HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/2007 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA
Regular Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission
(Subject to PC approval)
February 20, 2007
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:
January 16, 2007 Regular Planning Commission meeting minutes.
o
V. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Call to the Public:
Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda
B. Public Meeting
1. Minor Amendments to the Zoning Code
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
March 20, 2007
Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at
www.ci.bremerton.wa.us
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 2/20/07
Minutes for
City of Bremerton Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
January 16, 2007
I. Call to Order
Chairman Cockburn
The meeting was called to order by at 5:31 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Chairman Cockburn, Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf, Commissioner
Kennedy, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Mosiman, and Commissioner Streissguth.
Commissioner Hoell was excused. Quorum certified.
Also present: Andrea Spencer and Pam Ransier (DCD staff).
III. Election of Officers
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf
nominated John Cockburn for the position of Chairman.
Commissioner Kosusko
seconded the nomination. The vote was unanimous in favor of
Commissioner Cockburn being the Chairman of the Bremerton Planning Commission for 2007.
Commissioner Kosusko
nominated Judy Friedberg-Nerf for the position of Vice-Chairman.
Commissioner Kennedy
seconded the nomination. The vote was unanimous in favor of
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf being the Vice-Chairman of the Bremerton Planning Commission
for 2007.
IV. Approval of Agenda
Chairman Cockburn
introduced the agenda. It was agreed by general consensus to approve the
agenda as presented.
V. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on August 15, 2006 were presented for approval by
A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by
Commissioner Cockburn.
Commissioner Kennedy to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of August 15, 2006, as
presented.
Called for a vote: Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf: Yes; Commissioner Kennedy:
Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner Streissguth:
Yes; Chairman Cockburn: Yes. The motion carried.
The minutes of the Special Meeting held on August 29, 2006 were presented for approval by
A motion was made by Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf and
Commissioner Cockburn.
seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of August 29,
2006, as presented.
Called for a vote: Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf: Yes; Commissioner
Planning Commission Meeting January 16, 2007 Page 1 of 8
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 2/20/07
Kennedy: Abstain; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner
Streissguth: Yes; Chairman Cockburn: Yes. The motion carried.
The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on November 21, 2006 were presented for approval by
A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by
Commissioner Cockburn.
Commissioner Kennedy to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 21, 2006, as
presented.
Called for a vote: Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf: Yes; Commissioner Kennedy:
Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner Streissguth:
Yes; Chairman Cockburn: Yes. The motion carried.
VI. 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 Meeting:Mayor Cary Bozeman
opened the Public Meeting with an overview
of the lack of new residential construction and support of the East Park sub-area plan and
the sale of the 2.5 acre parcel which is currently city park land. He noted the positive
benefits of using that parcel to increase the number of residential units and reminded the
Commission of other park purchases and improvements planned.
Andrea Spencer, Director of Community Development
, reviewed the East Park sub-
area plan and reminded the Commissioners that the sub-area plan, which the Commission
unanimously recommended, was developed after several community meetings where the
public had an opportunity to express their concerns. The park parcel in question had been
designated a redevelopment site and was acknowledged by the Planning Commission that
including it into the sub-area plan was an appropriate use of that area. She noted that the
developer included more than 13.5 acres of open space in the plan.
Wyn Birkenthal, Director of the Parks Department,
on behalf of the Parks Board,
asked the Planning Commission for their guidance on the sale of the park land at the
southern point of the East Park development. He gave a brief history of how this parcel
had been acquired by the City of Bremerton and recent purchases of other park land to be
used in exchange for selling the parcel near East Park. He noted that, as a Parks
Department employee, he does not usually agree with the sale of park land, but
acknowledged that the benefits of selling this parcel outweighed keeping it as city park
land. He pointed out the unique quality of the East Park plan which provides open spaces
and neighborhood parks and outlined the financial benefits to the City by selling the
parcel and developing residential units.
Chairman Cockburn
asked if the “Madrona Forest” was being merged into the park.
An unidentified speaker said it would remain part of the private plat. [Further comment
was inaudible as the speaker was away from the microphone.] Wyn Birkenthal remarked
that the City of Bremerton was not required to provide maintenance to the open space
provided in the sub-area plan, but if it was desired to have it open to the public then the
city would be responsible for its upkeep.
Planning Commission Meeting January 16, 2007 Page 2 of 8
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 2/20/07
Commissioner Kosusko
asked Wyn to speak on the quality of the park land abutting
Wyn
East Park. explained that it is currently an undeveloped parcel with a trail that
connects with the 13+ acre nature area. A portion of the property has madrona trees and
other areas have scrub vegetation. There is an access easement from the park to Old
Wheaton Way.
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf
asked Wyn to give more detail on the process to surplus
park land. He explained that the process is clearly defined in the Bremerton Municipal
Code and is summarized as follows: the Parks Board writes findings on proposed surplus
and sale of park property and presents these findings to the City Council; the City
Council holds at least two public hearings on the surplus and sale and have a unanimous
vote by all members of City Council in favor of selling City owned park land. This item
has not yet gone before City Council. The purpose of this meeting was because the Parks
Board wanted to know what the Planning Commission’s opinion of the sale was.
Andrea
agreed that since this was the first sub-area plan it would be good to have the
Planning Commission’s comments on the record.
Commissioner Cockburn
asked if there were any comments from citizens.
Jack Welling, East Park Developer (no address given):
“I’d like to give just a little bit
of history of how this came about. I tied up the property when I entered into a purchase
agreement with the City. I had approached them during our feasibility study whether or
not we could use this lower area of the park property which was – had already been
cleared, there were no trees on it – if we could enter into an easement agreement to
maybe put our stormwater system on that property. Gary Sexton suggested, he says,
‘Well, rather than do that, why don’t you buy it?’ I would do that if I could, and he says,
‘Well, if you’ll pay for an appraisal, we will proceed and see if we can get the National
Park Service to agree to it.’ So I did that; I paid for the appraisal and the appraisal came
back at $300,000.00 for four and a half acres. That four and a half acres was kind of an
arbitrary number for that lower end. So anyway, that’s the way it proceeded and it took
well over a year to get the National Park Service to agree to the sale. It was only recently
that we discovered that the State was involved and Wyn explained that. But I think that
it’s important that, right now, there really is no access to the lower part of that park,
unless you park up at the hospital and walk the trail down. There’s no parking down
below at all. What we are proposing in our development is that we will provide, not only
an access to the lower part, but we will provide a parking lot for use for the park system.
