Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/2003 MINUTESMinutes of Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Kennedy at 5:32 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Wood, and Commissioner Kennedy. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Kennedy introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the agenda as written. Called for a vote: Cockburn: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Agenda approved as written. IV. Approval of Minutes The Regular Meeting of June 17, 2003, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner Kennedy. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the minutes as written. Called for a vote: Cockburn: abstained; Nelson: 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). Seeing no comments from the public, Commissioner Kennedy closed this portion of the meeting and moved onto the public meeting portion. B. Public Meeting 1. Public Hearing: [Commentary notes are enclosed in brackets.] Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 1 of 7 a. PL03 -0018 — Continued. An ordinance amending Section 21.02.230 and Section 17.04.060(e) of Bremerton Municipal Code relating to fence height regulations and permit requirements. Commissioner Kennedy introduced this item and turned the meeting over to staff, Mr. Hugo. Mr. Hugo stated that this was presented to the commission at the last regular meeting. It was continued because we hadn't completed the SEPA comment period yet. It concluded two days after the last meeting. That comment period has now been concluded and a Determination of Non - significance has been issued. We have also run through the 60 -day agency review period stipulated by state law for state agency comment. It is, therefore, timely for the commission to take action on this item. He noted from the minutes that there was commission consensus to limit the height of all fences in the front yard setback to three feet, regardless of the type of fence material. This is referenced in provision 21.02.230(a)(1)(ii), which currently reads, "Maximum height within front yard setback area shall be three feet, except in open mesh cyclone type fence may not exceed a height of 42 inches." When presented for public hearing the staff had proposed the cyclone type fence be allowed up to 48 inches. After the commission's discussion there was a suggestion that all fences should be limited to the same three foot height limit in the front yard. That is where the staff report stands at this time. Commissioner Kennedy opened the public hearing portion for this time. She explained the procedure of public comment. Seeing no public comment, she closed the public comment portion and opened the floor for comments and questions from the Commission. Commissioner Wood stated that she thinks the three foot [limitation] across the board seems to be more appropriate. A motion was made by Commissioner Cockburn and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend that PL03 -0018 as amended [21.02.230(a)1(iii) limiting fence heights in the front yard setback area to three feet regardless of fence material] for adoption to the City Council. Called for a vote: Cockburn: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes and Kennedy: yes. Motion carries. b. Pursuant to State of Washington Growth Management Act, as detailed in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Section 36.70A.035. The public hearings before the Planning Commission and later, before the City Council, provide an explicit opportunity for public review and comment, regarding potential revisions to the city's comprehensive plan. Commission Kennedy then reviewed the process of the public hearing. She explained that the staff report would be first, then there will be an opportunity for public comment — limited to three minutes, and that written testimony can be accepted also. She then noted for the record, that Commissioner Buckingham had arrived. Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 2 of 7 There was a question (point of order) from the public [William Palmer] regarding why there is a time limit when there are so few people present. Commissioner Kennedy replied that she wanted to set some basic guide rules since there is a proposal for a series of public meetings. She said the guidelines should be consistent. She also added that if three minutes was not sufficient for comment that written comment could be submitted. She then introduced Mr. Rogerson. Mr. Rogerson stated the staff report by reviewing the proposed schedule for public hearings. The schedule includes three additional meetings as follows: 1. Tonight (7/15/2003) — Introduction and Land Use Element 2. July 29, 2003 — Community Character Element, Environment Element, and the Housing Element. 3. August 12, 2003 — Economic Development Element, City Services Element, and the Transportation Element. 