Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/2006 MINUTESMinutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 212006 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Cockburn at 5:32 p.m, I1. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Friedberg - -Nerf, Commissioner Hoell, Commissioner Mosiman, Commissioner Kosusko, and Commissioner Streissguth. Quorum certified. Also present: Chris Hugo, Andrea Spencer, Nicole Ward, Geoff Wentlandt and Pam Ransier (DCD staff). III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Cockburn introduced the agenda. It was agreed by general consensus to approve the agenda as presented. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Special Meeting held on February 7, 2006 were presented for approval by Commissioner Cockburn. A motion was made by Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf and seconded by Commissioner Hoell to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2006, as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Friedberg - Nerf: Yes; Commissioner Hoell: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Abstain; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. The minutes of the Special Meeting held on February 14, 2006 were presented for approval by Commissioner Cockburn. A motion was made by Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2006, as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Fricdberg -Nerf: Yes; Commissioner Hoell: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Abstain; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. The minutes of the Special Meeting held on February 28, 2006 were presented for approval by Commissioner Cockburn. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Hoell to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of February 28, 2006, as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf: Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 1 of 11 Abstain; Commissioner Hoell: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Abstain; Commissioner Streissguth: Abstain. The motion carried. V. Public Meeting A. Call To The Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. B. Public Hearing: 1. Minor Changes to the Zoning Code: Nicole Ward, City Planner, began the staff presentation on the changes to the zoning code. She reviewed the following proposed changes: • Amendment #1: Add a stand alone SEPA review to table 20.02.040, Type II Director Decisions; • Amendment #2: Change the filing date requirement on the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan to read "between January 15t and the first business day of April "; • Amendment #3: Correction of clerical errors in sections 20.42, 20.44.060, 020.46.080, 20.48.060(a), 20.52.130, and 20.79. • Amendment #4: Add the definition of a detached structure; • Amendment #5: Amend §20.44.070, Measuring the Height of a Structure, so that maximum building height is measured to the average roof height, not the peak of the stricture; Add a new definition for average roof height; • Amendment #6: Change the decimal place at which the City rounds up to a whole number when the number of units ends in a fraction. This will include all sections of the code that rounds units; • Amendment #7: Exempt single - family residential homes from being required to shield refuse containers by a 6 -foot high solid wall or sight obscuring fence; • Amendment #8: Delete §20.48.260, Drive Through Stacking Requirements; • Amendment 49: Add language to the clear vision triangle requirements to make an exception for structures that, due to visibility issues, cannot meet the setback requirements AND the clear view triangle requirements; • Amendment 910: Add provisions to §20.52, Sign Standards, to allow for wall signs above flat roof parapets in the Downtown zones. • Amendment #11: Add language to the repair and maintenance section of non- conforming uses to prohibit specific activities that were disallowed in the previous zoning code and inadvertently left out; • Amendment #12: Add language to non - conforming structures to allow for expansions up to 20 %, so long as the structure does not become more non- conforming; • Amendment #13: To allow school buildings located within the low density residential zone an additional 10 feet of height through the use of a Conditional Use Permit to accommodate structures such as gymnasiums and auditoriums; add the word "Uses" to the heading to make complete; Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 2 of 11 • Amendment #14: Amend §20.60.065, Low Density Residential (R- 10),to allow slightly denser infill development and to simplify the calculation of neighborhood compatibility, • Amendment #15: Add building height limits for mixed -use structures in the Employment Center. In Amendment 41, Commissioner Kosusko asked for clarification as to why staff did not feel a stand -alone SEPA required notification of Determination of Completeness, Notice of Application, Notice of Hearing, or Notice of Decision. Andrea Spencer, Planning Manager, used the sale of publicly owned property, which requires a SEPA review, as an example. The sale requires a public hearing and notice, but the SEPA is an administrative process and is posted on the property and in the newspaper. Commissioner Hoell noted in Amendment #2, January I" is a holiday. Staff suggested wording it as "the first business day of January ". In Amendment #3 -(3), Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked if removing the word "motorized" would imply the inclusion of campers, trailers, and boats in the paved parking requirements. Staff said it would. Several commissioners expressed concern over the appearance of encouraging residents to pave more of their property and felt that non - motorized vehicles would have less impact environmentally than motorized vehicles. Chris Hugo, Planning Director, explained there was the concern of maintenance performed on and liquids dripping from the non - motorized vehicles. The amendment is also a result of citizen complaints to the City's Code Enforcement Officer as well as correcting an erroneous omission which occurred in the transfer of information from the previous code to the current code. It