Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/2007 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) November 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: October 23, 2007 Special 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 Hearing 1. Downtown Regional Sub-Area Plan 2. Non-Motorized Transportation Plan 3. 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket 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 December 18, 2007 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 11/20/07 Minutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Special Meeting October 23, 2007 I. Call to Order Vice-Chairman Mosiman The meeting was called to order by at 5:03 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Hoell, Commissioner Kennedy, Vice-Chairman Mosiman, Commissioner Streissguth, and Commissioner Wheeler. Commissioner Kosusko and Chairman Cockburn were excused. Quorum certified. Also present: Andrea Spencer, Geoff Wentlandt, and Pam Ransier (DCD staff); Mike Mecham and Larry Matel (PW&E staff); Alan Hart, Kate Howe, and John Perlic (consultants to the City). III. Approval of Agenda Vice-Chairman Mosiman 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 September 18, 2007 were presented for approval by A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded Vice-Chairman Mosiman. by Commissioner Kennedy to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2007 as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Hoell: Abstain; Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes; Commissioner Wheeler: Yes; Vice-Chairman Mosiman: Yes. The motion carried. VI. Public Meeting A.Call To The Public. (public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda) Vice-Chairman Mosiman asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. B. 1. Public Workshop – Downtown Regional Sub-Area Plan:Geoff Wentlandt, City Planner , introduced the Downtown Regional Sub-Area Plan and gave a brief history of the sub-area plan process and explained the purpose of a sub-area plan. Planning Commission Meeting October 23, 2007 Page 1 of 5 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 11/20/07 VIA Architecture was hired by the City as a consultant to create a Sub-Area Plan for the Downtown Regional Center. A draft of this plan had been distributed to the Planning Alan Hart Commission prior to this meeting. from VIA Architecture reviewed the draft with the commissioners. His presentation of the draft plan included a Power Point slideshow to highlight specific points in each of the six chapters of the draft plan. Vice-Chairman Mosiman asked if there were any comments from the public on this item. Seeing none, he moved on to Commission discussion and comment. Vice Chairman Mosiman began the commissioner discussion by asking for clarity regarding Chapter 6 and the Bonus Amenity chart, which seemed directive, and the Bonus Incentive Program and the Bonus Amenity Program which appeared to have more Mr. Hart flexibility. explained that “incentive” and “bonus” were interchangeable; it was desired to have flexibility in the program so it can change or evolve over time if needed. Vice-Chairman Mosiman wanted to know if the term “program” denoted Mr. Hart flexibility or if there was a prescriptive type of program. said it would be Geoff assessed based on the need of the area. added that, since the Bonus Amenity Program is new to Bremerton, it’s easier to think of the chart as more of a menu of amenities to choose from to increase the development’s area. Commissioner Hoell asked about Chapter 2, Market Analysis (page 2-13), referring to a Kate Howe Local Improvement District. , (VIA Architecture), explained that a Local Improvement District (LID) is a taxation vehicle where property owners in a particular area choose to pay for public realm upgrades such as sidewalks. Commissioner Kennedy asked for a definition of “honest industrial material” (ED-116). Mr. Hart suggested using the term “authentic” to describe materials such as brick, stone, metal, etc. Commissioner Wheeler referred to page 3-20 and asked for language clarification on tower spacing, as the draft could be interpreted as requiring 80-foot towers and not 80 feet of space between towers. Commissioner Hoell asked what was meant with the reference to negotiating the height Ms. Howe of towers. said it was a determination to be made by the Design Review Board (DRB) for flexibility. Vice-Chairman Mosiman asked why the draft did not allow stacked flats in the Mr. Hart Evergreen Park area (page 4-38). explained that stacked flats are usually apartment buildings and the draft plan is encouraging doors that open at street level. Geoff added that the Evergreen Park area is primarily ground level entrances on single- family residences and the draft plan proposes increasing the density while visually Vice-Chairman Mosiman maintaining the character of the existing neighborhood. asked for a change in language rather than an outright prohibition. Commissioner Wheeler asked for clarification of the unlimited tower height (Chapter 4, Mr. Hart page 2, Figure 4.4). explained that it was intended to be provocative, but felt it would be a good marketing tool; construction type would definitely limit the height of a Planning Commission Meeting October 23, 2007 Page 2 of 5 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 11/20/07 structure, as well as the number of amenities that could be implemented to achieve higher Geoff building heights. added that a lot of it has to do with the desired building form. It’s easy to focus on the height limit, but the tools available through the