HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/2009 MINUTESMinutes for
City of Bremerton Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
April 21, 2009
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wheeler at 5:31 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner
Kosusko, Commissioner Mosiman, Commissioner Streissguth, and Chairman Wheeler. Quorum
certified.
Also present: Andrea Spencer, Lindsey Sehmel, and Pam Bykonen (DCD staff).
III. Approval of Agenda
Chairman Wheeler introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy
and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to approve the agenda as presented. It was agreed
by general consensus to approve the agenda as presented.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on March 17, 2009 were presented for approval by
Chairman Wheeler. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by
Commissioner Kosusko to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of March 17, 2009 as
presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Kennedy:
Abstain; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner
Streissguth: Yes; Chairman Wheeler: Yes. The motion carried.
VI. Public Meeting
A. Call To The Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda).
Chairman Wheeler asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he
closed this portion of the meeting.
1. Public Hearing — Manette Sub -Area Plan: Lindsey Sehmel, City Planner, gave a
presentation of the proposed Manette Sub -Area Plan. Using a PowerPoint presentation,
Lindsey highlighted the process of developing the Manette Sub -Area Plan and the ways
that the plan differed from current zoning. Lindsey also spoke about specific items the
residents of Manette wanted in their community such as wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and
Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 2009 Page 1 of 9
angled parking. She offered thanks to all of the community members who participated in
the year -long planning process.
Commissioner Wheeler opened the Public Comment portion of the public hearing.
Adam Brockus, 1146 Perry Avenue: "I, too, wish to thank, not only everyone who
came to the many meetings, who were there and some of you may have seen them, but
also to the participation and comments that they brought. And also I would like to give
kudos to the staff who also worked a lot on this plan and going in. Quick question to the
staff: Like the downtown area, will there be design guidelines for any future
development which will be looked at in the Manette Sub -Area Plan if it is passed ?"
Staff explained that each zone will have its own development standards that applicants
would have to follow. These development standards are not monitored by a Design
Review Board (DRB).
Dick Bruskrud, 1102 Shore Drive: "I was one of the Key Communicators on the
project. First, I really would like to thank Andrea and Lindsey for the wonderful job they
did in keeping this process moving. The introduction of the document is precise, and it
outlined existing conditions: the residential neighborhoods, the small scale of the
commercial district and the spectacular views. In the vision, it's well outlined in creating
a mixed -use, pedestrian oriented community with varied housing types and a
neighborhood -scale commercial district. The outreach to the public was excellent; it was
very well publicized, there was numerous presentations and workshops that invited all the
neighborhood to attend. The plan goals, the guiding principles to preserve a unique
neighborhood where new development considers scale, size, quality, and compatibility is
a wonderful goal of the entire plan. It was to encourage complimentary development,
view preservation, quality architecture, mixed -use buildings, housing type variety in a
sustainable design. These are all very good objectives. Establishing an eclectic and
active community space that promotes social interaction is commendable. Improving
pedestrian and bicycle access, creating public spaces, undergrounding utilities, adding
public amenities to sidewalks are all good objectives. In promoting a compact, walkable
commercial core in a sustainable fashion is a good base for all neighborhood centers. All
of these goals help with the consistency to the Comprehensive Plan. The issue I see with
the development standards, however, is how will they allow or promote goals and
objectives, as well as allow the current businesses and buildings to evolve? The MTR
zone added to provide a buffer to the single - family zone, yet the MCC borders the Low -
Density Residential zone both within and outside the plan boundary and there's no
provision for multi- family, either in a zone of its own or as a conditional use, and yet we
have numerous multi- family buildings in the neighborhood, or center I should say. There
are also numerous buildings that do not comply to the current codes, either by set -back,
building coverage, or parking requirements. Fortunately, there are design standards
flexible enough to allow innovation, yet provide direction to accomplish character goals.
