Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2004 MINUTES Minutes for Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 I. Call to Order Commissioner Streissguth 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 Nelson, Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf, and Commissioner Streissguth. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Streissguth introduced the agenda. Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf asked about the revised schedules for City Council and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Streissguth A motion was explained that changes like that would be dealt with during the Staff Report. made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to approve the agenda as presented. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Nelson: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Friedberg-Nerf: Yes. The motion carried. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on October 19, 2004, and of the Special meeting held on October 26, 2004, were presented for approval by Commissioner Streissguth. Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf noted an error in spelling on page two in the discussion portion regarding the A motion was made by Marine Industrial designation in the minutes of October 19, 2004. Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2004 as amended, and the Special Meeting Minutes of October 26, 2004 as presented. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Nelson: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; and Friedberg-Nerf; Yes. The motion carried. V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call To The Public. (public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda)Seeing Commissioner Streissguth none,closed this portion of the meeting. B. Public Hearing: Paul Rogerson, Planning Manager , began the Public Hearing portion of the meeting with a housekeeping item: copies of the R-10 Zone draft and the Commercial Corridor were distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the start of Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 1 of 15 Robert Grumbach, Current Planner the meeting and , was on hand to present the Paul material to the Commissioner. In an effort for time management, urged the Commissioners to complete the R-10 Zone, Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor, and Commercial Corridor sections at this meeting to be better prepared for the hearing in December. Also, in order to conduct a briefing on all of the initial zoning subsections, the Commission will probably need to schedule a Special Meeting before the hearing on December 21, 2004. This item will be revisited later in the meeting. Paul then directed the Commissioner’s attention to the zoning packets distributed to them before the start of the meeting, noting that the packets contained updated information as well as correcting a copying error that occurred in the packets mailed to the Commissioners the previous week. The packets provided more detail on the items Robert Grumbach would be reviewing. Robert approached the podium and began his review with additional information on the packets and a brief explanation of how the R-10 zone designation evolved and stressed that input and guidance were the goals of this briefing. Robert moved on to the list of permitted uses in the R-10 zone: the more intensive uses such as large parks and facilities were removed and emphasis was placed on low-impact uses. Private schools (grades K – 12) and smaller scale religious worship facilities (20,000 sf or less) are an outright permitted use, however they may be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Other items addressed in the new R-10 designation are regulations that have had some compliance issues in the past such as requirements under State Law, most notably with Robert Adult Family Homes. explained that the State definition of an Adult Family Home was different from what City of Bremerton currently had in its zoning code; this would change with the new zoning code. Chris Hugo reminded the Commissioners that the approach being taken in the zoning code is a traditional zoning approach, listing all of the permitted uses as in the current zoning code; this is called Euclidean zoning where there are very distinct separations between types of land uses. With this approach, more intensive uses can be redirected toward Centers. CommissionerCockburn , referring to page 51 and specifically religious worship centers in an R-10 zone, asked about the parking requirements for those types of uses. Robert explained that the parking requirements are addressed in a separate section of the zoning code and that traditional direction would be carried over into the amended sections. There are lists of permitted uses in the amended sections and parking is based on a ratio of parking spaces to the size [square feet] of the building. Chris commented that as areas become more urban and are open to transit creating a walking neighborhood, there is the question of what to do with a dated parking standard. He used churches as an example and likened it to a double-edged sword: you don’t want to have more asphalt than what’s needed, but if you don’t provide enough on-site parking Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 2 of 15 by regulation it then spills over and impacts surrounding residences. He felt more research is needed to make sure both sides are covered. CommissionerNelson asked if Assisted Living Facilities falls under the category of Senior Housing Complex and wanted to know if adult daycare facilities and child daycare facilities would be considered the same as far as the state guidelines are concerned. Robert said yes to both items. Robert moved on to the section pertaining to accessory uses, discussing the basic definition of what an accessory use is (please see section 22.20.040 of the amended zone Chris code). reminded the Commission that, in order to have a structure that is considered an accessory use, there must be a detached single-family residence as the primary structure on the lot, or a single-family attached residence which looks like a duplex but actually straddles the property line of two adjoining lots. In the new R-10 zone, a duplex is defined as a two-family structure on one lot and will not be accommodated as they were in the DR