Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/2003 MINUTESMinutes for Approval of Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kennedy at 5:37 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Dingfield, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Wood, Commissioner Kennedy. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Kennedy introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Dingfield and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the agenda as written. Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Agenda approved as written. For the record, Commissioner Wood arrived at 5:40 p.m. IV. Approval of Minutes The Regular Meeting of February 18, 2003, minutes were presented for approval by Commissioner Kennedy. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Dingfield to approve the minutes as written. Called for a vote: Dingfield: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Minutes approved as written. V. Public Meeting Chairman 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 Public Hearing: Commissioner Kennedy then opened the meeting up for public hearing. a. PL03 -0007 — Downtown Waterfront (DW) Zone Height Area C Text Amendment. Proposal by the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing to amend BMC Figure 152(b) to alter the provisions of Height Area C to allow a maximum of six stories of building plus five feet and a roof structure. Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 Page 1 of 11 Commissioner Kennedy asked the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority (KCCHA) to make their presentation. Gary Tusburg presented for the KCCHA. This is the hearing on the application from the item that we discussed informally at the last Planning Commission meeting. The purpose of this proposal is to revise the text in the Downtown Waterfront zoning area. Recognizing that there is a height limit of 70 feet, there is, of course, no wish to change that height limitation. The issue that came up in the present text was that there is a limitation of five stories. It is possible under the height limitation of 70 feet, to get six stories. As most of you know, there is a plan for a set of four buildings on the waterfront that will be built into condominiums. You may well imagine then, that the sixth floor does make a significant difference in the number of people we can attract into the downtown redevelopment area. So, what we're asking you to do is to recognize and agree with us that the buildings underneath the 70 foot limit will not change the present restriction of 70 feet. However, inside that envelope — using 10 foot ceiling (I suppose), we can get six, rather than five stories. Therefore, without changing your vision of what that area will be we can increase the density and we propose to you that this is a good thing. No only from the economic standpoint, which it is obviously because it makes better use of the land purchased with public dollars — but it also brings more people into an area that we are trying so desperately to revitalize. By doing this, he thinks that we can create a more appealing building that is a little bit over the standard downtown and readily seen from the waterfront and becomes a promenade. If you wish we can go back through the proposed plan that we have for that area. We have Mr. Curt Callison from Sienna Architectural firm if you have any further question of how that might work. He then asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Kennedy asked if there were any questions from the commission. Commissioner Nelson stated that at the last meeting (study session) you talked about the reason for the sixth story. Mr. Callison stated that if you can get more units into one of the buildings it becomes more viable economically. What we've done in order to create view corridors is not build the entire length of Washington in the downtown zone. We wish to separate it into four parcels with a wide view spread between the four parcels. This makes it even more necessary to get a little bit more height so that we can increase that density. Commissioner Kosusko asked where the proposal was with regard to the FAR (floor area ratio) of two (that is allowed). He also said he was interested in seeing some sectional representation as to how this fits. He also had a question for Mr. Hugo — We are talking about measuring the 70 feet according to the Shoreline code. He then asked Mr. Hugo to review how that measurement is done. Mr. Hugo suggested that the Commission would like to have the staff report at this time and come back to Mr. Callison. The Commission agreed. He referred the Commission to the staff report that was distributed. This report presents a fairly extensive background on the evolution of the zoning text provision that is currently in the zoning code. The new section of downtown regulations that was Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 Page 2 of 11 adopted last December 30 to implement the Downtown Goals and Policies that were adopted by the City Council a year previously. He referred the Commission to the third page of the report which has the current language in the BMC related to height in the Downtown Waterfront zone. Right below that is a paragraph, "The intent of this modification was to avoid having to utilize the WAC method of measuring building height with the proposed 60' limit. Instead, the 60' was converted to the number of stories that are common within that height limit, five. Additional allowances to accommodate the declining elevation of Washington Avenue and architecturally significant roof features were included. To insure that unanticipated structure designs couldn't greatly exceed Plan expectations, an additional limitation of 70' as determined by the WAC method for measurement was also incorporated into the proposal. Finally, the 2.0 FAR bulk standard was retained, providing the most effective control over building mass. The City Council adopted the revised language as offered