The problem with that is, who reviews these and what is the procedure? The MTR
provides moderate - density residential in transition to low- density residential. Besides
some minor issues with the set -back requirements, there is no mention of cottage housing
as mentioned throughout the goals. The roadway standards should be reviewed to
correspond to actual conditions and right -of -way widths. There are varied right -of -way
Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 2009 Page 2 of 9
widths throughout the center area. As much as I like the diagonal parking in the core,
removing parking on one side moves the pedestrians closer to the traffic which is
contrary to one of the goals, and the neighborhood streets widths, as wide as they are with
limited parking, will promote cut - through traffic. Finally, a sub -area plan should be a
plan, not simply an adjustment to the zoning code in the Comprehensive Plan. It should
not only provide regulations, but provide a plan for implementation. The goals are all
wonderful; the development standards adequate yet do need some adjustment. The plan
is lacking in a process to implement more incentives or the ability to develop at a small
scale which is what I understand the citizens wish to continue with. There are two
glaring omissions that I see is the opportunity to improve the intersection and traffic with
the new bridge construction and it has not been addressed in the plan, and at the center,
the Center does not have a center, a community gathering area more than just a sidewalk
type gathering areas. Thank you."
Andrea directed the commission to the comment letters in their packets received prior to
the meeting.
Adam Brockus, Perry Avenue: "One thing that was talked about during our meetings,
or the community thing, was that the residents of Manette do think of us as an eclectic
neighborhood from the certain designs that were given to the buildings and to the houses
that were put in the area from 1910 all the way up to today, but one thing that they did
have a worry about was if a incongruous, or, let's say, sharply different architecture such
as a modern architecture, was put in there it would tend to ruin the design or feel of the
neighborhood as it went in. I was hoping to see in the design standards possible design
guidelines that were used similar to what was put in for the Highland up here, and I
would ask that consideration be possibly given to the possibility of a design committee or
design review committee formed up of citizens be possibly applied the same way that
was in the Highland district. Thank you."
Chairman Wheeler closed the public comment portion of the public hearing and opened
commission deliberations.
Commissioner Kosusko agreed with the statements regarding a lack of design guidelines
and design review for this "highly critical" neighborhood; he attributes this lack to the
reactive nature of the proposed sub -area plan and the development restrictions it imposes.
He had hoped the plan would be more proactive and imaginative but believes the plan has
good intentions. He referred to the "Plans, Visions, and Goals" section (page 7) noting
that many of the photographs shown as examples would not actually be allowed
according to the development standards of the plan. He spoke passionately of the
economics and evolution of development and how the plan does not accommodate that.
Commissioner Cockburn, who served as a Key Communicator during this process,
agreed with Commissioner Kosusko, adding that he felt the proposed sub -area plan was
"codifying urban decay" and pointed to the lack of growth in the downtown area before
changes were implemented. He expressed concern over the incomplete buffer between
the Manette Center Core (MCC) zone and the Low - Density Residential (LDR) and felt it
would handicap property owners in the MCC zone that abut the LDR. Other items of
Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 2009 Page 3 of 9
concern were: maximum height, maximum lot density, the lack of a design review board,
and street tree requirements.
Commissioner Streissguth agreed with the previous comments and asked staff to
respond to Mr. Bruskrud's and her concerns regarding the intersection where the east end
of the bridge is located, the development standards, specifically the lack of provisions for
multi - family or how to regulate the large volume of non - conforming uses, the idea of
cottage housing, road standards and the lack of consistency with existing conditions and
potential safety issues. She also asked who would be reviewing development submittals
if there is no Design Review Board, and how the MCC /LDR zone border will be
addressed.
Commissioner Kennedy also agreed with the comments from other commissioners,
adding that she didn't believe the residents of Manette intended to write a plan for
neighborhood decay, but with so many restrictions put on development the fear is that it
will happen. She urged the use of architecture design standards instead of a sub -area plan
that severely limits development.
Commissioner Kosusko noted that many innovative ideas regarding public spaces were
discussed at the community meetings but those ideas were not included in the plan.
Commissioner Mosiman commented that, unlike other sub -area plans the commission
has reviewed, this sub -area plan lacked "specificity" and was unsure of where it would
lead the community. He acknowledged that community character is important to the
citizens of Manette and didn't feel the proposed sub -area plan reflected that.
Chairman Wheeler also participated in the public outreach as a Key Communicator. He
spoke about the community's desire to keep Manette as it is because of its unique charm,
not because of a fear of change.