zone. Robert Regarding manufactured homes, noted the State legislature had clarified some of the murkier issues in their last session, most notably the subject of whether cities have to allow manufacture homes within their jurisdictions. The State ruled that anywhere single family homes are allowed, manufactured homes have to be allowed as well. This ruling goes into effect July 1, 2005. The City of Bremerton has already been in compliance with this ruling through the current [zoning] codes. The State also has guidelines for criteria for siting manufactured homes along with roof pitches, width and depth, etc. The proposed zoning code would use the same guidelines as the State. CommissionerCockburn asked Chris if an accessory dwelling unit could be considered Robert the same as a duplex. explained that the difference between an accessory dwelling unit and a duplex is the footprint of a duplex can be as large as the maximum coverage allowed for a residential structure in that particular zone and an accessory dwelling unit cannot be as large as or larger than the primary unit or look like a second unit by using different building materials or design standards. Robert thought the recommended maximum square footage for an accessory dwelling unit was 800 square Chris feet but wanted input from the Commission before making that definite. further explained that the accessory use is to be a clearly subordinate use to the primary use, not Robert an equal use like a duplex would be. reminded the Commissioners that drafts of the zoning code are available on the City of Bremerton website or earlier drafts are available from the Department of Community Development office if the Commissioners had questions about them. CommissionerKosusko thought that Kitsap County had an additional designation called an Accessory Residential Unit or something similar which regulates boarding room type situations where rooms are rented out but common areas such as the kitchen are shared. Robert was not aware of that designation and expressed concern on whether or not the Chris county could effectively regulate it, but would look into it for the Commissioners. commented that a boarding room regulation was probably in effect during the 1950’s and -60’s, but was no longer actively used. There also used to be an annual certification of Robert accessory dwelling units; said he would check to see if that regulation was still in Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 3 of 15 effect. He did know for sure that there is a criterion that, if a person did own an ADU, there was a certificate to that effect and it was recorded to guarantee it was, in fact, an ADU. The next section covered Conditional Use Permits which are proposed to take the place of Special Use Permits. Under the current regulations, Special Use Permits have a list of five criteria for making decisions on approval of land use activity. However, the criteria can be vague and difficult to make informed decisions with. The proposed amendment contains similar criteria overall for review in a Conditional Use Permit, but there will also be criteria that are specific to individual uses. For example, the criteria for a Bed and Breakfast are not the same as those set forth for a Group Residential Facility because they Chris have different impacts and different needs. added that the intent of making the conditions specific enough was so that they can be managed administratively by staff in Robert most cases. further explained that staff was looking to do Administrative Conditional Permits versus the Hearing Examiner version which will continue to be used Chris if the application is too controversial and needs to be sent to a public hearing. used a Group Residence Facility as an example of what might go before a Hearing Examiner and a bed and breakfast with a potential mixed use character as an example of what might Robert be handled administratively by staff. added that another benefit of being specific with the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit is it makes neighborhood objectives very clear such as containing higher traffic producing services like Group Residential Facilities Class 1 to collector (or higher) streets; this and other criteria for Group Residential Facilities Class 1 come directly from the current code. CommissionerKosusko asked about the employment requirements for Bed & Breakfast facilities [§22.20.060, Conditional Uses, 1(b)] and the reference of having more than one employee that is not a full-time resident in the Bed & Breakfast. Commissioner Kosusko felt the wording should be changed to read “… the equivalent of one full-time employee…” as there are often two or more part-time employees working at an establishment. Being familiar with the business side of B&Bs, Commissioner Kosusko also felt the four bedroom restriction [§22.20.060, Conditional Uses, 1(c)] was not Robert workable and suggested the limit be raised to six bedrooms. noted the requested Commissioner Kosusko changes. then inquired about the facility not being allowed to serve meals to non-residents guests or to hold commercial receptions, parties, etc. Robert explained that there was concern of increased traffic if those uses were allowed. Commissioner Kennedy asked for clarification on the number of parking spaces required for the B&B. Robert explained that it would be two off-street parking spaces for the permanent resident which is a requirement for a residential zone, plus an additional CommissionerKosusko space for each room rented. thought that might be too many spaces and offered a suggestion of one-half off-street parking space for each room rented using the fact that there are many regular residents who currently park on the street as the Robert basis for his reasoning. replied that staff cannot regulate through zoning what occurs on a public street as that is Public Works & Utilities’ area, but the parking standards can be reduced. After some discussion, it was decided it would carry the same provision as in the Group Residential Facility Class 1 where “The Director may reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces provided the applicant can demonstrate that parking will not spill over into the neighborhood.” Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 4 of 15 Robert briefly commented on the section governing Manufactured Home Parks [§22.20.060 (7)]. He stated that all of the information in that section was new to the code, adding that with this addition it will be easier to regulate new or expanding manufactured home parks because of the design standards and specifications listed. Commissioner Kosusko questioned the appropriateness of having a Nursing/Convalescent Home in the R-10 zone because the typical setting of a senior housing complex has a high number of units with a density more likely to be found in a center; a regular apartment building would not be allowed in the R-10 zone so why would a senior apartment building be allowed? Robert explained that a senior housing complex could only be established in the R-10 zone by obtaining a Conditional Use Robert Permit whereas a center would not require one. also believed that many of the established senior housing complexes were located in areas designated to be outside of centers so there is the issue of possibly creating nonconforming properties. Robert moved on to §22.20.060 (10), Schools, Parks and Associated Facilities. This section refers to public schools, private schools with enrollment of thirteen or more students, parks and playgrounds larger than ½ acre, and other associated facilities. Commissioner Nelson asked for a clarification of Maintenance and Service Yards. Robert explained that that item relates to areas used primarily by the Parks Department for vehicle and landscaping material storage; he believed that under the current code this type of use is allowed in residential areas with a Special Use Permit while most of the existing facilities listed in this section are in the Parks & Schools zone. It is proposed that properties currently zoned Parks and Schools be changed to the R-10 designation. Chris added that Maintenance and Service Yards are a sub-category to the Schools, Parks, and Associated Facilities. In response to a Council member’s concern, this section in the Conditional Use Permits better regulates the siting of parks, schools, and associated facilities and brings those uses into the fabric of the community but that staff should be prepared to draft two versions of this section in the event Council does not agree. Discussion was ended with the suggestion by Commissioner Nelson to add the word “associated” to the opening description of this item so it will read “The following schools, parks and associated facilities . . .”. CommissionerKosusko asked about the Golf Course subsection under Conditional Use Robert Permits, specifically why a golf course would be allowed in a residential zone. explained that that is the way the current code reads and was included in the amended Chris version. made a suggestion of showing the parks, schools, and associated facilities as different colors showing their own zone classification on the zoning map but being governed by the same standards that regulate the R-10 zone; unfortunately, that would complicate the issue rather than simplify it. Chris said that this will be presented two different ways, but did not elaborate on them. There was some discussion regarding modifying the maximum height of fences and walls on school property to enhance the safety and security of the students and what the front yard setbacks should be. To meet the fence permit requirements, the setbacks should be Robert thirty feet for the six foot high chain-link fence. used a Special Use Permit issued for a daycare as an example to have a fence taller than what was normally allowed for the safety of children. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 5 of 15 The next item covered was Development Standards [§22.20.100]. Most of the standards are directly from the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations for density, setbacks, lot Robert area, building height, and lot coverage. explained the math and the flexibility of the minimum and maximum lot sizes, as well as the logic behind the thirty-five foot Chris height limit on buildings (site lines, views, consistency, etc.). further explained how the height of a building is measured, noting especially the positioning of gables and CommissionerCockburn how they can obstruct views. asked if the view corridors had Chris been removed from the zoning code. said they were in the shoreline program. There was discussion on the definition of lot area; water areas and unbuildable areas do not count toward the total area of the lot. Robert Continuing with §22.20.100, moved on to an addition to the code that deals with accessory structures such as garages, barns and storage buildings. Robert focused on garages, especially garages that are larger than the house or primary building. The formula for calculating the maximum size of a garage, barn, or storage unit in relation to the primary dwelling would eliminate the problem of accessory buildings being larger than the house. The definition was further clarified by modifying it to read, “500 gross square feet of floor area plus 10 per cent of the gross square footage of the residential use” to remove the chance of misinterpretation that one could simply construct a multi- CommissionerKosusko level garage to get around the square footage limitation. brought up that a person could call an enclosed area by another name such as an office. Robert referred back to the table on page 54 which specifically states that all accessory structures are regulated by this calculation with the exception of accessory dwelling units approved per BMC 22.04.010. There was discussion regarding the proposed limitation on accessory structures, specifically on the inability for a homeowner to construct a storage area large enough to CommissionerKennedy house a boat in addition to a garage for automobiles. cautioned against making the zone code work against potential neighborhood covenants concerning Robert exposed boats, recreational vehicles, etc. commented that there will opposition to any change in the code and that was for the Commissioners to discuss and reach an Chris agreement on. re-emphasized that the intent of this section is to prevent accessory structures from being as large as or larger than the primary structure. It was agreed that the word “covered” would be inserted where patios are listed to read, “ garages, barns, covered patios, cabanas…” Other items discussed were accessory structure height (no taller than the principle structure), and