Amenity Bonus Program don’t just allow a tall building; a full range of public benefits have to be included in order to achieve the taller building heights. This new format encourages tall slender towers with multiple public amenities rather than the old form of development, Mr. Hart filling the entire property and just increasing height. stressed that the development is based on quality and not just bulk. Commissioner Streissguth expressed concern regarding the proposed building heights in the Downtown Regional Center Sub-Area Plan and how this could affect the population allocations for other centers within the city. Mr. Hart acknowledged her concern and explained that cities have goals that can be adjusted along the way to achieve the desired balance. He felt that, at this point in time, Bremerton needs a catalyst to begin development and adjustments to the plan can be made once the momentum is going. Geoff offered to have build-out numbers available to the commissioners by the next Planning Commission meeting. Vice-Chairman Mosiman asked if there were any comments from the public on this item. Patricia Graf-Hoke, Bremerton: Ms. Graf-Hoke spoke briefly about the zoning for the Evergreen Park area which, at the time she purchased her property, had been zoned Mixed Use. She thought it had been changed to Single Family Residential (R-10) and wanted to know what the long-term use of that area would be. Staff explained that the area she was speaking of currently allows for mixed-use development. Vice-Chairman Mosiman asked if there were any further comments from the public on this item. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. 2.Public Workshop – Non-Motorized Transportation Plan:Mike Mecham, City Engineer , introduced the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. He reminded the commissioners and audience that many of the items included in the proposed plan would not come about in the near future but were important enough to note. Funding for city improvements such as sidewalks and trails comes from the city budget as well as grant opportunities. The purpose of the non-motorized transportation plan is to create a more livable community; a socially healthy neighborhood is one where there are pedestrians and bicyclists taking advantage of the amenities provided in their area. Stakeholders were included in the planning process; these stakeholders included the school districts, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the West Sound Bicycle Club, Olympic College, Kitsap County, and Harrison Hospital. Two open houses were conducted to engage the community as well. Mr. Mecham’s presentation highlighted areas of the city that needs improvement and reviewed the plan to correct and enhance the non-motorized portion of Bremerton’s transportation problems. Commissioner Streissguth asked why the boardwalk extension did not appear in the summary of the non-motorized transportation plan the commissioners had received. JohnPerlic, Parametrix explained that the boardwalk extension is included but could Planning Commission Meeting October 23, 2007 Page 3 of 5 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 11/20/07 not be identified on the small maps; it would appear more clearly on a map that is 11” x 17”. In addition to the boardwalk, there are plans to construct a “bridge-to-bridge” loop. Vice-chairman Mosiman suggested making a continuous trail from Austin Drive Larry Matel, Public Works & through N.A.D. Park and on to Kitsap Way. Engineering , said that was a mapping error and a continuous trail currently exists, but coordination with Puget Sound Energy would be needed to make the trail accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists. Vice-Chairman Mosiman asked if there were any comments from the public on this item. Shirley Ryan, Marine Drive: “I’ve lived on Marine Drive for over 50 years and we definitely need a walking path. We’re not asking for a sidewalk, we’re just asking for an extension in the road that is flat and that we can walk, ride. I have a husband in a wheelchair, and so it’s very difficult to deal with it. The City has come through every year and cleaned out the gutters, which is great, [but] they’ve also widened the gutters and in some areas there’s maybe a foot [wide] shoulder. So it really is difficult, so I hope that something and be done. There’s probably 50 to 75 people out every day, rain or shine, that are running, walking.Please consider Marine Drive.” Mr. Mecham acknowledged that Marine Drive needs improvement and explained that it is included in the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan to improve that area for pedestrians and bicyclists once funding is in place. th Kevin Koski, 13 Street : Mr. Koski commented that, as an active pedestrian in the City of Bremerton, he noticed that many sidewalks are encroached upon by vegetation. He suggested a community outreach of some kind to reclaim that lost space, referring to it as a “sidewalk recovery program”. Dianne Robinson, Bremerton : “I just wanted to find out a little more about the sidewalks, especially the ones in Anderson Cove because we have a lot of children in that area. There’s not any sidewalks – there’s only a few and I’m really interested in finding out if that is going to be included in this non-motorized plan.” Mr. Mecham referred to a map showing areas of the city that are in need of improved sidewalks and showed that Anderson Cove was recognized as one of those areas once funding is established from Washington State’s “Safe Routes to Schools” fund. Vice-Chairman Mosiman asked if there were any further comments