Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/21/2004 MINUTES Minutes for Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 21, 2004 I. Call to Order Commissioner Streissguth The meeting was called to order by at 5:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Friedberg- Nerf, and Commissioner Streissguth. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Streissguth introduced the agenda. It was noted that minutes for the previous meeting were not available and should be struck from the agenda. Also, Commissioner Hoell A motion was made by was not present so her introduction was deferred to the next meeting. Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf to approve the agenda as amended. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Nelson: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf: Yes. The motion carried. IV. Approval of Minutes Meeting minutes were not available for the Special Meeting held on December 7, 2005. V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call To The Public. (public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda) Stanley Smith stepped to the microphone and began speaking about property he owns on Wheaton Way. This property consists of two duplexes that are zoned Professional Office and he was seeking a change in zoning to make that property residential once again. Commissioner Streissguth interrupted Mr. Stanley’s statement to inform him that this type of presentation would be more appropriate during the formal Public Hearing because then it would be part of the record. Commissioner Streissguth asked if there were any more comments from citizens. Seeing none, sheclosed this portion of the meeting. B. Public Hearing:PaulRogerson In consideration for time, explained that he would not be going into great detail on each topic that he would be referring to. General formatting issues was the first subject of the Staff Report; for example, permitted uses Planning Commission Meeting December 21, 2004 Page 1 of 8 and conditional uses in each chapter are now in the form of a table. Paul then moved on to the R-10 zone. Under the proposed zoning package, the R-10 zone would replace the SF-1, SF-2, and SF-3 zones, as well as much of the area currently zoned MF. In many respects, the R-10 zone is very similar to the current SF-3 zone. Staff would like to recommend a change in language to the intent section of that chapter to have the last sentence read, “Residential development at higher densities encouraged at the edge of designated centers and corridors and Planned Developments of ten acres or more”. Staff feels this better illustrates the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. On the Permitted Uses and Conditional Uses lists in the R-10 zone, Paul touched on the subject of Single Unit Dwelling Unit Attached (Zero Lot Line). Staff suggested that this could be one way of achieving a higher density at the edge of centers. Other changes within the chapter deal with Development Standards and design guidelines. After a brief discussion it was agreed upon by the Commissioners to have Paul read through the changes and entertain questions at the end of the presentation. Paul noted that the proposed changes had come about as a result of the workshop the Commissioners had on December 7, 2004 and changes in the R-10 chapter were not substantial. In the Commercial Corridor (CC) Zone changes were made in the Development Standards and Design Standards sections. Minimum side yard setbacks and minimum rear yard setbacks vary depending on its proximity to a residential zone. Normally there is a setback of zero feet for both side and rear yards, but if the parcel is within 60 feet of a residential (R-10) zone the setbacks change to 60 for non-residential uses and 10 feet for residential uses. This provision encourages uses within 60 feet or a residential zone to be the secondary residential use as allowed per the permitted uses list. The Development Standards section of this chapter also provides for bonuses to increase lot and building coverage and encourages mixed use buildings through taller buildings, wider sidewalks, pedestrian through-corridors, and parking in structures. Earlier bonuses were too subjective; the proposed changes are more measurable and more easily administered by staff than the previous bonuses. The Design Standards section was similarly amended; for example, a developer can reduce the appearance of bulk and building mass by choosing at least two methods from a longer “smorgasbord” type list of methods which are simplified and more measurable than the previous list. Also, in §20.22.070(1), Bulk Reduction, there is clarification on subsection (c) for buildings with an five foot overhang, awnings or canopies; there was a request to add arcades elevated between eight and eleven feet above sidewalks. Subsection (d) was amended to include specifics regarding window fenestration. In §20.22.070(5), there had been a change made concerning the maximum square footage allowed for signs; it is now 60 square feet. There have been similar changes made in the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor (WWRC) chapter. In §20.24.020(7), Permitted Uses, the word “video” has been added to the language regarding tape rental stores. Also, more descriptive language was added for subsection 14 relating to automobile services. Buffering language was added to §20.24.030,Conditional Uses, subsection (4)(b) which prescribes what buffering requirements are to be met for carwashes; Paul read directly from the draft chapter Planning Commission Meeting December 21, 2004 Page 2 of 8 outlining the changes. In §20.24.060(2), Dimensional Standards, the minimum side yard setbacks and rear yard setbacks have changed to 30 feet if the property is adjacent to residential (R-10). Paul noted that the reference