the setback requirements of a detached accessory structure (per BMC 22.03.100). If the garage vehicle entrance faces the street, the setback is twenty feet, except as provided in BMC 22.03.010; if the garage entrance is at a right angle to the Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf street, the distance can be less. brought up the point that there may be residences where the distance from the street to the front of the house would Chris be less than twenty feet. explained that this was a standard developed for safety. CommissionerKennedy referred to an earlier section in the packet regarding Chris manufactured homes and wondered if this was considered residential infill; said it Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 6 of 15 Commissioner Kosusko was. asked if the definition of garages included carports; Robert said yes. Commissioner Streissguth asked about the population projection in regards to the R-10 zone. With the R-10 zone it is estimated that there will be five to ten dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Streissguth wanted to know if there had been any analysis as to how many areas will be five units per acre and how many areas will be ten units per acre to PaulRogerson come to the average densities desired in the Centers. explained that the traditional calculation for population was slightly backwards so staff analyzed what the capacity would be over the twenty year period by calculating the number of acres that are being devoted to the R-10 designation, assumed the population density at the end of the twenty year period (somewhere in the middle of the five to ten units per acre) and derive a number to which you add the Centers’ populations to come up with a population Chris projection. further explained the reason for choosing 7 – 8 as the assumed density population: most low density neighborhoods are already at seven units per acre and some of them are not able to maintain services, so hopefully by averaging the density you’ll get an urban efficiency and better quality of service. CommissionerStreissguth Rephrasing her question, wondered how the densities would impact the success of the City and thought that by having the R-10 density shown in tiers, staff could prioritize and concentrate on the higher density areas outside centers and work Paul on attracting development to the centers. noted the word “initial” in the zoning provisions and staff realizes that they may want to look at more sophisticated approaches in the future that do find a mechanism focused to the higher density portion of the R-10 designation closer to centers, and perhaps look at lower density further away from centers but within the five to ten units per acre; that is a level of complexity that is not available Chris at this time. described how the outcome would be the same if the numbers were shifted, for instance, if a smaller portion of land with a higher density and a larger portion CommissionerKennedy of land with a lower density were used. brought up the point that, realistically, a lot of the residential infill in the existing neighborhoods will not occur until some of the houses currently in the neighborhoods are torn down and combined with other property to create larger lots as well as increasing land values. She estimated that Chris the level of density discussed would not begin to occur for at least ten years. added that there are areas that may be non-conforming or vacant land that is in the middle Robert of an area of older construction that prevents it from being developed. felt that with the new code, development will increase within the city limits and he has already seen a rise in permit applications to develop more difficult lots such as waterfront and lots containing slopes. Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf asked Robert about the section regarding accessory dwellings, specifically swimming pools [§22.20.040(3)]. She wanted to know if there is Robert currently a fence requirement around swimming pools. explained that the rules governing fencing around swimming pools are found in the International Building Code which is the set of regulations that the City of Bremerton uses in determining compliance. He believes that the current requirement for fences around swimming pools is four feet in height, per the IBC. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 7 of 15 CommissionerStreissguth Before continuing the briefing with Paul Rogerson, announced that the Planning Commissioners had been invited to attend the Grand Opening of the Kitsap Transit offices on Washington Avenue. Paul stepped to the podium and began his portion of the briefing by acknowledging that the two chapters he will be covering are drafts and to treat them as such in an effort to work through them more efficiently. He asked for any comments regarding the drafts to be made in writing via e-mail or by telephoning Paul directly. The first item was the Commercial Corridor zone [Kitsap Way area]. Permitted uses listed are essentially the same as those listed in the General Commercial zone that currently exists in that corridor with few exceptions. The list in the current document comes from Figure 140 [of the Land Use tables] and is now incorporated into the zoning chapter in the more traditional Euclidian method. Paul pointed out that the reformatted document differed from the version the Commissioners had received in their pre-meeting packets. In the original document at the end of Permitted Uses, there had been a sub- section called “Services” with a list of various types of services. Staff had decided after much discussion that some of the items listed were not services. The services list was shortened [see §22.22.020(3)] followed by a list of personal uses that had previously been classified as services. Rather than going through each item, Paul asked for questions CommissionerKosusko regarding the permitted uses. noted that the list of permitted uses for the Commercial Corridor (CC) zone was virtually identical to the list of permitted uses in the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor (WWRC) zone and he wondered why there was a need for two separately named zones. Paul explained that there were differences and he would point them out as the discussion continued, but also reminded the Commissioners to keep in mind that, although the zones