Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/2004 MINUTESMinutes for Planning Commission Special Meeting "Study Session" December 7, 2004 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Streissguth at 5:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf, and Commissioner Streissguth. Quorum certified. III. Approval of Agenda After reading directly from the By -laws to determine the proper procedure for officer elections and the duties of the Vice -chair in the absence of the Chair, Commissioner Streissguth introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the agenda as presented. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Nelson: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Friedberg -Nerf: Yes. The motion carried. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on November 16, 2004 were presented for approval by Commissioner Streissguth. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2004 as presented. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Nelson: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; and Friedberg -Nerf; Yes. The motion carried. V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call To The Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Seeing none, Commissioner Streissguth closed this portion of the meeting. B. Public Hearinc Paul Rogerson began with the Staff Report. Copies of the updated zoning code were distributed and Paul read through the changes that had been made in the Commercial Corridor chapter: under the Permitted Uses section, the word "gross" had been added in regards to floor area; also the phrase "uses include but are not limited Planning Commission Meeting December 7, 2004 Page 1 of 6 to" replaced the previous language pertaining to [permitted] uses. Language was also changed to exclude adult oriented businesses from this chapter. Outdoor Recreational Facilities, which had included parks, would not be a permitted use along the Kitsap Way Commercial Corridor; they could be a secondary use on a site. Parks are now located in centers and would not be appropriate in a commercial corridor. There was some discussion regarding the permitted uses in the Commercial Corridor, especially the use of the term "but not limited to" could potentially be dangerous without more specific wording or referring to §22.22.04. It was agreed to change the language to be more specific. Paul moved on to a subsection of Automobile Related Uses, Automobile Services; it had originally been listed as Automobile Repair which staff thought was too narrow so it was changed. Also, gas stations were added to the list of conditional uses. There were several changes made to the section regarding Development Standards, but the one Paul felt most important was the addition of a table that listed standards with a change to the minimum side yard setbacks and minimum rear yard setbacks for residential and non - residential uses. The change came about because of the possibility of secondary uses and how close a commercial use could get to a secondary residential use. There was some discussion regarding how mixed use buildings would factor into the setback requirement as well as general discussion about what is included in the Commercial Corridor, the Oyster Bay Center, and Commercial Freeway. Paul highlighted the lot coverage bonuses allowed to development which was essentially the same as the previous draft with the exception of the addition of placing an improved pedestrian area to the site. Paul read directly from the chapter on what requirements are needed for that bonus. The Design Guideline section is in a box because staff wanted to know if Design Guidelines were what the Commission wanted in the initial zone package; are the Development Standards in the previous section enough to accomplish what is proposed in the zones, and should more specific guidelines be something that is addressed through the public process. Chris suggested that if something is definite and /or can be shown in an example, such as the overhang of a building, it should be included in the design standard, otherwise it would be a guideline and open to interpretation. Paul noted that previous drafts of the Commercial Corridor did not contain Design Guidelines and the idea of adding the guidelines came about because of earlier discussions and concerns the Planning Commission had for that area of the city. In the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor, Paul noted the changes made are similar to the Commercial Corridor and quickly read through them. There was some discussion of lighting requirements for gas stations. Paul suggested having that type of requirement under the sign, landscaping, or lighting section of the [Bremerton Municipal] Code. Paul then read through the Similar Use section of the WWRC, again noting that a parallel change was made in the Commercial Corridor. He read the text of the Similar Use section and there was a short discussion on this subject. Commissioner Cockburn asked, if each section was saying the same thing, why not say it once and change the format of Planning Commission Meeting December 7, 2004 Page 2 of 6 the zoning code to reflect that decision. Paul explained that not every chapter had the same wording and when making a declaration at the beginning of the code, all of the exceptions would