Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/2004 MINUTES Minutes for Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 I. Call to Order Commissioner Buckingham The meeting was called to order by at 5:36 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Streissguth, Commissioner Wood 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; Kosusko: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Wood: Yes; Buckingham: Yes. The motion carried. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Special Meeting held on March 30, 2004, were presented for approval by Commissioner Buckingham.A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the corrected meeting minutes of March 30, 2004 as presented. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Wood: Yes; and Buckingham; abstain. The motion carried. V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call To The Public: (public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda)Seeing Commissioner Buckingham none,closed this portion of the meeting. B. Public Hearing:Paul Rogerson, Planning Manager, began with the Staff Report. Addendum #6 was distributed to the Commission before the start of the meeting. This addendum contains issues that had come up during staff’s examination of the plan over the two weeks prior to this evening’s meeting that staff felt needed to be remedied. Item #1 on the addendum recommended the addition of a description of the Reserve Center designation to the Land Use element. It had been earlier recommended in Land Use Scenario #3, the application of a designation to the Kitsap Lake area (“Reserve Center”), but the plan did not have a description of what the parameters of the designation are. Staff’s recommendation was to add the RC (Reserve Center) designation be added to the plan on page LU-41, immediately after a similar Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 1 of 18 CommissionerBuckingham description of the Downtown Regional Center. questioned the density of up to 20 units per acre in the Reserve Center and wanted to know if that would allow Paul future neighborhood or district center designation. explained that 20 units per acre is the density recommendation used in other segments of the plan that discuss neighborhood and district center designations. Staff also recommended a change in the language within the development portion of the description in regard to structure types. It should read, “Structure types should be mixed with various commercial, residential, and mixed use structures”, noting Paul the insertion of the word “residential”. also proposed that in the discussion section it is made clear that it may be appropriate to re-designate the areas as full centers sooner than the 20- year planning period. The current language states that development of the area(s) as a full center would not occur until sometime after the 20-year planning period; while that is the most likely ChrisHugo scenario, Paul wanted to be prepared in the event it takes less than 20 years. , Director of Community Development , added that the reason staff has not proposed to re- designate the areas now is because everything that has a designation also has to have a population assigned to it. At this time, approximately 21,000 in new growth in and around the city has been included in the urban growth plan which works out to about a 50% increase in population over the next 20 years. If the potential centers were added [to the plan] now, a certain number of people for each center would have to be added to the estimation, pushing the number over 21,000 which is already an ambitious amount. The amendment of the language is just to prevent any frustration in the ultimate conversion of the traditional areas to centers; it would allow for change in the interim but it would not work against the realization of a future center’s CommissionerBuckingham designation. noted that, since Addendum #6 only dealt with Land Use issues, it would be timelier to discuss this addendum while deliberating on the Land Use element after the Economic element had been addressed. All were in agreement. CommissionerBuckingham asked for any comments related to the Economic element. CommissionerWood began with discussion regarding revamping the introduction with a more Commissioner Streissguth positive note. proposed the Commission adopt the language of the revised Mission Statement submitted through public comment. She also suggested moving the city profile to an appropriate appendix and a re-write for the first paragraph of the element which would read: “Bremerton, as the urban center of Kitsap County, is a vibrant environment which fosters economic vitality through its broad diversification of jobs and strategically dispersed commercial activities. The City provides a superior natural setting, a nationally recognized quality of life and a regionally significant deep water port, home to newly rebuilt State ferry terminal and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the West Sound’s largest employer. Rediscovery of the City’s qualities and its economic durability entices new investments as well as rejuvenating residents and businesses in pursuit of this City’s economic interest.” CommissionerStreissguth remarked that by placing the city profile portion in the appendix, it takes out current state of affairs that can become dated over time and makes the Economic CommissionerKosusko element consistent with the other element’s formats. commented that he was a little hesitant to change the vision statement without more consideration due to the fact that the original had been drafted by citizens. He wanted to compare the original with the CommissionerWood proposed change before making that decision. read directly from an example of an updated vision statement submitted by Richard Nerf on January 18, 2004. Commissioner Streissguth had compared this example with the original and didn’t feel there Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 2 of 18 were any substantive changes; it was more of a rephrasing of what already existed. It was agreed by the Commission to change the first paragraph of the element as suggested by Commissioner Streissguth, to rephrase the Vision Statement as proposed by Mr. Nerf, and to move the city profile and inventory (list of existing conditions) to the appendix. CommissionerKosusko noted that in §EC3, the element promotes a full-service, 24-hour regional downtown center, but the section does not contain language regarding residents in the downtown area; having full-time residents in the downtown center is essential to the economic CommissionerBuckingham vitality of the area. agreed, noting the residential aspect may be covered in the Housing element, but should also be mentioned in the Economic element when CommissionerStreissguth describing what a full-service, 24-hour center is. suggested referencing downtown residents under §EC3a, expanding the features that attract people to downtown to include a residential component, or in §EC3d where there is discussion on CommissionerKosusko incentives for downtown redevelopment and reinvestment. thought it should be treated as its own policy. There was some discussion on the vagueness of §EC3a and it was decided some clarification should be applied such as listing the types of events or CommissionerBuckingham programs envisioned to attract people to the downtown area. Paul thought a broad statement regarding livability downtown could be included in §EC1. Rogerson raised the issue of §EC3i which lists cultural activities and special events which appears to repeat §EC3a which could then possibly be available for other uses. It was generally ChrisHugo agreed to rewrite §EC3a to include reference to residential uses. commented that one of the ideas used by other urban areas looking to revitalize their downtown area, including residential uses, is to create a downtown that is not only the heart of the community, but also as its own neighborhood. Once the idea of the downtown area being a neighborhood is introduced, other residential amenities such as shopping (grocery and retail), services, etc. come into the picture. CommissionerBuckingham felt that, in §EC3c, “Encourage services downtown for ChrisHugo commuters”, should include “… and residents”. thought there may have been some significance to only having commuters listed, so he proposed it read “… commuters as well as residents”. All were in agreement to amend §EC3c as Chris proposed. Chris Hugo proposed §EC3a to