Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/2005 MINUTESMinutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 18, 2005 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Streissguth at 5:32 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf, Commissioner Hoell, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Kosusko, and Commissioner Streissguth. Quorum certified. Also present: Chris Hugo, Andrea Spencer, Geoff Wentlandt, Nicole Ward, and Pam Wilson (City staff). III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Streissguth introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Hoell to approve the agenda as presented. It was agreed by general consensus to approve the agenda as presented; the motion carried. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on September 20, 2005 were presented for approval by Commissioner Streissguth. A motion was made by Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2005, as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Commissioner Hoell: Abstain; Commissioner Kennedy: Abstain; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. V. Public Meeting A. Call To The Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Commissioner Streissguth asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, she closed this portion of the meeting. B. Public Hearing: 1. Zoning Package #5 -- Considering adjustment to the method of calculating infill densities in undertitili; ed urban ft-inge areas: Geoff Wentlandt, City Planner, began with the Staff Report on this item. He explained that staff had looked at the countywide planning policy and what the R-10 requirements are for what makes an appropriate urban Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2005 Page 1 of 8 density which works out to five units per acre and 8,712 square feet per lot. If a lot was larger than 8,712 square feet it would be considered underutilized. Staff was speaking of areas both outside the current city limits and undeveloped areas within the city limits. Geoff referred to the bright green handout which had the suggested language for the amendment which differed slightly from the language in the staff report. Commissioner Kosusko asked for the current language used for densities in underutilized areas within the city limits. Geoff explained about rounding down the square footage of surrounding lots that are greater than 8,712 square feet and averaging five to seven units per acre. Chris Lugo, Director of Community Development, gave additional information on the cost effectiveness, or lack of, for providing City services to lower density areas. He felt this cost justified setting the standard for density in these areas at seven units per acre. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked about waiting to create design standards in the underutilized fringe areas and how that would affect future development. Geoff explained that additional standards would be written. Staff felt there was adequate time to undertake this task as most of the property involved has not been annexed into the City yet or are parcels larger than 50 acres. Commissioner Streissguth opened public comment on this item. David Toyer, Barclays North, Inc.: "I'm Vice - President for a company called Barclays North who, you may've read about here last week in the newspaper, purchased the Northwest Corporate Campus Site. The actual development LLC for that is L160-1, Kitsap LLC, so you may see stuff come from the LLC's name or the company's name, and I'm authorized to speak on behalf of both of those. I'm here tonight mostly because we've been tracking this R -10 zoning designation and how it would theoretically apply to the property we just purchased. One of the issues that was of some concern to us was an issue relative to what this amendment is actually seeking to sort of fix. We recognize that in many of your existing neighborhoods within the City of Bremerton, having some levels of density that are somewhat similar to the existing uses is a very good thing. With some large development sites such as this, and some of the opportunities to do some really quality development, some mixes in densities, and have some additional flexibility. The requirement that would limit density based on the averaging of lot sizes around you, given that all the lots around the Northwest Corporate Campus properties are currently undeveloped. We'd be really limited in the scope of what we could actually develop out there. We've been chatting with staff a little bit today through our local consultant here, Bryan McConaughy, and this is the first chance I've had an opportunity to look at this proposed staff amendments language, but in general terms I support it; I think this moves in the right direction. We are happy to be here in the City of Bremerton; it's a new jurisdiction for us and if you do have questions I can leave some cards with staff and you can feel free to get in contact with me. Thank you for your time." Commissioner Streissguth asked for any other public comment, including written testimony, on this agenda item. Seeing none, she closed this portion of the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2005 Page 2 of 8 Commission discussion and deliberation: Commissioner Kosusko asked staff where the 50 acre requirement came from. Chris responded it was a number he arbitrarily chose, but understood that it could change depending on future development standards. Commissioner Kennedy asked about Port Blakely and if this amendment would preclude annexing a large section of land for development and having inconsistent density in that development. Chris replied that under the existing development agreement, that type of differing density could occur; the amendment would only affect projects without a development agreement which he felt could likely happen with Northwest Corporate Campus. Three ways a development could result in different densities are environmental challenges, clustered neighborhoods, and zero lot line development. A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to revise the Zoning Package #5 recommendation to include language specifically for infiIl density in underutilized urban fringe areas and to add Bremerton Municipal Code Section 20.60.068, Allowable Densh)? and Lot Area in Underutilized Ua ban Fringe Areas. Called for a vote: Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; and Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. Commissioner Streissguth then opened the public hearing on the reconsideration of building heights in residential areas that are designated "Downtown Regional Center" in the Comprehensive Plan. Geoff returned to the Staff Report, explaining that the building height issue came about during a City Council study session. He reviewed figures showing the current height limits and the proposed height limits in the Washington Avenue, Pleasant Avenue, and Highland Avenue corridors. There is a height difference of approximately 25 feet from Highland Avenue to Washington Avenue and approximately 20 feet from Highland Avenue to Pleasant Avenue. Commissioner Kosusko pointed out that there is a proposed change along 6`" Street as well as the Washington/Highland /Pleasant corridor. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked if there were any homes in that area that were on the historic register; there are not. Commissioner Streissguth asked for public comment, including written testimony, on this agenda item. Lynn Swanson, Pleasant Avenue: "I'd like to see once again where the 110' height would be west of me [Geoff brought up topography map]. Oh, there's nothing like that west...I have a stunning view from my home and I was getting a little panicky. Thank you " Commissioner Streissguth asked for any other public comment. Seeing none, she closed this portion of the Public Hearing. Commission discussion and deliberation: Commissioner Streissguth noted that she had attended both City Council study session.- where this agenda item as well as plarming for Centers had been discussed. Staff recommended choosing Option #2 to reduce heights to Planning Coiilmission Meeting October 18, 2005 Page 3 of S 40 feet for the majority of the MR zone. Commissioner Kosusko felt Option #4 was too conservative. He agreed with staff that Option #2 was an appropriate choice. Commissioner Kennedy concurred, adding that Option #2 might be a way to improve the substandard housing that is currently in that area. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf to choose Option #2 to reduce heights to 40 feet for the majority of the MR zone: all residential areas between 6 Street and 11"' Street. Called for a vote: Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; and Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. The final Public Hearing item was on the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. Nicole Ward, City Planner, gave the staff report on proposed amendments to the Official Land Use Map. The two areas of concern were the Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center and the Downtown Regional Center. The Oyster Bay area had been discussed in previous meetings. Nicole gave an overview of the proposed options for amending the Land Use Map. Staff recommended choosing Option C. She moved on to the Downtown Regional Center, discussing Areas A, B, and C, Iisting the main characteristics of each. Staff recommended including Areas A and B in the Downtown Regional Center. Nicole noted that there was one written comment from the Emanuel Apostolic Church to be entered into the record. Commissioner Streissguth opened public comment on this item. Lawrence Robertson, Jr., 1624 — 6 1 " Street: [Reading directly from his e -mail previously submitted to Community Development] " Emmanuel's properties fall within Area B and are comprised of a church and single- family homes which function as offices for church administrative purposes. None of Emmanuel's properties on 6 Street are used for residential purposes. Emmanuel is very grateful for its location which affords it the opportunity to serve its immediate neighborhood. The location is a blessing to Emmanuel and Emmanuel is a blessing to the location. Emmanuel's location is unique and critical because it is the threshold to downtown Bremerton's changing and dynamic persona. Emmanuel's dramatic architectural features announce to all traveling on Sixth Street that the new downtown Bremerton is not only about economic development but is also about the people who call Bremerton home. Emmanuel has a wonderfully blessed history. We started in a small storefront between a dog grooming salon and a television repair shop on Callow Avenue. When we outgrew that storefront, we moved to a building which was little more than a shack in Navy Yard City on Madrona and we turned that shack into a beautiful house of worship thus improving the neighborhood. We outgrew that church but the building has lived on to function to the benefit of the neighborhood: as a senior center, as a Kitsap Mental Health facility for youth and now, once again, as a house of worship. Our history documents that we have enhanced every neighborhood where we have been. Emmanuel is not an institution apart from the real world. True, our primary purpose is spiritual growth but we know we live in the real world and we have been pro - active in business development, education, and children. The Planning Commission's staff recommends that this area be included in the DRC Comprehensive Plan designation. Non - residential uses predominate within this corridor Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2005 Page 4 of 8 if the religious institution's properties are considered non - residential [which they are]. Sixth Street is a busy thoroughfare corridor, and there is an association with the Warren Avenue intersection. The two larger parcels..." [Mr. Robertson's three- minute time was up.] Commissioner Streissguth asked for additional public comments. Seeing none, she closed this portion of the meeting. Commission discussion and deliberation: Andrea Spencer, Planning Manager, introduced the Staff Draft Findings of Facts printed on goldenrod colored paper. Chris briefly explained that churches are considered part of a neighborhood characteristic and would conform to either zoning designations, commercial or residential. The proposed zoning for Area B is R -10. Commissioner Kosusko asked how this proposed re- designation came about. Andrea responded that on October 5, 2005, staff went before the City Council to confirm an Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center. During this meeting, Council decided the commercial areas around 6` Street and Warren Avenue should be examined as well. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf inquired as to how the proposed tunnel project would affect traffic flow in the 6` Street/Warren Avenue area. Chris felt that the tunnel project would not impact that area. Commissioner Kosusko asked how the height limits would be affected if the proposed areas were included in the Downtown Regional Center. Chris acknowledged that this was an item that needed further examination. The current height limit for the BC zone is 120 feet; the proposed height limit is 80 feet in the 6 1 Street /Warren Avenue area if it were included in the DRC. Area C is currently designated MR with a height of 80 feet. The Commissioners were in agreement that Area C should be left as it is, going forward with the designation on the proposed Zoning Map. Commissioner Kosusko remarked that he did not feel comfortable including Area B in the DRC; with the exception of the chiropractic office, other non - residential uses in that area would still be allowed in an R- 10 zone. He would be amenable to including Area B if lower height restrictions were in place. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf agreed that Area A was appropriate to include in the DRC, but not Areas B and C. Commissioner Hoell asked for clarification as to why this item had come up in the first place. Chris explained the process by which revisions to a Comprehensive Plan can be made one time a year; however, Bremerton's code limits revisions to every two years. A clause was added in anticipation of necessary correction: To make a revision outside of that time frame required a declaration of emergency by the Director of Community Development. The Oyster Bay Neighborhood issue prompted this declaration, and the Council added the DRC item. Before going into deliberations on the Oyster Bay Neighborhood, Commissioner Streissguth asked to have the Findings of Facts read into the record. Andrea explained that the Finding of Facts was drafted with the expectation of both Areas A and B being included in the DRC and because it was possible that that was not the outcome, she did Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2005 Page 5 of 8 not feel comfortable putting it in the record as it was written and suggested waiting until the Coixnnissioners had made their decisions and bring findings to the next meeting. Moving on to the Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center, Commissioner Kosusko and Commissioner Streissguth noted that Option C was consistent with the Commissioners' discussion at the previous meeting. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf agreed, adding that Option C provided flexibility in future development in that area such as West Park and proposed bicycle trails. Commissioner Kennedy preferred Option B giving the high traffic and commercial uses along Kitsap Way as her reason. Andrea read into the record the summary of Procedural History: • On September 19, 2005 Staff notified the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development of the intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. • On September 27, 2005 the Community Development Director declared an Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment process to commence in 2005, outside of the biannual review process. • On October 5, 2005 Staff recommended and City Council passed a motion confirming an Emergency Status allowing Staff to proceed with a 2005 amendment docket. On October 8, 2005 a notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in the Kitsap Sun and the public was invited to comment. a On October 18, 2005 Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the 2005 Comprehensive Plan docket. Iii addition, public comments were e- mailed to the Department of Community Development from Lynn Swanson at Brody Law and Mr. L. Robertson, Jr. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf to recommend moving forward to City Council for consideration the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center, Option C, reducing the overall size of the OBNC. Called for a vote: Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; and Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Hoell to recommend moving forward to City Council for consideration and approval to include Area A in the Downtown Regional Center. Called for a vote: Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; and Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf to recommend moving forward to City Council for consideration and approval to re- designate the DRC Area A to BC on the zoning map. Called for a vote: Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell.: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; and Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2005 Page 6 of S Andrea gave the Commissioners an overview of what criteria needs to be considered when giving an explanation of why Areas B and C were not included in the DRC. Commissioner Kosusko noted in making his motion that the addition of Areas B and C did not constitute an emergency nor was due to a technical error. He felt that additional sub -area planning was needed to determine the appropriate boundary of the plan in this area. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Hoell to recommend not moving forward to City Council for consideration including Areas B and C in the Downtown Regional Center. Called for a vote: Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kennedy: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; and Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried VI. Business Meeting A. Chairman's Report: Commissioner Streissguth reported that Planning Commissioner Clarence Nelson had purchased a new home outside the City limits and had resigned his position on the City of Bremerton Planning Commission. She encouraged the other Commissioners to let people they know who may be interested in serving on the Commission that there is a position open. Commissioner Streissguth also reminded everyone that the Chairman and Vice - Chairman elections would be coming up soon. B. Director's Report: Chris Hugo reported that soon there will be meetings with the engineers and the East Park developers to discuss area planning and street width. Chris gave an overview of the City budget process noting that with some policy changes brought in this year and rising health costs, some of the projects Community Development had hoped for in 2006 would not happen even though Community Development's revenues have steadily increased. Staff has been working on grant applications through CTED to bring in additional funds. The Mayor's office is working on finding a suitable replacement for the vacant Planning Commission seat. Chris suggested looking to Leadership Kitsap graduates in the event that the current list of applicants does not pan out. C. Old Business: Andrea returned to the Finding of Facts for Zoning Package #S, noting that once the decisions from tonight's meeting were entered, it would be ready for Commissioner Streissguth's signature and would be forwarded to City Council. Geoff reported that the mapping errors concerning the areas near Tony's Pizza on Kitsap Way and along Park Avenue had been corrected per the Planning Commission's recommendation. Planning Commission Meeting October 18 2005 Page 7 of 8 D. New Business: Chris spoke on the Multi - Family Tax Incentive as a way on increasing density in Centers as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. He felt that it was time for the issue to be brought before the Commission, not as a formal action, but to be knowledgeable when presenting it to Council. Andrea gave an overview of the East Park sub -area planning process. Community Development will be receiving a submittal from Mithun soon for the sub -area pIan. Staff would like to schedule a Special Meeting on November 1, 2005 to workshop with Mithun on their proposal. The Public Hearing on this item would then occur at the next Regular Meeting on November 15, 2005. It was decided to have a Special Meeting on November 1, 2005 and a Regular Meeting with a Public Hearing on November 15, 2005. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 734 p.m. The next Special Meeting is scheduled for November 1, 2005. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for November 15, 2005. Respectfully submitted by: TL r Chris Hugo, Executive Secretary Ap 'roved by: -Linda Streissguth, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2005 Page 8 of 8