was noted that there was no definition for "pervious surface ". Commissioner Kosusko felt that a cross- reference should be made to the Low Density Residential zone code in Amendment #3 -(5) referring to §20.52.130. There was discussion regarding if there was truly a need to change the descriptive heading in §20.79, Multiple Residential (MR) to High Density Residential (HDR). Commissioner Streissguth asked for the source of the six -foot separation requirement on detached structures (Amendment #4). Staff explained that requirement was directly from the Fire Code. Commissioner Kosusko commented that the definition for detached structures was too broad and the six -foot separation requirement may not apply to structures that are not residential. Chris said staff would verify if this term is used anywhere else in the code before presenting to Council. There was discussion on Amendment #5, with Commissioner Streissguth and Commissioner Kosusko stating a change to the adopted roof height measurement goes against the thoughts and work that went into the original decision. Chris explained that the adopted method is difficult to work with and did not consider this amendment a correction to an error but a necessary return to the previous method. Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 3 of 11 For Amendment #8, Commissioner Kosusko suggested keeping the chapter section and making a reference to BMC 11.12 instead of deleting the section all together. Commissioner Hoell asked for clarification on Amendment #7, wanting to know if the amendment would affect §20.46.120(a) through (c), or lust (a)_ Staff said it would affect only (a). In Amendment #9, Commissioner Hoell suggested adding the process by which relief may be granted. Chris recommended adding "by the Director" at the end of §20.50.060(1)(3). Commissioner Streissguth asked for examples of what initiated Amendment #10. The Windermere building on Park Avenue and a renovated building on Pacific Avenue were given as examples. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked if this would change any sign dimensions already in effect. Staff said it would not. Regarding Amendment #11, Commissioner Streissguth asked if §20.54.060(f)(1) & (2) had been removed from the updated zoning code as a result of City Council workshops. Chris replied that it had not; it was left out in error. A deliberate omission would have been contrary to land use rules. In §20.60.0400)(iii), of Amendment #13, Commissioner Cockburn asked if the 45 -foot building height was the true height or the average height. Chris explained that this section dictates the height of the public building but not the method of measurement, which is the subject of Amendment 45. There was brief discussion on Amendment #14 and how the counting of dwelling units factors into the density calculation of a proposed development. Commissioner Cockburn opened public comment on this item. Adam Brockus, 1146 Perry Avenue: "Some of you probably also know I'm a City Council member. So. By the way, we went through the Critical Areas Ordinance; we had a few amendments on it, and what I found kind of valuable from the experience is it's better to change — to fix things here and not once we get on to the Council. But we can. All right. Amendment 2: 1 spotted the problem with January first like the good Commissioner, but I think, maybe, a word that should go in at the end between the first business day in January and the first business day of April, we should put the word `inclusive' so that somebody knows that they can come in at 4:30 PM on April 2nd or whatever it turns out to be and they have until that time. OK. Amendment 5 on the measuring the height of the structure and the average [roof] height. I came in thinking of some of the Tudor -type houses that we have around with the very steep sloped roofs and I had this imagination of somebody twisting and bending this so much that you almost get a Eiffel Tower as long as the average height gets in there they can, you know, get something in there that can go up 60 feet and still reach that average thirty -five foot height. So I don't, I would have to say I kind of disagree with this and maybe what we want to think about is maybe a minimum slope to some houses, especially in an R -10 zone, with a maximum height that may be altered or changed or looked at by you guys. I Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 4 of 11 will say, on just about every building plan, there is — they do show the slope of the roof at some point in it. Let's see, moving on. The roof sign, Amendment 10: where would the Manette TV sign go? Well, there we go." [Chris Hugo: "It's just a legal non- conforming sign. "] "I will say that will be looked at. May I request the Commission Board head to give me extra time since I've got flashing yellow here ?" [Commissioner Cockburn: "That's fine. "] "Thank you. OK, going past that. And I'll say, I'll ask at my district meeting if anyone has some affectation to that sign. But, as we're going through the sub -area process for the Neighborhood Center, we'd like to keep an eye out for that. OK, going to Amendment 14, in Manette we do have a property that came to mind. It's kind of a semi -flag lot at 17th and Perry. There's one large house but it flags into a very large open space that has not been developed. How would this affect that space? Would it just be ripe for sub - division and going through or would this more or less push it more towards a large multi - family residential spot ?" [Commissioner Cockburn: "17th would be out of the Center, so it'd be R -10. "] "R -10 —so multi- family would not be permitted in that part? [Chris Hugo: "No. "] "So it would be sub - divided. OK. That was a little clarification." [Chris Hugo: "Also, regarding the sign: this provision here doesn't affect that sign over there, anyway, because this only applies to the Downtown zones. That sign's covered by the Sign Code and it hasn't been allowed there for ever, anyway. "] "That's been grandfathered in. OK, but also another example came in was also, you know. You think of Seattle, you think of probably two things: the Space Needle and the Pike Place Market sign. If somebody came in with a thing saying, you know, you got a great sign that'll be on the buildings right out front of the ferries that say "Welcome to Bremerton ", is there possibilities of that ever happening or this shoots it right off'?" [Chris Hugo: "This is actually a relaxation of the code. Up until now, you couldn't do that anyway. But if somebody comes in with a Bremerton Place Market, then we'll probably re -look at this. "] "OK, let's see. And then the final one, back to Amendment 15, you know, I'm going to decide to hold off on comment on that one, but it was dealing with the maximum building height. I thank you for all your work and really thinking about it. See you at the next public comment." Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were any other public comments on this item. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. Moving on to Commission deliberation, Commissioner Streissguth asked to revisit Amendments #3 and #5. Andrea recommended voting on each amendment separately to avoid a lengthy narrative in trying to approve fifteen amendments with modifications in one motion. Commissioner Kosusko suggested deleting the phrase, "such as `grass - crete' or pervious pavement" from Amendment #3 -(1). He also felt that the MR zone should not be renamed High Density Residential (HDR) in #3 -(6). Commissioner Streissguth agreed that the MR zone should not be renamed until more information regarding the proposed change is available. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to recommend to City Council Amendment #1 to the Bremerton Zoning Code as written. Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 5 of 11 Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. A motion was made by Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to recommend to City Council Amendment #2 to the Bremerton Zoning Code with the following change: "between the first business day of January and the first business day of April, inclusive ". Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to recommend to City Council Amendment 93 to the Bremerton Zoning Code with the following changes: section (1), delete the words "such as `grass- crete' or pervious pavement "; section (4), add the language, "such as campers, trailers, and boats "; section (5), add a cross- reference to the Low Density Residential zone; and delete section (6). Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to recommend to City Council Amendment #4 to the Bremerton Zoning Code with a consideration to revise the reference to the separation requirements of the International Building Code to take into account different construction types. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg- -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to NOT recommend to City Council Amendment #5 to the Bremerton Zoning Code. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Abstain; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to recommend to City Council Amendments #6, #7 as written, and #S with the addition of a reference to BMC 11.12, to the Bremerton Zoning Code. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried There was additional discussion on Amendment 49 regarding requirements from Engineering and alternative methods of providing a clear view at an intersection or corner. Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 6 of 11 A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to recommend to City Council Amendment #9 to the Bremerton Zoning Code with the following change: add the words, "by the Director" at the end of §20.50.050(1)(3). Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Hoell to recommend to City Council Amendments #10 - #15 to the Bremerton Zoning Code as written. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: 'Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried 2. HighlandlPleasant Avenues Design Guidelines: Chris Hugo gave the staff report on this public hearing item. He reviewed the history of the building heights of that neighborhood and then moved on to the design guidelines for that residential area by staff through public meetings and stakeholder meetings. He gave a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the design goals. Commissioner Cockburn asked if lot coverage was an item in the design guidelines. Chris replied that lot coverage was a zone code issue and would not be affected by design guidelines. Commissioner Cockburn asked about the change from 45" to 60 in the side yard. Chris advised that the revision allows better economic building techniques. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf wanted to know if the City was legally within its rights to deny a developer's plan if it didn't meet the design guidelines. Chris explained that if the guidelines are adopted by the City Council, that would be a legal direction to staff to follow those guidelines. If the developer disagrees, it can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Kosusko noted a need to define what the depth of a setback should be in example A -3 of the Design Guidelines to "break up" building width. Chris agreed. Example C -1 requires setbacks for the structure, but not what the depth of the recess would be. Commissioner Cockburn opened public comment on this item. Steve Priest, Highland Avenue: "I publicly want to state a couple concerns, and I think it was already brought up that this document is set up to address a structure that's sixty feet high and I think that's good. And I think design standards are great. But, it's also been stated that no matter what you do, a sixty -foot structure is not going to fit the scale of this particular neighborhood. So I just wanted to talk about a couple concerns based on the Comprehensive Plan. Actually, maybe I'll just refer right to that. As far as the sixty feet is concerned, and I know that what I'm going to say doesn't necessarily affect Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 7 of 11 what you guys have to make a decision on this evening, but I wanted to publicly state this: in the Community Character Goals and Policies of the Comp Plan, (CCl -B), it states, `Ensure that new development is of a type, scale, orientation and design that improves upon