read, “Encourage the development of downtown as a neighborhood as well as the heart of the City and region.” The Commissioners approved of the Commissioner Kosusko change. voiced some concern as to whether or not “neighborhood” conveyed a strong enough sense of having full-time residents in the downtown area. Commissioner Streissguth noted that there would be more opportunity over time to revisit this issue, especially when the Commission deals with zoning, in terms of density and creating consistency between implementing zoning and what the goals and policies are. CommissionerWood read directly from Citizen Judith Frieberg-Nerf’s comments regarding the Economic Development of Bremerton, dated January 15, 2004. In summary, her comments dealt mostly with developing Bremerton’s commitment to the arts and education, and promoting green or eco-friendly businesses and what part the City could play in bringing about that vision. Commissioner Kosusko expressed concern about making such specific changes/additions to the CommissionerBuckingham plan at this time. noted that §EC3i covers arts and cultural events. Commissioner Kosusko There was some discussion about adding bullet points to §EC3, but reminded the Commission that §EC3 pertains only to the downtown region, but perhaps §EC1 Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 3 of 18 ChrisHugo might be more appropriate. cautioned the Commission against introducing new material into the plan at this time because of time constraints; the task at hand was to review and comment on what the various committees had produced and any additional input should be weighed in terms of how consistent it is with what the committee had presented, how much work does it entail and how much time would be needed to implement the additions. Larger ideas can be given to staff to hold on to until the first annual update. Items that appear to be critical should be addressed immediately to prevent gaps in policy. There was additional discussion regarding the higher education items in Judith Frieberg-Nerf’s Commissioner Kosusko comments. suggested expanding on §EC6d and include a reference to higher education by changing the second bullet to read, “Support educational opportunities through public, private and higher education institutions”. There was general agreement on this addition. In response to Judith Frieberg-Nerf’s suggestion on promoting eco-friendly businesses, CommissionerCockburn noted that, the way the plan was written, no reasonable business would be precluded from being part of the Bremerton’s economic plan and didn’t see the benefit ChrisHugo of listing specific types of businesses. asked if there was a policy statement about diversification; he felt the public comment was questioning the diversity of businesses, noting the main businesses within Bremerton are Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and car dealerships. PaulRogerson noted there were a couple of references to promoting new business within the text and appendix, but thought those statements may not be strong enough to satisfy the request Chris for more specific language regarding diversity. suggested adding a policy to §EC4 that reads, “Encourage a more diversified economic base to increase the elasticity in the local economy.” The Commissioners were in agreement on this proposed addition. ChrisHugo asked for clarification on broadening the geographic area for the empowerment zone. It was his understanding the document was supposed to set the framework for a city-wide PaulRogerson empowerment zone designation. did not think that subject was addressed. Matthew Keough, Growth Planner , responded in kind. [His full comment was not audible on the recording as he was speaking from the audience and not using a microphone.] After reading Chris §EC4b regarding tax breaks and incentives, remarked that that was what an empowerment center was and suggested adding a comment to include enabling a city-wide empowerment zone or something to that effect. This was an item that the State of Washington had been advised would be included in Bremerton’s Comp Plan. It was suggested to list this item as a second bullet point under §EC4b that would read, “Maintain all eligible areas of the city as an Commissioner empowerment zone to qualify for state tax credits”. All were in agreement. Cockburn thought only certain areas were designated for empowerment zones, not the whole Chris city. agreed, noting only census tract 8-13, (part of a “blight” designation), is currently designated as an empowerment zone. When reviewing the criteria for getting tax breaks, nothing that could be done in census tract 8-13 qualified, so an eligible piece of geography was created that inherently wouldn’t be eligible because of the types of jobs created (primary jobs), the magnitude of development that has to occur to create those jobs, and where the people have to live in order to enable the tax break. He stated, “We made application to do something, and in our form of application we limited our geography so greatly we made sure we could never do it. That’s what we did back in 1994.” In talking with the State, the State said there was no reason why one wouldn’t qualify as much of the city as one could because that has to do with where the resident workers come from. Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 4 of 18 PaulRogerson Moving on to the Land Use element, continued with the staff report. In Addendum #6, there were five specific requests via public comments for changes to the 1995 Land Use map; the Commissioners’ task is to assess how the changes fit (or do not fit) in one of the three scenario maps that have been discussed throughout the deliberation process. This portion of the addendum goes through the requests and relates to the Commissioners staff’s assessment of how the requests fit in one, more than one or none of the scenarios. The first request was related to the Penn Plaza area at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue, submitted by Mr. William Palmer and Mr. Paul McConkey. Paul read directly from the request which was asking for the entire property in question to be redesignated as BP (Business Park). Under Scenario #1, the north end of the property remains designated BP and the south end of the property remains MDR (Medium Density Residential); in other words, no change to the existing designation. In Scenario #2, the property is redesignated as requested. For clarification, Paul explained that the designation BP is no longer available and would be referred to as IP (Industrial Park). Scenario #3 recommends that the north portion be designated IP and the south portion be designated LDR (Low Density Residential), which allows density in that designation to go as high as ten residential units per acre. This is based on plan goals and policies that move all higher density residential uses to centers while leaving industrial or business park type uses in place as there are Commissioner no employment centers to send them to. In reference to the scenario #3, KosuskoPaul asked where a new business would be located. rephrased his previous statement: Limited areas of commercial or business park-type development would not fit easily into an employment center because their large site or planned-unit approach to industrial park development. In Scenario #3 staff did not recommend that all IP uses be thrust into non- conforming status and essentially directed toward employment centers. It does allow some of those types of uses to remain in place in contrast to what staff has done with multi-family residential development, for example. Werner Road is one of the IP designated areas that is not part of an employment center; areas such as this exist primarily because not all of that type of use is going to fit in the large plan environment of the employment center. The second request was submitted by the Roberts and the Donahues, co-owners of a property in the vicinity of Northwest Corporate Campus. The request was to designate their property along Highway 16 (south and east of Gorst) for commercial use. In Scenario #1, the property receives a general commercial designation, reflecting Scenario #1’s philosophy that commercial uses would expand along arterials. In Scenario #2, the property receives an Industrial Park designation, reflecting Scenario #2’s philosophy that new designations will be used to address traditional market forces calling for more industrial land. It is a similar treatment of the property as