by staff. " Mr. Hugo explained that the 60' height standard was the one that was in the draft regulations for two years from inception back in the fall of 2000 until adoption in December of 2002. Right up until the last minute that 60' was out there in front of the public. So, we're trying to deal with respecting the public process that created that 60'. In that public process there was no recognition of how that 60' would be implemented in a shoreline environment. I saw no discussion in the record that there was recognition that by the WAC definition in the shorelines of how you measure building height that the 60' would operatively become something less than that. Then in the next box is a proposal to change that five stories to six and an explanation of that. The proposed amendment can be considered a minor revision to the existing development regulation, with minimal substantive effect. The ability to develop a sixth story on a building produces the corollary adjustment of site coverage, i.e., the building becomes correspondingly narrower. The overall height control of 70' still applies. While this modification may produce expanded view corridors adjacent to extended street ends, its primary benefit is the additional residential units that a sixth floor can accommodate. These units will add to the downtown resident population and add to market demand for a broader range of goods and services downtown. One of the biggest goals for the downtown effort is to add to market demand for a broader range of goods and services downtown. Then it goes on to make a statement about SEPA that relates to a memoranda that has been entered into the file. This Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 Page 3 of 11 memo essentially says that this amendment has been reviewed, but it attaches back to the original SEPA Determination as a non - project action on July 14, 2001. The staff report then notes that the decision criteria for you to approve this change, which are: (1) Is the proposed change consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan? (2) Will the proposed change be consistent with all other provisions of the affected code and avoid conflicts with other codes? The report then includes a finding of plan /zoning consistency that needs to be made. When you come to the end of your deliberations he said he would ask them to make findings on the decision criteria. He then asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Kosusko asked Mr. Hugo to review how the 70 feet is measured in the Shoreline environment. Mr. Hugo said that you take the average existing grade of the building site (footprint) and take the average point of grade — the building height is measured from that point of average grade to the highest point of the building, including roofs. Mechanical is not included. Commissioner Kosusko asked for clarification — is it the average grade at the perimeter of the building or the perimeter of the lot? Mr. Hugo said that it is the average grade at the perimeter of the building. Then we have a provision in the new downtown code in the DW zone that applies to both the DC (Downtown Core) and DW (Downtown Waterfront) zones that describes building height. This provision states that elevator towers and other pertinences like roof mechanical and parapets are excluded. It essentially would be six stories plus five feet plus a roof design and not to exceed 70 feet but excluding those other pertinences like parapets and elevator towers. Commissioner Kosusko asked again for clarification. For instance if you had a lot that had 30 feet of slope on it, you are effectively measuring from 15 feet down the slope — is that correct? Mr. Hugo and Mr. Callison agreed that was a correct statement. Mr. Callison said that yes — you would measure from 15 feet down the slope to 70 feet high. He said further, that like on Washington you would be starting below the grade and going up 70 feet and you still might not eclipse 60 feet from the area. Mr. Hugo stated that the applicant had some drawings that might help illustrate this. The illustrations were helpful to me when I was wrestling with this. For a matter of consistency. Mr. Callison of Sienna Architecture introduced himself. He first answered the question of the FAR by saying that the way they have been drawing the site is in two phases. Phase one would be the northern face, north of Burwell. South would be Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 Page 4 of 11 Phase Two. The phase one site has an FAR of 1.45 calculated so far, incorporating the sixth floor. Phase two has an FAR of 1.5 calculated at this point. He offered drawings to the Commission. Commissioner Kosusko asked to see some of the drawings. There was a short discussion over the drawings, with Mr. Callison answering questions. Commissioner Kosusko, after looking at the drawings had a question about the height of the buildings. He said that the measurement was from average to the highest point of the roof structure — however, there is a line drawn that is parallel to the ground. This suggests to him that the definition would be a horizontal plane not a sloping plane on the height limit. Mr. Callison said that the reason he put the angled one in — this is building A, the average grade starts below the 33 line. So it's down here and if I went 70 feet up straight up, that's your line. It is the same line that is just above the roof right there (pointing to the drawing). He said that drawing up the plans, he never penetrated 70 feet. Commissioner Kosusko said that it sounded to him like you would go around the perimeter of the building and find what the average elevation of the perimeter of the building was and that is the point you would measure the 70 feet from. Mr. Callison said yes, but he could not do that because it goes into other code issues (high rise issues, 75 feet), everything over 75 feet is considered a high rise. Even if he extended the line flat because of the grade. This prompted a short discussion