to the INC zone and IDC should not have been listed and should be ignored. Changes were also made to item 3 of that same section, allowing a twenty per cent bonus for having a mixed-use building and a ten per cent bonus for having a sidewalk ten feet or wider running the length of the building on the arterial frontage. There were additional changes made in the Design Standards of this chapter that are similar to the CC chapter, for example, the changes made to overhangs and window fenestration. Signage requirements also changed (§22.24.070(5) to match the change made in the Commercial Corridor chapter as well as parking requirements (§22.24.080) with the exception of forty per cent of parking on the arterial frontage as compared to fifty per cent in the CC chapter. Previous drafts had placed all parking to the rear of the building. PaulChris Hugo, Director of then asked if the Commissioners had questions. Community Development , spoke at length about the R-10 designation and the concerns people have about density and what conditions are needed as well as making sure the density in areas that are ten units per acre does not compete with the density in Centers. It was suggested that areas of higher density be at the edge of centers by utilizing multi- family attached residences and mixed use buildings in the centers and transitioning to lower density single-family neighborhoods as you move farther from the core of the center. Chris commented that in areas of attached single family housing [such as duplexes with a zero lot line], lot sizes of 4,350 square feet won’t work because of the front dimension of the buildings; the Homebuilder’s Association proposed an average lot size of 3,000 square feet in planned developments of ten acres or more. Chris asked for the Commissioners to consider this option and decide whether or not to include it in their recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Nelson asked about areas in the city which would have a higher density. Chris listed several areas, including West Bremerton along Burwell and the Manette Center. Chris reminded the Commissioners that the Centers are still being programmed and used Poulsbo Place as an example of single family residences in a planned Paul development on smaller lots. added that to get the zoning minimums in Centers, the R-10 zone could be employed within the Centers designation so the provision that is available in the R-10 can be used only in that portion of the R-10 that is in the Centers parameter. Commissioner Nelson asked about §22.20.10, Development Standards and how the Paul change of minimum and maximum lots size would be handled. explained that the table showing lot sizes would be amended to include an extra line or a footnote with the provision of smaller lots in planned developments of ten acres or more or if it is within a Chris Centers designation. restated the provision that allows for a larger than maximum lot size in the occurrence of lots with critical areas included. There was continued discussion regarding what provisions need to be met in order to allow the smaller lot sizes. Chris also explained further the logic behind the ten units per acre in the R-10 zone. Planning Commission Meeting December 21, 2004 Page 3 of 8 Commissioner Streissguth asked about an italicized sentence in §22.20.060(5)(g) as well as a similar sentence in §22.250.060(10)(d) regarding the height of cyclone fences in Chris the R-10 zone. Discussion continued and reminded the Commissioners that if they wanted to make a change in the draft, a motion would need to be made. Commissioner Streissguth moved on to the Commercial Corridor and asked for any comments regarding that chapter. She reminded staff that there had been discussion in a previous meeting to add items 11, Underground water/sewer and 12, Co-located wireless antennae, to the permitted uses in the R-10 Chapter. In §20.22.00(4)(b) of the CC chapter, Commissioner Streissguth asked for a clarification in language for buffering. Chris suggested using a girth requirement for buffering vegetation instead of a height requirement. Paul read back the proposed change. A typing error was noted in the WWRC chapter, §20.24.040 that could be corrected without including it in the motion for Commissioner Nelson changes. asked about the ten foot sidewalk and Paul and Chris explained how a wider sidewalk was a benefit to pedestrians and why it merited a development bonus. This concluded the Staff Report and the floor was opened for public testimony. Commissioner Streissguth reminded the citizens to state their name and to stay within the three minute time limit. (Normally this would be a verbatim record, but because of the poor quality of the recording device, citizen’s comments will be summarized.) Stanley Smith, 1134 Woods Road E., Port Orchard : Mr. Smith owns property just off Wheaton Way and he would like to see that area rezoned to accommodate a higher density residential instead of the zoning that is currently in place. Eric Nemeth, 2367 NE John Carlson Road, Bremerton : Mr. Nemeth owns property in Bremerton currently zoned SF-3 that has been grandfathered in as a warehouse. He had concerns regarding repair/replacement of nonconforming structures and how the Comprehensive Plan affects him. Although Mr. Nemeth admitted to not attending any Planning Commission meeting, workshop, or community committee for the Comprehensive Plan, he was concerned that the Planning Commission was not sensitive enough to the needs of owners of nonconforming properties in regards to the proposed R- 10 zone. He also wanted to know what plans were in place to encourage people to improve the general look of structures. Richard Nerf, 1600 Madrona Point Drive, Bremerton : Mr. Nerf was concerned about lighting and if and how it would be addressed in the proposed zoning package. The