Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/2004 MINUTES Minutes for Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 2004 I. Call to Order Commissioner Buckingham The meeting was called to order by at 5:34 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Streissguth, and Commissioner Buckingham. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Commissioner Buckingham introduced the agenda. Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the agenda as presented. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Buckingham: Yes. The motion carried. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Special Meeting held on May 4, 2004, and the Regular Meeting held on May A motion was made by 18, 2004, were presented for approval by Commissioner Buckingham. Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Cockburn to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2004 as presented. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Kennedy: Chris Abstain; Kosusko: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; and Buckingham; Yes. The motion carried. Hugo, Director ofCommunity Development noted there was some confusion in the Director’s Report in the May 18, 2004 meeting minutes regarding two separate County Land Use applications. Chris asked for approval from the Commission to make editorial corrections to that A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner report. Kosusko to adopt the Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2004 with corrections made to the Director’s Report by Chris Hugo. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Kennedy: Abstain; Kosusko: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; and Buckingham; Yes. The motion carried. V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call To The Public: (public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda) Susan Brown, (1333 E Hope): “My concern is I’ve expressed at other times is the public being able to get adequate information about what is going in the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. I’m wondering if it would be possible to put Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 2004 Page 1 of 6 on the website the packets that the Commissioners get before the meeting so we know what the discussion is all about. I know the City Council does that; I was trying to research that quickly this afternoon, I don’t know if they do it before or after the meeting, come to think of it! If you could look into that, the feasibility of that, that would be very helpful. Thank you.” Chris Hugo commented that the City Council does try to [post their information] before the meeting, although sometimes, because the council meets every week, it is not always possible. He assured Ms. Brown that this Commission will aspire to do the same. Commissioner Buckingham Seeing no more citizens wanting to make comments, closed this portion of the meeting. B. Public Hearing: None VI. Business Meeting A.Chairman’s Report: None. B. Director’s Report:Chris Hugo Althoughhad no formal report, he did speak about the two items going through the County Land Use application process. There is some confusion regarding these applications because Chris had received inconsistent responses from County staff. Chris attempted to complete the Planning Commission’s instructions from the previous meeting to prepare to bring the [two County Land Use applications] before the City Council as formal agenda items. While compiling an information packet for the council members, Chris noticed the County’s “NoticeofApplication for Site Specific Re-zones” provided no information on the current zoning or the proposed zoning, even though the application was for a re-zone; therefore, this should be considered a defective notice because of the lack of information. To technically remedy the situation you would have to take it back to the beginning. Chris confirmed his assessment with Bremerton’s City Attorney and will be bringing this to the attention of Chris’ counterpart at Kitsap County in a formal letter, informing the County that, by standard practice, there is defective notice on all of their re-zone applications. Regarding the application requesting a zoning change from Rural Restrictive to Tourist/Commercial (Global Investments/Kitsap Transit), and in speaking with the Director of Kitsap Transit, Chris discovered Kitsap Transit had no knowledge of any application for a Tourist/Commercial [re-zone]. Chris spoke to the County about this discrepancy and was told the application was from Global Investments only, so the notice also misidentifies the applicant. Chris was not sure how this issue will be resolved, but will continue giving input. The second application submitted to the County by the Ron Ross family (Royal Valley, LLC) and the George Minder family regarding a rezone [for the purpose of increasing the allowable number of dwelling units per acre] may or may not be going forward, depending on who you spoke to at the County, Chris reported. Chris does not believe the application is going forward at this time, but there is still the issue of the [defective] Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 2004 Page 2 of 6 notice and assured the Commission that, when the timing is appropriate, staff will give input to the overall substantive issues of that major change in the Land Use and Urban Growth Area. The two applications have not been presented to the City Council yet because of the confusion that Chris has been experiencing with the process at the County. CommissionerStreissguth asked Chris for an update on two ordinances on the City Chris Council’s agenda: One on building heights and one on open space requirements. reported that the ordinance on building heights is simply a mistake on [the Planning Department’s] part. When the new downtown zoning regulations were processed and the new DC and DW zones were created from the old BC zone, portions