from the public on this item. Seeing none, he closed the Public Meeting. VI. Business Meeting A.Chairman’s Report: None. Planning Commission Meeting October 23, 2007 Page 4 of 5 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 11/20/07 B.Director’s Report: Andrea Spencer, Director of Community Development, reported that the City Council had adopted the Wheaton/Riddell Sub-Area Plan. The Manette area is next neighborhood slated for a sub-area plan. C.Old Business:Pam Ransier, Planning Commission Clerk, reviewed the proposed changes to the 1996 Planning Commission Bylaws. This item had been brought before the Planning Commission at the August, 2007, meeting. The proposed changes consist of thth changing the meeting place from 239 - 4 Street to 345 – 6 Street; removing Appendix A and any reference to it; and reformatting the agenda to reflect the order currently used A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and by the Planning Commission. seconded by Commissioner Hoell to approve the City of Bremerton Planning Commission Rules & Bylaws revised in August, 2007. Called for a vote: Commissioner Hoell: Yes; Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes; Commissioner Wheeler: Yes; Vice-Chairman Mosiman: Yes. The motion carried. D.New Business: None. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for November 20, 2007. Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________________ Andrea Spencer, Executive Secretary Approved by: _______________________________________ John Cockburn, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting October 23, 2007 Page 5 of 5 Commission Meeting Date: November 20, 2007 Agenda Item V.B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing on the Downtown Regional Center Sub Area Plan DEPARTMENT: Department of Community Development PRESENTED BY: Geoffrey Wentlandt, City Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Enclosed for Planning Commission review is a Draft of the Downtown Regional Center Sub Area rd Plan. The Commission conducted a workshop including public comment during the October 23 meeting. The Planning Commission meeting and public hearing is being conducted on November th 20, 2007. The Sub Area Plan includes two primary components: 1) an amendment to the 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan adding the Downtown Regional Center Sub Area Plan and, 2) development regulations for the Downtown Regional Center that will function as zoning upon Plan adoption. The Downtown Regional Center is approximately 130 acres in the core historic center of the City. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan designated the extent of the Downtown Regional Center (DRC). Downtown Bremerton is also designated as 1 of 5 Regional Metropolitan Centers in the PSRC Vision 2040 regional growth strategy. While comprehensive and regional plans call for downtown to become the ‘Metropolitan Center of the West Puget Sound’, a clear and detailed urban design strategy for greater downtown had not been developed at the time of the 2005 zoning code adoption. In the interim a ‘stopgap’ zoning scenario was put in place for greater downtown. In 2006 City Council funded work on a Downtown Sub Area Plan to ensure that future redevelopment of the downtown is coordinated and well designed. Extensive community and stakeholder meetings were held on the Sub Area Plan between the Spring of 2007 and the present. A Draft Plan was completed by the consultant in early October. Copies of the Draft can be viewed at the Bremerton City Hall, and on the City of Bremerton Web Page. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff advises the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing, consider public testimony, and formulate a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the Downtown Sub Area Plan and a text amendment to Chapter 20.80 of the Title 20 Zoning Code to activate the development standards of the Downtown Sub Area Plan. MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION Move to recommend to City Council an amendment to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan (Attachment I) adding the Downtown Sub Area Plan ,and an amendment to Zoning Code Chapter 20.80 to activate the development regulations of the Downtown Sub Area Plan (Attachment II)Attachment III) based on the Findings and Conclusions (. 1 INTRODUCTION The Downtown Sub Area Plan (Attachment I) is a detailed planning document that fits within the framework of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. This is the most complex and already-developed of the areas undertaken for Sub Area Planning since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. As a result, the Plan document is extensive and complex. To date several Planning Commission workshops have been held, and comments and revisions from a range of sources are incorporated in the attached Sub Area Plan. ANALYSIS The basic requirements for a Sub Area Plan are met and exceeded as follows. Comprehensive Plan Consistency – Chapter 1 addresses Comprehensive Plan policy consistency. As with other Sub Area Plans, overall development intensity called for in the Sub Area Plan is not expected to exceed the threshold evaluated at the time of the Comprehensive Plan. The Sub Area Plan focuses on providing a detailed urban design framework for the already planned density. Staff will conduct a separate limited buildout analysis on the revised zoning for documentation purposes. Public Participation Process –Chapter 1 addresses the public participation process. In sum, 3 public open houses and a wide range of stakeholder meetings