funding, the timing is also up in the air. The city estimates it will take three to five years to complete. After the grants are secured the public will have the opportunity to testify during the design and land acquisition process according to Weaver. "The draft prospectus document is intended to serve the city of Port Orchard for funding purposes in a conceptual manner and as a living document," Weaver wrote in a press release. "It will be updated as new information becomes available and as new funding sources are identified. The city of Port Orchard encourages public input and review relating to the community desires as this project is conceptually explored." The statement goes on to project the new Port Orchard library structure could also contain 7,500 square feet of retail space and a pedestrian/vehicular boulevard that could be used for street fairs or farmer's markets on the Prospect Street right-of-way. Additional public plazas may be possible on the roof of these structures for panoramic views of the bay and the city. As the economy slides, Weaver said that Port Orchard could benefit from the WPA-like public works program, outlined this weekend by President-elect Barack Obama. "This has been a long time coming," Weaver said. "We benefited from the great infrastructure push in the 1960s and 1970s, but since then we have only maintained our failing infrastructure. This plan reflects a much -needed investment in our future." Port Orchard Independent Staff Writer Charlie Bermant can be reached at ebermant@portorchardindependent.com or (360) 876-4414. Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 34 of 39 Parking garage the key to Bay Street redevelopment By LARY COPPOLA Port Orchard Independent Contributor Jul 02 2009, 4:07 PM UPDATED Bob Meadows has provided what is perhaps the most articulate argument to date against the idea of constructing a new parking garage in downtown Port Orchard. His June 26 column ("Would a parking lot revitalize Bay Street?') demonstrates the usual analytical skills and common sense logic he applies to most subjects. However, Bob is apparently unaware of a few facts that could make a difference in his view of the need for the proposed garage. There has been lots of private sector interest in the redevelopment of downtown. The economy has put a damper on a large part of it — for now — but the economy is cyclical, so the interest will return when the economic climate improves because the Port Orchard waterfront offers one of the last redevelopment opportunities in the Puget Sound region. For starters, one appropriate economic development generator for downtown would be a grocery store — something significantly larger than a mini -mart, but smaller than a Safeway or Albertsons. Downtown residents and visiting boaters alike have clamored for one for years. The nearest grocery store is approximately for miles away. Another is a full -service marine supply store. Located within sight of hundreds of boats, this would seem like a no-brainer, since the nearest ones are in East Bremerton and Gig Harbor. Two different grocery chains and a major marine supply retailer have expressed interest in locating outlets here. At the invitation of the city, they have sent representatives to have a look at Port Orchard and have met with me, city staff, and a small number of downtown merchants. However, all cited the lack of parking as the main reason for declining to locate here. All have indicated that if the parking problem were solved, they would be open to revisiting the possibilities. When shown the proposed design of the garage and asked if that would be an acceptable solution, all answered in the affirmative. Likewise, there have been several developers who have attempted to purchase large parts of our downtown for redevelopment. The major interest has been in developing mixed -use projects (retail at the Bay Street level and residential and business uses above) that would include purchasing all of the buildings on Bay Street between Sidney and Frederick Streets. There has been great interest to do this on both sides of Bay Street from different developers, but the main obstacles have been a refusal by three specific property owners to sell — and, of course, parking. However, there have also been proposed projects that could go forward even without the buildings where the owners are declining to sell. City development rules dictate that new residential units must have 1.5 