Andrea responded to the commission's remarks by first reminding the commission that
what is in the proposed document is what the residents of Manette wanted and felt
comfortable with. On the point of not initiating a Design Review Board, Andrea stated
that during the course of the public meetings it was determined that even having a DRB
would not be a great enough assurance to the residents of what could be developed within
the boundaries of the sub -area plan. She felt that, although the plan is not as specific in
its direction as other sub -area plans, it was a good starting place and should be revisited
in five years when the residents could judge if the plan was working toward their
neighborhood vision or against it. By establishing a strong "Plans, Visions, and Goals"
section, it lays the groundwork for a forward thinking plan; other parts of the plan such as
design standards can be modified at a later date when the City has more available
resources.
Commissioner Streissguth asked if a direct approach was made to the residents in
letting them know the inflexibility of the plan would not allow many of the characteristics
they had approved at the beginning of the outreach process. Andrea said it had been
attempted. She also corrected the misconception that cottage homes are not allowed in
this plan; in the MTR zone there is no minimum lot size requirement and up to 15
dwelling units per acre is allowed which would accommodate cottage housing.
Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 2009 Page 4 of 9
At this time there is no additional information available regarding the intersection at the
east end of the new Manette bridge; WSDOT has not confirmed what the final design
will be and how it will affect the intersection, so no details involving the bridge were
included in the sub -area plan.
Andrea suggested the commission adding `multi - family' as a stand -alone use within the
MCC district as the Commission had raised concerns regarding continuance of the
existing multi - family as a non - conforming use; she noted that townhomes were an
approved use in the MTR zone.
In the proposed sub -area plan, all permits and land use applications would be reviewed
and approved by DCD staff and they would ensure compliance with the design standards
contained within the plan.
It was pointed out that in the areas where the commercial component abuts a residential
zone, the developer must provide additional setback in the building design itself with a
tiered profile to reduce bulk.
Commissioner Kosusko did not agree with the parking requirements for new
development in the MCC zone. He felt the large amount of required off - street parking
did not mesh with a walkable neighborhood. The commission acknowledged that the
requirement probably came from residents who live near the commercial area who did
not want shoppers parking on their residential streets. Andrea explained that written
comments received from the residents were divided — some said the parking requirements
were too high, others said they weren't high enough so the default was to bring forward
the parking requirements from the current code.
Because of the lack of proposed community /gathering spaces and specific direction in the
plan and the inclusion of innovative design incentives and the Design Review Board,
several commissioners questioned the need to move forward with a sub -area plan at this
time. Andrea emphasized the importance of acknowledging the public process for
creating the goals, visions, and values included in the sub -area plan and that work would
be lost if the commission chose to vote against the plan instead of adopting the plan and
revisiting the issue of implementation at a later date.
Before reopening the public comment portion of the meeting, Chairman Wheeler
reminded the commission that the proposed sub -area plan met the mandates of the State's
Growth Management Act (GMA) as well as the desires of the "vocal majority" of the
residents as well as the not -so -vocal residents who participated in this year -long planning
process. He acknowledged that the plan is not perfect and there are areas that could be
improved upon, but the plan as presented is what the residents who participated in the
process wanted.
Commissioner Streissguth gave a list of items she felt needed further discussion:
° Roadway standards and the resulting public safety issue;
° Allowing multi - family as an outright permitted use in the MCC zone;
° Revisit the mid -block transitional zone where it abuts low- density residential;
Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 2009 Page 5 of 9
° Parking standards
Commissioner Kosusko asked about shared parking to help ease the parking
requirements. Andrea said there is a share parking component in the zoning code that is
based on day time uses versus night time uses or weekday uses versus weekend uses, not
just businesses sharing parking spaces.
Andrea suggested moving forward the first part of the proposed plan, pages 1 — 16, with
amendments to the map on page 16 to utilize the City's existing zoning by changing the
MCC zone to NCC, the MTR zone to R -10 *, and LDR to R -10. Commissioner
Mosiman agreed this could be a workable solution.
Commissioner Cockburn spoke about the high volume of traffic along 11 Street due to
the way traffic exits and enters the Manette Bridge as well as the high number of
residents who live east of Perry Avenue and use 11 Street as their main travel route and
the potential for accidents from people pulling out of angled parking and into the traffic
lane. Commissioner Kennedy suggested removing the road standards section from the
plan before moving it forward. Commissioner Streissguth cautioned against developing
street standards that would never become a reality because of the actual use of the streets
in question. Andrea suggested making pages 17 through 35 a work item for 2010 so the
question of how the Manette Bridge design will affect traffic flow could be answered.