If we are not allowed to buy that property, there really won’t be any access because we’re
going to close it off with our buildings, so the only access would be from up above,
unless they want to park on Wheaton Way and go up the little narrow strip that’s there.
We are also going to improve a path from our new parking lot all the way up to Harrison
[Hospital], and when I say ‘improve a path’, there are paths in there now, but we plan to
make it wider for people to use bikes and make it improvable so that more than just foot
traffic can go on it. The other thing, right now, is in that lower part of that property, and I
think your Police Department can verify this, there has been homeless people living down
there and it’s been a scene of drug use and other things down there, too. Wyn explained
that we will be adding a lot of value to the City as far as assessed value if we are allowed
to build the condominiums on that site. So I think that the benefits, in addition to the
Planning Commission Meeting January 16, 2007 Page 3 of 8
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 2/20/07
$300,000.00, we’ll improve the park property with the parking lot for better access for
the public and an improved path to the Harrison Hospital. We will create a tax base
that’s going to generate over a million dollars a year to the City of Bremerton. And
finally, if the State objects for some technicality, I would be willing to give them an equal
amount of our property. Give that back to the City and then they’ve kind of got around
their requirement of the State. And I wouldn’t charge them for it either. Thank you.”
Walter Draper, 3725 Bahia Vista Drive:
“I am talking to you tonight as a
representative of the [Bremerton] school district. I’m the director of Finance and
Operations for Bremerton schools. We would support this as the Mayor, I think,
mentioned, we’ve been in a gradual decline in terms of number of students for about ten
years. We used to have well over 6,000 students; we’re now at about 5,100. We’re
working very hard to turn that around and arrest that decline and get the numbers
increasing again, so anything that creates residential housing within the school district is
a good thing for us. We did have to close an elementary school, actually very close to
this area, within three or four blocks, several years ago, so, particularly if we can get
students in this area, we would like to recover that. As far as the increase in the assessed
value for these housing units that would be built there, I think estimated at $17 million
dollars, unlike the City, just the assessed valuation of the real property in the school
district goes up, the school district does not get any more money; we only get what the
voters approve when they vote for a school levy, but everyone will pay relatively less
across the board to generate that amount of money the more property we have on the roll
so it does, sort of, have a global benefit for the taxpayers within the school district. Now,
the condominiums that are proposed for this piece of property will not generate a lot of
students; condominiums in general don’t do that, but they will generate some and that
will certainly be a benefit for us. So I would encourage you to look favorably on this
proposal. Thank you very much.”
Jim Spencer (no address given):
“I am very much opposed to the sale of this park
property for a number of reasons. Once the land is gone, the land is gone. So what we’re
talking about is a development of 400 units that we’re going to add an additional forty. I
applaud the developer for being proactive in putting parks in his development. Does he
do that for a reason? Yeah, because parks sell homes. Parks attract people. This sale is
totally inconsistent with what’s happening today in the city. I mean, you go look at the
little pocket park at the end of Manette; the City went and got that property from a lease
agreement that the Boat Shed owner had for a period of years, took that property back
and developed it into a park. Has anybody complained about that property as a park? I
attended a Park Commission meeting where this issue was first brought up. There was a
group of citizens from Manette who were there lobbying to go and tax themselves to go
buy a piece of property in Manette, 6/10 of an acre, an old reservoir, for a quarter million
dollars so they could develop a park in their neighborhood. From my standpoint, it’s all
about the land. We could argue about Chevron, we could argue about IAC, National Park
Services. You know, none of that matters. The real issue is the land. This is a
remarkable piece of property. What you heard was that it’s got trees on it and those sorts
of things. It does; it’s got beautiful madronas. It also has an incredible panoramic view
of Port Washington Narrows and the Olympics. That’s why the developer wants to go
and build condos on it. So it’s really a simple decision. It really is.It’s about the land.
Do you retain the land for the public, or do you sell it to a developer so he can go and
Planning Commission Meeting January 16, 2007 Page 4 of 8
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 2/20/07
build condos. It’s really that simple. From my standpoint, it’s really a very simple
decision. We have so little property in this city that is ours, why would we go worry
about trades and dollars and all this other stuff and try to find a comparable piece of
property? You can’t find a comparable piece of property. Chevron’s going to get
developed no matter what. It’s going to get developed; don’t confuse the issue with
Chevron. I beg you to consider this long and hard. Mayor Glenn Jarstad went and got
this property in ’68 with all of our futures in mind to retain it for public use. I hope you
deliberate on this and take it very seriously. It’s an issue that I certainly have and I would
recommend that we not sell this property. East Park’s going to get developed; that’s a
good thing, I’m all for it. We don’t need East Park nature to do it.”
Dick Bruskrud, 1102 Shore Drive:
“Just wanted to take a minute here to give you
something. I was the lead position on the design team for the developer at East Park.
You probably can remember – most of you will remember me. Our assessment [stepped
away from the microphone] I’m sorry; I thought he had a different drawing up there. Our
assessment, when we took a look at this particular parcel, we noticed the madrona forest;
it’s a very unique forest. It should be preserved. That was our entire intention and we
worked around preserving the forest. What we also noticed was the small area at the very
bottom of the land that had been previously developed during the Navy development of
the parcel. The area in question is primarily not part of the forest itself. It has been
cleared - who knows when – a long time ago. There are very few trees on that particular
parcel and it is isolated from the rest. What we saw in the forest itself is a wonderful
nature conservancy and that is why we added seven acres to that conservancy that is in
forest land. In return, we could transfer some of the density onto a portion of the land
that had already previously been developed. That is the primary purpose of that. I’d also
like to say that there are access problems to this forest. The developer is going to provide
access to the forest; an accessible trail through the forest connecting the hospital and the
East Park area is a great benefit. There are currently many active parks in the area. If I
thought for a minute that it would make more sense to have a playfield here then we
would have never looked at it. But there are soccer fields, gymnasiums, all the skate
park, the park land south of the YMCA, all of that land is providing that service. And in
addition, the developer’s providing more active parks in the two one-acre parks within
the development. To me, I am very concerned about the City selling public land, at the
same time we need to be prudent and we need to find that there are times when to the
benefit of the public, using some land in being able to maintain over three times what he
is asking to purchase seems to make sense for this particular parcel. Thank you.”