were held over the course of 8 months. Extensive community input is integrated throughout the plan, meeting and exceeding requirements. Development Standards – Chapter 6 includes detailed development standards to function as zoning. These standards introduce a high level of review on design of new projects in downtown. Flexibility is introduced, as all standards except for height are negotiable through a design review board process. The development standards in the most intensive zones are structured with a system of bonuses to encourage provision of public amenities. Street Typologies – Chapter 5 of the document includes a series of typologies for streets and introduces a systems approach for the downtown street grid. Each street is assigned a ‘type’ based on its characteristics. And for each ‘type’ a desired set of streetscape standards are identified. With new development, and through city-initiated projects streets in downtown will be upgraded according to the typologies over time. The overall focus on street typologies is pedestrianization and multi- modal options. Additional Traffic Study – Since the suggested typologies imply some traffic revision, additional analysis on traffic flow is required. A related study in partnership with the Engineering department is being conducted to ‘test’ the streetscape typologies to ensure fluid traffic movement with streetscape upgrades under the prescribed buildout. Findings can be used to modify the proposed typologies as necessary at the time of City Council review. The additional traffic study for the downtown core is also ongoing. Instead of requiring new developments to do their own site-specific traffic analyses. The City is choosing to require a flat fee contribution to an in-house traffic study of the downtown street grid system. SEPA Adoption of development regulations and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan require evaluation of environment impacts through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. Because the Sub Area Plan is an area-wide land use action tied to an overall plan (not site-specific) SEPA review is treated as a “non-project action”. In the coming weeks the City expects to issue a SEPA Determination of Non-Signifigance (DNS) on the Plan. The action does not have a significant impact on the environment because the threshold of development is within the intensity already evaluated at the time of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement. No significant development capacity is being added. The DNS on the non-project action requires statutory notice, 2 review and appeal periods which the City will complete in advance of the Commission’s November Hearing on the Plan. OPTIONS 1. Forumulate a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the Downtown Sub Area Plan. 2. Continue the public hearing on the Downtown Sub Area Plan to a future date for additional review. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I: Staff RecommendedDowntown Sub Area Plan Attachment II: Staff recommended text amendments to Title 20.80.080 MD Zone to activate the Downtown Sub Area Plan Attachment III: Findings and Conclusions – Downtown Sub Area Plan Attachment IV: Downtown Sub Area Plan Buildout Analysis Memorandum Attachment V: Record of Comments & Revisions Since 10/23 Planning Commission Workshop 3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M EMORANDUM To: Planning Commissionssion From:From: Geoffrey WentlandtGeoffrey Wentlandt Date: Date: November 13, 2007November 13, 2007 Re: Re: Buildout Analysis Downtown Sub Area PlanBuildout Analysis Downtown Sub Area Plan This memorandum is to document how projected buildout per the draft Downtown Sub Area Plan (dated 11/20/07) is consistent with and within the general growth parameters established with the 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN General Background The 2004 Comprehensive Plan has a 20 year planning horizon. This is important because the allocated population and employment growth targets are projected to be met during the timeframe ending in 2024. Population and growth targets are specific numbers assigned by a state and county process. Land use planning is meant to accommodate target growth numbers. In many cases the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan has a full or ‘ultimate’ buildout of a land use designations with capacity greater than the specific growth target. This is to reflect that most of Bremerton is already developed, and redevelopment will only occur on select parcels over time according to site conditions and market factors. Therefore land use designations may reflect an ultimate 50 or 75 year buildout beyond the horizon of the Comprehensive Plan. This delay is quantified in the Comprehensive Plan with the use of generous ‘market factors’ in the technical appendices. The Downtown Regional Center (DRC) boundaries were formally established in the City of Bremerton Land Use Map (pg. 84). They are identical to those evaluated in the Downtown Sub Area Plan with the exception of two small additions. The DRC area of roughly 130 acres was established by this 2004 Land Use Map. General Policy Directives on Density In the Land Use descriptions (pages LU 50–60), which lay out policy and density parameters for each of the land use designations, the DRC is perhaps the least clearly defined. Density is listed as “40 units per acre (Requires future review).” Height is described as “Consistent with current zoning heights for downtown, details to be added”. Policy direction is stated “Create and revitalize the downtown as the premier urban center of the West Sound