4. August 26, 2003 — Summarize and recap discussions of all hearings, and land use alternatives. There was consensus among the commission members that the schedule looked good. Commissioner Nelson asked if this was enough. Mr. Rogerson answered that there could be a fifth meeting if required. There was then a short discussion about making the schedule formal. The consensus was to leave it informal. Commissioner Kennedy verified with Mr. Rogerson that public comment will not be limited to the element being discussed at the meeting. People will be able to comment on any portion of the Comprehensive Plan during any of the meetings. Mr. Rogerson agreed and stated that the format would be to complete the staff report for the current element and then take public testimony and commission discussion. There was another discussion about making the schedule formal and the consensus was to keep the schedule informal to allow flexibility. That discussion also included notice requirements and promotion of the schedule. All the meetings will be scheduled to begin at 5:30 pm. Mr. Rogerson then presented the staff report. He read directly from his written staff report. He covered the Introduction Section — some GMA basics and population projections; Land Use Element— Land use vision goals and policies, needed land and availability of land, centers concept and an introduction to the three land use scenario maps. The statutory deadline is to complete the Comprehensive Plan by December 1, 2004, which includes development regulations that implement the plan. The public perception is that the plan be completed by the end of summer. Mr. Hugo spoke to the group regarding the urban growth area. He directed the group to look at the map as he spoke. His discussion included information and historical background; definition of Urban Growth Areas; unincorporated areas; and urban growth area policies. Mr. Rogerson concluded the staff report by saying that staff recommends that this be the end of session one and that it be continued. He then asked if there were questions. Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 3 of 7 Commissioner Kennedy commented that descriptions for the three centers should be entered into the record. Mr. Rogerson referred the group to the land use scenario maps. Referring to Scenarios #2 and #3, he said that there are three types of centers: District Center (large mixed use center which serves multiple neighborhoods) [Upper Wheaton Way, Lower Wheaton, and Charleston]; Neighborhood Center (smaller scale center which serves one neighborhood) [Manette, perry Avenue Mall, corner of Pine & Sylvan, and Hadden Park]; and Downtown Center, as designated by the Kitsap Regional Council as the Metropolitan Center for Kitsap County. There are also two Employment Centers [Pope & Talbot property and Port Blakely property], which are both mixed -use environments. Commissioner Buckingham asked about a Kitsap Lake Center being a future center. Mr. Rogerson answered by saying that currently there is no population or employment base assigned to Kitsap Lake. Because there is no infrastructure the potential for that location to develop as a center during the first 20 year planning period is very low. However, it will be referred to in the plan, as a future center. Commissioner Cockburn asked a question about LU13 -A and LU13 -13. He said that it seems to be alternatives #2 and #3. Mr. Rogerson paraphrased Land Use Goal LU13 by saying that we should remove or revise existing land use designations in a way that supports the "centers" concept. There are a couple of policies that speaks to how this is done. In one case, you remove or re- designate vacant multi - family designations that don't support centers. In the other case, you re- designate to `single - family' all multi - family designations outside of centers. He said that Commissioner Cockburn was questioning that if one of these alternatives (LU13 -A and LU13 -B) is adopted, doesn't one of them have to go away? The answer is yes. There was a short discussion of when this choice would be made. Commissioner Kennedy asked if the commission had any further questions for the staff. Seeing none, she closed the commission comment period and opened the public comment period and explained how the public comment process works. William M. Plamer, licensed planning consultant. He said he was representing two clients, Mr. Paul McConkie and Mr. Whitcom. He referred to the map and showed where Mr. McConkie's property is located. He then stated that Mr. Whitcom owns the Motel 8 site near the freeway. He commented on a proint of process — A long abiding criticism of planning commission, board of county commissioners, and others. Citizens and professionals come before bodies like this to make comments. Virtually never get any feedback on the comments that are presented. He started that as an urban planning professional he thinks this is a travesty. He also objected to the 3- minute limit, especially when the crowd is small. His question regarding population — In 1995, the City of Bremerton received an allocation from Kitsap County Regional Coordinating Council for 20,000 people. A portion of that 20,000 was allocated to Port Blakely (3,000). [He could not remember the exact number.] According to your population figures right now — you are saying that you need 13,000 more to support that. It still comes up 4,000 short. What is Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 4 of 7 happening to the additional population? Is it being given back to KRCC to re- allocate? His questions about Mr. McConkie — There is an industrial center in walkable distance from neighborhoods. You cannot walk to west Bremerton from the downtown area. But you can walk to this [industrial center]. There is nothing in the plan to address that center — pro or con. Mr. McConkie is definitely interested in an expansion of about eight acres in that area. Mr. Palmer said that he would be