Richard Nerf, Madrona Point, Bremerton:
“I’m here because of having worked on
the Comprehensive Plan. I really support the development of East Park; I think it’s being
done in an exemplary fashion and that I know how hard you all have worked on that. I
know, too, that selling park land is a very emotional situation. When I was in school,
there were major riots over building the gym in a city park. I remember when there was
quite a problem in New York City because the Metropolitan Museum of Art wanted to
have the Temple of Dendur added, and that was going to take part of Central Park and,
there may not have been riots, but there were certainly a lot of discussion. In Houston, a
municipal golf course incurred – was getting into a park there and that caused a problem.
So I’m very conscious of keeping park land. This is an excellent park; I really wish I had
known it was there years ago. I would not have spent a lot of time doing figure eights in
Planning Commission Meeting January 16, 2007 Page 5 of 8
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 2/20/07
Lions Park for exercise; it’s a great hiking area. There are reasonably well maintained
trails through it. So it’s a very important thing to consider. My main concern here is that
we have not held to the Comprehensive Plan; we have not considered this explicitly. I
have read through the sub-area plan and no where in there could I find any reference to
the sale of park land, or even to the point that some of this shown here encroaches on
park land. So I don’t believe that either the public nor you have considered this
sufficiently. I can believe that all the arguments we’ve heard make sense to me, but I
would like us to go through our procedure for you to think about this and not just react to
an emergency kind of situation we seem to have tonight. But to consider this and say,
‘Yeah, this makes sense,’ and that we think the public has been heard. Thank you.”
Chairman Cockburn
asked for any further comments on this item. Seeing none, he
closed this portion of the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Kosusko
asked what the intended result of the Planning Commission’s
Andrea
deliberation was. explained the Commission was being asked if the sub-area
process to determine the use is really what the Commission intended and to acknowledge
the sale of park property with a motion indicating the Planning Commission concurs with
the East Park sub-area plan and a recommendation to move forward with that plan. It is
not intended to have the Planning Commission make any decision regarding the sale of
park property.
Commissioner Kennedy
confirmed that the sub-area plan in question was the same as
Andrea
what had been previously approved and forwarded on to City Council. referred
to the map of East Park and noted the entire area, including the park property, had been
designated Public Sector Redevelopment.
Commissioners Kosusko and Friedberg-Nerf, and Chairman Cockburn,
noted that,
while they support the East Park sub-area plan, they had no recollection of park property
being included in the plan.
Commissioner Kennedy
acknowledged that the potential sale of park land creates an
emotional situation, but she still supports the East Park sub-area plan including the parcel
in question and feels it had been fully vetted through the public process.
Commissioner Kosusko
suggested repeating a portion of the sub area planning process
to make an amendment to the plan to include discussion of the sale of the park property.
Commissioner Streissguth
supports the East Park sub-area plan and how it will benefit
Bremerton, but did not realize it would include the sale of park property. She expressed
surprise that this item was coming up this late in the process and concern that the public
had not been given an opportunity to comment on the property sale.
Andrea
explained that the Parks Board holds public meetings regarding the sale of park
property. Notices had been sent to the Parks Board outlining the East Park sub-area plan
and a Parks Board member had been included on a technical committee working on that
plan. She reminded the commissioners that they are not being asked to approve the sale
of park property but to confirm they still support the East Park sub-area plan.
Planning Commission Meeting January 16, 2007 Page 6 of 8
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 2/20/07
Commissioner Mosiman
acknowledged that he was new to this item and didn’t have the
history that the other commissioners had.He felt he could not make an informed
decision at this time.
Commissioner Kosusko
posed the question, What if the sale of park property had been
made clear during the original public process? He speculated that a land trade of some
kind would have occurred after commission discussion.
Chairman Cockburn
summarized by stating ownership of property was not discussed
during the Commission’s deliberation on the East Park plan and the sale of the park
property was a duty of the Parks Board and City Council and not the Planning
Commission.
As a whole, the Planning Commission agreed:
there was a sub-area planning process with extensive public input;
o
there was no discussion of the ownership of the parcels during the sub area
o
planning process and the commission was unaware that park property
would be sold as a result of the plan, and the plan should have had
discussion of property ownerships;
discussion at Parks Board meetings is appropriate for this item and public
o
testimony should be added to the debate;
the Planning Commission will not take a stand on whether or not to sell
o
the park property; and
the Planning Commission supports the East Park sub-area plan.
o
Chairman Cockburn
closed the Public Meeting.
VI. Business Meeting
A.Chairman’s Report:None
.
B. Director’s Report: AndreaSpencer, Director of Community Development,
reported
that the Downtown Regional Center plan had been allocated an additional $65,000.000
by City Council to go with the $35,000.00 CTED grant for a total of $100,000.00 to
complete the plan. Request for Proposals (RFP)from potential consultants are due
January 31, 2007, and interviews will be conducted the following week. Commissioner
Kosusko will be on the interview panel.
The West Hills and Navy Yard City annexations are scheduled to commence in February.
The Tracyton annexation will be finalized on February 1, 2007. The Mayor is in support
of the proposed racetrack in the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) and all departments
are working on the feasibility of annexing this property into the city. Currently, SKIA is
not assigned to any jurisdiction’s Urban Growth Area (UGA).
The West Park sub-area plan goes to City Council the week of January 22, 2007. It’s
hoped to have the plan adopted by February 7, 2007.
Community Development is exploring options for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to
possibly make Anderson Cove a center or a redevelopment site to improve that
neighborhood.
Planning Commission Meeting January 16, 2007 Page 7 of 8
DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 2/20/07
C. Old Business:None.
D. New Business: Commissioner Kosusko
reported three employees of Rice
Fergus Miller, a staff member of the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council,
Andrea Spencer, and Mayor Bozeman, have begun discussions on a sustainable
development initiative for the City of Bremerton.
The Wheaton/Riddell Sub-area Plan should be completed in the first part of 2007.
Community Development has received approval from City Council to hire two
Senior Planners, a Planner I, and upgrade other department positions.
Commissioner Kennedy
suggested a training session on the process of creating a
sub-area plan and making that process a standard.