The commission discussed the boundaries of the different zones within the sub -area plan;
Andrea urged them to leave the boundaries as they are because of the great amount of
time and deliberation the residents put into creating the boundaries, and to instead simply
revert to the current zoning code within the established boundaries. Chairman Wheeler
commented that if the MTR zone returns to R -10* which has long been established as an
interim measure waiting for a sub -area plan, it will be met with resistance from the
residents who had worked on creating the final document.
Commissioner Cockburn noted that the most vocal group during this process lived
within the LDR zone and they clearly understood that, in order to maintain their status
quo, imposing such strict development restrictions would essentially block any new
development from occurring in the MCC zone.
Andrea said that another option proposed by a community group was to implement only
the MCC zone and leave the rest as is. She also reminded the commission that returning
to the current zoning would do away with townhomes, cottage housing, live /work spaces,
and other permitted uses included in the sub -area plan.
Commissioner Wheeler re- opened the Public Comment portion of the public hearing.
Jordy Andrew, 1328 Hayward Avenue: "It's very difficult to respond to all of your
comments. I share a lot of your concerns; they've all been discussed ad nauseum
throughout this process. There are a lot of references here to this being like a year -long
process: it was six or seven meetings. They occurred over a year and that was not as a
result of the community's input or request. We would've liked to have had enough time
to do all of the things that you asked us to do, but we're lay people. We don't understand
Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 2009 Page 6 of 9
the zoning and planning guidelines that you all are so familiar with. You recognize
clearly the big problem with the traffic section of this plan. Nobody knows what's going
to happen with the bridge. We asked repeatedly of staff to provide that. They don't
know because WSDOT hasn't told them. So, you're basically trying to put some
overlooking visionary things into a plan where you don't know what you're working
with. We don't know. That was a problem for us and we couldn't overcome it. So we
basically just said, `Well, let's look at some ideas.' And that's what's reflected in that
portion of the plan. The other thing that I think that is really important to understand is
that all of the citizens who participated — and a number of business people or business
owners that participated — were trying to work within the framework that was laid down
in 2005. We, as citizens, didn't want to take anything away from the commercial
property owners. We wanted to leave them with the same options that they had under the
Comp Plan revisions in 2005. And that's very difficult because the desire of some people
in the community is to have absolutely no change. They were not happy with the 2005
Comp Plan revisions, and part of what staff had to put up with was a reaction to those
revisions. And because the community has gone on record for the last 10 or 15 years
telling the City what it wants in its community. If we were given the opportunity to
develop view corridor, view preservation type language, that is something that the City
doesn't have now, and is really visionary and forward looking, I think that that would
solve a lot of the problems. But, given the fact that what we have to work with as a
community, we clearly recognize that 35 foot building height limit isn't going to give us
what we want, but it's better than nothing and that's why we ended up there. Had we
been able to take the time to develop the kind of preservation type language that we
hoped would come out of this process, I think it would be a better plan. But, we were
given basically a deadline and we did the best we could do as a community to get to this
point by this date. I would surely encourage you to [inaudible] the parts of this aside that
you are uncomfortable with and either kick it back to staff or kick it back to the
community for more work because there are many of us in the community that are
willing to put the time in to get something that we feel that we can live with long term.
Thank you."