region, providing jobs, residential opportunities, and cultural and economic activities.” The DRC land use description clearly leaves room for more specific interpretation during a follow on Sub Area Plan effort. An interim zoning scenario was put in place given the leeway afforded for implementation of the DRC. It was based generally on the zoning in place prior to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan’s adoption. A quantitative analysis follows, but first a description of how the proposed development regulations meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan’s general density, height and policy parameters is described. The Comprehensive Plan’s overall density target of 40 dwelling units per acre for the DRC is reflected in the Sub Area Plan. A sizeable portion of the DRC retains zoning that is below the 40 unit / acre parameter. A “One and Two Family” (R-20; 22 acre) designation is retained. Several other areas of the DRC retain zoning for buildouts at or below the 40 unit per acre range. The Multi Family (MR-1 & MR-2; 37 acres), Pedestrian Oriented Mixed Use (POMU; 20 acres), and the Transit Corridor (TC; 4 acres) all reflect a townhouse or stacked flat building types that is likely to create between 30 and 40 units per acre. In the MR-1, the Waterfront and Highland overlays limit density to the 30 unit / acre range. In the POMU and TC ground floor commercial reduces residential density. To balance for areas allowed to build out below the 40 unit per acre parameter, the Downtown Core (DC; 22 acres) and Downtown Waterfront (DW; 13 acres) allow development of a density significantly greater. Tower type development in these zones enables buildings with development densities in the range of 80 – 175 units per acre. The DW and DC areas cover only 9 blocks, with many parcels already built out with buildings such as the Admiral Theatre, D-4 building, Norm Dicks Government Center and Harborside Conference Center, which are unlikely to redevelop. Development within the DC and DW could also be primarily commercial or office instead of residential. The only other zone in the Sub Area Plan, the Employment District (ED; 12 acres) prioritizes commercial uses over residential, limiting residential density. So in general terms, densities allowed under the proposed Downtown Sub Area Plan on balance approximate the residential density target of 40 units per acre identified in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. Building heights per the Downtown Sub Area Plan also meet the general Comprehensive Plan directive of “Consistent with current zoning heights of downtown, details to be added.” The referenced zoning heights ranged from single family heights in the Cogean / McKenzie area, to 120’ in the Highland / Pleasant neighborhood and most of the Downtown, 70’ in the downtown waterfront th area, and 60’ on Pacific Ave. north of 6 Street. The Sub Area Plan includes heights within this general range, with a much greater level of detail and design attention. The Sub Area Plan includes heights in some areas below the referenced prior heights, such as in the Highland / Pleasant area and the Employment District zone. And to balance, the Sub Area Plan allows for greater heights in the Downtown Core and Waterfront zones if public amenity is provided. Incentives and the bonus amenity program in the Sub Area Plan are intended to execute the Comprehensive Plan policy language calling to “Create and revitalize the Downtown as the premier urban center of the West Sound…”. The program will ensure that a top quality public realm is created in conjunction with new development. Page 2 QUANTATIVE BUILDOUT ANALYSIS 2004 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Tables 1 and 2 and text in the technical appendices to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan 13,000 additional residents are projected quantify buildouts and growth projections. Citywide, with approximately 7,475 in Centers and 5,600 distributed in infill development locations. Commercial square footage is projected for the Downtown Regional Center and other centers within LU Appendix Table 1 and 2. A wide range is projected for the DRC because demand for commercial space is difficult to predict. After a market factor of 50% for the 20 year horizon is applied, new 810,000 GSF commercial space (both office and retail) is projected at about . New employment is projected for a low of 652 to a high of 1630. Land Use appendix Tables 1 and 2 also detail residential buildout among centers. A total of 2,664 new residents are assigned to the DRC, and a market factor of 50% is applied, resulting in a 1,332 new residents projection of within downtown after the 50% market factor is applied. At 2.2 residents per housing unit this is about 605 units. Limitation of Comprehensive Plan Buildout Assumptions The 2004 Comprehensive Plan appears to have left considerable room for future Sub Area Planning of the downtown when buildout calculations were prepared. A close read reveals that the buildout analysis for the DRC covered only a 37 acre sub-portion of the DRC. (The full geography of the DRC designation is 130 acres as described above.) The 37 acres covered only the Downtown Waterfront and Downtown Core area as far west as Pacific Ave. – those areas addressed in the 2002 ‘Calthorpe’ illustrative revitalization plan. Because of the undefined nature of the land uses, and the need for future Sub Area Planning, the buildout projections left the DRC ‘edges’ out of the centers buildout calculation. As a result the calculation shows a high proportion of commercial development (encouraged in