are similar now, would they continue to be similar in the future? It would be easier to start them out as separate zones now rather than try to change it at a later date. Paul moved on to §22.22.020(13), Secondary Residential Uses which refers to structures where the residence is not the primary use of the building; for example, a building which has retail on the street level and residences (apartments, condos) on the upper floors. Commissioner Kosusko commented that this section listed the density at ten units per Paul acre when it had been twenty units per acre in a previous version. replied that this change was a result of staff discussion and in keeping with the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan; staff had decided that twenty units per acre would have been more intense than what the citizens wanted to see happen in that area. In the section regarding automobile related uses, Paul noted that gas stations had been removed from that category leaving automobile parts store and automobile repair; gas stations had been moved to the Conditional Uses section. Commissioner Cockburn asked about the square footage requirement for grocery stores as opposed to other types of stores. It appeared to him that there were no restrictions and Paul was concerned because those types of stores tend to cover a lot of area. said that staff had had a lot of discussion on this and decided to let comments from the Commissioners guide the specific requirements such as various size limitation for various Commissioner Cockburn uses in this corridor. commented that, on the other hand, for Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 8 of 15 the City’s financial health, businesses need to be a certain size to generate revenue Paul through the City’s B & O tax. said that that had been a point of discussion during the staff study sessions. He reminded the Commissioners that this draft starts out with a statement that says the intent of this corridor is to provide for high intensity commercial uses that serve the entire community not just a neighborhood. This statement was purposely worded to reflect taking a middle ground. He invited comments from the Commissioners regarding the size restrictions to bring about a balance between region Commissioner Cockburn serving and neighborhood serving. noted that size can also be restricted by the type of retail that is allowed [in that zone] depending on how many Paul goods that store needs to have on hand to support itself. As an example, said it would be easy to place size limitations on retail that could potentially become too large like a grocery store, but not mention size limitations where it more than likely would not be an issue such as banks. Commissioner Kosusko asked about Conditional Uses and if that would determine what businesses, by size, would be in the corridor and what businesses would be along other Paul arterials. said that the list of businesses allowed with a Conditional Use Permit took into consideration the size of a business that is appropriate for the corridor where size would matter. Paul quickly read through the list of uses allowed with a Conditional Use Permit, noting that the entry for gas stations was not complete and would need additional conditions such as circulation, spacing of exits off the street, etc.; these are uses that staff felt had potential to become more than what the Comprehensive Plan had envisioned for this corridor. Paul then asked for any questions regarding the Conditional Use Permits and reminded the Commissioners, in their comments, to concentrate less on items to be removed from the permitted uses and more on conditional uses because of the size issue. CommissionerCockburn For clarification, summarized with an example of a hardware store being allowed in the corridor but is restricted in size by a Conditional Use Permit. Paul agreed, adding that the decision criteria is administered either by the Director or the Hearing Examiner at a public hearing that would determine whether or not the store fits in the corridor and is complying with other restrictions imposed by a Conditional Use Permit (see §22.22.030, Conditional Uses). If the store meets all of the conditions, the Commissioner Cockburn Hearing Examiner or Director may then allow the permit. commented that these restrictions would essentially be forcing the larger retail such as Paul Lowe’s Hardware outside the city. reminded the Commissioners that through the Comprehensive Plan process, creating a Freeway Commercial zone [associated with Highway 3] was discussed as an appropriate place for larger retail. Paul The next item covered was Similar Use Determination (§22.22.040). noted that this section is also found in the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor as well as the initial Centers designation. The purpose of this type of decision is to recognize that it would not be possible to list all permitted uses. This provision prevents the potential situation of a permit being denied based on the use not showing up on a specific permitted uses list because that use was not thought of when the list was being created. The applicant would have to show that the business is similar enough in its impact to uses that are listed to be granted a permit by the City. Prohibited Uses state that if [a business] is not on the Permitted Uses list, not on the Conditional Uses list, and a similar use cannot be determined, then a permit will not be Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 9 of 15 allowed. With the inclusion of those four sections, a “package” has been created that allows staff to deal with any permit application. Paul moved on to the section regarding dimensional standards. This section is the start of where the proposed code differs from the current code. Reading from the handout, Paul explained that the first item under §22.22.060 makes it possible for a mixed-use building to be on a lot [“Lots may contain more than one use…”]. This statement is not one that is typically found in traditional zoning. This section also lays out the setback requirements for the Commercial Corridor and well as parking requirements, height, and maximum lot coverage. There was a question regarding the setback requirements and the WRC. Paul agreed that there is a mechanism of that type in the WRC and would look into it further. Paul In the