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf
asked for additional training by staff regarding
Low Impact Development opportunities within the city and parliamentary
procedure.
Commissioner Streissguth
suggested creating overlays for the city showing non-
Andrea
motor vehicle traffic, etc. to be used in centers planning. reported that
the contract to create that plan had recently been awarded to Parametrix and a
Parks consultant will be chosen to prepare the Parks Department’s comprehensive
plan.
Commissioner Friedberg-Nerf Andrea
inquired about by-laws. reported that
staff had a draft amendment proposal to the current by-laws and will present the
updated version to the commission at the February meeting.
An ordinance was passed to create a Design Review Board. City Council will be
appointing members in February. Currently there are no projects pending which
need review.
VII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for February 20,
2007.
Respectfully submitted by:
_______________________________________
Andrea Spencer, Executive Secretary
Approved by:
_______________________________________
John Cockburn, Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting January 16, 2007 Page 8 of 8
Commission Meeting Date: February 20, 2007 Agenda Item: V.B.1
CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Hearing and Recommendation on
Amendments to the Zoning Code.
DEPARTMENT:
Community Development
PRESENTED BY:
Nicole Ward, City Planner
SUMMARY
Since the adoption of the new Zoning Code on November 30, 2005 the need for several minor
amendments have been identified through day to day use and application of the code. BMC
chapter 20.18 “Text Amendments” directs staff to bring amendments that result in any
substantive change of content or meaning to a public hearing by the Planning Commission and
then City Council for review and adoption. The following is a brief description of each proposed
amendment. These amendments are in order of appearance within the zoning code by
numerical chapter numbers. Please see attachment I to view the amendments in legislative
markup format (with underlined text denoting additions and strikeout indicating deletions).
AMENDMENTS
1. Allow for veterinary services with over night stay within the City. Although the code includes
a definition of “Veterinary Clinic” it does not allow such services anywhere in the City.
Veterinary Clinic should be added as an allowed use in the commercial zones.
2. Simplify Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) requirements so that there is more flexibility in what
shape an ADU may take. The following changes would maintain the intent of the provisions
while allowing a wider variety of properties to take advantage of ADU’s.
a. Change the size requirement from a maximum of 800sf to 1000sf
b. Allow for the ADU to be as large as 60% of the principal structure instead of 40%
c. No longer require the ADU to be attached to a garage
d. Allow the height to be no more than 25% taller than the principal unit (This would
allow for an ADU on top of a garage).
3. Change the fence height and permitting requirements in the following manor:
a. No longer require fence permits for the fences under 6’ in height. It is unusual for a
jurisdiction to issue fence permits for fences that do not require structural
engineering. The process of fence permits is staff intensive related to the revenues
received (i.e. Cost for permits does not cover staff time)
b. Allow for 4’ tall fences in the front yard. Currently chain link fences are allowed at 4’
but wooden and all other fencing materials are limited to 3’ in height. This is
desirable because home daycare facilities are required by the State to have at least
a 4’ tall fence.
c. Add fence height limits to the Center zones as the code is currently silent on their
height limit. Heights should be 4’ in the front 6’ on the side and rear and up to 8’ for
commercial uses through a permit.
d. Allow for taller fences surrounding essential public facilities in areas that must be
protected for public safety. These fences may be up to 10’ in height through the use
of a permit.
4. Add a minimum tree sizes for landscaping plans and correct a typo that should have
exempted very small parking lots from landscaping requirement, but as currently written
does the opposite.
5. Change the garage requirements for residential zones. These amendments will create
more flexibility for garage and accessory storage buildings in the residential zone while
maintaining them as clearly accessory uses to the home. Proposed changes include the
following:
a. Change the maximum size of garages to 1000sf or 60% of the principal structure’s
square footage instead of 500sf + 10% of the principal structure’s gross floor area.
b. Add design standards to require that detached garages must be made from a similar
material, a roof of equal or greater pitch, and a height no more than 25% higher than
that of the principal unit.
c. Generally revise code language that is ambiguous and hard to understand.
6. Clarify the density calculation so that the actual lot boundary is used not just the tax lot
boundary for the calculation. Several property owners have more than one lot, but for
tax purposes combine them to get one tax statement. More accurate densities can be
achieved by allowing the actual lot boundaries, not just the tax lot boundaries to be used.
7. Make signage requirements for home occupation businesses clearer by correcting the
reference in the R-10 zone signage requirements section.
8. Modify the District Center Core zone development standards to contain consistent
wording with the other chapters. All other chapters use the term “Development
Coverage” but this chapter uses “Lot Coverage”. These two different terms mean the
same thing and should be used consistently throughout the code.
OPTIONS
1. Recommend the changes as proposed by staff in Attachment I to the City Council
for adoption.
2. Recommend changes to the zoning code to City Council as modified by the
Commission.
3. Recommend denial of the proposed changes.
ATTACHMENTS
Staff Proposed changes the Zoning Code, amendments 1 – 8.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Zoning Code modifications,
conduct a public hearing, consider public testimony, and recommend the adoption of the Zoning
Code modifications to the City Council.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Move to recommend the Zoning Code amendments 1 -8, as identified in Attachment I, for City
Council adoption.
DRAFT Attachment I
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
1)Amendment to BMC 20.42 Definitions
Purpose: To allow for veterinary services with over night stay within the City.
Although the code includes a definition of “Veterinary Clinic” it does not allow such
services anywhere in the City. This should be corrected by adding veterinary clinics
as an allowed uses in the following zones:
20.62 Commercial Corridor,
20.64 Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor;
20.66 Neighborhood Center Core;
20.70 District Center Core;
20.74 Business Core;
20.75 Downtown Core;
20.90 Industrial Park;
20.92 Employment Center;
20.94 Industrial and;
20.98 Institutional
Also veterinary services are discussed in the definition of “Medical Offices and Clinics”
however this definition excludes overnight stay of patients. This is illogical because
many veterinary procedures require overnight stay including spay and neuter. To simplify
the code the definition of “Medical Offices” should be amended so the definition only
applies to human medical services as follows:
20.42 Definitions
MEDICAL OFFICE and CLINIC
means an establishment primarily engaged in
providing medical, dental or other health care services to patients on the premises, but
which excludes facilities for overnight patient care. Medical clinics that do not have
facilities for overnight patient care are included. Veterinary offices and clinics that do
not have facilities for overnight care are included.
