Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/2010 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) April 20, 2010 5:30 P.M. th 345 – 6Street Meeting Chamber – First Floor I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL (quorum present) III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA IVAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 16, 2010 Regular meeting. o V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B. Public Workshop: 1. Public Workshop to discuss potential amendments to the City of Bremerton Zoning Code 20.48.060, Residential Parking Development Standards. VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: Chairman Cockburn B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer. C.Old Business: D.New Business VII.ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is May 18, 2010 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 4/20/10 Minutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 16, 2010 I. Call to Order Vice-Chairman Hoell The meeting was called to order by at 5:31 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Mosiman, Commissioner Streissguth, and Vice-Chairman Hoell. Chairman Cockburn was excused. Quorum certified. Also present: Andrea Spencer, Nicole Ward, and Pam Bykonen (DCD staff). III. Approval of Agenda Vice-Chairman HoellA motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and introduced the agenda. seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to approve the agenda as presented . It was agreed by general consensus to approve the agenda as presented. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on February 16, 2010 were presented for approval by Chairman A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Cockburn. Mosiman to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2010 as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Kosusko: Abstain; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes; Vice-Chairman Hoell: Yes. The motion carried. VI. Public Meeting A.Call To The Public. (public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda) Vice-Chairman Hoell asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, she closed this portion of the meeting. 1.Public Hearing – Zoning Code Amendments: Nicole Ward, City Planner , gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the proposed zoning code amendments that had been the subject of the workshop held at the February Planning Commission meeting. Amend BMC 20.40 Figure B to include Industrial Park and City Utility Lands as appropriate zoning designations for the Comprehensive Plan designation of Industrial. Currently there are several locations within the city that are zoned City Utility Lands or Industrial Park that are designated as Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. It is believed that the omission of Industrial Park and City Utility Lands from Figure B was an oversight and should be corrected. Five properties owned by the City for public works facilities would be impacted by this amendment. Add “Community Facility” as a permitted use in the R10, CCR, and MR residential zoning districts with the same requirements as Worship and Religious Facilities to ensure consistency as both facilities are similar in their uses. Each applicable section of BMC Title 20 would be amended to read “… Worship and religious facilities and community facilities …”. This Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 2010 Page 1 of 2 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 4/20/10 amendment would affect land use zones R-10 (Low Density Residential), CCR (City Core Residential), and MR (Multiple Residential). Commissioner Kosusko asked for the definition of a Community Facility. The zoning code defines Community Facility as “A facility operated by a public agency or nonprofit organization for social gatherings, meetings, learning, recreation, and programs to promote economic independence or similar functions” (BMC 20.42.040). Commissioner Kosusko then asked if, by including Community Facilities as an outright permitted use or conditional use in residential neighborhoods, would that also include needle Nicole exchange facilities. said it would not because needle exchange facilities are considered detoxification centers, not community centers. Vice-Chairman Hoell asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, she closed this portion of the Public Hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to recommend City Council to adopt the amendments to BMC Title 20 relating to the consistency Table and CommunityFacilities as detailed in Attachment I, based on the Findings and Conclusions presented in Attachment II. Called for a vote: Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes; Vice-Chairman Hoell: Yes. The motion carried. Vice-Chairman Hoell closed the Public Meeting. VI. Business Meeting A.Chairman’s Report:None. B.Director’s Report: Andrea Spencer, Director of Community Development, indicated that Greg. Jose and Rick Tift, are scheduled for confirmation by the City Council as members of the Bremerton Planning Commission on Wednesday, March 17, 2010, and they are scheduled to begin their terms in April. Mr. Jose was in attendance at the meeting and Ms. Spencer introduced him to the Commission. C.Old Business:None D.New Business: None . VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 5:42 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for April 20, 2010. Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________________ Andrea Spencer, Executive Secretary Approved by: _______________________________________ John Cockburn, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Commission Meeting Date: April 20, 2010 Agenda Item: V.B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Workshop to Discuss Potential Amendments to BMC 20.48.060 Residential Parking Standards. DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Nicole Ward, City Planner ISSUE SUMMARY: While the Zoning Code was revised in 2005 the residential parking standards have remained mostly unchanged since the mid 1980’s. As Bremerton has become more urban the lot sizes have decreased over time. This has made the space available for parking scarcer and has lead to challenges for residents and developers who want to remodel, expand, or redevelop their property. Staff has found the residential parking requirements increasingly challenging because often there are ample areas on-site to park on, however these areas cannot be counted towards the “required parking” because they do not meet specific requirements. In addition developers often comment that the requirements in Bremerton are more restrictive than those found in neighboring jurisdictions. In order to alleviate some of the contention surrounding residential parking requirements staff researched other jurisdictions standards, compared those standards to the City of Bremerton’s, and evaluated the variations of standards available. Based on this research Staff suggests the Planning Commission consider amendments as follows: Allow driveway area to be used in the calculation of required parking spaces 1..  