submitting something in writing regarding the expansion. He went on to say that there were several areas that of urban growth the city are ignoring. He referred to the map and mentioned Erlands Point. He also said that in his estimation you [the city] also need an inter -local agreement between the city and the county regarding how to address urban growth in the text of your comprehensive plan. He then said he was really glad to see that staff had included urban growth in the plan because that was one of his criticisms of the plan, that it didn't address urban growth areas. Commission Kennedy asked if there were any further public comment. Seeing none, she closed the public comment section and continued the hearing to July 29, 2003. She said that at the time we will reopen the hearing. She reminded the public that we will be hearing testimony on any element of the plan at any one of the hearings. There was a question from the floor regarding the availability of the elements prior to the public hearings. Mr. Rogerson answered by saying that all the elements are available now. He stated that the longer the wait, the better condition [more thorough and closer to the final version] it will be when picked up. If is constantly being revised and is a work in progress. Mr. Hugo stated that since some of the elements are still being revised, the final version will be prepared before the hearing closes at the end of August. We will have one complete, firm version before then and in enough time to allow adequate opportunity for public review of the whole document. There will then be multiple hearings before the City Council on that complete document. Mr. Rogerson then stated that the document is available at several public venues such as public libraries. The public can call our office to find out where to locate the nearest copy. There is also a copy available at our office. They are in the form of 3- ring binders that we will be revising and supplementing with improved versions of each element as necessary. Mr. Palmer asked if these copies included copies of the maps. Mr. Rogerson answered by saying no, unfortunately we are still working to get the maps in a format that can be distributed. So, the maps can only be observed in our office at this time. Mr. Hugo wanted to make a statement about some of the public testimony. He stated that during the hearings — when we get to the end of the hearing process, staff will try to respond to public comments. Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 5 of 7 For example — Mr. Palmer raised the matter of population. Mr. Hugo then presented the following background on the topic: The approach that the region has taken to population growth now is vastly different than the deliberations that occurred the early through late 90's through the county and various other jurisdictions. The approach that we have taken was first suggested by the states; change in how growth population is given to counties. When Kitsap County first went through the business of GMA planning in the early 1990's, the State Office of Financial Management gave the county "a" number to plan for — for 20 years. Essentially, it was a pie to be cut up into various size slices and allocated to the planning jurisdictions. In the mid- 1990's that was challenged by a jurisdiction across the state. The state changed its method of giving population to counties. Now, instead of a finite size pie (a number to cut up) there is a broad range. The way the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council process is handling population is to have each planning jurisdiction come up with its desired growth population based on community values and the capability of geography to support urban growth and the ability of the jurisdiction to serve urban growth affordably. That is what we are trying to do — to figure out how to best serve urban growth affordably within the city and within the urban designated lands around the city. This is a brand new way of looking at growth. We are right in the middle of the range that the state has assigned to us. Commissioner Kennedy stated that the public hearing on the comprehensive plan update is continued until July 29, 2003, at 5:30 pm, in the City Council Chambers. a 2. Workshops: a. None. VI. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report: None. Director Report: Chris Hugo. CDBG Advisory Members — Mr. Hugo requested confirmation of the designation of a Planning Commission member to participate on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) committee. Commissioner Angela Wood had suggested that she might volunteer for that. Commissioner Wood agreed to represent the Planning Commission. C C 2. Resignation of Commissioner Din fg ield — Mr. Hugo informed the group that the Mayor's office has received the resignation of Commissioner Dingfield. Based on the fact that she had served for so long on the commission and the fact that she felt that now that the Comprehensive Plan process was coming to an end that she would give up her seat to someone else. The Mayor's office is currently looking for a replacement. Old Business: None. New Business: None. Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 6 of 7 VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for August 19, 2003. Respectfully submitted by: Executive Secretary Approved by: Jessica Kennedy, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 7 of 7