2) Amendment to BMC 20.46 Special Standards – Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Purpose: To simplify ADU requirements so that there is more flexibility in what
shape an ADU may take. The current provisions have been very difficult to work
with since their adoption. These amendments intend to provide more flexibility
while maintaining the original intent to keep the primary residential unit as the
obvious principal use.
20.46.010 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) may be installed where a new or existing single-
family dwelling unit (hereafter-principal unit) is allowed. Accessory Dwelling Units are
exempt from density requirements and shall be subject to the following specific
development, design and owner-occupancy standards.
(a)An ADU shall comply with the development standards of the underlying
zone for the principal unit including setbacks, height, and lot coverage.
February 2007 Zoning Code Amendments
DRAFT Attachment I
(b)An ADU may be attached or detached from the principal unit. only if
incorporated into an accessory garage structure.
(c)Only one (1) ADU may be created per lot residence.
(d)The property owner, which shall include titleholders and contract
purchasers, must occupy either the principal unit or the ADU as their permanent
residence for at least six (6) months out of the year.
(e)An ADU shall be limited to not more than:
(1)Sixty Forty (6040) percent of the principal unit’s total floor area
(not including basement);
(2)One-thousandEight-hundred (1,000800) square feet maximum, nor
less than three-hundred (300) square feet;
(3)Two (2) bedrooms.
(f)Any attached ADU shall be designed so that the appearance of the
building remains that of a single-family residence including the following:
(1)Constructed of similar the same materials and siding as the
principal unit;
(2)A roof of equal or greater pitch as the principal unit;
(3)A height not more than twenty-five percent 25% greater than the
principal unit.
(g)The entrance to an attached ADU shall not be on the same façade of the
structure as an entrance to the principal unit.
(h)Accessory Dwelling Units shall provide (1) one off street parking space
with up to one bedroom shall provide one (1) off-street parking space, and ADUs with
two-bedroom shall provide two (2) off-street parking spaces in addition to that which is
required for the principal unit.
(i)When development of an ADU is for people with disabilities, the Director
may allow reasonable deviation from the stated requirements to install features that
facilitate accessibility such as those required by the International Building Code.
(j)An ADU shall have a deed restriction recorded with the Kitsap County
Auditor to indicate the presence of the ADU, the requirement of owner-occupancy, and
other standards for maintaining the unit as described above.
3) Amendment to BMC 20.46 Special Standards – Fences
Purpose: To change fence permit requirements so that not all fences will require a
permit; to increase the minimum height of fences in the front yard from 3 to 4 feet;
to include fence height limits in Centers, and to make exceptions for essential public
facilities for fence height and materials.
20.46.020 FENCES AND WALLS
(a)Fences and walls shall observe the following height and setback
requirements:
(1)Residential Zones:
(i)Maximum height shall be six (6) feet.
February 2007 Zoning Code Amendments
DRAFT Attachment I
(ii)Maximum height within the front yard setback area shall be
three (43) feet.;except an open mesh cyclone type fence may not exceed a height of
four
forty-eight (48) inches.
(iii)On corner lots with a specified front yard setback on each
street frontage, both frontages will require a height of no more than four (4) feet.
(iv)To obtain a six (6) foot high fence on a corner lot a fence
permit application is required. Tthe Director can determine that the street frontage of the
residence’s principal orientation is a “primary frontage” and may permit a six (6) foot
maximum height fence in the yard on the other (secondary) frontage only if all of the
following conditions are met:
a.The higher fence will not block any existing front
yard views from an adjoining residence with its principal orientation to that same street;
b.The higher fence will not be closer to the
residence’s front property line on the street of principal orientation than the closest part of
the front façade of the residence;
c.The higher fence will not encroach into the front
yard of the primary frontage where the maximum height limit in BMC Section
20.46.020(a)(1)(ii) takes precedence.
(v)Six (6) foot tall side yard fences may not project into the
front yard setback except when the house’s front façade is within the front yard setback
area, in which case the taller fence may extend no further than the front façade of the
house.
(2)Commercial Zones:
(i)Maximum height shall be eight (8) feet.
(ii)Maximum height shall be six (6) feet when adjacent to a
public right-of-way, or to a residential zone.
(3)Industrial Zone:
(i)Maximum height shall be ten (10) feet.
(ii)Maximum height shall be six (6) feet when adjacent to a
public right-of-way, or to a residential zone.
(4)Centers:
(i)Maximum height shall be four (4) feet in front yard setback
areas.
(ii)Maximum height shall be six (6) feet for side and rear yard
setback areas.
(iii)To obtain an eight (8) foot tall fence a fence permit is
required. The Director may allow for a maximum height of up to eight (8) feet in side
and rear yard setback areas provided the use is non-residential and the fence is necessary
for security purposes.
(5)Essential Public Facilities:
(i)Essential Public Facilities may have up to ten (10) foot tall
fences in any zone through a fence permit application provided the fence is the minimum
necessary for security purposes.
February 2007 Zoning Code Amendments
DRAFT Attachment I
(b)A Type II Conditional Use Permit may be granted for fences or walls up to
eight (8) feet high in a side or rear yard only if the fence or wall is necessary to provide
privacy and security between a residential and a non-residential use.
(c)Fences and walls shall not block or hinder the sight distance of traffic.
Exact location and design of a fence or wall is subject to the approval of the City
Engineer when visibility or public safety is an issue.
(d)No electric or electrified fences shall be permitted within the City of
Bremerton.
(e)Barbed wire or similar wire protective devices are permitted only in
industrial zones above a height of six (6) feet provided that adjoining a residential zone,
devices may be allowed by approval of a Type II Conditional Use Permit pursuant to
BMC Section 20.58.020 only if the following criteria are met:
(1)The applicant demonstrates that the protective device cannot be
installed outside of the specified setback without significantly diminishing the utility of
the industrial property;
(2)The protective device will be designed to minimize adverse
aesthetic impact to the residential use by installing the device behind the top of a fence or
wall or screening the device with landscape; and
(3)The applicant demonstrates that the protective device is necessary
to provide additional security along the residential property line to protect the industrial
premises.