Scenario #1, but employs the new Industrial Park designation. In Scenario #3, the property is designated as part of the Northwest Corporate Campus employment center. This designation potentially allows commercial uses, but is subject to future area specific plan process. [Using the Scenario #3 Land Use map, Paul showed the area of the Northwest Corporate Campus Chris employment center and where the property in question is located in relation to the center.] Hugo further clarified the location of the property; it is where Highway 16 comes around the end of Sinclair Inlet. At this point, Highway 3 comes from Belfair and splits to run North and South. The southbound traffic is heading toward Port Orchard and is merging right before this property, so there are three-lanes of highway traffic and a merging lane of traffic with the speed limit increasing to 50 mph. In Chris’ opinion, the biggest issue is what can reasonably be achieved with [that property] where the transportation is consistent with the land use. The transportation function is this area is established, and it is a severe one; it is difficult road geometry because the Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 5 of 18 three lanes of Highway 16 traffic coming southbound around the corner creates a dangerous situation for any vehicle attempting to access property along the road on the hillside. Under Scenario #3, waiting until there is a sub-area plan that addresses all aspects [of this property and its location], is most likely the only way this property could be redesignated from its current LDR zoning. The terrain of the property makes it inaccessible from the highway; the current access is via a long driveway that leads to an older single-family home. Chris commented that sometimes you have to defer to the least dangerous situation; perhaps some development could occur if the owners were able to secure access through the west side of the property (via Sunnyslope, for example). Currently, with the situation of the road system, it is difficult to see a better option than what is offered under Scenario #3. General Commercial could be another option, but another growth strategy would have to be chosen and it wouldn’t be consistent with the overall plan framework; there is still the question as to how the County and State could support a major road access at that property location. Chris speculated that the owners might not have ever asked that question – if they had, it might have solved their interest in the PaulRogerson redesignation. further explained that when staff developed the paradigms used to create scenario maps #1 & #2, they were not complex enough to address some of the transportation issues. When staff recommended Scenario #1, for example, it was done on the basis of the philosophy that did not have enough depth to it to anticipate or address all of the issues Chris Hugo had described. Scenario #3, while it was not predicated with more attention to transportation issues, it happens to address the transportation dilemma better than #1 or #2. The third request was submitted by Kitsap County Health District asking to redesignate a piece of property owned by Kitsap County Health District in the Jackson Park area from its current designation of MDR to General/Professional Office (as described in their testimony). In Scenario #1, staff recommends the property remain MDR; redesignated public use is not provided for in this scenario that would indicate it should be redesignated. Scenario #2 indicates that a public sector redevelopment site designation should be applied to the property reflecting Scenario #2’s philosophy that public agency needs will be enabled as requested, using the new land use designation. Scenario #3 also indicates a redesignation to a public sector redevelopment site for the Health District’s campus of buildings in the Jackson Park area, arising from plan goals that are in the current draft plan regarding providing public services, accessible locations, CommissionerBuckingham etc. asked if there currently is a public sector redevelopment site Paul designation. confirmed this; the designation is in the plan and is applied to the map, not only to this parcel, but to East Park and West Park. The basic philosophy is it is in the public interest to [redesignate] and there is an overriding public benefit. The fourth request is in reference to the Whitcomb property with testimony provided by William Palmer. The property is in the vicinity of Highway 3 and Kitsap Way. The request was to designate a small parcel behind an existing motel for commercial uses; the current designation is Low Density Residential (LDR). In Scenario #1, the property receives the commercial designation that is requested, reflecting the scenario’s philosophy that existing commercial designations are expanded near arterials. In Scenario #2, the property remains designated LDR, reflecting Scenario #2’s philosophy that commercial expansion does happen near arterials, but not in locations not fronting on that arterial. As an aside, Paul explained the remaining ownership owned by this property owner receives the Freeway Commercial designation which potentially increases the utility of this property. To clarify, this scenario does not redesignate the parcel requested to Freeway Commercial, but does redesignate the other ownership this person maintains in that vicinity to Freeway Commercial; there then is a benefit on existing property but Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 6 of 18 does not receive the requested redesignation on the small parcel in question. In Scenario #3, the property remains LDR, reflecting the Scenario #3’s philosophy that commercial uses expand only in centers. Remaining ownership receives the Freeway Commercial designation, potentially increasing utility of the adjacent property but not on the property requested. The reason neither Scenario #1 and #2 recommends the designation be reassigned to General Commercial [and remains LDR] is because there is LDR designation immediately behind the property; currently the property in the adjacent areas are developed for single family residential uses. Staff cannot see that redevelopment of the property under the commercial designation (if it were given) would be compatible with the nearby neighborhoods. [Using the GIS map, Matthew Keough showed the Commissioners where the property the request is for is located.] The property is currently accessible only through the residential neighborhood; there is no access via the existing General Commercial area due to topography and the nature of the development on the site. Commissioner Cockburn asked if [the property owner] wanted to expand the motel out [into Paul the redesignated] area. replied that while the description provided did not specifically state that, it is staff’s opinion that that is the property owner’s plan. He commented that without a specific development request and uncertainty as to how the development would be accessed, staff is hesitant to recommend redesignation at this time. If the property owner were to submit a specific development request that demonstrated access would not be through the residential area, adequate buffering would be provided between [the development] and the neighborhood, and would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and a subsequent rezone, staff could review the request differently. Without that additional information, staff felt [the request] was ChrisHugo not consistent with the goals and policies to recommend the redesignation. asked if there was opportunity for buffering on the north side [of the property] to protect the Paul neighborhood if the expansion were to occur. responded that he could not say with certainty, but he assumed it would be difficult to provide adequate buffering because of the size ChrisHugo of the development site. After viewing a short plat of the area on the GIS, noted the significance of the lots directly north of the requested redesignation site; these lots are all single- family residences and there is a market for the current designation of LDR. Chris asked if the DriRalph requested site’s topography would allow for single-family residence development. , EnvironmentalPlanner , confirmed this and explained there is a stream and other drainage running through that particular piece of land. The fifth request was submitted by John Rosander asking for redesignation for property he has an interest in located in the Kitsap Lake vicinity. He was not specific