Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2003 MINUTESMinutes for Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2003 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Kennedy at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Kennedy asked staff to introduce the new commissioner. 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. She announced that there had been a change to the agenda. Item B. 1. b. has been deleted [Public Hearing for BP03 00189 — An ordinance amending BMC 21.02.150 relating to unlisted uses.] Also, the Workshop 2. [Comprehensive Plan — Draft Transportation Element] has also been deleted. Chris Hugo made a statement, for the record that the public hearing item B. 1. b. has been deferred because of a notice issue. We had published a notice for the agenda but did not publish a separate notice like we did for item B. 1. a. that explained the full opportunity for public comment. Since we did not follow the same protocol, the workshop is deferred because we just have too many hits on staff time and difficulty notifying everyone. 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 October 21, 2003, were presented for approval by Commissioner Kennedy. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to approve the minutes as written. Called for a vote: Buckingham: abstained; 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. Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2003 Page 1 of 10 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 1. Public Hearing: a. BP03 00178 — Proposed zoning text amendment to BMC 21.02.152 to revise the parking requirements for redeveloping properties in the DC and DW zones. Commissioner Kennedy introduced the item and turned the floor over to staff, Chris Hugo, DCD Director. [Commentary notes are enclosed in brackets.] Chris started by saying that at the last meeting there was a workshop on this item. He then distributed the staff report to the commission. For the purpose of the public hearing he set up the background of this proposal. In late fall of 2001 the City Council on the recommendation of the Planning Commission adopted new goals and policies for downtown development which became the basis for the illustrative plan (Calthrope Plan). Those goals and policies were then implemented in late fall of 2002 with implementing development regulations. One of the things the regulations called for was to create two zones, the Downtown Waterfront (DW) and Downtown Core (DC) zones. Also, for the first time applied a parking requirement in the downtown area. The prior zone for that same geography was the BC zone (Business Core). That zone still exists outside of the study area. The BC zone still surrounds the new zones on a couple of sides. In that area there is still no requirement for parking. However, in the DC and DW zones there is a requirement for parking now for almost any use. The problem is that almost all that area has now become nonconforming because of the parking requirement. Most every property in the DW and DC zones that has a building on it is nonconforming because there is no parking to support the building. When that requirement was imposed, it was done thinking that we would be redeveloping much of downtown. So projects like the conference center and the new government building do have conforming parking associated with the projects. We have announced the credit union building on 2 which also has parking that conforms to the new code. He explained that there are existing provisions in the zoning code that allow for satellite parking lots. So, one of the answers may be to go and get parking on a satellite parking lot because there are 1,700 non - associated parking stalls in the BC, DW, and DC zones. Whoever is in the controlling position for those lots are not inclined to give up those spaces in perpetuity. For occupancy of rehabilitated buildings would have to secure an unlimited right over time for those parking spaces, essentially a note to title that the lot owner could not sell and could not redevelop that lot. That is not a good solution for the long haul. Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2003 Page 2 of 10 He then said that there is a provision that would allow the director to waive additional parking requirements if there is a determination that the change of use or remodel does not result in a significant change in parking demand. He said that he has used this in a couple of cases while we have been waiting to fix the code. Chris said that this is a bad fix in that it requires us [DCD] to make some very formal determinations and it is a fairly unguided authority which can make it easy to be arbitrary. He concluded by saying that the proposal that was reviewed during the workshop is detailed in the current handout. This action is a proposed addition to BMC 21.02.152. Section 152 is the section with the regulations in the new DC and DW zones and includes the parking requirements for all uses in those two zones. This would be adding a new section, "f' at the end of 152, which applies to change of use or rehabilitation of existing buildings. He read directly from the staff report, "When an existing building or structure is remodeled or improved or has a change in use or tenancy, it shall be exempt from off - street parking and landscaping requirements provided that I — the structure is not enlarged, extended or structurally altered to allow an increase in the gross floor area or 2 — the work being undertaken follows substantial destruction of the structure as provided for in the BMC 21.800, G.2. " [That is a provision in our non - conforming rights section that says that if a building burns down 75% or more, it is essentially gone. The site can only be improved fully compliant with the existing codes at the time.] This would exempt a building from parking requirements during a remodel but not if it is being done in compliance with substantial destruction section. Also, this would apply as long as the structure isn't enlarged in any way. Chris detailed the one problem with number one. If there is a structure with high, first floor ceilings (18 ft.). This would not allow you to put a mezzanine in there for a restaurant. He said that this probably would not be in very many cases, but this would limit that because you cannot really increase the useable gross floor area of the structure. He said that this is a minor issue and this is one of those fixes that isn't a long term solution. It will greatly relieve people remodeling existing buildings from this requirement. He said that landscaping is an issue that if the project stays within the existing building wall, it is hard to address the landscape issue. The city will take care of the landscaping in the public right -of -way with street trees (in these zones). There was another provision regarding residential uses that occupied the street level frontages. Chris said that the provision was explained to him and that provision had been removed. It was related to the previous zoning designation (BC), which treated residential use as a secondary use. Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2003 Page 3 of 10 There has been a SEPA determination made and as a non - project action, we issued a determination of non - significance on November 5, 2003. That concludes the staff report and we have received no written public comments on this proposal. Commissioner Kennedy asked if there were any questions from the commission. Commissioner Wood had a question about landscaping requirements. She said that it is a chance to offer opportunity to enhance existing storefront landscaping other than just street trees. Commissioner Kosusko agreed. He asked Chris if he could talk about what the landscaping requirements are in these zones that the exemption covers. Chris read from directly from the code that landscaping is required in parking lots that are created as supporting uses. A parking lot is only allowed if it is associated with a primary use. No free- standing parking lots are not allowed in these two zones. Commissioner Cockburn asked if there was open space landscaping required. This prompted a short discussion. Chris said that one of the things about the code that Mark Hinshaw developed for us is that it is a very simple code. It was similar to the code he produced for Tacoma, which was the smallest development codes for a downtown in America. But three years later that code is now three times thicker as it has gone through the process of being used by applicants and the staff. They have done what we are doing — starting with a very simple code and now we are coming back and trying to add sections because we have things in our history or in our urbanscape that are anomalies and so we are going back to tradition micro - manage every situation by adding a new code feature. He said that he was sympathetic with what Mark Hinshaw was trying to do, but it is going to take us a while to learn how to work with something so simple. He gave several examples to demonstrate his point. In conclusion he said that we will see how this goes and as long as it is respected in its philosophy maybe we can live with it. It will just take one bad example and we'll be adding a new section to this code, which will be landscaping. Commissioner Kennedy then opened the public testimony section of this hearing. Steve Krifles asked for clarification. He wanted to know if what DC, NC, and EC stood for. The EC, he said was located in the Harrison area. Chris answered by saying that DC is Downtown Core; NC is Neighborhood Commercial. He then explained that in the planning that NC is Neighborhood Center and EC is Employment Center. Chris said that these are planning designations and do not relate to this parking proposal. Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2003 Page 4 of 10 Steve Krifles then asked about the DC located on lower Wheaton Way. He was told that DC is Downtown Core zone. The DC on lower Wheaton Way is a planning designation for District Center and is unrelated to the proposal being discussed. Steve stated that his question was answered. Commissioner Kennedy then closed the public comment section of the hearing. Commissioner Kosusko stated that this proposal seems to fill a gap that was left in the original regulation. We cannot require someone who wants to do something in an existing building without any parking to provide parking. He said that this is historically consistent with the way things were zoned downtown before. Commissioner Wood said that she concurred with Commissioner Kosusko. Commissioner Kosusko made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend BP03 00178 [a zoning text amendment to BMC 21.02.152 to revise the parking requirements for redeveloping properties in the DC and DW zones] to the City Council for adoption. Commissioner Wood seconded the motion. Chris interjected that there is a negative left out of section `F.2.' The proposal is that `the structure shall be exempt from off - street parking provided that the work is NOT undertaken following substantial destruction.' He said that this would probably require an amendment to the motion. Commissioner Kosusko amended his original motion to include the addition of the word "not" into section F.2. `the work is not undertaken.' The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wood. Called for a vote: Buckingham: yes; Cockburn: yes; Kosusko: yes; Streissguth: yes; Wood: yes; Kennedy: yes. Motion carries. 2. Workshops: None. VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report — Commissioner Kennedy. Review of Planning Commission By -Laws - Commissioner Kennedy reminded the group that they had wanted to review our guidelines, etc. in an executive session or open meeting. She said we need to get this on our agenda somewhere. Probably NOT on the next meeting (12/16/2003), because she expects that to be a long meeting [two Comp Plan elements]. There was a short discussion of what was to be covered at the next couple of meetings. Commissioner Kennedy said that including it on an agenda later would allow the legal staff to review the bylaws, etc. Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2003 Page 5 of 10 Commissioner Streissguth said that she had e- mailed Chris earlier today about this issue. She said that the ordinance she received authorizing the authority of the Planning Commission and the subsequent bylaws. The information she received did not have the information on the Hearings Examiner. She wanted to know if the change was done by ordinance change or and amendment to the by- laws. She said that it could be that all we are missing an amendment. This prompted a short discussion of the change. Chris explained that before we had the Hearing Examiner there were references to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission's authority to make decision all throughout the zoning code and several places in the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC), primarily in the quasi judicial decision functions in the zoning code. So, when we created the Hearing Examiner system, the primary focus was on the zoning code and getting the language in the zoning code correct. The other section of the BMC that relates to the authority and duties of the Planning Commission was probably just overlooked. The action that created the Hearing Examiner system was an ordinance. Then there were subsequent ordinance actions and amendments to clean up everything to get it all consistent throughout the zoning code. The part relating back to the Planning Commission was just missed. This is primarily house - keeping in the BMC and in the by -laws. Chris said that the house - keeping issues can be done by the city legal staff but the by -laws are the responsibility of the commission itself. There was a short discussion of the role of the Planning Commission and the Hearing Examiner and related RCW's and ordinances. Commissioner Streissguth said that her feelings are that if the change occurred via ordinance to have quasi judicial matters handled by the Hearings Examiner, that takes care of the ordinance issue. The by -laws are very general in nature and it is a simple amendment to add that provision that quasi judicial is now handled via the Hearings Examiner. Commissioner Wood asked if this would be passed on for old business for the next meeting to talk about a date to review our role and by -laws, etc. Maybe it could be a workshop or refresher course of what our rules are and how we communicate with the City Council. Commissioner Kennedy said yes. We will put it under old business to look at a date. Director Report: Chris Hugo. 1. Kitsap County Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Chris read in the paper that the County did move on their annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. Apparently chose to ignore the input of the City of Bremerton (The Planning Commission and the City Council) on the matter of interim rural forest lands. He said that this is a serious issue to our future and he thinks there is a policy Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2003 Page 6 of 10 discussion to be had between the Commission and the Council about subsequent considerations that you might take. There are some recourses that are formal. He explained that this takes us back more than five years in our relationship with the County. Filing of an appeal to the Growth Hearings Board may be time sensitive. Commissioner Streissguth asked if Chris had the timelines for those options. Chris said that since he had just read the paper that day, no — he didn't have those timelines. He said that the first step would be to resubmit our request to see if we could get the County Commissioners to reconsider. Commissioner Kennedy stated that according to the article in the paper, there were some entities that were going to challenge the decision. She said that maybe the City of Bremerton could join in that challenge. Chris said that it is a possibility if the City Council chose to do that. He verified that the Commission had seen the letter from the City Council to the County. It was a very strong letter saying that the language was confusing, it is hard for lay people to consume and understand the implications, but it appears to us that some pretty egregious things are going to happen. Things related to densities and the opportunity to attract 30,000 more residents out into the rural areas. We can attract a certain number of people here by doing good things, but you cannot compete with the ability to go out and sit on a ridge top and look at the Olympic Mountains on 2.5 acres. That is what this does. Chris said that he would refer back to the Commission once he has had a chance to talk to the City Attorney, who was not available today. He said he would also talk to the City Council and get back to the commissioners individually within 30 days if possible. Commissioner Streissguth asked a question regarding procedure or protocol. She said there is a timeline in which to react and she anticipates the Commission should receive some type of staff report outlining the options available and the timelines associated with exercising those options. If we have less than 30 days, would that warrant a special meeting? Or is that something we would do it via e- mail, phones, etc. Chris said that he would try to get back with the Commission in a week and work through the Chair about any possibility of needing a special meeting. He said that it will depend on the overall timing with the Council schedule, the budget, the holidays, etc. — how much we can get done. He reiterated that the Council appreciates a formal response from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kosusko asked if this is a topic that Chris would bring to the City Council at the meeting the following night. Chris answered that he would if he could get input from the City Attorney and get a sense of how to proceed. 2. City Budget - Chris reported that all the City departments are just hanging tough. The DCD workload has gone up 100% in the last two years in dollar volumes of permit revenues. He looks at permit revenues as being a direct Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2003 Page 7 of 10 reflection of workload. Long range planners are trying to get the Comprehensive Plan done. The current planner and building staff are seeing an increasing number of permits and project reviews come in. Like most departments, we are not getting any budget increases or resources. It is going to be a hard year for us. We have to get more revenues from something other than just our office, sales tax and property tax. Our cost issues are driven greatly by things like health care and personnel costs in general [about 60% of our budget]. 3. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Comprehensive Plan — Chris informed the group that he and Paul Rogerson had interviewed two respondents to the Request For Proposals (RFP) for the EIS on the Comprehensive Plan. There were six respondents. All six were very qualified and firms Chris is familiar with and do excellent work. Two short-list finalists were selected Huckell - Weinman, who worked for the City of Spokane and Spokane County doing some very challenging EIS work. The other company was Jones & Stokes, who are also really well known. The difference in the two firms is Jones & Stokes is a large firm with lots of disciplines within their organization, internally well integrated firm. Huckell - Weinman is a small firm who partner with other disciplines to get the job done. Both are very well qualified. In each case they talked about the idea of planned action. Planned action is taking an area and doing such refine environmental review on that part of your planning environment. The review is so detailed that it is like a project. If you do it as a planned action it essentially green lights the project after that. So when the project comes in for permits they don't have to go through a subsequent environmental review. It is a great thing because it can attract the activity to happen just because it is going to be easier and you don't have to worry about appeals and additional time. There is also a cost savings, as well as time saving. During the interviews we found that the legislature has created in the SEPA environment, other options to do different types of things and get some progress so that you are not just doing an EIS on your Comprehensive Plan, but you are actually making some progress toward implementation. One of them is a categorical exemption that if you create a certain planned environment, you can actually categorically exempt that environment from subsequent SEPA review. There is one other option as well. The good news to that was that some of our target areas like Westpark and maybe Manette Center and maybe downtown may all have enough structure in plans that have already been done to give them a green light for SEPA. That is something that we will be exploring. He said that the Commission and the City Council will be involved with that to make decision about if we want to do this. Any project area that we could qualify or find some money to get that work done will be a very economic way to get environmental review done. One of the ways also is phased environmental review. The EIS is set up as the first phase. Then subsequent sub -area planning phases and center planning phases. So the EIS is the first of a sequence of environmental reviews and each subsequent one can rely back on the prior one. As you get more detailed you are essentially only Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2003 Page 8 of 10 addressing the additional planning detail. You are not going back and having to address the whole general environment again. Several strategies that will be very beneficial to us and are exciting and cost effective. C. Old Business: Correspondence from Councilman Shepherd - Commissioner Streissguth mentioned that as she was reading through the minutes she was reminded about the correspondence from Councilman Shepherd. She was wondering if the commission still needed to respond to that. Commissioner Kennedy stated that it has been responded to. She said that we responded along the guidelines of what was discussed. Basically, that we did have the Westpark presentation and the downtown plan overlayed what we had already recommended and had been adopted by the council so there wasn't any cacophony. It said that we didn't have any public hearings on it because it wasn't our place to do that. That is what brought up this whole discussion. Councilman Shepherd felt that the Planning Commission would have some kind of say in whether this overlay [blighted area] and have a public process. However, it was the Council that had legislative power to do that. Commissioner Streissguth wanted clarification as to whether the Commission had responded. Again, Commissioner Kennedy stated that we had. Commissioner Kosusko talked about the Auto Zone store being constructed on 6 th Street. He wanted to talk about that pattern of development. He said that he didn't think that any of them wanted that pattern of development to continue and hopefully, through our new planning process, it won't. He said that he didn't know about the quality of the building that was there but it was a building that fronted the street, had some community character and got torn down. We then end up with a building that is set back from the street 80 feet with parking in front of it with basically no character of its own. His statements prompted a short discussion about how to deal with patterns like this in the future. Chris stated that there should be something in the plan [Comprehensive Plan] that says that strip commercial development should be contained to the extend of its existing use. He said there should be a policy there to that affect. He said that he thinks it is existing use or occupancy, which means even if it is zoned it doesn't stay. It has to be actually and occupied commercial site. But if it is just zoned or planned in the old plan it doesn't stay. He mentioned a conversation he had with a property owner from out of area. He has a property on Kitsap Way near the city limits. He was asking about the ability to put a new business relating to the home furnishing industry. Chris told him that it would not be allowed under the new plan or the new strategy. He would require a new plan designation. The property owner was told that he could lobby for his interests. However, that is not the way the public process has gone. Chris said that they had quite a discussion and that the property owner was represented Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2003 Page 9 of 10 by a local land use attorney. In the end they understood that this was being done for a reason. D. New Business: None. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for December 16, 2003. Respectfully submitted by: Executive Secretary Approved by: Jessica Kennedy, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2003 Page 10 of 10