(f)Notwithstanding the provisions of (a)(1)ii above, architectural
appurtenances such as trellises or entry gates that define a walkway or driveway entry are
allowed in a front yard up to ninety (90) inches high, provided that:
(1)No individual structural support for such features shall be
more than sixteen (16) inches square in section,
(2)Any gate shall not obscure more than twenty (20) percent
of visibility to the yard as viewed perpendicular to the gate’s installation, and
(3)Any entry feature greater than three (3) feet in height shall
not be more than six (6) feet wide for a walkway entry or more than sixteen (16) feet
wide for a driveway entry.
(g) All fences shall present a “finished” appearance on its outside face.
4) Amendment to BMC 20.50 Landscaping Standards
Purpose: To include minimum tree sizes for landscaping plans, these caliper
requirements were in the old code and were inadvertently left out. Also to amend a
typo which should have exempted very small parking lots from landscaping
requirement, but as currently written does the opposite.
20.50.050 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Required landscaping shall be provided in the following manner:
Street Trees
(a): One tree for every twenty-five (25) linear feet of street
frontage, and shall be spaced a maximum distance of thirty-five (35) feet on center,
however, trees may be spaced irregularly in natural groupings rather than uniformly
spaced except as noted elsewhere in this chapter;
February 2007 Zoning Code Amendments
DRAFT Attachment I
Screening Requirements
(b):
(1)Landscaping forming a year-round sight barrier a minimum of five
(5) feet in height in a landscaped area at least ten (10) feet wide; or
(2)A fence or wall, and/or berm, or combination, no less than five (5)
feet high plus shrubs and trees in an area at least five (5) feet wide;
Significant Trees
(c): Existing healthy trees located within required
landscape areas and undeveloped areas and which will not constitute a safety hazard shall
be preserved as follows:
(1)Evergreen trees: Eight (8) inches in diameter or greater, measured
four (4) feet above existing grade; and
(2)Deciduous trees: Twelve (12) inches in diameter or greater,
measured four (4) feet above existing grade;
Planting Materials
(d): Plants shall be selected based upon site-specific
conditions which may affect plant growth such as sun exposure, soil types, shoreline
conditions, adjacent site improvements, etc. New plant materials shall consist of drought
resistant species, or other species that are irrigated per the provisions of BMC Section
20.50.060(b) (4) of this chapter or located in high moisture content soils. Plant material
selection shall be consistent with the list of approved plant materials recommended for
use within areas in the City of Bremerton per BMC section 20.50.040(f) of this chapter.
Plant materials shall also be coordinated with utility company requirements to avoid
conflicts;
Plant Type and Size
(e): Plants shall be sized according to the following:
(1)Standard deciduous trees: 1 ½ in. to 2 in. caliper
(2)Small ornamental and flowering trees: 1 ½ in. to 1 ¾ in. caliper
(3)Evergreen trees: 5 ft. to 6 ft. in height
(4)Shrubs and ground cover: Adequate size to be
consistent with design intent
Deciduous Species Requirement
(e)(f): Landscaped areas and required
screening shall consist of no more than fifty percent (50%) deciduous species.
Areas Adjacent to Trails and Open Spaces:
(f)(g) All developments adjacent
to publicly used or designated trails and open spaces in the Comprehensive Plan shall
provide one tree per fifty (50) linear feet of the property facing such trails and open
spaces in addition to the General Provisions of BMC Section 20.50.040(d);
Interruptions:
(g)(h)Screening and buffering may be interrupted where
necessary for access consistent with the general provisions of this chapter;
Safety:
(h)(i)All fire hydrants are to be free of fences, hedges, and other
landscaping obstacles. Shrubs eighteen (18) inches in height and less must not be placed
closer than five (5) feet to a hydrant, and shrubs or trees larger than eighteen (18) inches
must not be planted closer than twenty (20) feet to a hydrant;
Freestanding Signs:
(i)(j)An area around the base of each freestanding sign
equal to the sign area must be landscaped to improve the overall appearance of the sign
and to reduce the risk of automobiles hitting the sign or supports of the sign. This
landscaping must include vegetation and may include other materials and components
such as brick or concrete bases, planter boxes, pole covers, or decorative framing;
Outdoor Storage:
(j)(k)In addition to any other requirements, storage yards
and garbage dumpsters shall be surrounded by a six (6) foot high solid wall or sight
February 2007 Zoning Code Amendments
DRAFT Attachment I
obscuring fence. The wall or fence shall be considered a structure and shall conform to
setbacks which may be required for building on street frontage. Outdoor storage of
materials shall not exceed six (6) feet in height when visible from a public right-of-way;
Parking Lots:
(k)(l)Parking lots shall comply with all of the landscaping
requirements for non-residential uses. In addition the following standards shall apply:
(1)Parking lot setback areas shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs,
ground covers, turf grasses, or combinations thereof. Non-living materials shall not
exceed twenty percent (20%) of the landscaped area at maturity;
(2)Parking lots shall have at least ten (10) square feet of interior
landscaping for each parking space. Required peripheral trees and required landscaped
setback areas shall not be included in the interior landscaping calculations;
(3)Interior landscaping shall be dispersed as equally as possible
throughout the parking lot;
(4)Each separate landscaped area shall be a minimum of fifty (50)
square feet and shall include at least one tree in combination with shrubs, ground cover or
other landscaping materials;
(5)Bio-swales and permeable pedestrian access ways through parking
lots, connecting landscaped areas, are encouraged and are included in the calculation of
required landscaping square footage;
(6)Lots larger smaller than thirty (30) spaces, are exempt from
internal landscaping requirements if:
(i) They have only a single aisle with parking spaces on one or
both sides;
(ii) They have at least a five (5) foot width of landscaping
across the frontage and along at least one other property line; and
(iii) The lot has no internal parking islands or peninsulas;
(7)Trees shall be provided along any property line abutting a
residential zone at a minimum rate of one (1) tree per each fifty (50) linear feet except
along property lines abutting an alley or already occupied by a building or other structure;
(8)If not necessary for visual buffering or if other trees are on or near
the property line, trees may be irregularly spaced or grouped rather than uniformly spaced
on the property line;
(9)Whenever possible, mature healthy trees, as defined in BMC
Section 20.50.040(e) already existing on the site shall be preserved. Credit may be given
by the Director at the time of Site Plan Review for the preservation of such a tree in
exchange for the loss of a parking space;
Clear Vision Triangle:
(l)(m)A clear-vision area shall be maintained at the
intersections of streets, alleys and commercial driveways, or combinations thereof as
determined by the City Engineer with the following requirements:
(1)A clear-vision area shall contain no plantings, fences, walls, other
structures, or visual obstructions within a vertical area extending from three (3) feet to
eight (8) feet above the ground, measured from the established centerline of the street,
alley or driveway;
(2)The foregoing provision shall not apply to:
(i)A tree trimmed to the trunk within the 3-8 ft. clear area;
February 2007 Zoning Code Amendments
DRAFT Attachment I
(ii)Other plant species that are so planted and trimmed as to
leave a clear and unobstructed cross-view in all seasons;
(iii)A supporting member or appurtenance to a permanent
building lawfully existing on the site.