about the designation he was requesting, but he “wished have a designation that allowed a wood flooring sales- and storage-type activity.” Under Scenario #1, the property is redesignated as [Business] Park, reflecting Scenario #1’s philosophy that the City would continue to allow expanded industrial uses in areas where industry already existed [there is currently adjacent industrial uses in the general vicinity of this site]. In Scenario #2, the property receives an Industrial Park designation, essentially the same rationale as above, but using the newer 2003/2004 designation to accomplish the same outcome. In Scenario #3, the property receives the Reserve Center designation (discussed earlier). The Reserve Center will be implemented with zoning that allows a limited variety of commercial uses while preserving a potential for future neighborhood or ChrisHugo district center designation. commented that he had recently met with the property owner’s representative. Mr. Rosander is not the property owner’s official representative; he is promoting the comp plan change because, as a citizen, a person can propose any change to the [zoning] map through this legislative process; no person needs any particular standing to speak for a property – they can speak on what they think is in the best interest of the City. In Chris’ Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 7 of 18 conversation with the attorney representing the property owner, it was made known that the property owner wants to have the same plan designation as the adjacent commercial uses. That redesignation is not an issue since both properties share frontage on a four-lane arterial. Chris assured the attorney that his client will be treated the same as the other property owner, whatever that is, under the center strategy. Chris said he would talk more about a zoning implementation PaulRogerson approach in the Director’s Report. reminded the Commission that the Reserve Center designation is the entire red “hatched” area on the GIS map, not just the area Mr. Rosander was submitting a request for redesignation on. The sixth and last request is on the McDonald property, with testimony supplied by Mr. McDonald who is asking to redesignate a portion of a lot (approximately of the lot) to General Commercial. Under Scenario #1, the property is redesignated General Commercial, reflecting Scenario #1’s philosophy that commercial uses expand in existing commercial areas. Under Scenario #2, the property is not redesignated, reflecting Scenario #2’s philosophy that, while commercials are generally expanded in existing commercial areas, properties not fronting on an arterial and adjacent to exist residential areas are an exception to the rule. In Scenario #3, the property is not redesignated, reflecting Scenario #3’s philosophy that commercial uses are generally not located outside of centers or corridors, with the exception of large scale Chris Hugo commercial uses that are allowed in freeway-oriented areas. asked if existing commercial areas were allowed to be in-filled. Paul said that that policy had been discussed, but staff did not consider this request to be in-fill. Chris clarified his question by adding the point that there could be commercial [uses] outside of centers and corridors, but only when they in-fill CommissionerBuckingham within a contained area. asked what currently exists on the lot in MatthewKeough question. responded that the property is currently designated residential and currently there is a house on the property; the portion of the lot that the owner is requesting a redesignation has had some development by the property owner in the form of Mr. McDonald expanding his business onto his residential lot. This expansion conflicts with zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. CommissionerBuckingham asked for any additional comments or questions concerning the requests for redesignation. Seeing none, he moved on to deliberations on the Land Use element. CommissionerStreissguth started with a question of clarification on page LU-7, Urban Growth Area (UGA): The last sentence in the first paragraph contains a question about the non- associated UGAs and Commissioner Streissguth felt the question was partially answered with the CPPs and a portion of the area that is being referred to [within the paragraph] is now associated with Bremerton. It was her understanding that in the CPPs there was a section that runs from Riddell Road to the ravine that is now associated [with City of Bremerton], and she asked if the ChrisHugo language should be amended to reflect consistency with the CPPs. commented that Commissioner Streissguth had raised a good point because this is an item that is timely now, but is not going to have much value in a couple years. He did note that the reason this is in the Land Use element is because there is a large paradigm to break which has not occurred yet, even with the CPPs. Bremerton will have to make an historic case and it’s being made [within the deliberations]. If Bremerton is successful in redirecting that history into a more positive outcome, using the CPPs and these arguments, in two to four years [the reference to non- associated UGAs] will be taken out. Currently, the area above Riddell Road is still a non- associated UGA and will remain as such until Bremerton makes a case and the County acts on it in one of their own comp plan updates in the future that redesignates the UGAs. Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 8 of 18 Commissioner Streissguth moved on to Open Space, directing the Commission to page LU-11 and the goals and policies (§LU2) on page LU-15. Both items discuss the linkage of a trail system and pedestrian pathways. Commissioner Streissguth felt a reference to linkage between Paul centers should be added either to the text on page LU-11 or to the sub-goals in §LU2. Rogerson noted in §LU12b there is specific mention of pedestrian and bicyclist access between communities, centers and neighborhoods. The Commissioners were in agreement that this wording addresses Commissioner Streissguth’s concerns adequately. CommissionerStreissguth proposed the wording on page LU-31 be amended to read, “The Sylvan/Pine neighborhood center in the vicinity of the namesake intersection . . .” instead of “… located at the intersection…” Public comment had been received recommending this change; there are different amenities in the vicinity that may be a more appropriate location for the actual center, so when the neighborhood plan is developed, the neighborhood can have that discussion. CommissionerKosusko commented that this change would be consistent with the Commission’s past discussions of centers where the centers are not necessarily intersection- centered. CommissionerStreissguth On page LU-32, questioned the reference to the height restriction of six to eight stories in the commercial [areas]; she felt the eight stories was inconsistent with what had been decided on for other centers and wondered if the limit should be six stories or if a [numerical measurement] should be used in place of a reference to the number of stories. CommissionerKosusko commented that what had been discussed previously was in reference to inconsistencies with the WWRC designation, which is the corridor outside of the centers; that item had been resolved, which leaves the question of the appropriateness of the eight-story PaulRogerson height restriction. noted that, although this topic had come up in several of the past meetings, no change had yet been made because of the lack of clear direction on the amendment. He pointed out that the District Center designation refers to a five-story/50-feet ChrisHugo maximum height limitation. commented that, even at five stories, a local amendment to the building code is needed to go four stories of wood over a first story concrete CommissionerKosusko podium. amended that statement by saying it was five stories of wood over a first story of concrete; anything more than that would require a special exception. He Chris wondered if the height might be too restrictive because of the way heights are measured. reminded the Commission that it had been decided to propose removing the references to height. Commissioner Buckingham then asked if any reference to the number of stories should be removed from the text and refer only to the District Center designation and what is allowable CommissionerKosusko under that designation. pointed out that on the next page under “West Portion” there is