section for maximum building coverage [§22.22.060, E.], explained that the intent was to allow for a wide range of uses in the Commercial Corridor. Traditional uses would be allowed, but mixed-used is also encouraged to come into this corridor for a more pedestrian-oriented design using an incentive driven approach rather than a regulatory approach. The effort is to balance a more traditional automobile oriented, community serving commercial corridor with pedestrian ethics – these are, in many ways, two extremes in the design world. To accommodate both, staff recommends bringing the mixed-use ethic in through the use of incentives. The incentives are listed as 1 – 5 in subsection E and can be combined to increase the building coverage up to a maximum of seventy-five percent. Subsection F contains the same mechanisms applied to development coverage (building coverage plus other impervious surfaces). The coverage allowed is seventy-five to ninety-five percent. Paul explained that subsection G, Building Height, should say if a portion of a building was within one hundred feet of a single family residential zone, that portion of the building cannot be higher than twenty-five feet; this could result in a stair-step effect on CommissionerKennedy the building. pointed out that in the R-10 zone commercial building height was thirty-five feet and felt that this chapter should be consistent with the PaulCommissionerKosusko R-10 chapter. agreed and noted the change. wondered if one hundred feet from a single family residential zone would be correct because that measurement may put it in the middle of a block. On the other hand, if a street [in a Center] is used as the dividing line, there could potentially be single family residential on one side of the street and thirty-five foot commercial on the other; his concern was for the aesthetics of the street. He felt that it would be better if the divide was in the middle of the block. Other commissioners voiced the same concern. Paul replied that, typically, boundaries are officially located in the middle of streets. He also pointed out that the section says “single family residence zone”, not just a single family residence. CommissionerCockburn remarked that, because of the single family residences along one side of Kitsap Way, commercial building heights would be restricted to thirty-five Paul feet on that side. acknowledged that statement as true and ventured to ask if that was necessarily bad or if that was the intent of that zoning was and encouraged CommissionerKennedy discussion regarding this. commented that if the building heights and lot coverage was restricted too much, mixed-use buildings may not develop Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 10 of 15 in that high traffic area and may limit it to a more commercial location. She suggested some type of mitigation to allow commercial to develop along Kitsap Way because the residential area is below grade and perhaps a type of planted barrier [between the two zones] could be used. There was more discussion regarding this subject; Paul commented that, in a situation like this, the commercial tends to loom over the residential area below, but he would do some research to see if there were any examples of that type Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf of [barrier]. suggested looking at the chapter on the Charleston District on maintaining a view area by keeping building heights low in sections. Her example was the area around Oyster Bay where residences face taller structures. Paul moved on to §22.22.070, Site Design Guidelines. He quickly read through the subsections then moved on to §22.22.80, Parking. The first part of this section mainly refers the reader to previous chapters and sections, but noted that the setback requirement states that on-site parking shall be to the rear or side of the buildings on the site and shall not occupy more than fifty percent of the site frontage facing the arterial street. This is a less stringent standard than previous drafts but keeps in mind that the idea is to blend the pedestrian ethic and continue to enable strong commercial activity. Because the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor (WWRC) chapter is very similar to Paul the Commercial Corridor chapter, opted to point out the differences rather than go through the chapter item by item. The first was at the bottom of page 2, section 7 of the Permitted Uses, Residential Uses. It states that all residential uses are permitted with a maximum density of twelve units per acre but is has to be on the upper floors of mixed use structures except in the event of single ownership on sites larger than three acres. The structure has to be single use residential and screened from major arterials by mixed use structures or structures containing other permitted non-residential uses. Commissioner Kosusko asked about the number of units per acre (20) on a single Paul ownership site larger than three acres; explained that this was a draft and so the information in the chapter can be changed through recommendations from the Commissioners, but this was a number that staff felt fit in the corridor in the large parcel CommissionerKennedy situations. felt that, for a mixed-use building to be commercially viable there would have to be more than twelve units per acre. CommissionerKosusko added that he thought the same way, but then realized this was pertaining to a corridor, not a center, and the higher densities should stay in the centers Paul not commercial corridors. agreed saying that this was exactly the discussion that have been happening internally to set the numbers – on one hand there is a higher density needed to entice the market to do the redevelopment; on the other hand, if the upper density limit is breached, that puts the corridor in competition with centers. That is why the corridor densities are kept below the centers levels with the exception of the larger Commissioner sites which must meet specific conditions [see §22.28.020,7(a) – (c)]. KennedyPaul commented that the corridor is actually fairly narrow. said that the lots vary from 800 – 1,000 feet from the street to only 200 feet from the street. He restated Commissioner Kosusko that any comments regarding this draft were welcomed. added that he tended to lean toward the ten units per acre on the larger sites, putting it more in line with the density requirements of the commercial corridor. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 11 of 15 CommissionerKennedy asked about gas stations, noting that gas stations had been left off the list for permitted uses in the Commercial Corridor as well as the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor and wondered where they would go and was concerned about Paul the needs of the citizens who live in the area of the corridors. explained that listing gas stations under Conditional Uses doesn’t necessarily “ramp up” the permitting process, it just means that staff will have a say in how many entrances there are, how far apart they are, traffic impacts, etc. and those must be taken into consideration. Also, gas stations are permitted outright in Commercial Freeway zones. Paul Continuing with the draft document, noted that the Conditional Use, the Similar Use, the Prohibited Uses, and the Design Standards are all the same as in the Commercial Corridor chapter, but §22.28.070, Architectural and Site Design Guidelines, is in the WWRC chapter but not the CC chapter. The first item in that section is Building Design which contains direct standards for building design. Paul read directly from the code, noting that these are not unusual requirements when creating a pedestrian oriented design. The standards require incorporating pedestrian friendly design outlined in the CommissionerKosusko section into the structure. was concerned about having an “absolutely” list, envisioning building after building using the same item, for example, bike racks, from the list. He thought maybe using a combination of amenities or phrasing it to read “For example …” would help. Paul continued with the architectural guidelines, reading the requirements for entrances and reducing the appearances of building mass. Both items list several options for the developer to choose from to enhance the pedestrian environment. Buildings are also prohibited from presenting a blank façade to the street. The architectural guidelines, Paul feels, are softly stated in that they provide options rather than prescriptive commandments, but adding options to the list of ways to satisfy the requirements would increase flexibility. Rephrasing the initial statements to the lists with wording like “such CommissionerKennedy as…” might be another way to increase flexibility. suggested adding a density incentive if the developer met all of the requirements listed. She noted that, as a person involved in real estate, she knows that the types of requirements listed cost money and if the density increases the cost [per unit] comes down and the project Paul comes out better. commented that the requirements listed are items that a good designer would incorporate anyway, so adding an incentive is feasible. He recommended going back through the R-10 and locating cases where option incentives may work. CommissionerKosusko asked if the architectural and site design guidelines defined just Paul the streetfront side of the building or does it define all sides of the building. replied that, although it wasn’t clear in the document, the intent was to have it apply to all sides Commissioner of a building, but it can be opened for discussion and clarification. Kosusko then asked about minimum heights, commenting that work completed in Seattle has that requirement. His concern was that, because of the setback requirement, you would have on one street, buildings that are set back from the street and buildings with a Paul zero setback, and what affect would that have on the character of the street? admitted wrestling with that same problem, but reminded the commissioners that the original goal of the zoning is to promote street enclosure for a pedestrian oriented corridor. He offered some suggestion to moderate the requirements such as changing the percentage of requirements, or the distance of the setback, or having only 50% of the Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 12 of 15 CommissionerKosusko façade at the [zero] setback, etc. thought that the height of the building was more important for the appearance of a street with a zero setback and CommissionerKennedy proposed having a minimum façade height. pointed out a correction of building height was needed in §22.28.060, G to read as thirty-five feet instead of twenty-five feet. CommissionerFriedbergNerf - asked Paul where the standards for signage and lighting Paul fall with respect to the corridors and all other special areas. responded that the sign code does indeed apply differently in different zones, but he could not guarantee at this meeting that the sign code is properly matched with the corridors and centers zones. Currently there is not sufficient time to include signage and lighting codes, but it is a high CommissionerFriedbergNerf priority to have that established in the near future. - commented that in the Comprehensive Plan that was voted to move forward for consideration, there was difference between the character of the Kitsap Way Corridor and the Wheaton Way Corridor and considerable care was given to describe standards that might help redirect the way Wheaton Way currently is. Her concern was that the same level of care be given to the Kitsap Way Corridor with respect to building standards. Paul explained that earlier he had stated that building standards were not included for the Kitsap Way Corridor because of an understanding staff felt coming out of the Comprehensive Plan process that because of the Kitsap Way Corridor’s proximity to Highway 3 was perhaps an environment that should look harder at being active about commercial uses and a pedestrian design ethic. On Wheaton Way, there is a clear call from the Comprehensive Plan to look at instituting pedestrian design and getting rid of the thoroughfare that is currently there. He thought perhaps it was not as clearly stated in the Comprehensive Plan as what he was portraying tonight, and thought there may have been more in-depth discussion regarding the description of the Wheaton Way Corridor CommissionerKennedy than there was of the Kitsap Way Corridor. agreed that the closeness of Kitsap Way to Highway 3, how car-oriented the road is, and the Freeway Paul Commercial designation make it differ in character to Wheaton Way. commented that the Comprehensive Plan may not have read as clearly as