have to be noted as well. He noted that the zoning code would more than likely get a complete rewrite before finalization that would be able to address formatting issues such as this. Commissioner Cockburn asked why drive - through car washes were not included with gas stations under the conditional uses. Paul said that car washes were allowed outright in the General Business, Industrial General, and Industrial Park zones and as Special Uses in Freeway Commercial, CD and BC zones. There was general discussion about uses that have to be permitted outright in certain zones without having to go through the public hearing process. Paul moved on to minimum side yard and minimum rear yard setback requirements. Staff was concerned about the ten foot setback for a commercial use from an R -10 zone and felt that twenty -five feet would be more appropriate. Paul demonstrated which areas this would affect and there was some discussion regarding the reasoning behind this change. Commissioner Kennedy agreed that having a twenty -five foot setback or something similar, from an R -10 zone made sense; there was general agreement regarding this and Paul noted the suggested changes to the text. Commissioner Cockburn cautioned against making setback requirements too restrictive for properties in East Bremerton which tend to be narrow. In discussing what should or should not be in an initial zoning package, Paul asked the Commissioners how far one has to go now to protect the potential of a center or corridor to ensure it will develop the way the Commissioners envision it developing with the Comprehensive Plan; should it be kept to a minimum or should it be more extensive which could involve greater public process? Paul used new residential uses and height restrictions as examples and discussed the various ways those requirements can be utilized to shape a center or corridor. The same question arose regarding signs and on- site parking. Chris Hugo explained the history of the current grocery store parking requirement: in a survey of other cities approximately the same size as Bremerton, Bremerton had some of the most restrictive parking requirements, although those restrictions were loosened somewhat with the development of Albertsons. Discussion continued regarding parking requirements inside and outside centers. Paul continued reading the changes made in the zoning package. There was some discussion on what defines how large a block is — should it be an exact measurement or is it a visual observation? Paul thought it could be defined in numbers for clarification. Paul then read the sections that dealt with maximum lot coverage, maximum development coverage, and building heights in Centers; there was additional discussion amongst the Commissioners on these subjects. Chris reminded everyone of the potential of leaving the definitions so broad as to invite a possible development that could thwart the vision of the Center concept and recommended the utilization of Conditional Use Permits as a stop -gap measure. Paul suggested adding a clause that made reference to the Director making interpretations during application. There was discussion about the possibility of Centers developing at different times with the likelihood of some Centers not developing for ten or fifteen years and potential problems that could arise from that Planning Commission Meeting December 7, 2004 Page 3 of 6 kind of delay; possible solutions were also discussed. Commissioner Streissguth questioned a proposed solution that might change how Chapter 22 reads, noting that permitted uses are set forth pretty clearly and suggested using general language to explain the minimum [heights] within the Centers but consideration could be given to greater heights if it was allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. There was general discussion regarding the height guidelines set forth by the proposed R -10 zoning as well as the different boundaries of the various zones. Concern was expressed regarding presenting the zoning package to the Council expeditiously to ensure deadlines were met. It was proposed to send sections to Council to prevent overwhelming the Council with too much information at one time. There was some discussion on the most efficient way to have hearings as well as study sessions to fully work out the specifics of the zoning package and still be able to hand it over to the Council in a timely manner. Paul asked about theaters in the Commercial Corridor and the discussion moved to the placement of a multi - screen cineplex and where an appropriate site for that type of use within the city limits of Bremerton would be. There was also conversation about buildings over 10,000 square feet in general. Outdoor recreational facilities were the next item discussed especially batting cages, go- cart tracks, mini -golf, and other similar uses and if these uses would be appropriate in the Commercial Corridor. Other subjects touched on were lighting, egress, buffering heights, and what materials and /or combination of materials that could be used for buffering. Matthew Keough, Growth Planner, directed the group to items that do not show up in the Commercial Corridor list of permitted uses but probably should be. Dialogue ensued regarding which uses should truly be in a commercial area and which should be in the R- 10 (residential) areas or Centers. Setbacks for non - residential uses was the next item discussed which segued to parking requirements; Paul read through the specifics for each and the group talked over different scenarios for setbacks such as with pedestrian design; development bonuses were also discussed. Chris cautioned against putting too much detail into the requirements to avoid potential problems in the future. The discussion continued with the possibility of development bonuses, as well as suggestions for "softening" the sidewalks with greenery or other devices. The possibility of a residential area backing up to a commercial area was talked about; a possible solution would be to require a view corridor to provide a pedestrian connection between a residential area and a public right -of -way behind a commercial strip. The group moved on to guidelines for design standards. Commissioner Streissguth suggested listing a minimum standard for windows; it was decided to strike item E and modifications were made to item D. There was additional discussion regarding recessed doors and entrances. Paul read directly from the chapter describing facades and window heights and there was conversation about this topic. Planning Commission Meeting December 7, 2004 Page 4 of 6 Paul asked the group how they would like to address the subject water view in the Commercial Corridor; Paul thought that the idea was to have water views available to motorists and pedestrians passing though the corridor. Dri Ralph, Environmental Planner, questioned the appropriateness of having a discussion about the view corridor at this time since it will be addressed in the Shoreline Master Program and Critical Area Ordinance rewrites. After some dialogue, it was decided to "strike" this item at this time, but set it aside for future discussion. Street trees and forested areas were the next topics discussed with Westpark as a main point of discussion. Paul moved on to signs and read directly from the chapter, specifically noting the exceptions. Chris felt that a new sign code will probably need to be implemented to accommodate proposed changes. There was general discussion of sign dimensions and what size would be appropriate. Concern was expressed regarding situations arising that are similar to the current layout of the Wheaton Way area. Paul then read the section concerning allowed residential uses within the commercial areas. There was discussion about the density requirements and other specifics of the residential aspect of this area. Under Automobile Related Uses, Paul confirmed moving car washes to Conditional Uses and asked for siting conditions; the group agreed they should be similar to conditions for gas stations. Chris proposed changing the allowed square footage to 30,000. Paul also asked about side yard and rear yard setbacks in the R -10 zone, and should that also apply to more commercial areas as well? It was decided that a setback of 30 feet with a landscaping buffer should be implemented [for commercial areas] to encourage residential uses within 100 feet. It was restated that parking would not be allowed in front of commercial buildings which prompted additional discussion of parking requirements and situations such as drive - through establishments. Development bonuses in the Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor mirrored those set forth in the Commercial Corridor; Paul quickly read through several other subjects. Chris suggested eliminating the density bonus. Paul asked if there were any more similarity /differences between the two commercial areas; Chris said it was not so much the difference in use as the difference in character. Discussion of the proposed zoning package concluded and Commissioner Streissguth closed this portion of the meeting. VI. Business Meeting A. Chairman's Report: Commissioner Streissguth reported that the previous week, City Council had voted to approve the Comprehensive Plan. B. Director's Report: Chris Hugo reported that a new Planning Commissioner, Lois Hoell, had been confirmed by the City Council. Lois is the Director of Nursing at Harrison Hospital. Also, another planner has been approved to join the Department of Planning Commission Meeting December 7, 2004 Page 5 of 6 Community Development staff. This person will primarily be used as an annexation planner. Two goals that the Mayor has set for Chris for 2005 are to work on the marina expansion and to draft a letter to Kitsap County Commissioners explaining the City's position in reference to growth, annexations, and Urban Growth Areas. C. Old Business: Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked about some kind of recognition to Scott Buckingham for his service to the Planning Commission. A luncheon was suggested. This topic will be continued at a future meeting. D. New Business: Election of Officers for the remainder of 2004: Commissioner Kennedy nominated Linda Streissguth as the Chair and Clarence Nelson as the Vice - Chair. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf seconded the nomination. Called for a vote: all were in favor of electing those nominated. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for December 21, 2004. Respectfully submitted by: Executive Secretary Approved by: Linda Streissguth, Chair Planning Commission Meeting December 7, 2004 Page 6 of 6