a four- to six-story height limitation and felt that if the references to height were removed from “East Portion”, it should be removed throughout the document for consistency. Paul spoke about the different height limitations and how each center is unique; in the designation descriptions [later in the chapter] the general parameters are given which would be the maximum height allowed for that area. It was agreed to remove the reference to five stories on pages LU-32 and amend the “West Portion” to read “four- to five-stories” instead of “four- to six-stories”. Commissioner On page LU-42 under Commercial Corridor in the discussion section, Streissguth suggested to adding a sentence that talks about incentive based development and encouraging placement of priority on preserving existing trees and vegetative buffers, especially along Kitsap Way. Commissioner Streissguth offered to e-mail the exact wording of the Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 9 of 18 Paul additional sentence to Paul Rogerson after the meeting. referred to a recommended staff amendment on the same discussion paragraph pertaining to going with a form based zoning approach. The last sentence in the discussion reads “… a full range of services are included as permitted uses including grocery, theaters, etc.” Paul’s recommendation is to strike that sentence because not only is it too specific, but it also is not consistent with the form based zoning ChrisHugo approach that will be discussed later in the meeting. disagreed, saying there should be additional discussion with staff and with Paul on how far form based zoning can be taken. Chris felt [form based zoning] works best when trying to manage a mixed-use environment so not retaining more traditional language in more sterile commercial environments or industrial parks; he advised against deleting that portion of the discussion section. It was agreed that no change would be made until more information regarding form based zoning was available. CommissionerKosusko proposed deleting the portion of that same sentence that reads “… as permitted uses…” because the body of the paragraph is “plan language” and that phrase is more regulatory zoning. It was agreed the sentence should read “A full range of services are accommodated, including groceries, theaters, restaurants, hardware, and gas stations, etc.” Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were other corridors in addition to Kitsap Way that thth have the Commercial Corridor designation, for example 11 Street or 6 Street. Using the map for Scenario #3, Paul Rogerson pointed to the area designated Commercial Corridor, which is thth essentially along Kitsap Way. The portions of 11 Street and 6 Street Commissioner Cockburn was asking about are designated Commercial with no reference to a corridor designation. CommissionerStreissguth again referred to page LU-32, specifically the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor and the circulation issues there. She felt the discussion portion of this section should address the appropriateness for access from the rear of a business via a frontage or local access road in portions of the WWRC area. She thought that there should also be a reference in the discussion section dealing with buffering between commercial and residential Chris Hugo areas. offered clarification: The first option of a frontage road was explained as a suburban feature; they are primarily seen near large shopping malls in the form of large (six- lane) arterials with smaller two-lane roads on each side that separates the uses tremendously which result in large expanses of asphalt areas which is opposite of the goals the Commission is working toward. Use of rear access roads is already referenced in the Land Use element and Chris thought the addition of language regarding [traffic] circulation would be helpful. Commissioner Streissguth mentioned that the comments they had discussed in the group were reflecting local access, not necessarily frontage roads. Paul made note that in the fourth paragraph on page LU-43, language was to be added regarding accessing properties from the rear Matthew Keough to retain pedestrian friendly streets. suggested coordinating with the centers adjacent to those areas because he feels that is where the Land Use committees were focused on when buffering alternative circulation routes was discussed. This could be achieved by adding the phrase, “… in coordination with the centers’ alternative circulation routes and buffering.” All were in agreement on those two issues. Commissioner Streissguth moved on to the Public Sector Redevelopment Sites on page LU-44. She felt a provision should be added for an open space requirement, her thought being, with public projects it is the best opportunity to be looking at open space requirements and the link there with public ownership. She did not see this as a strict requirement, but would like to have language added to the discussion portion to reflect this thought. Her suggestion was, “Potential development includes mixed-type residential developments with an open space component that Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 10 of 18 integrate context sensitive commercial and office development.” Paul Rogerson made note of that addition; all were in agreement. Commissioner In reference to the General Higher Education portion of the Land Use element, Buckingham questioned the scenario zoning maps which showed areas that are currently residential, but are proposed to be zoned Higher Education. He asked if the maps should be Paul changed to reflect the decision of having Olympic College grow up rather than out. Rogerson replied that that would be a policy decision and reminded the Commission that the intent of the scenario maps was to reflect the Higher Education designation in place today; what ChrisHugo is noted on the maps was taken directly from the current designation. asked Commissioner Commissioner Kosusko if he knew what the Master Plan boundaries were. Kosusko responded that the Master Plan included the residential areas in question. The college Chris is currently in the process of putting together a SEPA for that entire Master Plan area. commented, “This doesn’t mean that you’re bound by anything, but the intent of the policy statement is it was drafted or conceived by staff to essentially look at this and say, (as opposed to the last public issue that came up about expanding north to the water), ‘Stay within this boundary and get more efficient and more vertical; convert asphalt to parking structures; get a more urban CommissionerBuckingham style campus and stay away from a suburban model.’” asked for CommissionerKosuskoChris clarification of the phrase “Stay within this boundary…” and HugoCommissioner both stated that the current Comprehensive Plan includes that area. Kosusko further explained that the architectural firm he works for is the architect for this planning process and currently the college has buildings “in the pipeline” that they are getting funding for: A four-story science building which is in the permitting process at this time and a four-story humanities building which will be built in the space vacated by the original science building. There are plans to construct an academic building and a performing arts center in the area that is currently being used as residential and is located between Warren Avenue and Broadway. Also, a parking garage will be constructed where the arts/music building is presently. ChrisHugo added that to the south of the campus, there had been discussion of creating a more “campus friendly” urban environment by encouraging campus oriented retail such as book PaulRogerson stores, coffee shops, music stores, etc. noted that on page LU-6 there is specific language dealing with the area south of Olympic College and how future planning could better meet the needs of college students. CommissionerKosusko Referencing the list of Specific Area Plans, noted that “Special Redevelopment Sites” on page LU-6 should be “Public Sector Redevelopment Site” per previous discussions. Also, in addition to Westpark and Eastpark, the Health District site should be listed in the description, as well as clear delineation between the Evergreen Park Plan and the PaulRogerson Campus/Evergreen Plan. commented that these changes will be regarded as staff ChrisHugo edits for clarification and would not be listed in the proposed amendments. asked MatthewKeough for an explanation of why the Campus/Evergreen