Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/16/2003 MINUTESMinutes for Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 2003 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Kennedy at 5:29 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Buckingham, Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Streissguth, Commissioner Wood and Commissioner Kennedy. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Kennedy introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Buckingham to approve the agenda as amended. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Kosusko: yes; Streissguth: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Agenda approved as amended. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on November 18, 2003, were presented for approval by Commissioner Kennedy. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the minutes as written. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Kosusko: yes; Streissguth: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy; yes. Minutes approved as written. V. Public Meeting Commissioner Kennedy moved directly to the call to the public portion. A. Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). She addressed the group and asked if there was anyone with comments. Seeing none, she closed this portion of the meeting. B. Public Meeting Public Hearing: Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 2003 Pagel of 8 BP03 00189 — Proposed ordinance amending BMC 21.02.150 relating to unlisted uses. Commissioner Kennedy introduced the topic and turned the floor over to staff, Chris Hugo. Chris distributed copies of the staff report and the proposed ordinance. He stated that this item is coming to the Planning Commission because of some specific development issues that we faced recently. It is actually a housekeeping matters that comes forward because of chronic difficulties in administering our zoning code. The way our zoning code is structured is availability of how you can use your land on any particular parcel is governed by a matrix (chart or table). Across the top lists all the zone classifications in the city and down the left hand side is a long list of every conceivable use the city could have imagined being in an urban area at the time the zoning code was adopted, years ago. He said that there were probably horse barns in there but not high tech centers, for example. The problem with a code like this is, just the form of the table like that means that you have to try to anticipate every specific use there is. Our code is not unlike the code used by many cities. Usually there is an attempt to try and classify every conceivable use, because the philosophy that the older zoning codes were constructed under was the philosophy of separating uses and keeping very similar things together in geographic districts. He explained that the idea of mixing things up was an anathema to the way we were building our city. So if you had a low density neighborhood it was important, back in the 50's, to say just exactly those things that were okay in your residential zones that the neighborhood was being built on. Then in industrial or commercial areas, just exactly what kind of activities could be there. Probably the more progressive zoning codes of today are much more performance oriented and say that you can do almost anything provided that you do it at a certain scale and intensity and don't damage neighboring properties in any operative, environmental or social way. We have our old zoning code so we get applications in for new things all the time. He explained that we go to the chart and these uses are not listed on the chart, so what do we do? He referred the group to the second page of the staff report and read directly from it, "If the Director finds no similar uses already listed, [on Table 140] finds the proposed use to be sensitive or controversial, finds the use to have potentially adverse impacts or is unable to arrive at an administrative determination, the requested use shall be considered for approval by the Administrative Hearing Examiner through the Special Use Permit process " He said that he [as Director] could also make a determination of similarity today, but there is no criteria for how that is done. When this was brought to the Council because of one particular issue, there was a lot of discomfort — both on the staff side and the elected official side about having such arbitrary authority in the code. In actuality, the way that our staff works is that we are not that arbitrary. We look at Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 2 of 8 something that comes in and even though the code doesn't require us to think this analytically or objectively, the approach that we take is one of looking at the proposed use and seeing how it operates and seeing how it operates; see what kinds of environmental impacts it might pose to adjacent properties or the setting and see if it is similar in observable ways. Chris explained that this ordinance takes the same practice that we have engaged in for the last three years as a staff and formalizes it. Chris said that this proposal adds a whole new section under (a) that if the Director makes the decision to classify as a similar use that the unlisted use has to have these characteristics: (i) It has to pose similar impacts on the environment for noise, light and glare, dust and odor, and water quality; (ii) must present similar operational characteristics for traffic volumes, typical hours of activity, parking demand, delivery of supplies, and storage of materials, and (iii) must demonstrate similar dimensional compatibility with the zones in which the use is permitted, including structures' height and bulk, lot coverage and characteristic setbacks, landscape, fences, signage, and type of structure (style and materials). And also, 2) There must be a clear association of the proposed unlisted use with the listed uses within any one of the 14 categories of Table 140. Then, if the Director is still unable to make a determination, then the improved language under b) states, "If, after consideration of the above criteria, the Director makes an administrative determination that the proposed use cannot be classified and processed as any other listed use, the Director shall refer the application for a Type III determination by the Hearing Examiner." Chris has to complete the language as it was incomplete on the staff report and in the draft ordinance. There was a short discussion to clarify the difference between the Type I and Type III determinations. It is a Type I if the Director makes the decision, otherwise it