parking stalls per unit. This means given the confines of the space available, it would be difficult to redevelop profitably. However, given the opportunity to purchase stalls in the proposed parking garage — especially on the upland side of Bay Street — developers acknowledge the projects once again become financially viable. As far as the library is concerned, the city owns the building that houses the library and is legally obligated to provide a location for it. It is also a major downtown pedestrian traffic generator, with more than 22,000 visitors per month. However, the library is bursting at the seams, Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus w .cityofportorchard.us Page 35 of 39 needing considerably more space, and the building is in a major state of disrepair. It would cost more to repair it properly than the building is worth on the open market - which is not a prudent use of the taxpayer's hard-earned money. One existing downtown merchant has indicated significant interest in purchasing the library building at appraised value, tearing it down, and constructing a new building to house and expand their very successful business. In the meantime, they would lease the existing facility back to the city at a favorable rate until the new library is ready. Also included in the parking garage proposal is a community center and meeting room - something the city currently lacks, and sorely needs. The Boys & Girls Club has also indicated great interest in locating a Hope Center on the site and committing a seven -figure dollar amount to the project. It's not a case of "if' downtown redevelopment will occur, but "when." That's why we need to be vigilant in our efforts to plan for, and prepare in advance, so we can make the most of the opportunity when it presents itself. We have made great strides in that effort so far. The citizens have determined they want building heights restricted and existing views preserved. They have made it clear they want to preserve the small town character of our downtown. The city responded by passing the Downtown Overlay District (DOD) ordinance, which limits building heights to 39 feet maximum on the waterfront side of Bay Street and 55 feet maximum on the upland side, while implementing design standards for new construction that maintain a historic flavor. The permitting process has been completely overhauled so it is now the fastest in the county, as well as easy and certain. While development rules will not be bent and are strictly enforced, they no longer change in the middle of a project, either — something Port Orchard had a bad reputation for doing in the past, and significantly reduced interest in downtown redevelopment. The parking garage is the missing piece, and will be the glue to bind all of these efforts together. Financing will come through a combination of sources — some public, such as the federal and state government, grants, partnerships with other local public agencies, and low -interest loans Other funding will come from private sector sources, such as developers proposing downtown projects that require additional parking. Port Orchard residents will also get a new downtown waterfront park that will generate additional pedestrian traffic, which will result in increased business for downtown merchants and increased sales tax revenue for the city. Given all of these facts, it appears to the city that the proposed garage, library and community center is a win -win situation that will allow our town to grow in a way we have control of, and preserve our small town atmosphere without leaving us at the mercy of outside developers who don't have our long term best interests at heart. Lary Coppola is the mayor of Port Orchard. Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofportorchard.us Page 36 of 39 Three Vitsap Projects in Line to Get Big Federal Loans By Bryan Grimley Wednesday, July 29, 2009 BREMERTON — Projects in Poulsbo, Silverdale and Port Orchard could get a jump start if they are approved for a combined $5 million in loans from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Members of the executive board of the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council heard presentations on those projects, along with a fourth planned for Bainbridge Island, on Wednesday. The board recommended the three be considered by HUD officials for $5.7 million that is available to the county under the Section 108 loan guarantee