about which point to measure from. Mr. Hugo commented, referring to the Staff Report. He stated that he made one reference to the Comprehensive Plan. It notes the one supplemental policy that was adopted in December of 2001, as a part of the new Downtown Development Goals and Policies, number four. "4. Structures should be terraced down toward the water in order to maximize views and reinforce the stepped form of downtown. View corridors in alignment with east/west upland streets should be preserved." This line seems to better represent the intent of trying to terrace the edge of buildings down. If you had a horizontal line you could build out to the full bulk of that horizontal plane — in this case you would probably extend that upper roof all the way out if you wanted to, and split the building. This sparked another discussion of Mr. Callison's drawings and how the 70 feet are measured. The discussion was concluded by Mr. Callison saying that all the floors (of all the buildings) ended up lining up all the way across. They are stepping down the hill nicely and correlating to each other, so we don't just have all these odd buildings. It works better to start with one plaza and work from that. Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 Page 5 of 11 Mr. Hugo stated that even though the policy talks about terracing, he thought the intent was that as you looked at the buildings from the water they should represent the form of a hill. But the building part of the sights do not drop off as dramatically as if you go further north in the same zone. That is where there is no choice but to do stronger terracing. Here it is only evident in one or two steps of the building. If we do something like lower deck townhouses or something, there would still be some of that imagery of the step buildings. All of these issues were considered as I did the staff report. Commissioner Kosusko asked about ceiling heights at street level. Mr. Callison stated that at street level the ceiling heights will probably be 18 feet. He said that at street level these spaces will be some form of retail. Commissioner Kennedy asked if there were any further questions from the commission. There were none. She then asked if there were any questions from the public. Seeing none, the public hearing portion was closed and opened the session to the commission for discussion. A motion was made by Commissioner Dingfield and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend to the City Council that we amend the zoning text. Amend Bremerton Municipal 21.02, Figure 152(b) Footnote: "The overall height limit is 70 feet as measured pursuant to Bremerton SMP Chapter 8 Definitions, Height, and WAC 173 -27 -030 (9), provided that in no case at any point shall a structure be more than six stories plus five feet above the elevation of Washington Avenue at the site's front property line (edge of right -of -way). The added height of any roof structure shall be excluded from the height determination. Some discussion followed the motion.... Commissioner Kosusko stated that the commission struggled with this height issue the last go- around. In some ways it was pushing it a bit compared to what we heard from the public to allow the height in the first place (60 feet). We are not allowing any more height. It actually sounds like we might not allow any more stories on two of those four buildings. He said that he is a little torn about this. He thinks the commission may have erred too much in allowing height and we keep going and going. Considering the zoning we have in place and what the applicant is asking for, he cannot say that we cannot allow this. Maybe the chance we had to control height along the shoreline has passed because we have already allowed this. Commissioner Dingfield said that she appreciated what Commissioner Kosusko was saying. She said that what she likes about the amendment we are proposing tonight is what it allows in terms of view corridor. It allows the applicant in this case, to make this change opens up the view corridor for the public much more. So they are actually exceeding the view corridor goals and it was public access which this project is allowing and it visually opens up the corridors as well. She told Commissioner Kosusko that she could understand his struggle... Commissioner Kosusko said that he would accept that argument except they are no where near the FAR. If adding that extra story put them at 1.95, then I would buy the argument they are allowing extra view corridor. But adding that extra story still Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 Page 6 of 11 doesn't get them close to that FAR — so it is not like they are squeezing the building down in order to add the story in order to keep under the FAR. He said that he appreciates the view that we'll have from Washington Avenue. Commissioner Wood stated that she agrees with Commissioner Kosusko about the height restriction. Her only hesitation is that in the past it did creep up to 70 feet and she wonders what kind of president is being set for future projects. They answered our questions about what it's going to look like from the street and it looks pretty good. Commissioner Nelson stated that this amendment as it states here, is considered to be a minor revision. He said that he can appreciate the view corridor it will allow. Even more importantly, from a property management standpoint — he realizes the importance of getting the sixth story and having additional units can certainly make this project more feasible. He spoke to the applicants and stated that he can support their request for this amendment. Commissioner Kosusko stated that it is a story of the most valuable units and does make the project more feasible. There was a concurrence among the commission that no additional height is actually being added. Commissioner Kennedy stated that we really aren't increasing the height. We are already at 70 feet. So, if we were saying "Let's go to 90 feet" she said that the commission would probably not recommend that. However, since we are not really increasing that height limit, but just defining that another story can be that another story can be fit in there (if it can be), allows for future development to go to the lesser FAR and to open up the stories. It is kind of the best of both worlds. It give a developer the ability to possibly go higher and get more of the view — which was consistently important to the public. This is not perfect for everyone but it is a good middle - ground. She then asked if there was any further discussion. Seeing none, she asked for the vote. Commissioner Dingfield: yes; Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Wood: yes; Kennedy: yes. The motion carried. 