is a Type III, which includes notice to the general public and properties in the area. The next sentence [from the staff report, page 2] is still true, "The Director's determination is a Type I Administrative Decision which may be appealed to the Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to BMC 21.02.840." Chris stated that there was some specific language about who was responsible for this. The Director is saying that a determination cannot be made, and this can be appealed by the proponent. The proponent has the option of asking for a determination by the Hearing Examiner. There was a short discussion regarding the dynamics. Commissioner Buckingham asked if the director's decision to disapprove the application because it cannot be classified. Ms. Ralph stated that if the director determines that he cannot classify it, then it would go to a Type III decision before the Hearing Examiner. Then the Hearing Examiner would classify it after a public hearing process. But if you use the criteria that has been established and can determine it would be a Type I decision — either yes or no. The applicant can then appeal. Chris responded that there is no reason to make the applicant apply for a Type III permit. It would always be an appeal. In an effort to correct the language in the Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 3 of 8 proposed 21.02.150 (b) "If, after consideration of the above criteria, the Director makes an administrative determination that the proposed use cannot be classified and processed as any other listed use the determination may be appealed to the Administrative Hearing Examiner." Chris said that this will get the proposal through the hearing. Then if the city attorney chooses to amend this when it goes to City Council on your recommendation, he can enter any changes at that point. Any such changes will not be changes of substance, they will be changes of clarity. Commissioner Buckingham said that he still felt as if something was missing because determining that it cannot be classified is not a determination at all. It is just saying that you don't know what to do with it and not that we're okay with it or not. Chris stated that when that determination is made [that it cannot be classified], it is a formal decision that he is held to. He explained that the director has to issue a statement. All director decision of that type, whatever is said about the zoning code is an appealable decision. Commissioner Buckingham stated again that he was concerned about where such a decision [that the use cannot be classified] leave the applicant with their proposed use. Just knowing that you [the Director] don't know how to classify it. Chris said that such a decision does not mean that the director doesn't know what to do with it — it means that the proposed use cannot be classified and /or processed as any listed use. An affirmative determination, it is not like the director doesn't know what to do with it. The statement being made by the director is that this use cannot be associated with any listed use. It could not be classified as a listed use. This explanation satisfied Commissioner Buckingham. Ms. Ralph asked Chris to verify that this language had no way to say that the department cannot apply this criteria. Chris replied by say that the criteria is always applied and either the department /director can find a fit or not. She suggested that, in that case, the following language can be struck, "... is a Type I Administrative Decision which.." Chris said that we want to leave the words "Type I" and suggested that it read "... Type I Determination may be appealed." The group agreed on the new language for 21.02.150 (b) "If, after consideration of the above criteria, the Director makes an administrative determination that the proposed use cannot be classified and processed as any other listed use, the Director's Type I determination may be appealed to the Administrative Hearing Examiner pursuant to BMC 21.02.840. " Chris continued that there is another provision that has been added to this ordinance, section 2. He explained that as the section was being reviewed, this is unrelated to unlisted uses. However, there is another part of the code which lists definitions and refers to "Special Exceptions." Over a year ago, because of the arbitrary and capricious nature of special exceptions on my request, the City Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 4 of 8 Council removed all such authorities from the zoning ordinance. This is housekeeping again, these two references up earlier. Chris explained that this [public hearing] was noticed according to our notice procedures. The staff report also indicates that we did make a SEPA determination as a non - project action and issued a DNS [Determination of Non - significance]. He then asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Kennedy asked if there were any public testimony on this issue. Seeing none, she closed the public testimony portion and opened it up to the Commission. She asked if the Commission had any questions or concerns. Seeing none she asked for a motion. Commissioner Streissguth made a motion to approve BP03 00189 — proposed ordinance amending BMC 21.02.150 relating to unlisted uses as amended by staff and the amendment to BMC, Section 21.02.070 — Definitions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Buckingham. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Kosusko: yes; Streissguth: yes; Wood: yes; Kennedy: yes. Motion carries. 2. Workshops: Commissioner Kennedy introduced the workshop for the Comprehensive Plan and turned the floor over to Paul and Ms. Ralph. The workshop covered the Draft Transportation Element — a presentation was done by the Paramatrix. VI. BUSINESS MEETING 0 Chair Report — Commissioner Kennedy. None. Review of Planning Commission By -Laws - Director Report: Chris Hugo. Interim Rural Forest Land Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Chris reported that the County Commissioners took final action on that. They didn't take their last action until they approved findings and conclusions, which is the last step of the process. That was done just two weeks ago. That starts the 60 day clock for appeal under the rules of the Growth Hearings Board. The letter sent by the Planning Commission just missed the Planning Commission by an hour. The letter that the City Council sent missed the close of written comment by one day. The only significance of that is that the County Commissioners may not have had the benefit of either letter. Chris tried to find out from his counterpart at the County if the letter sent by the City of Bremerton Planning Commission was late but still in their hands was forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. He said that it should have been. Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 5 of 8 Normal protocol would have anything that came in late would not have been of any benefit to the current hearing body but would have been passed up to the next hearing body. Chris said that if that didn't happen — it should have. The fact that the City Council letter just missed a day was regrettable. He explained that this happened while he was out of town and that the City Council took charge of their own letter and reworked the language and the letter went on in their tone and with their ownership. Chris was impressed by the action taken by the City Council and regrets that the letter had no affect because of timing. The County Commissioners didn't even take into account that the Bremerton City Council sent them a letter. He said that politically, that was too bad because they acted without realizing that their major neighboring jurisdiction really cared about this item. Under the rules of the Hearings Board under state law, Bremerton did not have to have a letter or any appearance in the record during the hearing process. As a city, we have the ability to appeal a county at any time up to the 60 days. Chris explained that the City's position right now is that we need to get back to the Council and ask them if they would like to join others in an appeal. There are several tribes that will appeal, who are also participating in the Kitsap Regional Coordinating process (including the Suquamish Tribe). He said that he did have a discussion with a Poulsbo City Council person and was told that they don't have the stomach for it. Chris said that he wasn't sure about the City of Port Orchard. He believes the new mayor would join but he's not sure about the City Council. He also stated that he wasn't sure about Bainbridge Island, they are concerned about the traffic so they may be interested in this time. He said that was the status and that he would report more in January. We have the ability to go forward if the City Council chooses and it will likely be a recommendation to appeal. There was a short discussion regarding the time limit [60 days] and whether we would be filing a separate or joint appeal and the dynamics of each. 2. Planning Commission By -Laws — Chris said that it is a process that the commission should address with the support of the legal staff. He suggested a sub - committee of the commission to draft ideas for review. There was a short discussion about which section needs to be revised. The group agreed that it is something that the commission needs to address. Commissioner Buckingham stated that the issue is probably not the by -laws, but the original ordinance ( #4069) that established the Planning Commission and re- evaluate that ordinance and how it was (or should have been) changed when the hearings examiner was put in place. Chris said that the issue in the by -laws is a simple one under paragraph 3, duties of the commission. It is simply taking out about eight words. Currently it reads, "The Commission shall conduct public hearings related to the Comprehensive Plan and the implementation thereof, including but not limited to zoning, land use applications requiring commission approval, platting, and subdivision Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 6 of 8 regulations, and appeals of administrative decisions. " He said that of all those things, the only things that you do now are zoning, sub - division regulations, public hearings related to the Comprehensive Plan and the implementation. Commissioner Buckingham said that in this ordinance ( #4069), under section 8, subsection 4, and 5, it says, "The Planning Commission may issues special use permits and variances." We would not do this now. There was a short discussion about which section of the BMC this referred to and the fact that the BMC has been revised to take these responsibilities out. Chris and the group decided that this is a housekeeping issue and that the commission would be working with the legal staff to address the by -laws and the appropriate ordinances. Commissioner Buckingham raised the issue of the relationship between the Planning Commission and the City Council. He wondered if this should be addressed in the by -law review to establish a protocol for interacting with the Council. There was a short discussion about this issued. Ms. Honore' called point of order and informed the commission that the role of liaison between the Planning Commission and the City Council is currently listed as a duty of the Vice Chair in the by -laws. She said she believed that to be enough structure and that the commission can decide how they want that to happen. Commissioner Streissguth said that she recalled from previous discussions we had discussed having a workshop or executive session to review the by -laws and talk about the goals and objectives of the commission. Her recollection was that a date for such a workshop was to be discussed at this meeting. Commissioner Wood said that she remembered that and thought it was to be discussed sometime in January. Ms. Honore said that she would keep it on the agenda as old business. There was a short discussion about timing — after the Comprehensive Plan meetings. Paul suggested that the commission try to get on the agenda with the City Council in the spring sometime after the budget issues have all been decided. Commissioner Kennedy asked that this issued be put on the agenda under `Old Business' in January and set a point person, perhaps the new vice chair. C. New Business: 1. Election — Commissioner Kennedy opened the floor for nominations for chair and vice chair for the 2004 Planning Commission. Commissioner Kosusko nominated Scott Buckingham for chair for 2004. Commissioner Kennedy seconded the nomination. Called for the vote: Buckingham: abstained; Cockburn: yes; Kosusko: yes; Streissguth: yes; Wood: yes; Kennedy: yes. Commissioner Buckingham elected as the new chair. Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Wood nominated Linda Streissguth for vice chair for 2004. Commissioner Kosusko seconded the nomination. Called for the vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Kosusko: yes; Streissguth: abstained; Wood: yes; Kennedy: yes. Commissioner Streissguth elected as the new vice - chair. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for January 20, 2004. Respectfully submitted by: Executive Secretary Approved by: Jessica Kennedy, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 8 of 8