two aspects of lighting he brought forth were lighting that “trespasses” into adjacent properties and lighting that contributes to light pollution. Mr. Nerf asked if this was the correct forum to be addressing this topic, and if not, where should he go for information. Chris Hugo assured Mr. Nerf that the zoning code was the proper ordinance for this concern; he believed that the section that deals with lighting is in General Development Standards. Also, the idea of a dark sky lighting ordinance is inherent to the Comprehensive Plan and he expects to see that agenda pursued. Chris commented that lighting is already in the zoning code but unfortunately is not enforced as well as it should be. Planning Commission Meeting December 21, 2004 Page 4 of 8 Susan Brown, 1333 E Hope Street : Ms. Brown was concerned about sidewalk standards. Chris commented that sidewalks were a right-of-way issue and not a requirement of the zoning code and would pass her concern on to the appropriate City department. Ms. Brown would also like to see some changes in the language regarding buffering. Commissioner Streissguth asked for additional public comment. Seeing none, she closed that portion of the meeting. Paul Rogerson returned to the Staff Report; he noted that the staff report made reference to Administrative and Permitting chapters and he asked that potential action for those two chapters be dropped from the meeting. Instead he wanted to discuss chapters 22.01, 22.02, 22.03, and 22.04. Chapter 22.01 is the Administration chapter which is a reorganization of what currently exists in pieces in the Bremerton Municipal Code; the content of each chapter is basically a restructuring of that information with some changes. Paul gave a brief description of what the sections cover and, reading directly from the chapter, pointed out changes made or sections added. Paul commented that the sections are not found in an equivalent Administration section in the current code; this represents a gathering of the proper sections necessary for Administration in one place to improve facilitation of the code. Paul continued with Chapter 21.02, Definitions. Paul explained the formatting used and went on to briefly describe changes made to this chapter. One item of importance is the decision to make the terms “conditional use” and “special use” mean the same thing. Chapter 21.03, General Development Standards, covers topics such as basic development definitions, requirements, and exceptions. Again, Paul read directly from the chapter and explained changes or additions made. Special Development Standards in chapter 21.04 contains definitions, requirements, and exceptions for development situations that are not as common as those illustrated in the previous chapter; for example, topics such as outdoor storage areas, mineral extraction, Paul and recreational vehicles are covered in this chapter. read through the changes and additions and explained that many of the changes made in this chapter and the previous chapters were to clarify the information presented. Paul noted that the changes in the section for manufactured homes came about because of new state legislation and the section had been totally rewritten. The section dealing with recreational vehicles is new and was created to aid in the City’s Code Enforcement. Staff’s counsel to the Planning Commission was to include the four administrative chapters with the proposed zoning package being put forth for recommendation to the City Council; these chapters are necessary to implement and administer the proposed zoning package. This concluded the Staff Report. Chris read directly from the code regarding lighting requirements and the restrictions Paul involved, explaining to Mr. Nerf and others what a developers obligations are. commented to all that, while a great deal of focus is being placed on the proposed zoning Planning Commission Meeting December 21, 2004 Page 5 of 8 package, that is not to say that staff and the Planning Commission are not committed to resolving other issues related to city planning and zoning. Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf had questions about lighting [§22.03.180(3)] and wondered about the term “adjacent properties”; her concern was for light sources that Chris could reach across a body of water. explained that light is to be contained within the property the light sources are located on, with the exception of lighting for sidewalks, Commissioner Streissguth and that section should be updated to reflect that idea. reminded the Commissioners that if there is a change in language to the proposed zoning code or administrative chapters, those changes need to be included in a formal motion for Paul staff to act upon. noted that he is keeping a list of proposed changes to be included in the final motion. Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf asked if Commissioners were included in the section Paul regarding City Liability (§22.01.320). replied that he did not want to give out incorrect information and would research it and get back to her on it. Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf then referenced §22.01.440; her question was how Paul violations by property owners could be tracked. explained that the computer software used in the permitting office keeps track of all information for each property that permits are applied for and/or have been reported for violating city code. Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf asked if there were definitions for apartments or Chris condominiums. explained that terms such as attached- or detached-housing or multi-unit structure are used in place of apartment or condominium. Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf asked about the definition for clinic, noting the definition only contains language pertaining to humans, and wondered if there was a definition for animal/veterinarian clinics. After some discussion it was decided that wording would be added to the final motion to create and insert definitions such as veterinary clinic, medical laboratory, etc. as these uses are listed in the Commercial CommissionerStreissguth Corridor chapter but not in the definitions. asked if it was Paul necessary to provide definitions for each permitted use in the zoning code; said that there was a provision saying that if a term did not appear in the list of definitions, the Chris generally accepted definition would be used (§22.02.010). also cautioned against attempting to list every term because as situations change and language evolves, the lack of a specific term could prevent development from occurring. Commissioner NelsonChris asked for clarification of the term Director. explained that if the term Director is used, it is assumed in the code to be the Director of Community Development. Commissioner Streissguth asked how to implement the change in terminology from special use to conditional use. It was her understanding that both terms were to be Paul retained until such a time when the transition is complete. said that the intent was to convert the use of the special use process to the conditional use process, but during the interim period there will be references to special use in some chapters and conditional use Planning Commission Meeting December 21, 2004 Page 6 of 8 in newer chapters. His recommendation is to have them mean the same and to include that in the motion. Commissioner Streissguth asked for any additional comments from staff or the public. Richard Nerf came forward once again to discuss the lighting issue and asked for something definite regarding light trespassing, especially light from signs. Susan Brown also came forward again to comment on an error on the Definitions chapter, noting an inconsistency in the title numbering and the section numbering. Commissioner Streissguth closed this portion of the Public Hearing; she then asked the other Commissioners if they had any further deliberation on the initial zoning package. Commissioner Cockburn asked if this was the greatest extent that [the City] could impose zoning rules on manufactured housing and that the requirements were equal for Paul all neighborhoods. replied that the zoning code applies equally to site built homes as well as manufactured homes; state legislature says that a city cannot have different standards for manufactured homes and site built homes. Paul took a moment to acknowledge and explain the comment from Susan Brown regarding the numbering error; staff will change the numbering to be consistent. Commissioner Streissguth asked staff to read the list of directive changes to the package and the Commissioners will put forth a motion to that effect. Paul read the changes as follows: 1. Amend the Intent section of the R-10 Zone, §22.20.010 to read “…at the edge of the Community Centers, etc. and within planned developments of ten acres or larger”; 2. Remove italicized language from §22.20.060(5)(g) and §22.20.060(10)(d); 3. Add a note or additional line to the table in §22.20.100 reducing the minimum lot size to 3,000 square feet within planned unit developments of ten acres or more and in Centers designations from the Comprehensive Plan; 4. Add as permitted uses in the Commercial Corridor (CC) zone and the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor (WWRC) zone to read the same as entries in the R-10 zone, §22.20.030(11) and §22.20.06012, location of underground water/sewer and co-location of wireless antennae; 5. Amendment to the CC and WWRC zones, §20.22.030, regarding buffering to read, “…buffering is provided pursuant to section(s) 21.02.700(a)(i)(A) and (B) BMC, except that required berms, and/or trees in combination shall provide total visual screening to a height of 5 feet. Trees shall not be less than two-inch caliper measured four feet above the ground at time of planting and/or construction.” 6. In §22.03.180(3), addition of language to read, “…shall not extend beyond the property line”; 7. Create and insert definitions for veterinary clinic, medical laboratory, and any other permitted uses as may be necessary; and Planning Commission Meeting December 21, 2004 Page 7 of 8 8. Establish in the code that the terms conditional use and special use are equivalent. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf to adopt with the proposed changes the initial zoning package which includes the R-10, the Commercial Corridor, the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor, and theAdministrative chapters. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Nelson: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf: Yes. The motion carried. VI. Business Meeting A.Chairman’s Report: None B. Director’s Report: Chris reported that the second reading of the first annexation to occur in Bremerton since 1991 will be on the next evening (12/22/04). Regarding the zoning package, it will be presented to City Council at a study session just after the New Year. C. Old Business: D. New Business:Commissioner Election of officers for the 2005 Planning Commission. Nelson nominated Commissioner Streissguth for the position of Chair and Commissioner . Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf Cockburn for Vice-Chair seconded the nomination. Call for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Nelson: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf: Yes. The motion carried. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for January 18, 2005. Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________________ Executive Secretary Approved by: _______________________________________ Linda Streissguth, Vice-Chairman Planning Commission Meeting December 21, 2004 Page 8 of 8