The code currently does not allow the “driveway” to count towards the required off-street parking spaces. Bremerton requires two off-street parking spaces per residence, and these spaces must be located out of the building setback area. Essentially for a property in the Low Density Residential zone, this requires that a driveway be at  least 33’ long, as the first 15 cannot be counted towards the  parking requirement. This requirement often confuses õÎÈÊØ íÜËÒÔÏÖ applicants who believe they have plenty of parking. City staff úÎÈÏÉØÙ spends a considerable amount of time explaining that while it is   permitable to park in the driveway, it does not count towards the requirement of two parking spaces. Often applicants do not have access to additional parking locations that meet the building setback requirements and therefore cannot expand their homes, add an accessory dwelling unit, or home based ùËÔÇØÆÜÄ business. ïÎÉ úÎÈÏÉØÙ jêØÉÛÜÚÒ In reviewing other jurisdictions codes staff found Bremerton to  be unique in this requirement. All other jurisdictions within  Kitsap County allow applicants to use the driveway towards the required parking spaces. êÜÐÍÑØñÎÉïÎÉÉÎêÚÜÑØ To ensure parking will not be permitted within other areas of the front yard setback staff reviewed the requirements for driveways within the code. The existing code relating to driveway width establishes a maximum width of 20’ while in the front yard setback. This requirement will ensure that parking will not be permitted haphazardly within the front yard.  2. Reduce parking setbacks to coincide with the setbacks established for accessory structures.  In any remodel, expansion or new home development that staff evaluates the parking provide on site. The code currently requires two parking spaces that must be located outside of the building setback area. Setbacks for the Low Density Residential zone are 15’ for the front and rear, and 5’ on the sides. These requirements are in place to ensure new development will not adversely impact the neighborhood by occupying an unfair amount of on-street parking, or by negatively impacting the adjacent residences. Parking is one of the first issues discussed by Planning Staff with applicants because if the parking requirement cannot be met the project will not be permitted. There is a substantial discrepancy between the setbacks established for building or parking and the setbacks established for accessory structures, such as carports, garages, and dwelling units. Currently parking areas must be setback as much as 12’ farther than an accessory structure (which are allowed to be constructed within 3’ of the property line). This means that a carport can be located substantially closer to neighboring properties than a car. It is unclear why this discrepancy would occur as the impacts from a carport or dwelling unit are likely greater than those associated with parking. In reviewing other jurisdictions requirements parking setbacks were generally less restrictive than setbacks for accessory structures. In order to maintain adequate separation between lots and to provide for flexibility staff suggests a 3’ side and rear yard setback for parking to match the existing setbacks of accessory structures. No change is proposed to the existing 15’ front yard setback. EXAMPLE LOT A: In the diagram, Lot A shows an existing home with a detached garage. Please notice the red line, which indicates the building setback area. Required parking cannot be located outside of this line. You will notice the line dissects the driveway. In the example no required parking spaces could be located in the driveway as only half of it is outside of the parking setback area. Under the current requirements the property owner would have to pave a portion of their back yard to meet the code. By reducing the side yard setback requirement the driveway could be utilized for the required parking on this lot. EXAMPLE LOT B: Please now look to Lot B, which shows the same sized lot with a different configuration. Again the red line indicates the building setbacks and the only area in which parking can be located. In this example two spaces cannot be accommodated and, therefore no expansion of this home would be permitted even though there appears to be ample space for parking within the driveway.  CODE RESEARCH: In order to ensure the proposed amendments are appropriate staff looked at several different jurisdictions. Staff reviewed all of Bremerton’s neighbors including Kitsap County, Port Orchard, Poulsbo, and Bainbridge Island; Cities of a similar size including Mountlake Terrace, University Place, Bellingham, and Lakewood; and larger Cities including Seattle and Portland. The following table identifies the City’s existing requirements, potential amendments, and what the above mentioned Cities and other jurisdictions require. Bremerton’s Existing Discussion Areas for Other Jurisdictions Standards StandardsPotential Changes Allow required parking in All öÊÍÎÈãÛÊØé×ÈÚÛÙÑ øÊÓÆ×ÅÛÃê×ËÇÓÊ×ØìÛÊÑÓÎÕûÐÐÍÅ×Ø the driveway.jurisdictions No parking in setbacks. óÎÙÐÇØÓÎÕØÊÓÆ×ÅÛà øÊÓÆ×ÅÛÃê×ËÇÓÊ×ØìÛÊÑÓÎÕøÓÉÛÐÐÍÅ×Ø None 3’ Setback Kitsap County, Poulsbo, éÓØ×ãÛÊØé×ÈÚÛÙÑ ªé×ÈÚÛÙÑ 5’ Setback Bainbridge Isl., Lakewood, Seattle, ÉÛÏ×ÛÉÛÙÙ×ÉÉÍÊÃÉÈÊÇÙÈÇÊ×É Can be reduced to 0’ if Bellingham, University Place, Portland. 0’ Abutting an Alley located on an approved Port Orchard ªé×ÈÚÛÙÑ driveway. Remove Alley Exception 3’ setback Kitsap County, Poulsbo, Port ê×ÛÊãÛÊØé×ÈÚÛÙÑ ªé×ÈÚÛÙÑ 15’ SetbackOrchard, Bainbridge Isl., Lakewood, Seattle, Maintain alley exception Bellingham, University Place, Portland. All rear yard setbacks are reduced to 0’ if None ªé×ÈÚÛÙÑ abutting an alley No Change Seattle, Bellingham, Portland ûÙÙ×ÉÉÍÊÃéÈÊÇÙÈÇÊ× ªé×ÈÚÛÙÑ Kitsap County, Poulsbo, é×ÈÚÛÙÑÉ ªé×ÈÚÛÙÑ 3’ Side & Rear University Place, Mount Lake Terrace 0’ Abutting an Alley Port Orchard ªé×ÈÚÛÙÑ No Change Seattle and Portland îÇÏÚ×ÊÍÖê×ËÇÓÊ×Ø éÈÛÐÐ All other jurisdictions éÌÛÙ×É éÈÛÐÐÉ 2 In reviewing these other jurisdictions it is clear that the City of Bremerton is more restrictive in terms of parking setbacks and the use of the driveway than most other jurisdictions. Additionally Bremerton’s average lot size is typically smaller than those in neighboring jurisdictions which compounds the challenges of locating parking spaces within building setback areas. Staff suggests amending the setbacks and driveway provisions to be more in line with other jurisdictions and to provide flexibility for parking requirements in a way that will not negatively impact the residential character of neighborhoods throughout Bremerton.