Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/2003 MINUTESMinutes for Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 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 Kosusko, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Streissguth, Commissioner Wood and Commissioner Kennedy. Quorum certified. [Commissioner Cockburn arrived later in the meeting.] III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Kennedy introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the agenda as written. Called for a vote: Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Streissguth: yes; Wood: yes; and Kennedy: yes. Agenda approved as written. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on September 16, 2003, were presented for approval by Commissioner Kennedy. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to approve the minutes as written. Called for a vote: Kosusko: yes; Nelson: yes; Streissguth: yes; Wood: abstained; 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: None. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2003 Page 1 of 10 2. Workshops: 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 said that this addressing an issue that was considered but not anticipated when the new downtown zoning was implemented in late 2002. It relates to installing a new parking requirement for downtown development that did not exist in the prior DC zone. He referred to the map as he described the new Downtown Core (DC) and the Downtown Waterfront (DW) zones. Under Alternative B of the draft ordinance these two zones will have no parking requirement for rehabilitation of existing buildings. If there are changes in gross floor space or new construction, there will be parking requirements. Chris explained that both alternatives were trying to accomplish the same thing. However, Alternative A is an attempt to restructure the format of that portion of the zoning code. He said that Alternative B makes the most simple change. Commissioner Kosusko said that he had compared the two and that he noticed a difference in the language. As the Director, Chris said that he was not submitting Alternative A because the task was only to deal with the parking issues. And if there are other areas of clarity, it needs to be brought up separately. The intent is to relieve the rehabilitation of existing buildings from a requirement of adding parking, except if they enlarge, extend, or structurally alter the building for an increase in the gross floor area. There is also the issue of residential uses not located on the street level. Chris said that he was not clear on this issue. A short discussion of this issued followed. Chris then referred to the map to illustrate where the affected zones are located. Chris said that a good example would be the old game building on the SE corner of 4"' and Pacific, which is vacant right now — if they wanted to rehab that into a restaurant. If we applied the parking standards in the code to that it might produce a requirement for 50 parking stalls. Where do you get 50 parking stalls downtown in today's market? He explained that when he discussed this issue with the Mayor, he voiced cautions about the long term affects of this. If you don't supply parking downtown and commuters /down -town workers are still primarily filling up whatever capacity we have. This will hamper other people who come downtown to support the new business we are trying to attract. It is acknowledge that this is something that will help us get some rehabilitation Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2003 Page 2 of 10 projects started. Over the next 3 -5 years, we need to have a downtown parking strategy that is much more complete, i.e. investments in public structures. Part of the new zoning code provisions for downtown is that you cannot have a surface parking lot in these two zones (Downtown Core and Downtown Waterfront) unless it is associated with a primary use. So if you can buy a building and there is a lot next door - you buy it also and that lot can stay. Or, you could buy an adjacent building and knock it down to create a parking lot, provided that lot is associated with the primary building (restaurant or business). You cannot come in as a speculative developer and knock down an existing building and sit on it and use it as a commercial parking lot until someone pays enough for a sale. This behavior caused a lot of `holes' in the fabric of downtown. This is the reason for the prohibition in the code. Commissioner Streissguth asked if new ownership of a building would trigger the new requirements. Chris said that the trigger would be taking the building down to the ground and developing brand new on the site. This sparked discussion of specific examples. Chris spoke about the proposal from Kitsap Federal Credit Union on 2 nd and Pacific, which has underground parking. His response to that proposal was that we should at least get the columns supporting that building up high enough so that there is enough clear space. Then in the future we could come back and reclaim that space as retail. Commissioner Kosusko asked if the regulations required 50 percent of the street front to be retail. Chris said that was the requirement when it went through the Commission, but as adopted it did not because of this very issue. There was a short discussion of the language in the draft, specifically D. 9. Chris explained that at the time the draft was done it was produced by the City's consultant, Mark Hinshaw before he even came to Bremerton. It was processed through as the citizen's committee presented it, with very few changes on our part. Chris then explained the protocol. He said that notice has been sent to CTED because anything that we do in the way of land use regulations in the City has to go through the State for a 60 -day review and comment. This was sent to them about a week ago, so that 60 -day review and comment period started when our letter was sent out. This means that the City Council cannot act on this until that 60 days is up. So, today during this workshop is the time to raise questions and get the clarification. Then next month at the regular meeting we would hold a hearing — if you agree tonight to a hearing. Then it would go to the Council with your recommendations for change etc. The Council would hear it — all of that would take about 1 -2 months. Then 2 -4 weeks to get on the Council's agenda. At that time we would be close to the end of the 60 days. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2003 Page 3 of 10 Commissioner Kennedy asked for clarification. She wanted to know if the only part that has been changed is Section F (which should be Section E, due to a numbering error). There was a short discussion of specifics in the draft, which included landscaping and the number and condition of existing buildings. The group concluded that projects to rehabilitate buildings in these two zones should be an exemption from off - street parking but not landscaping requirements. Commissioner Kennedy stated for the record that Commissioner Cockburn has arrived since the role call. Chris read directly from the draft, "...the building or structure shall be exempt from off - street parking and landscaping requirements." He explained that the way staff would read that is — there would be no landscaping required on any part of the site including an adjacent parking lot. So, if there wasn't any street trees in front of the building there still wouldn't be. Chris asked the group if that is what they wanted. The consensus of the Commission is that they would not prefer it this way. They want landscaping. Chris asked for further clarification regarding landscaping requirements, street frontage on existing buildings and planters, etc. There was a short discussion with suggested language from the Commission. Commissioner Cockburn asked why it is so important that residential use not be located on the street level. There was a short discussion among the group to understand this issue. The Commission directed staff to find the reason for this limitation. Commissioner Kosusko asked that if people are exempted from parking requirements, should we ask for a narrative of their parking plan of how they plan to provide parking for their use? There was a short discussion of this idea. Chris suggested that we are trying to get away from this because it comes across as too arbitrary. He said that there is a mid -term discussion topic /goal that we need to have an overall strategy for parking downtown to support new development and support new business downtown. Commuters are putting huge pressure on the current available resources. Chris stated that the City is going to have to step up and be the first player. The City parking Garage (4 and Washington) is going to be almost entirely filled with the office workers by the time we move into the new Government Building. The majority of City employees, commuters, and other occupants of the Government Building — many issues will surface very quickly. He said that the City will have to be proactive to solve this problem. He talked about off -site solutions like shuttles, partnership with private developers, etc. Chris even mentioned the unknown benefits of the Navy garage, evening and weekend parking. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2003 Page 4 of 10 The consensus of the Commission was to return this draft (Alternative B) to the staff and put it on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting — November 28, 2003. b. BP03 00189 — Proposed zoning text amendment to BMC 21.02.150 to add criteria for the Director's classification of uses not listed in Figures 120 and 140. Chris introduced the ordinance to address a soft area of the zoning code. He said that we primarily review the uses permitted in each zone by a list that is a matrix or table in the zoning code. He described the table. Then, he explained, there is another provision in the code that just says that the Planning Director can take one of two approaches: 1. He /she can find that a proposed use is similar to an existing use and say that it is subject to the same zoning and processing requirements as that listed use. 2. He /she can say that it needs to go through the Special Use Permit process and go to the Hearing Examiner. Chris said that the second option (discretion of the Director) seems to be too undisciplined. The City Council questioned the vagueness of the Director's authority. The City Attorney and Chris agreed that it does seem to be way too much discretion for the Director. He then read directly from the draft, "...any land use that is NOT listed in Figure 140 shall be considered an Unlisted Use. If the Unlisted Use is clearly similar to a use that is listed in Figure 120 or Figure 140, the Director may make a written administrative determination as to which zone(s) and through which approval process the Unlisted Use may be permitted." Chris explained that set us a new use "Unlisted Use." He said that we need to get away from that. He then read the new language which mentions unlisted uses (not capitalized), and redefines the Director's duty to look at that use and classify it, if possible, according to the matrix by looking at these criteria of classification. He read directly from the draft and explained by using examples of how this would be done. Chris explained that the City Council is looking for this draft ordinance because it gives them some assurance of how the Director's duties will performed. He assured the Council that these are some of the kinds of things that we do every day at the zoning counter. He gave several examples. Basically, he said that staff has tried to put the same thinking discipline of comparability that we use on a daily basis into the code. In closing, Chris said that this makes the Director's role in the administration of the code more formal and more clear to people. They know what to expect, no matter who the staff is. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2003 Page 5 of 10 Commissioner Kennedy asked if there were any questions from the Commission. There was none. She then asked for consensus that this should be on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, November 18, 2003. Consensus was given. c. Comprehensive Plan — roundtable workshop to discuss the City Services Element of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan update. [At this point in the meeting Commissioner Kennedy diverted to the Chair's Report and then returned to this point in the agenda after a lengthy discussion about correspondence from Councilman Shepherd. See below.] Commissioner Kennedy then stated that the commission would be moving to the back of the room to do a round -table workshop discussion regarding the City Services where there will be a separate taping of the discussion. VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report — Commissioner Kennedy. 1. Letter from Councilman Shepherd Commissioner Kennedy read directly from the letter regarding the first reading of a proposed ordinance relating to the city's community renewal program which happened on October 8, 2003. The ordinance was approved. It reaffirms and expands blighted areas in downtown Bremerton and designates new areas of blight in Westpark and Anderson Cove. Councilman Shepherd said that he had requested minutes and recommendations from the Planning Commission as part of the discussion. He then asked if the Planning Commission feels comfortable with this and has the commission had a public consideration of this approach. She then turned the floor over to staff. Chris said that the Commission should be aware of the strategy for Westpark since that has come before them. Most recently was the strategy to use the Housing Cooperation Act and Community Renewal Act in concert to develop a way to put an anticipated Comprehensive Plan designation in place for the Westpark project and proceed for accessing grant funds, investment funds, and tax credits. In that process, the discussion has expanded to look at using the Community Renewal Act in the Anderson Cove neighborhood and part of downtown. He referred to the map and said that part of downtown is a project area and Community Renewal is being applied there. That is how we are using the Housing Authority's capacity to act as the City's redevelopment agent. The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to expand that designation over to cover the other area [referring to the map] so we can continue to use the Housing Authority as the agent to do other things in that area if the City Council chooses. This would create the ability to have the Housing Authority act on the City's behalf. It does not give the Housing Authority any sanction for any specific activity. He Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2003 Page 6 of 10 then gave several examples to help demonstrate what he meant. He said that he doesn't recall that this was ever backed by the Commission. Commissioner Kennedy said that the only thing that was ever brought to the Commission was the actual workshop on September 16, 2003. She said it was her understanding that this was nothing that the Planning Commission had any affect on. They wanted us to be made aware of it. But it was her opinion that it involved financial issues, etc., and was out of the responsibility area of the Planning Commission. Chris concurred with her and stated that it was deliberately not brought to the Commission as a Comprehensive Plan amendment because it would have violated State law. It was brought for information so that if there was something the commission didn't think was right, it could be dealt with. There was a discussion regarding how to respond to Councilman Shepherd's question. Commission Streissguth stated that she mentioned that at the last meeting. She said Mike Shepherd's concerns are outlining a broader application that she was asking about and the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan process clarification. It was her understanding that it would take something extreme for Council to exercise it's authority without violating the public trust. She said that during the presentation, she understood it to be more than Westpark, it included the downtown core and had a broader reach. What she was struggling with is the application and when City Council would exercise the authority. It appears that blight areas are included and can proceed without having a Comprehensive Plan in place which directs where the development activity should occur. Chris said that the zoning code details what can be done downtown. It is a very traditional zoning type of implementation. It doesn't give you the same kind of predictability about the character and overall functionality of downtown when you do it on that level. So, on a project -by- project level, if you build according to these rules you will get a good downtown. And if you use the City's authority to develop through the Housing Authority then whatever you do following those rules you get something that maybe inappropriate. He used several examples to demonstrate what he was talking about. Commissioner Streissguth stated that the presentation on September 16"' about Westpark — she understood the need for the funding to go through. She said that the process appeared to be good for that application. She was not clear on how that process applies to the Anderson Cove area and the downtown redevelopment core. Chris said that the Westpark conceptual plan is not much different than the Calthorpe Illustrious Plan. It doesn't have everything tied down. It simply details where the commercial and residential components are and supporting attachments which speaks to density parameters. However, it is no more explicit than the Calthorpe Plan. He used several more examples to explain his point. He was leaving the meeting to speak to the City Council. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2003 Page 7 of 10 Commissioner Wood asked if Councilman Shepherd would be getting these minutes, and if he could get them before they are approved by this Commission. Commissioner Kennedy said no. Commissioner Wood asked for clarification on the lag time between approved minutes and the City Council getting the minutes. Commissioner Kennedy explained that the issue [Councilman Shepherd's memo] had already been approved. She said that the bottom line as she understood it, is that we don't have any authority to address these kinds of issues because they deal with laws and legislative things. Only the Council has that authority. Commissioner Wood said that it sounds like we [Planning Commission] needs to have re- communication as to what our role is and how we help the Council. She gets the impression that Councilman Shepherd was more concerned about the downtown Bremerton part rather than the Westpark part, specifically a 6 -plex cinema behind the Admiral Theater. Clarification would be good. Commissioner Kennedy said her understanding was that by the time these projects come to the point of having a building permit, we will have all the new GMA [development standards /Comprehensive Plan and new zoning requirements, etc.] in place, which will provide structured guidelines. This prompted a short discussion of the number of projects and the speed of which they are being developed. Also discussed was the role of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kosusko stated that all this gets to the core of what we [Planning Commission] do. Are we doing what we what we're told we are supposed to be doing? Or are we being proactive and taking a role? He said that frankly we are losing a great planning director and Paul is wonderful and maybe he will stay or maybe we will get someone else who is wonderful. But we are losing a great, proactive voice for planning and maybe there is nobody left after he is gone — maybe it is us [Planning Commission]. How much do we want to give away. He wondered if the commission just wants to say, "Well, that is not in our realm, so that's okay. We didn't have to hear it." [... speaking of the memo from Councilman Shepherd.] Or do we want to say that we want to be involved in everything that has to do with planning at least in an advisory way. He said that he wasn't sure what the commission's legal role is but he thinks they should be doing more, not less. Commissioner Kennedy suggested an executive session to allow the commission to sit around a table and have some time to decide what the role should be and assert that to the Council. This prompted another discussion about the frustration of what the role is and how to get clarification while addressing the responsibility to the community and the Comprehensive Plan update process. Commissioner Wood mentioned that some time ago Commissioner Buckingham, as Vice Chair had discussed making regular presentations at City Council during the Wednesday night meetings to update them and create more communication between the two bodies. Maybe that could be revived and she thinks he wants to take that on. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2003 Page 8 of 10 Commissioner Nelson concurred. He said that the letter from Councilman Shepherd, no disrespect, but he understood that Shepherd was a bit of a lone voice and it appears as though the Planning Commission is being approached with this issue after the fact. Mitchelle Honore, DCD Office Assistant Sr., made a point of clarification. She stated that Commissioner Buckingham has discussed wanting to fill the role of liaison between the Commission and the City Council. She had been routing the City Council planning tools so that Commissioner Buckingham could decide which meetings to attend. This has been going on for the last 2 -3 months in case there was something being discussed by the City Council that the Planning Commission should have known about or wanted to comment on. This schedule is updated from the Treasurer's Office on a bi- weekly basis. Mitchelle informed the commission that her and Commissioner Buckingham were working closely on this to ensure that the commission is aware of what the Council is discussing. Paul stated that the by -laws call for either an annual or semi - annual meeting with the City Council to discuss roles. He said that as far as he knows, this has not been done. He suggested that this might be something to consider. Also, one of you mentioned about sitting down and discussing and strategizing about what your role should be — this might be done before you sit down with the Council. Paul also suggested that if this does sound like something they want to do, the meeting should be advertised if a quorum meets. He said that it could be done as a workshop at a regular meeting or as a special meeting, but should be noticed. After a short discussion of the intent of such a meeting, Paul suggested that staff might be directed to review the by -laws and come back with the accurate information about the annual or semi- annual meeting between the Planning Commission and the City Council. He also informed the group that this time of year it would be difficult to get on the agenda with a face -to -face meeting with the Council. Mitchelle had another comment for the Chair. She stated that she had discussed with legal staff about reviewing the commission by -laws. Since the City now has a Hearing Examiner there is some language that may need revising. She invited the commission to review the by -laws and send comments or suggestions to her and she would get them to the legal staff. There was a short discussion about this and Mitchelle invited the group to let her know if they needed a copy of the by -laws. Commissioner Kennedy asked if there were any suggestions from the commission about how to answer Councilman Shepherd's memo. Commissioner Streissguth stated that it appears to be a two -fold question. The answer to the second part of the question is — no, we have not had a public process regarding this information. The answer to the first part of the questions.... It doesn't appear that we are all comfortable with this. There was another discussion about the commission's responsibility. Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2003 Page 9 of 10 The consensus of the group was that it was informational only and that there was an informal recommendation regarding exempting Westpark from the Comprehensive Plan process. Also, the communication should inform the Council that the commission is revisiting it's function and by -laws. Commissioner Kennedy said that she would draft a letter to the City Council and thanked the commission for their input. B. Director Report: Chris Hugo. C. Old Business: None. C. New Business: None. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:35 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 October 21, 2003 Page 10 of 10