(3) Where the maximum setback conflicts with the Clear Vision
Triangle relief from the maximum setback may be granted through a type I
director decision.
5) Amendment to BMC 20.60 R-10 – Garage Requirements
Purpose: To simplify and clarify the garage requirements. The section has been
difficult to implement and interpret as to what structures are being regulated and
how to apply those regulations. Also the size limitations have been very restrictive
for the majority of newly proposed garages within the city. These amendments will
create more flexibility for garage and accessory storage buildings in the residential
zone while maintaining them as clearly accessory uses to the home. The exact same
garage requirements are found in 20.79 Multiple Residential zone, although it is
only shown below in the Low Density Residential section, the amendment will apply
to both sections of the code.
20.60.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Lot Standards:
(a) Lot development requirements shall be in accordance
with BMC Section 20.60.060 and the following standards unless allowed for by law
otherwise:
(1) Setbacks.
(i) Minimum front yard setback is fifteen (15) feet;
(ii) Minimum side yard setback is five (5) feet;
(iii) Minimum rear yard setback is fifteen (15) feet.
(2) Maximum structure height is thirty-five (35) feet:
(3) Maximum structure height in R-10 areas within the Downtown
Regional Center shall be pursuant to figure 20.74 (a) and shall supersede BMC section
20.60.060 (2) above.
(4) Minimum lot width is thirty (30) feet;
(5) Maximum building coverage is sixty percent (60%).
Zero Lot Line (ZLL) Development
(b) An attached single-family dwelling
and/ or garage structure may have a single shared side or rear lot line, and a setback
reduced to zero provided the structure complies with building code fire separation
requirements.
GarageDetached Structures:
(c) The following standards shall apply to
attached garages, and detached garages, and accessory structures.
(1) The maximum area for garages and accessory structures
garage/carport (attached or detached) area shall be one-thousand (1,000)five-hundred
(500)square feet of gross floor area plus ten percent (10%) of gross floor area or sixty
percent (60%) of the principal residential use which ever is greater., provided:
(i) Garages and accessory structures include, but are not limited to the
following: Attached and detached garages, carports, barns, covered patios, cabanas,
February 2007 Zoning Code Amendments
DRAFT Attachment I
gazebos, and incidental household storage buildings, excluding accessory dwelling units
per BMC Section 20.46.010
(i)The garage/carport does not exceed 1,000 square feet;
(ii)The square footage of any one garage/carport structure may be
increased up to a maximum of 2,000 square feet of gross floor area if the setback from all
property lines is increased an additional five (5) feet over the minimum setback
requirement for each additional one-hundred (100) square feet of structure area exceeding
1,000 square feet.
(2)In addition to the requirements prescribed in BMC Section
20.60.060(c)(1), the maximum area of all accessory structures, including attached and
detached garages, carports, barns, covered patios, cabanas, gazebos, and incidental
household storage buildings, excluding accessory dwelling units per BMC Section
20.46.010, is fifty percent (50%) of the gross floor area of the principal use or five-
hundred (500) square feet, whichever is greater, subject to maximum lot coverage
standards.
(2) Any garage/carport structure shall be designed so that the appearance
of the building remains that of a single-family residence including the following:
(4)Constructed of similar materials and siding as the principal unit;
(5)A roof of equal or greater pitch as the principal unit;
(6)A height no more than twenty-five percent 25% greater than the
principal unit and never taller than thirty-five feet (35’).
(3)Maximum height of detached accessory structures (including
garages) shall not exceed the height of the principal structure.
(4) Setback of detached accessory structures is pursuant to BMC
Section 20.44.060.
Garage/Carport Vehicle Entrance DoorSetbacks:
(d) When the garage or
carport vehicle door entrance faces the street, the garage or carport it shall have a front
yard setback of at least twenty (20) feet, except as provided in BMC Section 20.44.020
(Traditional Front Yard Setbacks).
Lot Area for Parks & Schools:
(e) Parks and schools may exceed maximum
lot area requirements if approved by a Conditional Use Permit.
6) Amendment to BMC 20.60 R-10 – Density Calculation
Purpose: Clarification was needed to specify that the actual lot boundary should be
used not just the tax lot boundary. Several property owners have more than one lot,
but for tax purposes combine them to get one tax statement. More accurate
densities can be achieved by allowing the actual lot boundaries, not just the tax lot
boundaries to be used.
20.60.065 ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND LOT AREA
The purpose of this Section is to establish compatible levels of density within
existing neighborhoods. The intent is to allow infill residential development at densities
equal to or slightly higher than existing residential densities in the vicinity, to encourage
neighborhood compatible infill over time. The following density and lot area standards
are applicable to development within the zone:
February 2007 Zoning Code Amendments
DRAFT Attachment I
Minimum Density:
(a)The minimum required density is five (5) dwellings
per acre.
Maximum Density
(b): The maximum allowed density is subject to
neighborhood compatibility and the neighborhood average lot area as determined in
BMC Section 20.60.065(f), and the following corresponding target densities:
Neighborhood Target Density (Net)
Average Lot Area: (Dwellings Per Acre):
(1)ðÍÅ 7,501sq ft or greater 6
(2)ï×ØÓÇÏ 6,001 sq ft to 7,501 sq ft 8
(3)ôÓÕÔ 6,000 sq ft or less 10
Maximum Lot Area:
(c)The maximum lot area is 8,712 square feet, with the
following exceptions:
(1)The lot area may be modified through the approval of a Residential
Cluster Development pursuant to BMC Section 20.58.060;
(2)One (1) lot within a proposal for a division of land may exceed
8,712 square feet provided the remaining lots do not exceed the 8,712 square feet
maximum lot size; and
(3)A Flag Lot that complies with the requirements in BMC Section
20.44.100 may exceed the 8,712 square feet provided the total area of the Flag Lot does
not exceed 13,068 square feet.