program. The Poulsbo request is from Westbury Inc., which wants $2 million to help build a plant to manufacture security and safety barriers systems primarily for airports; the Silverdale request comes from the county, which would use $1 million to help build a YMCA there; the city of Port Orchard asked for $2 million to support a downtown revitalization project; and Martha and Mary asked for $1.5 million to help build a 12-suite rehabilitation facility on Bainbridge Island That adds up to $6.5 million, which is why the council had to whittle the list down. This is only the second time in recent history that the county has used the loan guarantee program, according to Shelley Kneip, attorney for the Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office. Previously, Section 108 loan money was used for renovations at the Admiral Theatre in Bremerton, she said The county is responsible for paying back the low -interest loans and has to pledge current and future Community Development Block Grant allocations to cover the loan amount as security. To ensure the county is not on the hook for the loan payments, applicants had to prove they could pay back the total amount, or provide enough collateral to cover the cost The benefit of the Section 108 loan program is it does not affect an agency's bonding authority, and provides flexibility to help a community jump-start development in areas that need it most, said Shannon Bauman, block grant program planner. To be eligible, applicants must meet Community Development Block Grant rules and regulations, as well as at least one of three national objectives: the project must benefit low- and moderate -income people, help to eliminate "slum and blight," or meet the urgent needs of the community. The regional council board determined the Poulsbo project and the Silverdale project were the two most prepared to move forward and suggested they receive the full amounts requested. County Commissioner Josh Brown expressed uncertainty about the city of Port Orchard's plan to repay the loan. Other board members echoed those concerns, which Mayor Lary Coppola also a KRCC member — said was agreeable. The board stipulated the loans must be repaid in 10 years and that the projects must be ready to go no later than September 2010. Because the Martha and Mary project was not ready for immediate implementation, the board committed to supporting the project later. The three projects are now subject to a financial review by an independent financial consultant, which will make sure their payment plan is feasible. A 30-day comment period and a public hearing will also take place before a final loan application is sent to HUD. A second public hearing will be held once the funds are received. The Projects Port Orchard Town Center Revitalizaflon Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cilyofportorchatd.us Page 37 of 39 The projects recommended to receive Section 108 loans from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development include Westbury Inc.: The company plans to build in Poulsbo's Twelve Trees Industrial Park, where it will manufacture security and safety barriers systems primarily for airports. It plans to employ 100 people, of which more than half will be from the low- to moderate - income bracket. Jobs would start at $16 an hour, plus benefits. The company requested $2 million, and will provide the remaining $500,000 it needs to get started. Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project: The city of Port Orchard requested $2 million to help with the purchase of land needed for the construction of an underground parking garage and new library on Prospect Street. The cost of the parking garage, including land acquisition and design is $5.3 million. The cost of the overall downtown revitalization project is estimated at $36.6 million. Kitsap County Silverdale Campus YMCA: The county requested $1 million for the proposed Silverdale YMCA. The county previously committed $5 million for the estimated $15 million project, which is projected to be between 50,000- and 70,000-square feet. The remaining $10 million will be funded by the YMCA of Pierce/Kitsap County. The new facility would create 74 full-time positions once open, of which 56 will be for low- to moderate -income individuals. /l © 2007 Kitsap Sun Port Orchard Town Center Revitalization Project February 2010 Propsectus www.cityofpormrchard.us Page 38 of 39 MWYIMMP pNa4. YBT/M BOIp1rIVB1rBY 1.,y� Irma e 4-1 1 1 r T .r—rr' • rear ti ��3n nnON�50f ATP6 Concept Budget Estimate 8ved ao0. oogs Cw\Fuood°Gfiube(M.ffiI)-cu°ga Undugnwnd ft ^g, 108 Dog=) (.