Dick Bruskrud, Shore Drive: "The big problem, and I think you are all realizing this, is
that under this current plan it doesn't help the large developer, which I don't think
anybody really wants in Manette, and it almost makes it impossible for a small building
to be improved. What is going to end up happening, and you've all realized this, is that
nothing will end up happening, and so what good is a plan that is going to stifle and not
allow further development and improvement of our community? No matter what you
think is the right or best improvement, whether it's taller buildings or shorter buildings,
its view, the use of the buildings — whatever they are, if we cannot improve them in any
form, then this is not really a plan. And this is where I have a problem with this
particular plan: we need to set a way, standards, that will allow people to improve their
property and to improve their businesses, and there is ways to do this. Throughout the
process there has been fairly vocal contingency that has been focused on view protection
as a height limit. Certainly height does affect views, but it is not the only answer to
protecting views and they would not listen to any other type of reasoning. The same
thing with larger buildings; they didn't really understand how a larger building can be
appear as a smaller building or that it might be necessary to do a larger building in order
to accommodate the parking and make the buildings economically feasible. This is a
Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 2009 Page 7 of 9
learning process; I think a lot of people throughout the community have learned this and
we've come a long ways. Again, through page 16 is a good plan. So now we need to see
that this plan can be instigated. I guess my suggestion, and I agree with Jordy, we can't
just let this go; we need to keep moving forward with it and to just patch it together and
pass it is not doing our job. I would suggest that the City actually go back to the
neighborhood, and I know this is not a pleasant prospect for staff, and re- present these
goals and objectives and show them how that these goals and objectives that we have put
into the plan meet their expectations. Then, go to the standards. Start looking at the
standards and where we professionals on staff, we have professionals in the community
that would be willing to help and set up standards and show them how specific standards
can support their visions and make recommendations for these standards to the
community. We are working with lay people that don't understand how setting a 35 foot
height limit affects the building, how parking affects the buildings, how access affects the
buildings — all the development standards that we deal with every day — they don't really
understand this, so we need to be more exemplatory (sic) on those issues. I think if we
are, and we can successfully bring back many of the citizens that, quite frankly, will not
come back to these meetings after the August meeting, if we can bring them back I think
we can be very successful with this plan. So let's not give it up; let's keep going.
They've done a wonderful job in getting us to where we are, but we're just not there yet.
Thank you."
Chairman Wheeler closed the Public Comment portion of the public hearing.
Commissioner Kosusko felt that moving forward the planning portion of the sub -area
plan and reworking the development portion could be an agreeable solution. Based on
the public comments, he also felt the community would be responsive to participating in
creating new development standards and urged City Council to find funding to complete
this process.
Andrea suggested referencing current zoning chapters in each of the proposed sub -area
zone as the proposed development standard.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner
Kosusko to recommend to City Council for adoption the Manette Sub -Area Plan as
presented in Attachment I based on the Findings and Conclusions as a result of the
Planning Commission's deliberations, and amend the Zoning Code Chapter 20.80 to
make reference to and incorporate the Manette Sub -Area Plan as shown in
Attachment III, with the recommendation that City Council fund additional work
with the community to create implementing zoning that corresponds to the visions
and values in the second part of the sub -area plan.
A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner
Kosusko to amend the original motion to adopt only pages 1 — 16 of the Manette
Sub -Area Plan with the following changes to the map on page 16: The MCC zone
revert to NCC, the LDR zone would revert to R -10, and the MTR zone would revert
to R -10X. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: No; Commissioner Kennedy:
Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner
Streissguth: Yes; Chairman Wheeler: Yes. The motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 2009 Page 8 of 9
Chairman Wheeler closed the Public Meeting.
VI. Business Meeting
A. Chairman's Report: None.
B. Director's Report: Andrea Spencer, Director of Community Development, reported
that the City has been successful in petitioning for American Recovery Grant funds:
° LIFT - $330K per year for 25 years to help implement the Downtown Sub -Area Plan;
• $6.4M to sewer Gorst, and environmental hazard area;
• $6M to improve the water treatment process;
• Submitted a grant application for $250K to conduct a wetland study in SKIA;
There will be a community meeting at Mt. View Middle School on Tuesday, April 28,
2009 for the joint school siting project to pair an urban school with another community
facility.
There will be a community meeting to view and discuss the new Manette Bridge. This
meeting will be hosted by WSDOT and be held in the Norm Dicks Government Center
main meeting chambers on Tuesday, May 5, 2009 from 4PM — 7PM.
C. Old Business: Andrea gave a quick overview of the problem with Planning
Commissioner's term expiration dates. Because of the inordinate amount of time it
would require to fully research commissioner term dates from the time of the
commission's inception, it was decided that all commissioner terms will end on
December 31 st of the new term expiration year as each is reappointed.
D. New Business: None
VII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for May 19, 2009.
y submitted by:
, Executive Secretary
Approved by:
Greg Oheler, Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 2009 Page 9 of 9