the DC and DW areas) and a relatively low amount of residential development. The primarily residential portions of the downtown (Highland / Pleasant, Evergreen Park and Cogean/McKenzie) are not covered by the DRC buildout calculation in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, when buildout projections are prepared for the DRC as a whole, we should expect a projection of commercial space that is roughly on par with the 2004 projection, but a residential projection that is somewhat greater. This is the case as quantified below. SUB AREA PLAN BUILDOUT ANALYSIS A new buildout analysis is prepared with the Downtown Sub Area Plan and is summarized in the attached table. The Sub Area Plan analysis is more detailed than the overall Comprehensive Plan growth projection. The acreage of each of the Sub Area Plan’s new zone designations is calculated in GIS. Full buildout of all parcels in the Sub Area is estimated for each zone. Then a market factor consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is applied. This arrives at a 20 year buildout total for all land within the Downtown Sub Area. But in order to provide a comparison with the growth projections of the Comprehensive Plan (which tabulated new or additional growth only), netting out the amount of existing development is required. After subtracting the estimated existing DRC commercial space and population from the ultimate buildout, projected Sub Area Plan DRC growth figures are arrived at. Page 3 additional 831,836 GSF of commercial Resulting growth projection per the Sub Area Plan are: an spaceadditional 801 units of housing , and an for an additional 1,762 residents. As anticipated, the amount of commercial growth is on par with the 2004 Comprehensive Plan projection of 810,000 GSF. The Sub Area plan projection is just 2.7% higher. And as anticipated the amount of residential development projected per the Sub Area Plan is somewhat higher than the Comprehensive Plan projection of about 600 units. The Sub Area Plan projection shows increased expected residential development by about 32%. This additional residential development is largely due to the fact that the Comprehensive Plan did not account for growth in the MR, R-20, or POMU areas within its projection for the DRC. CONCLUSION New development standards associated with the proposed Bremerton Downtown Sub Area Plan do not call for significantly increased development in the DRC compared to what was projected at the time of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. Projections for new commercial space in the Downtown Core and Waterfront areas are very similar to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan projection. Residential development capacity is roughly 1/3 greater than projected by the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. However, the increase is due to land area not included in the original DRC projection for lack of information and detail on implementing zoning. The Downtown Sub Area Plan clearly meets the intent and policy direction as laid out in the land use chapter of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. The minor increases in development capacity within downtown are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s intent to prepare more detailed Sub Area Plan standards for downtown that would detail zoning. Page 4 ûèèûùôï÷îèóó FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary – Proposal to include the Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code by amendment. The Zoning Code will add reference in BMC 20.80.080 to activate the Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan as development regulations for the area. I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Project Description The Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area covers a 106 acre site in East Bremerton containing a range of existing commercial structures, and two separate 20+ acre tracts of undeveloped land. Wheaton-Riddell was designated a District Center in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. Extensive community and stakeholder meetings were held on the Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan between the Fall of 2006 and the present. The Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan was created in partnership between the City of Bremerton and Eberharter Architects, a project proponent for the City Villa development. The Wheaton – Riddell Sub Area Plan is somewhat unique because the process was driven by a design team with development interest in a specific location within the Sub Area (City Villa). However, because Sub Area urban design must function for the district as a whole the design team was required to partner with the City to review and plan for the full extent of the District Center. The Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan details the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. Urban Design concepts and development regulations are included to ensure consistency with the goals, policies and descriptive statements in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Procedural History A public participation process for the Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan has been ongoing since Fall of 2006. The Sub Area Plan includes documentation of the Public Design Process (Pgs. II-6 – II-10). A series of public open houses, and public workshop type meetings were held during various stages of the planning process. To solicit public participation notice was mailed to residents within 1,000 ft. of the site, published in the Kitsap Sun, and publicized through other outlets. Participation for the Sub-Area Plan has met and exceeded that required per BMC 20.80. Meetings were held as listed below. Bremerton Planning Commission 2.1 Public Open House #1 – 9/5/2006 2.2 Public Workshop #2 – 10/14/2006 1 2.3 Public Workshop #3 – 10/24/2006 2.4 Transportation Stakholders Meeting – 11/30/2006 2.5 Public Open House #4 – 7/31/2007 Bremerton Planning Commission 2.6 Hearing: August 21, 2007. 