\bGlCmtbuNmlU}aM1hrurvkrgy�unagang �wM190grpe.ei[¢rane 2lN dxr �:.,.a�ionl nlo&9fm (v/a deign Ap)PeeY S 59.66 AdiI0a00h30.1$ 56.15 APadgpi.oWnil (— l,Nna $ 5 00 A,m,fog. mg (LOJ) f 5 9M Uu> f ddID pn SP VI MPM GR(1C9$P f /SS fi{18ID7dL PHAjEONE-Poddog ONy Imxrinxl Pahng 65.9503 6000 S SA51.000 Upptt 4+xl NAg AM 9 Wm $ S.W.. .WinI APAAig R),950 3 WAO $ 5.0"'M \4nlnANdgPW 16.100 S SM $ 83$w I.. F.61i@Alois lnel ODD, $ $JO $ 457a I.nlsapingQ Ruin lnxl Q 3 law $ 62 NiFry Pelaaiion" IS N/A $ 1A9 M SUBTWALCONCMBUBGE-PfUSEON& 3 16,714A g r hm3Oldo aWM1OCnmimmon Snn(5%4 IV,y) 3 19.-1,695 v/Co om"oq (LS+a: f N tlN //�AR� �D[PSON� 50C Ai[5 Concept Budget Estimate ILnm 1.1,.1a1 $ ISaW S Lx'S,OD ILni ISW $ IW.W S Isgam U,,,McaU k -AIA #1 14,M $ MW S 1O M IaNsaft@up ,Pla I+.fmS law S I+QOW SUBTOTALCONCEPSBUWU-PNASETWO/ALTlOk S 3AMA00 EwLrc B.TBdalan ro^All Lomrrrcrion inn (iSS+10". ♦ IUy: 5 14150 e/fnnmgr:ry(S'/.): f 5.NB.Of LLLE'1'IHI ?lWETWO.ALTB? ORMSP S45IlSP 3LBIOSAL IbnT 1j S SOm S "a ISW S :wm $ MAW upperlxry ps4-ALT p? JIARR S iam $ L(OOM IaMwping®UppnlSraa S;tmS IOm S 3x" SUBTOTAL(XNCEPLBU n-pNASETWO/ALTN1 S +ASSAW Exa6rc YASdog.nmNll Conuruc�o An(i'/.i 10'Af IM).S w7M ffARW ANoo iS'Oxmm zo Combined Concept Budget Totals m+Aseove-sumorALcau+2vrnuocE+': S 9+p_nm+ PHASE TR'O/ALTp1.5UnfOTALCOVCFJ'T BUUGE'f: $ 5.614+b SUB1VfALCOAlU1N000ONCkIrI UUUOLT (ALTpI): S '_5.61i331 s/UugrPm(lOti}. $ 196)SSt TOTALCONBINW) CONCEPTBUJXl T(ALT np: 6 J INAJEONL+-SUn ALL'OBCL:PfnUUwm $ 2+p2I,M PiMEIWU/ALTN?SUBIDTALC N'CL'ff WO L7. S VMS! SUB rALWAInINE000VCEPfnL'UOET(AI.TMQ: S JI.MLOSI v/lMignlmllP.M1k S J.IM.MI TOlALPp3101NFD CONCEPT BUDGEI'(ALT #2): S JI '• 1'Lclwldee OHLV-Nomrmrrlyu forpnemg unw Axp[wsox Asso[ Ai[ %ART ANDERSON ASSOCIATES [(� VALUE BEYOND ENGINEERING® CITY OF PORT ORCHARD TOWN CENTER REVITALIZATION DESIGN CONCEPT BUDGET ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE #3 - Reduced Project Footprint without Museum Property 9/28/2009 GDY Based on RSMeans Cost Estimating Guide (M.280) - Garage, Underground Parldng (2009 Dollars) (Model Cost based on 100,000sf underground garage with 9001E perimeter and 24ft deep excavation) Model Cost (w/o design fees) per SF $ 70.19 Adjusted from 100,000sf to 225,000sf $ 65.84 Adjusted from 9001f to 1,5001f perimeter $ 68.04 Regional adjustment from average (1.03) $ 70.08 Use> $ 70.00 per SF ELEMENT GROSS SF COST SF SUBTOTAL PHASE ONE - Parking Only Lower Level Paddng 71,565 $ 70.00 $ 5,009,550 Upper Level Parking 71,565 $ 70.00 $ 5,009,550 Main Level Parking 71,565 $ 70.00 $ 5,009,550 Main Level Bldg Pads 9,950 $ 5.25 $ 52,238 Paver Finish @ Main Level 56,770 $ 7.88 $ 447,348 Landscaping @ Main Level 5,000 $ 10.50 $ 52,500 Utility Relocation** LS N/A $ 1,000,000 SUBTOTAL CONCEPT BUDGET - PHASE ONE: $ 16,580,735 Escalate 2009 dollars to 2010 Construction Start (10%): $ 18,238,809 w/Contingency (25%): $ 22,798,511 Was $26.487m 414 cars - oer stall: S 55.069 Was $56k/stall P14ASE TWO - ALT #1 Library 13,500 $ 157.50 $ 2,126,250 Retail 7,500 $ 105.00 $ 787,500 Upper Plaza Deck - ALT #1 14,000 $ 52.50 $ 735,000 Landscaping @ Upper Plaza 14,000 $ 10.50 $ 147,000 SUBTOTAL CONCEPT BUDGET - PHASE TWO/ALT #1: $ 3,795,750 Escalate 2009 dollars to 2011 Construction Start (10% + 10%): $ 4,554,900 w/Contingency (25%o): $ 5,693,625 1oft r City of Port Orchard Council Meeting Minutes Council Retreat — February i99 zoio PRESENT: Mayor Coppola, Councilmembers Fred Chang, Jerry Childs, John Clauson, Jim Colebank, Fred Olin, Carolyn Powers, and Mayor Pro-Tem Robert Putaansuu. ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Jacoby, City Clerk Kirkpatrick, and Deputy Clerk Rinearson. Public Works Director Dorsey was invited to the meeting and arrived with Development Director Weaver at 9:3o a.m. Mayor Coppola called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Short -Term and Long -Term Goals: City Attorney Jacoby advised the purpose of the meeting is to identify short-term and long- term goals. The Council determined the following to be their short-term and long-term goals: Short -Term Goals: Parking Garage — Phase I. Design Revenue Sharing Agreement — Resolve Tremont Corridor — Shovel Ready Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway — Complete design; obtain easements Sidney and Sedgwick —Infrastructure Plan to be completed in 2010 Financial Plan — City -Wide Long -Term Goals: Bethel Annexation — in progress Library - Facility maintenance vs. new building Downtown Parking — General Annexation — Growth/Priorities Economic Revitalization — Encourage new business Bethel Avenue — Development and Planning Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway — Construction Parks — Acquisition, Funding, and Maintenance Tourism — Create a Plan/Combine with Economic Development Municipal/Public Facilities — Police, Municipal Court, and Library Neighborhood Revitalization — Police/Council outreach Sidewalks and Streets — Improvements The Council directed the City Clerk to add the following items to Work Study Session agendas as items for the Council to discuss and/or provide direction to staff: Add to Future Work Study Session Agendas: • Financial Plan — Development of reserve accounts and policies to increase productivity • Annexation Priorities — Review map boundaries and determine next logical step in annexation February 19, 2010, Retreat Work Study Session Page 2 of 3 • Economic Revitalization and Tourism - Review combining into one Council Committee • Parking Garage - Define next steps, i.e. refine conceptual design • Parks - Discuss whether to form a Parks Commission/Committee and funding solutions • Chain Parking - Revisit downtown parking time limits • Design Review Board - to create a "Turn of the Century" idea book for Council consideration • City Face Book/Fan Page - Policy discussion • Council Budget - Discuss increase in funding in 2011 for travel to Board meetings and AWC training programs Public Works Director Dorsey left the meeting at lo:or a.m. Priorities for Planning Commission After a brief discussion, the Council directed Development Director Weaver to invite the Planning Commission to the March 16, 2010, Work Study Session to discuss their proposed goals. Design Review Board Development Directory Weaver indicated the Design Review Board would like to be tasked with a project. After a brief discussion, Council directed the Design Review Board to put together an idea book to better define the already established theme "Turn of the Century" for the Downtown Overlay District. The Following items were discussed by Council: • City Face Book/Fan Page. The Council directed that there would be no official City Face Book/Fan Page and further directed the City Clerk to research how other municipalities are managing the pages from a records management perspective. • Council Committees Budget. City Clerk noted that the Public Property Committee's breakfast meetings were not factored into the 2oio budget. The Council directed the City Clerk to add to a future work study session a discussion on increasing the Council's travel and training budget for 2011. • City Clerk Kirkpatrick reported on the codification costs for Titles 16 and 18, which was left out of the 2oio budget, which would result in a budget amendment once the final amount was known. The Mayor explained that staff did not understand the significance of not including codification costs into each department's budget, noting it was a learning curve and in the future these costs would become part of the annual budget. • The Mayor explained that as part of his Green Initiative he would like to do a pilot program that would provide six charging spots for electric vehicles throughout the City. The Council directed the Mayor to move forward with this project. • As part of the Mayor's Green Initiative to save paper it was suggested that the Council be issued laptops to review their Council packets electronically, which will save about 6 reams of paper each month. After a brief discussion, the Council directed staff to continue providing paper packets to the Council; to notify the public that as of April pebnrary 19, 2010, Retreat Work Study Session Page 3 of 3 13, 2010, staff will only provide hard copies of the agenda, minutes, ordinances and resolutions at the meetings; the public can either download the packet from the City's website or call the City Clerk's office for a hard copy of the packets. Council supported the Mayor's idea to implement a City-wide Disaster Recovery Plan. The Council directed the City Clerk to add to the regular meeting agenda under "Reports of Department Director's" updates on Tremont Corridor and Annexation issues. At 12:12 p.m. Mayor Coppola adjourned the meeting. L Patricia4Kirk4rick, , City Clerk