Plan was named as such. said that it was an existing plan from the 1995 Comp Plan that encompasses a large area which includes Bremerton High School as well as Olympic College campuses and extends as far as the Manette Bridge. Although it is a very generic name for a plan, it has some suggestions for future projects, and staff does not want to lose sight of the provisions set forth in that plan which is why it has continued to be honored. This does not prevent the Commission from issuing instructions to make changes to reflect the acknowledgement that the area is too broad and needs to be more Chris specific to the neighborhoods within in it. reminded the Commission that, unless the existing sub-area plans have been posted/advertised for public comments, their formal validity Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 11 of 18 expires once the Comp Plan has been adopted because the public did not have a chance to comment on [the sub-areas]. The sub-area plans are of value because they provide information on what the planning histories and desires of the neighborhood are so they are kept in [the Planning Department] library and will be updated as time allows; that means the titles can be changed any way the Commission wants, for example, splitting the Campus/Evergreen Plan in Chris two to clearly define these distinct areas. also pointed out that the language in the introduction of that section references anticipated planning or work, not completed work. MatthewKeough confirmed that staff’s intent in writing this section was to say that the work on the community plans that had already been completed would be honored and, he thought, to incorporate [the work] to keep the validity of them. Chris thought a better place in the element for this item was in the section that discusses the various centers designations such as in the Matthew Charleston Center designation which is based on the Charleston Community Plan. suggested referencing the Campus/Evergreen District Plan elsewhere in the document because it is the only existing district plan. Paul summarized the instructions to staff as “Move reference to existing neighborhood plan, etc. on page LU-6 to discussions of …” [Paul’s sentence trails off Chris Hugo here.] asked Matthew Keough and Paul Rogerson if there had been discussion of the mixed-use district around Evergreen as a part of the expanded downtown area. Paul said there had been mixed-use designation discussions which, in some cases, where that area falls would decide if that would be a centers or land use designation discussion. CommissionerKosusko commented that in the Neighborhood Center and District Center descriptions, there was still a reference to the height of buildings measured in feet as opposed to PaulRogerson the story restriction suggested at previous meetings. responded that discussion earlier in the meeting dealt with the height restrictions and it was proposed that all reference to height measurements in feet be stricken from the various land use designation discussions. CommissionerKosusko asked if the height limitation would be referred to in stories only, ChrisHugo would there be a definition as to what a “story” consists of. said the specifics would be explained in his explanation of form based zoning. CommissionerKosusko suggested that, since Bremerton does not have a Design Review Board, the Planning Commission could be utilized to review projects and centers until regulatory language is established. He was concerned about the amount of time that would elapse while the centers are going through sub-area planning and committee meetings that need to occur; ChrisHugo opportunities may be lost in the centers during that time period. explained that a change like that would have to be presented in the form of an ordinance review which, in his opinion, would not be any easier than creating another committee to get the design regulations in place. Commissioner Kosusko On page LU-41 in the description of the Downtown Regional Center, Paul Rogerson asked for clarification on the boundaries of the DRC. replied that the DRC is larger than the Calthorpe [Plan] Boundary (listed in the description); it extends from the waterfront and shipyards to Warren Avenue on the west and to the edge of Evergreen Park on the north. Paul suggested striking the reference to the Calthorpe Plan Boundary in the description, as well as changing “DRC zone” to “DRC designation”. All were in agreement on the editorial corrections. There was some discussion regarding the density definition in the Downtown Regional Center. It was agreed upon that a minimum density should be listed in the description, not a maximum Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 12 of 18 Commissioner Buckingham density. expressed concern over the proposed boundaries of the DRC because they incorporate established neighborhoods and he felt that by expanding into those neighborhoods, the Commission was not being consistent with other elements of the Comp Plan. There are areas north of the Manette Bridge that could potentially be shops and businesses and Commissioner Buckingham felt that type of activity would not be appropriate for any area th north of 6 Street and from Cogean to the water. Chris Hugo responded that there are two paradigms and it is up to the Commission to determine which is appropriate. He continued: thth “Some of the conditions in that area between 6 and 11 include Pacific [Avenue] and Park [Avenue] which both have quite mixed frontage environments and other uses which tend to disrupt the residential area and character. But then Highland and Pleasant and down below the fire station seem to have some nice neighborhood qualities. It’s mixed, but there are some nice houses in there and there are some that have been redone recently… and downtowns do need a good residential support environment around them. So maybe the thing to do is we need to say something here about doing more sub-area planning… Finish the job (the Calthorpe effort) for the whole regional district, including going up into the Evergreen neighborhood again and kind of confirming some things because the neighborhoods have some ideas we need to consider. Right now the designation that comes around there kind of picks up that south side of Evergreen Park and tries to recognize that th hillside from the park up towards 11 as a potential mixed-use environment where you can have some three- and four-story condo development over some partial street-floor retail which could be really interesting and urban and serve that neighbor hood well. I’m building off the Café Destino back up the hill with residential on top of more of that kind of neighborhoods serving retail or services or thth restaurants. So there’s one paradigm that would protect that residential between 6 and 11; there’s another one that says ‘Go for it – convert it all to three- or four-story residential.’ Those are the two things that could happen in there and that’s what you have to decide amongst those two paths now.” CommissionerBuckingham liked the first option of establishing a sub-area plan that recognizes the residential districts. He felt this is important on many levels for many reasons, especially in keeping with the other elements, the areas discussed should be preserved. Commissioner Chris Buckingham did acknowledge that there would be in-fill activity going on in those areas. Hugo pointed out that the way the scenarios had been created by staff tended to be most protective of low density neighborhoods that had been planned and zoned as such. The reason the above scenario was presented this way is because under PSRC it is part of the urban center of the metropolitan center that Bremerton is. Historically, it has been planned for the kind of increased density that is shown; it has been that way in the past and is consistent with the Paul Rogerson regional framework. reminded the Commission that any of the centers implies automatically by the fact of center designation that there will be an area specific planning exercise applied to it; during that exercise, compatibility issues will be dealt with. In Paul’s opinion, in addition to what Chris had covered, the reason the designation is as broad as it is, is it is recognized that there is potential for linking Evergreen Park with the downtown, providing continuity in pedestrian experience between downtown all the way to Evergreen Park; taking advantage of the park as an amenity for increased intensity of development to help bring more