2. Workshops: a. Update on the Comprehensive Plan and Planning Process. Mr. Paul Rogerson said that he always feels like he is preaching to the choir when he does an update to the Comp Plan to the commission because the group are all members of the Coordinating Council. He stated that the following products have been completed: 1. Draft of the Plan Introduction Chapter. 2. Draft Element Introductions 3. Draft Land Use Element (not quite available yet), about 21 pages right now and there are a couple of sections that need to be completed. 90% draft, should be about 30 pages on completion. 4. Parametrix, our consultant is working on the Transportation Element and should be done approximately the end of this month. Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 Page 7 of 11 In addition to the draft products: 1. Staff and I have done some additional work on the GIS mapping products. We are more in a position to do some analysis now of issues like current land use, etc. 2. We completed the draft Population and Employment projections that you received two weeks ago. These have been refined and we extended them to include a better look at the urban growth area. We are very near the point of having a package to distribute to city departments for their analysis. This is a very important step. Regarding the timeline — there is a possibility that the timeline has changed. Depending on where we are able to go with the SEPA analysis. The last time I briefed the Commission I believe that I told you that we didn't appear that we had funding or staff resources to do a full environmental impact statement (EIS) on this product. Right now that is still true — so that assumption that a SEPA would be done under less than and EIS approach would drive one schedule. We will be approaching the City Council on exploring the possibility of obtaining some additional resources to go through a more strenuous analysis of this product. However, doing that will extend the timeline and the Council will be made aware of that. He said that he assumes that they will agree with this course of action. So, there are two possible tracks or timelines that exist now. 1. Going to an initial set of public workshops in Mid - April. a. Bringing the results /input before the full Planning Commission for a full briefing and asking you to choose a preferred alternative Land Use Map. b. Sessions before the City Council (Study Sessions and Committee Meetings) in the early part of June with Council adoption hearings beginning at approximately the June 25 meeting. c. ALL TENTATIVE DATES — under the assumption that we are going through a truncated SEPA process. 2. If we end up having opportunity and the Council blesses the approach we will talk to them about soon (going through a more strenuous SEPA analysis, presumably an EIS), that timeframe stretches out a bit. a. Draft EIS in the June timeframe. b. Public Workshops in July and the Planning Commission looking at this product in August and the City Council not seeing it until September and October. c. ALL TENTATIVE DATES that could slide one month or so one way or the other. Mr. Rogerson then asked the Commission if there were any questions. Mr. Hugo added that one of the other things that we have run into is that as our work program has developed and we have looked at the base information that we have to work with as we are presenting the ideas back to the community and the Council is that the GIS layer for existing land use doesn't exist in any usable form. So the problem becomes one of proposing these new ideas to the community. When they ask how these ideas relate to the existing conditions of the city or to my Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 Page 8 of 11 property. We cannot answer the questions using a map because it doesn't exist. We just came to this discovery in the last week. That we don't have the ability to relate the proposals back to the existing. We need some time to solve that problem. It can be solved in the same timeframe that we would persue a more in depth environmental review. If we do a full blown EIS, we can also have some planned action elements in the EIS. Planned action is available to areas of twenty acres up to 4,000 acres. We could identify the downtown, Eastpark, Westpark, and maybe Port Blakley. Port Blakley is considering starting a part of their project but going back to readdress it as a planned action — go through another environmental process on a small proposal and would be willing to cooperate with the City on the EIS process. We would do a programmatic EIS for the whole city plan and then highlight some of our primary redevelopment opportunities and see if we can do enough analysis of those to identify all of the potential impacts for the development program that we are proposing to have them essentially covered from the environmental review standpoint. This means that all the projects that would then come in under that planned action have a green light for environmental review. He further stated that without having that kind of benefit he doesn't see the Council or the administration wishing to extend the process out. But, if we could pull the Eastpark, Westpark, Port Blakley and Downtown project under a planned action EIS — he can see quite a bit of support