the neighborhood's desired and defined character, aesthetics, and qualities.' I want to note scale in there. I'm going to jump to one other one and then get to my point here. `Utilize design guidelines and criteria that are based on local community participation and the particular character in development issues of each special district or neighborhood (CC 4 -C)'. I guess my concern is that the community did not get to give any input on this height and I just feel that kind of goes against what the Comp Plan says, and so publicly that's a concern I have. Thanks." Adam Brockus, 1146 Perry Avenue: "I was at the November 30 meeting and I was also the one who was also at the meeting that talked about the heights a few weeks ago. When I did not second a fellow council - person's motion, what I was intending was I wanted to wait until the Design Guidelines came out and then that was the better time to review the 40, the 60, or whatever else that goes into it. I do have the belief that our urban, our growth should be concentrated into urban and Neighborhood Centers and try not to create more infill or suburban sprawl that I don't think we want in Bremerton in 2020. And I think the Design Guidelines are a good start. I do like a lot of the things that were said "Yes" rather than "No ", especially the parking on C -4. I do have a little quibble on the D -1: there's only one Tudor style home on Highland Avenue; I think it's more of a Craftsman than Victorian area. But the thing is, I look at all of the "Yes" buildings on this and I say, `Yes, it does do the function of what the Design Guidelines would do. How do we get the sixty -foot height while keeping the neighborhood feel ?' But I'm thinking of one more step that gets into that and that is how do we get a better Bremerton? Does this get us to that next step? Does this get us to the point where someone will just come in from Seattle off the ferry and say `Wow. This is a place I want to live in; this is a place I want to raise my children in.'? And I am, unfortunately, not quite finding it in these Design Guidelines and I wish we had maybe pictures or maybe things or maybe examples that say maybe they are out there. But, you know, I consider Bremerton to be a special place. I mean, in the forties we built mighty ships that took down empires and we still had people who worked together, people who lived together well, and I think that is something that should be shown in our architecture, in our homes, in our residences, and I ask the question, `Can these design guidelines take us to that step ?'. I'm not saying I am right off saying that I would not vote for this Design Guidelines, or I would, but I hope you look to that. Thank you." Rachel Zeigler, Highland Avenue: "I just want to make a couple points on record, also. At the end of our street there was a big bulletin that was put up that said, `Hey, come give us your opinion on the 60-foot guidelines', but there was nothing saying, `Hey, we're going to put 60 -foot buildings in your neighborhood — what do you think about it ?' until it was already done. And I just wanted to state — I don't know if many of you have been down Highland Avenue, but it's a very narrow road and adding 60 -foot buildings is going to create quite the bit of traffic and I don't know about you, but I don't really want my front yard being taken over to widen up the street, and I am very concerned about that. I am all for density and I think density has its place, but I don't think 60 -foot buildings has its place on a residential street like ours. I think that this can be accommodated with 40- feet structures; I don't think it has to go up to sixty. I don't think it should out -do the Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 8 of 11 City /Government building here. I feel that things should be kept in perspective and I hope that things will be looked at more closely, and I do hope that in the future that more public input is put out there for everything, even this meeting. No notice was given out for anything, it's just by chance that I found out things like this and I just hope that you do consider the public input, you do consider our street, and I hope many of you walk down Highland and think, `Maybe this isn't a good idea', and think about how you would appreciate it going up in your neighborhood or next to your home because your neighborhood may be next. Thanks." Mike Brown, 1904 Marine Drive: "I own some property on Pleasant Avenue and I was a member of the Stakeholders group. I just want to talk about the process because I thought the process was a collaborative one; it well represented, I thought, a lot of varying opinions and interests. I thought the staff did a good job of keeping us pointed in the right direction, which obviously isn't an easy task with people who aren't as sophisticated with the issues that were being dealt with. I just thought they did a good job so I thought I'd pass that on." Wendy Priest, 904 Highland Avenue: "I come to you tonight as a resident of the neighborhood. I didn't plan on addressing you so I hope my thoughts aren't too jumbled. I just want to speak to two things: I know you are looking at specific guidelines and making your decision on those, but as a couple people mentioned, I want to go back to process. It was my understanding, in going through this neighborhood process, we'd be able to look at the scale. And that wasn't considered and there wasn't the opportunity for people to talk about that. And if not there, when? And we had promised residents a sub- area plan for downtown, to look at the whole downtown. And I think, until we do that and we really look at where density and the highest density makes sense, and where we have structures that maybe need to be a new development really matching the old architecture. I think we should be really careful how we proceed. There's homes on that street that, in talking to someone at Community Trade & Economic Development, architectural historian, believe that they qualify for historic register and it could be a great opportunity for a historic district. Granted, there's properties that need to be redeveloped, but that could be done in such a way. And some of the images that Chris showed for three- or four - stories would be perfect. And those three- or four -story structures could accommodate 40 — 50 units per acre which meets our density requirement of 40 units per acre. So, thank you." Donald Smithhiseler, 645 Washington Avenue: "I actually wanted to, I guess, a ditto for what Mike Brown had to say. And in addition to all your efforts, I also wanted to thank the City Council for their efforts. This has really been a difficult road and we really need to look what is going to be the future of Bremerton, not only for two or three years, but for the next ten, fifteen, twenty years down the road. So, do we look forward or do we look back? Thank you very much." Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were any other public comments on this item. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. Chris reminded the Commissioners that no buildings over 40 feet in height can be built in the Highland/Pleasant area until after the building height moratorium expires, unless Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 9 of 11 the City Council voted to extend the moratorium; if the moratorium is not extended, development can continue at the height of 60 feet without design guidelines. He advised the Commissioners on the need for guidelines to ensure some form of control on development in that area. If the guidelines are adopted, the building height moratorium would end. Commissioner Streissguth spoke at length on the Planning Commission's original position of wanting a 40 -foot building height in the Highland/Pleasant Avenue area and the desire to maintain the community character while meeting the density requirement with that height. She wanted to know when a neighborhood sub -area plan would be initiated and if building heights be adjusted through that process. Chris rcminded the Commissioners that the sub -area plan that would affect Highland and Pleasant Avenues covers the regional downtown area which includes the ferry terminal and goes north to Evergreen Park; it is not just Highland and Pleasant Avenues. He reported that staff would be taking the City Council members on a tour of areas designated for annexation and sub -area planning to get some guidance from the Council. Chris also said that sub- area plans can be adopted out of sequence and elements of the sub -area plan could be different from the current zoning. There was extensive discussion of what building height the Design Guidelines were supporting, and what the instructions were from City Council regarding the guidelines. Chris explained that the Design Guidelines were for buildings with four or more dwelling units and were not tied to any building height. City Council had approved a building height of 60 feet in the Highland/Pleasant area and tasked staff to come up with design guidelines to help those new structures fit in. Commissioner Kosusko asked why the guidelines had been changed from structures over 40 feet tall to structures with four or more dwelling units. Staff felt that if design guidelines were to be instituted it would be best to make them broad enough to include multi - family structures less than 40 feet in height. Commissioner Cockburn asked for more clarification on the proposed `Breathing Room" setbacks. Using figure B -1 in the Design Guidelines, Chris explained how all sides of a building would have to be stepped back to prevent a looming presence. Commissioner Streissguth and Commissioner Kosusko spoke at length about the Planning Commission's role in encouraging redevelopment in the downtown area through sub -area planning while adhering to the Comprehensive Plan and remaining sensitive to the uniqueness of the Highland/Pleasant Avenue area. A motion was made by Commissioner Hoell and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to recommend to City Council for approval of the Highland Avenue /Pleasant Avenue Design Guidelines as presented, to amend Figure 20.74 (a) of the Zoning Code to include a reference to the Design Guidelines, and to include in the accompanying staff report the Planning Commission's support of a 40-foot building height, its belief that a 60 -foot building height is not needed to meet density requirements, that the Community Character section of the Comprehensive Plan directs the Planning Commission to consider type, scale, orientation, bulk, Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 10 of 11 character, and history, and to urge Council to set a priority to do sub -area planning in the Downtown Regional Center. Called for a vote: Cockburn: Yes; Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Hoell: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Mosiman: Yes; Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried Commissioner Cockburn closed the Public Meeting. VI. Business Meeting A. Chairman's Report: None B. Director's Report: Chris introduced the newest Planning Commission member, Bill Mosiman. Commissioner Mosiman is originally from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and now lives on Madrona Point Drive and is a school administrator for Special Education in the Central Kitsap School District. Chris reported that the Critical Areas Ordinance passed and a two- month appeal period has begun. Andrea announced that Kitsap County is beginning their 10 -year update of their Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners are invited to attend the County's "kick -off' meetings. Chris remarked that this would be Bremerton's opportunity to lay out the City's future interest in the Urban Growth Areas on the Comprehensive Plan map, C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: Commissioner Kosusko asked to proactively look at the height issue in the Highland/Pleasant Avenue and wanted staff's input. He also expressed concern for the push for annexation when there are areas currently inside the city limits that need attention. Commissioner Streissguth suggested holding a workshop on the UGA. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for April 18, 2006. Respectfully submitted by: (Y,4 I L # C?zl Chris H go, cutive S r ary Approved by: 7 Cockburn, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting March 21, 2006 Page 11 of 11