residential base to the center in general and to somehow meld all those factors along with the ones [Chris] mentioned requires an exercise like an area specific plan. In other words, a center designation would enable just the exercise necessary to accomplish that kind of synthesis. Commissioner Buckingham asked if there was language that specifically states that there will Paul be sub-area planning. replied that there was not, but if the Commission felt that this is one of the areas where a specific area plan would be applied and would like to recommend that the Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 13 of 18 discussion paragraph repeat that which is found in §LU6 [on page LU-16], staff could make that change. All Commissioners were in agreement to the proposed amendment. CommissionerKosusko commented that on the list of center on page LU-6, the Downtown ChrisHugo Regional Center had not been listed and thought it should be added. responded that the staff recognized that, even though there is a somewhat directed plan for the core, the support environment around the core (west to Warren and north to Evergreen Park) is very mixed; there are a lot of things that could happen there and more guidance is needed. At this time, areas between Pacific Avenue and Warren Avenue are allowed to build higher than any building in the core which is permitted in the existing zoning; this could lead to all kinds of speculative Paul possibilities so a revamping of the document is needed in the long run. summarized the staff instructions: Add reference to a specific area plan as needed in the Downtown Center and add the Downtown Center to the list of areas subject to the specific plan requirement that is in the discussion on LU-6. The Commissioners agreed on these two items. CommissionerKosusko On page LU-45, discussed the inconsistencies of the General Commercial designation, specifically how multi-family structures outside of centers is not encouraged, but commercial uses [outside of centers] are not treated the same way. One of his main concerns was how other types of commercial designations have crept back into the centers concept and thought there should be more language in the discussion portion of the document to Paul make the description more contained. referred to the last sentence in the discussion section, “Expansion of these areas is not consistent with the intent of this plan” as the key to the inclusion of the General Commercial. Staff felt it was necessary to recognize the limited area of commercial uses and not widely force them into non-conforming status. The area in question is th along 6 Street and a portion of High Avenue where there are some existing commercial uses that are not part of the Charleston District plan and cannot be described as a corridor; also, the nature of the businesses is not consistent with the description used to create the corridors. The remaining existing commercial areas fall within the newer corridor designations. It was suggested to change the designation name to Limited Commercial with the intent of “capturing” areas and containing the commercial growth within those areas. It was further clarified that this change of designation title was not to stop commercial growth, but to recognize that these are areas are holdovers from the previous plan that need to be defined. It is understood that commercial infill is allowed under the Limited Commercial designation, but expansion is not. CommissionerBuckingham suggested spending more time on this subject and revisiting it at a later meeting. Commissioner Buckingham moved on to page LU-32, specifically the Wheaton Way/Riddell District Center. He questioned why gas stations, repair garages, etc. where not allowed in an Commissioner Cockburn area that is primarily accessed by automobiles. suggested Chris encouraging automobile specific businesses such as a repair shop within a parking garage. Hugo commented that that portion of the element is based more on the traditional way of looking at zoning and the restriction of language used when trying to get away from an auto-dependent zoning model. Chris thought that it might not be necessary to use that type of language or perhaps in the discussion section, talk about it more in terms of relationships rather than outright prohibition and keep in the ideas to make it more living friendly and not so auto-dependent. That’s not to say it won’t be allowed for cars to still have a way to access the site and get auto Commissioner Buckingham needs met. agreed, saying it needs to be remembered that Wheaton Way is a highway; it is a major arterial - a road that has usage beyond the local intent Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 14 of 18 Paul for it and seems like an ideal location for gas stations, etc., if there is a need. reminded the Commissioners that the corridor designation should anticipate automobile oriented uses, but the centers themselves were more pedestrian oriented; that is why this type of language crept in. In the Staff Report, Director Hugo will be talking about a zoning approach that will move away from the type of language that discussed what prohibited uses in various places are. Paul felt that the dilemma of implementing this type of zoning approach is it may not be productive to go through the plan and try to find and eliminate all the places where prohibiting various uses is discussed until after the Commission had heard Chris’ presentation and perhaps revisit this Commissioner subject at a future date if the Commission accepts the zoning approach. Cockburn commented that he thought the Wheaton Way/Riddell District Center is more automobile oriented than the other centers and would remain that way. He felt perhaps there should be focus on planning for it to be the most automobile oriented center and focus more on Chris Hugo walkability in the other centers. commented that the Commission has to decide what direction they want to take this subject because if the decision is to promote Wheaton Way/Riddell as automobile dominant, it no longer is considered a center which promotes residential growth with pedestrian access. Originally, Wheaton Way/Riddell was designated a center because it seemed like there was much opportunity to redevelop land on the east side into CommissionerStreissguth an urban village like University Village [in Seattle]. proposed deleting the sentence in question because she felt the specificity is addressed Director Hugo’s Paul proposal for zoning and this should be treated as a zoning matter. summarized the instruction to staff: “To eliminate the phrase after the hyphen that says ‘although automobile focus uses such as gas stations or repair garages are not permitted.’” All were in agreement on this proposed amendment. CommissionerBuckingham asked for any other comment from the other Commissioners on the th Paul Rogerson Land Use element. recommended a 50 instruction to staff to clarify Land Use ChrisHugo Goal #8 and choose between the two policies offered. explained that there were two policies listed because there was concern about the issue of creating non-conforming properties and what the liability would be to property owners and to the City. Since then, there has been council from another city’s attorney (not Bremerton’s attorney) saying that non- conforming properties still have the ability to be insured and to be borrowed against because there are protected non-conforming rights in Bremerton’s code. He went on to explain, “The dilemma was if you come up with a growth strategy based on these goals and policies, then how do you leave existing built up multi-family projects in the middle of nowhere – how do you leave them and say that’s OK without saying ‘If it’s OK there, why isn’t it OK across the street?’” That is what the [other] city’s Land Use attorney challenged Bremerton with; to not create non- conformities that will bring about issues for borrowing and insuring and without generating unequal treatment under the current Land Use laws. The Land Use attorney advised that if [Bremerton] has the right non-conforming protections in the zoning code (which Bremerton Paul does), then it should not be an issue. noted in the instructions to staff to strike §LU8a. All A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by were in agreement. Commissioner Kosusko to close deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan, have staff incorporate into the document the fifty proposed amendments, designate Land Use Scenario Map #3 as the preferred option while retaining the other scenario maps for review and analysis under SEPA, hold the Comprehensive Plan until the associated zoning package is prepared and then forward all components as a preliminary decision to the City Council for official review and adoption. Called for a vote: Cockburn: No; Kosusko: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Wood: Yes; Buckingham: Yes. The motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 15 of 18 VI. Business Meeting A.Chairman’s Report: Commissioner Buckingham acknowledged that completing deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan to this point was a historic moment for the Planning Commission, and also wanted to acknowledge Commissioner Wood’s contribution to the Commission. B. Director’s Report: Chris Hugo, Director of Community Development first spoke about the Shoreline View Corridor issue. It has been decided to take a simple regulatory change and add that into the zoning work; when the Commission goes through the zoning update, the Shoreline View Corridors will be updated as well. It will be packaged and advertised in a way so it can go through a public review process to be addressed with all the new zoning. If the policy needed to be amended it would not be feasible to present the Shoreline View Corridor in this manner, but the policy does not need to be amended, only the regulation. Chris explained, “We’ll advertise it and then talk about it during that process, and then send it off to the State once we act on it. They have six months to confirm what we’ve done after that.” Chris moved on to the subject of Commissioner Wood’s replacement. An advertisement had been posted in the Bremerton Sun; once applicants respond there will be a selection process to find a replacement. Chris reminded the Commission of Commissioner Wood’s additional duty as a member of the Capital Projects Review Committee, which was an appointment by the Chairman; it is the discretion of the Planning Commission to fill that position. If any [Commissioner] is interested in that position, they need to inform Commissioner Buckingham because the Block Grant staff needs a replacement. This committee meets every year and it would be beneficial to have somebody participate two or three years in a row. Chris then referred to copies from the County that had been distributed to the Commissioners prior to the start of the meeting. The copies were of two Comp Plan amendments that have come to the County’s docket. The first is a proposal by Mr. Paul Pazuki and Kitsap Transit dated May 5, 2004, to change the zoning in the area where Highway 303 turns into Waaga Way from Urban Low Residential and Urban Restricted to Highway Tourist Commercial. Examples of that usage are a motel, an outlet store or a convenience store, etc. The area in question is adjacent to rural or non-UGA and has some environmentally sensitive land near it. Our goal is to maintain a non-urban separator between Bremerton and Silverdale and to retain as much non-urban frontage on as possible on Highway 303. The second proposal involves changing the zoning of 144 acres of land outside the Urban Growth Area from rural residential (5 acre lots) to urban restricted (1 – 5 dwelling units per acre). Having less than four dwelling units per acre is not allowed under the GMA unless it is greatly restricted by environmental conditions. There are no urban services in that area so this would involve moving the UGA boundary. Chris stated that both of the proposals are inconsistent with the County-wide planning policies as well as the direction that Bremerton is trying to go as a community. Direction from the Planning Commission is needed as there is a hearing on June 22, 2004 with a comment period through that date. Both Planning Commission and City Council can make comment on these two proposals. Chris encouraged the Commissioners to Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 16 of 18 make comments, particularly on the proposal involving 144 acres because of the myriad problems related to the fact that the County still has a land use category that is inherently inconsistent with the GMA. Chris reminded the Commissioners that time was of the essence, giving the interim forest lands as an example of what happens when comments are not CommissionerKosusko submitted within the time allotted. remarked that the proposed actions are counter to what the CPPs are presenting and therefore felt the [Planning] department and City Council should make an argument against the proposals. All A motion was made by Commissioner Buckingham Commissioners were in agreement. and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to have staff draft a letter to the County on behalf of the Planning Commission suggesting the Bremerton Planning Commission does not approve of the proposed actions and also recommend to the City Council that they address the issue as well . Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Wood: Yes; Buckingham: Yes. The motion carried. Chris Zoning was the last subject in the Director’s Report. gave a brief overview of how traditional zoning is currently accomplished and how Bremerton’s view on zoning is more contextual and relational. During his trip to Washington DC for the APA National Planning Conference, he was introduced to some of the newest zoning concepts: Form based zoning and performance zoning. Form based zoning is regulating based on how the form of something fits into the streetscape or development environment such as building rise, setbacks, building details, orientation of building to parking and to entrances, etc. Another way to regulate is based on how things perform [performance zoning]: How much traffic, light pollution or noise is generated, odor, glare off of signage, etc. If the environmental aspects can be controlled in ways that can make it compatible with the neighborhood, then perhaps all of the issues have been addressed. Therefore, if the performance is compatible and the look is compatible, one might ask what the zoning would be. Chris remarked that the zoning could be almost anything. He has been doing research on “hybrid zoning” which is taking form based zoning and performance zoning, “melding” them together and regulating on the result rather than referring to a list of uses and prescribed setbacks. Chris went on to say that when centers are being described with what could or couldn’t be in one, at this point there is no definite answer: If the right set of form based and performance based regulations, there are a lot of things that could possibly fit, but [the projects] would have to prove they could fit. Chris proposed taking this approach for Bremerton’s mixed-use, but not in the low- density neighborhoods environments or auto districts where the traditional zoning methods work best. The Commissioners agreed with Chris that this sounded like a good approach. Chris also commented that if Bremerton was to incorporate this new approach to zoning, it would be among the first 100 local governments out of 12,000 in the US to CommissionerBuckingham do so. expressed concern that, by using this new zoning it Chris would make the permitting process more complicated. responded that, with enough up-front knowledge on what “compatible” means in terms of form and performance, through a simple administrative review process up to design review (for more complex developments) the permitting process could be accomplished more quickly and efficiently. Chris hoped to have some ordinance examples within a couple months to present to the Planning Commission and then subsequently introduce the new zoning approach to public groups such as homebuilders, developers, commercial property owners, etc. to get them involved in the dialogue. Chris further explained that the neighborhoods would like the new zoning approach because it protects neighborhoods Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 17 of 18 more consistently, plus the focus on form and compatibility in the centers sets the stage to ensure the centers will work well esthetically as well as operationally. C. Old Business: Reminder to the Planning Commission regarding the rules and by-laws. D. New Business: None. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for June 15, 2004. Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________________ Executive Secretary Approved by: _______________________________________ B. Scott Buckingham, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 18 of 18