for that because of the inducement to development in those areas that is created. Commissioner Kosusko asked if any of this is a requirement for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hugo stated that the department is meeting with the City Attorney about, depending on what we rely on from our past planning history. We have some issues. Commissioner Dingfield said that she is concerned about bringing in some of those proposed developments if there are specific environmental hang -ups on them — will that slow down the whole process. Mr. Hugo said that the planned action EIS may identify that there are bigger environmental issues and whether or not to go forward and identify the mitigations so that you could cover the realm within the project area. He said he didn't think it necessary adds time. Commissioner Dingfield said she brought it up because of Port Blakley. The way Port Blakley has been approaching their development was as a joint planning and development effort with the City, the County and the Tribe. The Tribe has some very specific issues. Mr. Hugo said that these issues were discussed at length. There was a short discussion of some of the considerations. He stated that the environmental process is supposed to be an objective one that is not lead by political considerations. Up front you would find someone that everyone would agree on to perform the environmental analysis, comment on the analysis, respond to that and that is how the process should work. Mr. Rogerson asked if there were any further questions. Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Kennedy said that a lot of the public is wondering what happened to all of their input. Knowing everything you mentioned about the timeline, she was wondering if there was some way to bring our work to a public forum so they can see where we are in the process. She would like to get some kind of interaction. Her concern was that the commission will be so involved in the process that we get down the road and we will loose our connection with the public. Mr. Rogerson said that he understands her concern. He also said that with the two possible timelines discussed — it starts out with a public workshop in mid -April before it even splits off into the two tracks that were discussed. There is plenty to ask for feedback on. Commissioner Kennedy asked if it would be appropriate, at the same time, to give that body of work to the City Council as well. Mr. Rogerson advised the Commission that the department has made a commitment to show up at Council more often. So we are showing up there about once per month with an update on the process. Commissioner Dingfield said that many City Council members attended lots of those functions. She said that they have been engaged, it would just be nice to remind them for the purpose of getting /keeping buy -in. Mr. Hugo stated that the staff will continue to respond to requests from community organizations that ask for briefings. This prompted a short discussion of potential opportunities to spread the word. Commission Kosusko asked if the department has received any information about Kitsap Transit's SR -303 study. There is a draft out. Mr. Rogerson said that he had a visit from Kitsap Transit's planner describing it, but he hasn't seen the written product. They did, early on, came and described some of the more general concepts that were going to be in the product with Chris and me. Commissioner Kosusko said that he was able to look at it and has commented on them possibly relocating some of their stations to coincide with our centers, etc. This prompted a short discussion and there appears to be cooperation. Commissioner Kennedy then closed the public meeting portion of the meeting. VI. Business Meeting A. Chair Report — Commissioner Kennedy. Recap of exciting activities this last month: Bremerton Day in Olympia, the ground- breaking of the Government Building. Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 Page 10 of 11 B. Director's Report — Mr. Hugo. Video Tape — Tearing Down of Cabrini Green Made it available to the Commission. There was a short discussion about the concepts covered in the program. It will also be made available to the City Council. 2. Tentative 2003 Council Agenda Items From Community Development Mr. Hugo shared with the Commission a list of items the department will be submitting to the City Council this year. The lists includes ordinances (8); plans (3); codes (4); budget items (3); and proposals for impact fees and potential annexation in East Bremerton. He said that the one item that has been completed that was initiated by Roger Lubovich. It was an ordinance to establish clear procedures in BMC for how we amend the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hugo put in a suggestion that we only amend the Comprehensive Plan every two years and no more often except in the case of an emergency, which is defined. The workload involved in doing annual comp plan amendments is terrible. So to give both the perception and reality of Comprehensive Plan stability we are proposing a biennial cycle. This idea surfaced at the time when the City's budget was on a biennial cycle, which has been abandoned because of current budgetary instability everywhere. He then briefly reviewed the list with the Commission. Annexation There was a small discussion about annexation prompted by a question from Commission Dingfield. We are considering using the election method for East Bremerton. There is a confusing provision dealing with how to deal with incorporated land that has no residency — undeveloped ownerships that wants to come into the city to develop as urban and there is no one to vote. There is a legislative remedy in the works. C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: None. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for April 15, 2003. Respectfully submitted by: Executive Secretary Approved by: Jessica Kennedy, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2003 Page 11 of 11