Minimum Lot Area:
(d) The minimum allowed lot area is subject to
neighborhood compatibility and the neighborhood average lot area as determined in
BMC Section 20.60.065(f), and the following corresponding lot area:
Neighborhood Minimum
Average Lot Area: Lot Area Allowed:
(1)ðÍÅ 7,501 sq ft or greater 6,000 sq ft
(2)ï×ØÓÇÏ 6,001 sq ft to 7,500 sq ft 5,000 sq ft
(3)ôÓÕÔ 6,000 sq ft or less 4,300 sq ft
Exception to Minimum Lot Areas and Target Density:
(e)
(1)The minimum lot area may be modified through the approval of a
Residential Cluster Development pursuant to BMC Section 20.58.060, provided the
development complies with the maximum density requirement set forth in BMC Section
20.60.065(b).
(2)The minimum lot area in a center may be modified pursuant to
BMC section 20.60.066 (c)
(3)One (1) remainder lot with a proposal for a division of land may be
less than the minimum allowable lot area, provided it is no smaller than 4,300 square feet,
and provided the reduction is the minimum necessary to create the other conforming
lot(s).
February 2007 Zoning Code Amendments
DRAFT Attachment I
Determining Neighborhood Compatibility and Neighborhood Average
(f)
Lot Area:
New development is required to be compatible with the density of the
surrounding neighborhood. Compatibility is determined by calculating the average lot
area of all existing lots within one hundred fifty (150) feet from the outer boundaries of
the site subject to the following standards:
(1)All lots greater than 8,712 square feet shall be rounded down to
8,712 square feet to determine average lot area;
(2)The current platted orand un-platted tax lot boundaries recorded
with the Kitsap County Assessor shall be used to determine average lot area;
(3)Flag Lots meeting the requirements in BMC Section 20.44.100
shall have their lot area divided by one and one-half (1.5) to be used to determine lot
area;
(4)All lots containing two (2) or more dwelling units (not including
Accessory Dwelling Units) and all lots containing non-residential uses shall be rounded
down to 4,300 square feet to determine average lot area;
(5)All lots containing multi-family residential uses with twenty five
(25) or more units shall be considered ten lots with an area of 4,300 square feet each for
the purposes of this calculation. No further bonus is allowed regardless of the number of
units exceeding twenty five (25).
Target Density / Minimum Lot Area Discrepancy:
(g) Should a
discrepancy arise between the number of subdividable lots allowed through the
use of the Minimum Allowable Lot Area and the Target Density, the Minimum
Allowable Lot Area shall be the controlling factor in cases where nine (9) or
fewer lots are being created, and the Target Density shall be the controlling factor
in cases where ten (10) or more lots are being created.
7) Amendment to BMC 20.60 R-10 – Sign Standards
Purpose: To clarify the signage requirements for home occupation businesses.
20.60.100 SIGN STANDARDS
Signs shall meet the standards of BMC Chapter 20.52 and the following:
(a)One (1) sign with a sign area of up to eight (8) square feet may be allowed
to advertise a permitted Bed & Breakfast provided it matches the
architectural features of the primary residence.
(b)For a home occupation sign the residential district sign regulations BMC
20.52.120 shall apply.
(b)(c)When an established business use is located in the Low Density
Residential zone, the special purpose sign regulations in BMC chapter
20.52.130 shall apply.
February 2007 Zoning Code Amendments
DRAFT Attachment I
8) Amendment to BMC 20.70 District Center Core
Purpose: To provide consistent wording throughout all the zoning code chapters
relating to maximum development coverage, this chapter uses maximum lot
coverage instead of development unlike the rest of the chapters.
DISTRICT CENTER CORE (DCC)
20.70.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
Lot development shall be in accordance with the following unless allowed for
otherwise by law:
(a) Front yard setback. No minimum front yard setback. The maximum front
yard setback is ten (10) feet. At least eighty percent (80%) of a building’s front façade
shall meet the maximum front yard setback.
(b) Side yard setback. Zero (0) from non-residential zones, and ten (10) feet
from the low density residential zone.
(c) Rear yard setback. Zero (0) from non-residential zones, and ten (10) feet
from the low density residential zone.
(d) There is no maximum density for residential as a secondary use.
(e) Maximum building coverage: Sixty percent (60%) base maximum,
provided that through the use of any combination of the following, building coverage
may be increased up to eighty-five (85%) maximum.
(1) Projects containing mixed uses: ten percent (10%) bonus.
(2) Projects with three (3) or four (4) story building: ten percent (10%)
bonus.
(3) Projects providing a pedestrian oriented plaza or area of at least
one hundred fifty (150) square feet along a pedestrian walkway at an intersection corner,
bus stop or other key pedestrian area approved by the city. Such areas shall contain
seating for at least four (4) people, a trash receptacle and three (3) or more of the
following: a pedestrian shelter, a drinking fountain, a bike rack, pedestrian scale lights,
pavers on the walkway surfaces, a kiosk, a street vendor station providing food or
beverages, trees, an appropriately sized statue or sculpture, or a public restroom. Interior
courtyards with these amenities qualify if they would be readily apparent and accessible
to pedestrians on adjoining sidewalks: twenty percent (20%) bonus.
(4) Projects providing a through-block corridor that facilitates
pedestrian access in a location approved by the city: five percent (5%) bonus.
(5) Projects providing at least fifty percent (50%) of their required
parking underground or within the building: twenty percent (20%) bonus.
(f) Maximum developmentlot coverage: Maximum development lot coverage
by impervious surfaces, seventy-five (75 %) maximum, provided that through the use of
any combination of the mechanisms listed in BMC Section 20.70.060(E)(1) through (5)
above, up to ninety-five (95%) maximum development coverage may be allowed.
(g) Maximum building height: 50 feet.
February 2007 Zoning Code Amendments