3. Public Comment Numerous individuals, groups, and agencies provided comments at public workshops, community meetings, and via comment cards and letters. Comments received were considered and used to develop the draft plan that was submitted to the City on August 13, 2007. Record of participants in community meetings is provided in Exhibit A to this Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusion. A general summary of public participation is documented on pages 11-6 – 11-10 of the Sub Area Plan. 4. SEPA Determination and Environmental Review Adoption of development regulations and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan require evaluation of environment impacts through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan is a non-project action considering general planning level items and land use regulations. A SEPA checklist has been prepared with the Sub Area Plan submittal. The City issued a determination of non- significance (DNS), which is in the public comment and appeals process at the time of Planning Commission review. Since development is within the parameters set forth in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan no additional environmental impact was found with adoption of the more detailed Plan element and development standards. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations also require a 60 day State Agency Review and Comment Period. The document has been forwarded th to state agencies and the review period commenced on July 18, 2007. At the time of preliminary plat application and building permits for the City Villa project a project level SEPA review will be required.The project level review considers project level impacts such as grading and stormwater conveyance etc. 5. Comprehensive Plan Consistency Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.10. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to the comprehensive plan if the criteria outlined below are met. The proposal is to add the Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plans as an amendment, providing more specific and detailed planning for the area. 2 5.1 BMC 21.06.080(A) allows amendments to the Comprehensive Plan if there is an obvious technical error.- Not applicable to this project. 5.2BMC 21.06.080(B) allows amendments to the Comprehensive Plan if the following criteria have been met. 5.2 (1) The amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA): This amendment is consistent with the GMA by meeting the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan which was created to achieve the 13 goals of the GMA. The Sub Area Plan meets the housing goal by providing a mixed use, mixed type dense housing stock. It meets the open space and recreation goal by creating green streets, and a coordinated open space system. It will reduce sprawl and promote urban growth by creating a dense mixed use environment. 5.2 (2) The amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan or other goals or policies of the City: The Wheaton Riddell Sub Area Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of District Center. Pages II-4 and II-5 identify specific goals and policies of the 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan that are met by this proposal for Wheaton-Riddell. Specific policies directly implemented are found in the Land Use, Community Character, Transportation, Housing and Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan. 5.2 (3) If the amendment was reviewed but not adopted as a part of a previous proposal, circumstances related to the proposed amendment have significantly changed, or the needs of the City have changed, which support an amendment; This amendment supplements and implements the Comprehensive Plan. It is based on the direction of the Comprehensive Plan to develop specific area plans for Center districts, and impacts are within the thresholds of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan evaluation. 5.2 (4) The amendment is compatible with existing or planned land uses and the surrounding development pattern; The Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan is compatible with adopted District Center land use and the surrounding development pattern. 5.2 (5) The amendment will not adversely affect the City’s ability to provide urban services at the planned level of service and bears a reasonable relationship to benefitting the public health, safety and welfare. The Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan will not adversely affect the City’s ability to provide urban services at the planned level of service. The amendment will benefit the public health, safety and welfare by achieving numerous City goals and policies, especially in the areas of Community Character (CC) and Land Use (LU), by promoting vibrant, cohesive neighborhoods, that are transit supportive. 