of the BC zone still existed west of the new [DC and DW] zones, from Pacific Avenue to Warren Avenue. There is a dividing line about a quarter of the way down the block west of Pacific, all the th way from the BTC up to 6 Street where the zoning boundary follows parcel lines. When the zoning map was created, a base map of parcel lines was used; at the time the height district map, which divided those two zones into three height districts, was created, a different base map was used so it didn’t follow the same parcel lines. This error was caught months later by a staff member of Rice Fergus Miller who noticed that the two lines didn’t match up on the western boundary of the DC zone district. There was a “no- man’s land” in there where there was no specific height regulation applied. That was recognized as just an editorial or scrivener’s error, so the Council accepted that as a housekeeping measure. That issue didn’t come to [the Planning Commission] because there was nothing substantive to look at, just an error to correct. The second agenda item had a longer history: In Chris’ first year at Bremerton he recognized that in the landscape requirements there was a condition in larger sites that imposed a 15% open space requirement in addition to screening landscaping, perimeter landscaping, street landscaping or large parking lot landscaping on any development, both residential and commercial, over an acre. At the time the issue seemed to be primarily with the commercial use because the provisions said that the open space was specifically for the benefit of the tenants and owners of the building. An example is the NAPA Auto parts store off Kitsap Way; as a part of that site development they had to put in some open space. If you go up there today you would see a bird feeder and a bench that is for the benefit of the owner of the NAPA store or any tenant. That didn’t seem to be a consistent requirement; most requirements in Bremerton’s codes can be tied directly to mitigating some kind of impact; to moderate an environmental condition or to be compatible with community aesthetic. This was first faced with the new Albertson’s store [on Wheaton Way]; in this case the 15% could only be enjoyed by Joe Albertson and the people that work in the store. That is when the Council amended that provision and dropped the requirement from the code – amended it so essentially it said 15% but it could include all of the other site landscaping which is usually close to 15%. The residential requirement was not amended. Recently there had been a State Supreme Court case very similar to Bremerton’s requirement and it rejected that kind of exaction of open space as just a taking of property for no good reason. Bremerton’s attorneys have determined that that provision in our code is unconstitutional; for that reason it was CommissionerKosusko taken directly to Council and presented for amendment. asked Chris if this would also apply to multi-family projects. responded that it would with the requirements being met though language in a project review or in impact fees for parks or large projects that create new demands. This is an issue that, the more you look into the Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 2004 Page 3 of 6 practices, as a regulator there is a need to look at the relationship between an imposed requirement and the basis for it; what is the demand impact that the regulation responds to. If that close relationship can’t be found, you’re probably in dangerous waters. CommissionerStreissguth asked Chris if there was an update on a replacement for Chris Commissioner Wood. replied that it was his understanding the Mayor’s office had received some applications and have scheduled interviews. C. Old Business:CommissionerBuckingham began discussions on the Planning Commission’s Rules and Bylaws. Packets had been distributed to the Commissioners prior to the meeting containing city and state information regarding Planning Commissions, plus the service contract for the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Buckingham explained that the installation of the Hearing Examiner had changed to some degree how the Planning Commission performs its duties; the Commission had been quasi-judicial as well as legislative. With the addition of a Hearing Examiner this is no longer true; now the Hearing Examiner conducts the hearings on variances to ordinances, etc. This change makes it necessary for the Planning Commission to review their rules Commissioner and bylaws to ensure they are within their current scope of duties. Kennedy started with noting the need to delete §3, §4 and §5 from Ordinance 4069, which refers to short plat regulations, special use, appellate hearings, etc. which the CommissionerStreissguth Hearing Examiner is now responsible for. commented that since the ordinances most likely had been codified, the Commission should be looking at the Bremerton Municipal Code, sections 2.12 and 2.13 for needed amendments, not the original ordinance itself. Commissioner Streissguth felt that in 2.12.080, sub-section C, Chris which refers to short plat and long subdivision regulation, should be deleted. disagreed, stating that reviewing and recommending short plat and long subdivision regulations as well as the new zoning code are still legislative duties of the Planning Commissioner Commission; these are the regulations that implement policy. Buckingham noted that there were ordinances newer than Ordinance 4069 referenced in Chris the BMC that was not included in the information packets. responded, saying amendments have been made since the ordinance that installs the Hearing Examiner (#4778) and they have continued to clarify the parts of the BMC that relate to regulations specifically, separating out items that relate to duties of the Commission, review procedures for the Hearing Examiner and the regulations themselves, each in its own area [of the BMC]. This process has been ongoing since Chris began at City of Bremerton. Chris suggested comparing the Planning Commission bylaws with the legislative duties and looking for inconsistencies. [Copies of the bylaws were made and distributed to the Planning Commission at this time.] During the time it took to make the copies, there was some discussion regarding funding Chris for Commission related expenses, such as attending a seminar or conference. reminded the Commissioners that all funding for Planning Commission expenses goes through the Department of Community Development and to simply submit a request to Chris to add it to the budget as a line item. Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 2004 Page 4 of 6 CommissionerKennedy thought that one of the reasons for updating the bylaws was to bring about more contact with the City Council. She wondered if that was an item that should be included as a directive and, if the Vice-Chair was still considered to be the person communicating with the City Council, perhaps adding some language saying the Vice-Chair would supply the City Council with a report as requested or something along CommissionerBuckingham those lines to open up communication. agreed, suggesting Chris adding what the duties of the liaison to the City Council might be. gave an update to the Commission on changes the City Council had already made such as the new meeting schedule which eliminates the time conflict Chris had been experiencing. Also, the council had divided itself into its own liaison assignments with City departments. At this time, the liaison for Community Development is Wendy Priest who could also act as a liaison for the Planning Commission. Chris suggested that the Vice-Chair attend meetings Wendy Priest and Chris set up, depending on the topic of the meeting. Everyone agreed that that type of two-way communication would be beneficial to the CommissionerBuckingham Commission. asked Commissioner Streissguth for Commissioner suggestions on how and when she would meet with the Council. Streissguth felt that the meetings should be issue based such as when the county-wide planning policies that the Commission as a whole thought was a significant matter came before them and Council needed to understand the Commission’s position on that issue. As the Commission moves forward with the Comprehensive Plan, Commissioner Streissguth anticipates spending a considerable amount of time talking about the public hearings, responding to questions Council might have as they are going through their education, etc. and would like to see meetings take place as the need arises rather than have a set meeting schedule with formal reporting. CommissionerBuckingham brought the meeting back to the bylaws, specifically page 2, §C-3.b, Officers and Duties. After much discussion regarding the various levels of detail and possible scenarios that may arise between the Council and the Commission, it was decided to leave that section as it is. CommissionerKennedy In Section III, “Duties of the Commission”, noted that items such as approval of land use applications requiring Commission approval, appeals, etc. ChrisHugo should be deleted because they are no longer duties of the Commission. stated that, in his opinion, the entire paragraph should be rewritten and offered to present a draft at the next meeting. His concerns were regarding the redundancy of the wording and the fact that it is not pro-active, especially when dealing with issues related to the Comprehensive Plan. All were in agreement on this item. Commissioner Kennedy In Section VII, “Conflict of Interest”, felt that entire section should be stricken. There was some discussion arguing the need for keeping that clause, Commissioner KennedyChris Hugo but and both commented that the City attorney had previously stated that there was no longer any possibility for there to be a conflict of interest with the Planning Commission, but Chris would check with the City attorney again to be sure. The Commissioners agreed to have Chris do this. Commissioner Streissguth asked for clarification regarding an item in the bylaws that Chris stated the Planning Commission meets on the third Thursday of each month. Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 2004 Page 5 of 6 replied that it had been in “Rules and Procedures”, not the bylaws, but they should also be included in the updating process. Commissioner Kennedy In Appendix A, §F-3 in “Public Hearings”, noted there is Chris another reference to conflict of interest that should also be deleted from the text. commented that the majority of the information in Appendix A appears to be following the format for quasi-judicial functions. There was also some confusion between the terms “conflict of interest” and “appearance of fairness”. Chris suggested that the Commissioners review Appendix A to see what parts continue to have merit and then Commissioner assign it to staff to give to the legal department for a redraft. Buckingham commented that, since some of the newer ordinances were missing from the information packet, he would like to have staff compare the current Bylaws and Rules and Procedures with the current ordinances and suggest changes to the Commission Chris HugoA motion based on that comparison. accepted this task on behalf of staff. was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to direct staff to submit a revised version of the Planning Commission’s Rules and Bylaws that better reflect the current duties of the Planning Commission at the next regular scheduled meeting . Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Buckingham: Yes. The motion carried. D. New Business: None. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for July 20, 2004. Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________________ Executive Secretary Approved by: _______________________________________ B. Scott Buckingham, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 2004 Page 6 of 6