Commissioner Kennedy had stated the differences; he asked again for comments from the commissioners regarding topics such as this [building design standards in the CC zone]. Commissioner Streissguth recalled that during the comment portion of the Comprehensive Plan there was a feeling that a distinction was made between the two corridors; there was an opportunity to save Wheaton Way … [Commissioner Streissguth continues speaking, but because of poor recording quality, her words are inaudible]. She felt that design standards should be included for the Kitsap Way area. There was general agreement to provide an option box that shall have building design standards for the CC Paul [zone], recognizing that they are not the same as the WWRC. believed that during the public participation he heard that, because of right-of-ways and such, building standards that could be accomplished on Kitsap Way could not be accomplished on Wheaton Way; there are also differences in pedestrian orientation and needs for each corridor. He would work on this area more. The next item covered was Site Design. This section is essentially the same as the chapter on the Commercial Corridor with the exception of the subsection on circulation within sites larger than three acres. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 13 of 15 The section regarding parking is also almost the same as the Commercial Corridor with the exception that parking will be to the rear of buildings facing an arterial street; in the Commercial Corridor, parking can be to the rear or the side of the building. This is to recognize that the potential to create more pedestrian oriented streetscape is higher in the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor. The landscaping section is the same in both corridors. Paul noted that not all of the zoning chapters had been covered; there will be a public hearing on December 21 regarding the zoning code and thought that more could be discussed if a special meeting were called between this meeting and the next meeting on December 21. Because of the holidays, early December was recommended for the Special Meeting. After some discussion, it was agreed that December 7 would be an appropriate date to have the Special Meeting on. The meeting will be held at 5:30 PM in the Mayor’s Conference Room [sixth floor, Norm Dicks Government Center]. Commissioner Streissguth asked for any questions or comments from the public regarding the zoning code chapters covered. Seeing none, she moved on to the next PaulRogerson agenda item, Draft SEIS. reported that several people [Commissioners included] had been in to review the Draft SEIS and the only comments received were submitted that afternoon from Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf; there were no comments from the general public. Paul asked if the Commissioners wanted to discuss the Commissioner Streissguth comments made on the Draft SEIS. said she had not had an opportunity to review the Draft SEIS and wondered if staff would prefer receiving and responding to any comments via e-mail or would they prefer to defer discussion to the Paul next meeting. noted that he suspects most of the comments made will have to do with items within the document that the Commissioners find fault with and those comments need to be made within the context of the public comment period that is occurring at this time and should be submitted to the City in care of Paul Rogerson in [Community Development] who will send them on to City Council in the Community Development staff report. Comments of this nature should be submitted as private citizens; the comment period closes on November 22 at 4:30 PM. He asked that comments be restricted to the Draft SEIS and not the Comprehensive Plan itself as that is now closed. Comments can also be directed to the City Council meetings during the public comment portion of their meetings. Commissioner Streissguth closed this portion of the meeting. VI. Business Meeting A.Chairman’s Report:Commissioner Streissguth reminded the other Commissioners that tomorrow [November 17, 2004] was the first reading of the Comprehensive Plan ordinance. She invited everyone to attend the Council meeting; according to the agenda, she surmised that the Comprehensive Plan will be presented at about 6:00 PM. Commissioner Streissguth said she will be attending and making comments supporting the Comprehensive Plan and encouraged everyone to do the same. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 14 of 15 B. Director’s Report: Paul Rogerson went through the schedule for the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan: Wednesday, November 17, the continued hearing of the Comprehensive Plan with the City Council; Wednesday, December 1, the second reading of the Comprehensive Plan before adoption; Tuesday, December 7, a Special Meeting for the Planning Commission to continue discussion of the initial zoning code package; and Tuesday, December 21, a public hearing with the Planning Commission for the initial zoning code package. Paul then turned to the last item of the agenda, the resignation of Scott Buckingham from the Planning Commission. Paul commended Scott for his hard work as the chair-person and asked the Commissioners if there was anything they would like to do to recognize Scott’s service such as a letter of thanks or something similar. Paul suggested bringing ideas about this to the next meeting. Commissioner Kosusko commented that the election of a new chair and vice-chair was needed and reminded the other Commissioners that the election is supposed to occur at Paul the next Planning Commission meeting. added that Chris Hugo is also urging a new appointment for the current vacancy along with the election and to have that accomplished before the holidays to prevent the chance of not having a quorum at meetings. Commissioner Kennedy and Commissioner Kosusko will not be able to attend the meeting on December 21 as they will be out of town. C. Old Business: None D. New Business: None. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. The next Special Meeting is scheduled for December 7, 2004. Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________________ Executive Secretary Approved by: _______________________________________ Linda Streissguth, Acting Chairman Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 15 of 15