3 6. Amendment to the Zoning Code An amendment to the Zoning Code, BMC 20.80.080 Master Development, is proposed to accompany adoption of the Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan. This amendment adds a reference to the Ordinance adopting the Sub Area Plan, thereby activating the development standards contained in the Plan as the zoning for the site. Zoning code text amendments shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020 (d). The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to the zoning code text if the criteria outlined below are met. 5.3 (1) 20.18.020 allows amendments to the Zoning Code if it is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. See discussion in 5.2 above for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and pages ii-4 and ii-5 of the Sub Area Plan. The Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan is fully consistent with the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. 5.3 (2) 20.18.020 allows amendments to the Zoning Code if it does not conflict with other City, state and federal codes, regulations and ordinances. The Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area plan does not conflict with any other regulations. II. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission concludes that the Wheaton- Riddell Sub Area Plan has met the requirements for 1) amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and 2) text amendments to the zoning code as detailed in BMC 20.80. Therefore the Commission recommends the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan and an amendment to the zoning code text in BMC 20.80 to include the Ordinance number of the Wheaton-Riddell Sub Area Plan. Respectfully submitted by: __________________________ Executive Secretary Approved by: __________________________ John Cockburn, Chair 4 Commission Meeting Date: November 20, 2007 Agenda Item V.B.2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Review Draft Non-Motorized Transportation Plan DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Works and Utilities PRESENTED BY: Mike Mecham EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff is pleased to present the Draft Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for review and comment. Please refer to the full Non-Motorized Transportation Plan document distributed during the October 23, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The plan presents a vision for a fully developed bicycle and pedestrian system to be implemented over the next 20 years. The plan goal is to increase overall pedestrian and bicycle facility connections in the City of Bremerton to make walking and bicycling a safe, comfortable, and attractive travel mode for residents, workers, commuters, school children, and visitors. The plan identifies a long list of projects and programs to transform Bremerton into a premier bicycling and walking community. The projects and programs would be implemented over the next 20 years in a phased approach. To establish momentum towards implementing the full list of recommendations, the plan identifies several key strategies for early implementation including: Implementing bikeway and walkway projects along the Mosquito Fleet Trail Developing and implementing a wayfinding signage plan Implementing “Safe Routes to School” pilot projects Updating Municipal Code requirements for bicycle parking Establishing a new staff position in the Street Maintenance section dedicated to implementing low cost signing, striping, and other pedestrian and bicycle facility projects MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION Move to recommend the Non Motorized Transportation Plan per Attachment I to City Council for adoption. ANALYSIS The Non-motorized Transportation Plan is a more detailed planning document that fits within the framework of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Non- motorized Transportation Plan identifies a more detailed and comprehensive list of pedestrian and bicycle improvement projects. 1 Comprehensive Plan Consistency – The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan currently contains a relatively brief section describing the existing non-motorized transportation system in the City of Bremerton and a limited number of planned improvements. The Non-motorized Transportation Plan would replace this section of the Transportation Element. Public Participation Process – A public participation process for the Non-Motorized Plan has been ongoing since March of 2007. The Plan includes a summary of stakeholder interviews, public workshops, and open houses held during plan development. To solicit public participation, notice was published in the Kitsap Sun and publicized through other outlets. Participation for the Non-motorized Transportation Plan has met and exceeded that required per BMC 20.80. Plan Implementation – Once adopted, the Non-motorized Transportation Plan will become an integral part of the City’s Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan also includes some recommendations that would require subsequent amendments to specific requirements in the zoning code. Projects and programs identified in the plan would be implemented by the City Department of Public Works and Utilities through the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. Federal, State, and Regional funding sources would also be pursued through various grant programs to implement some of the projects and programs. SEPA & Agency Review Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments requires evaluation of environment impacts through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The Non-motorized Transportation Plan is a non-project action considering general planning level items. The SEPA checklist will be prepared with the Non-motorized Transportation Plan submittal. We will seek a determination of non-significance (DNS), and the public comment and appeals process will be initiated during the time of the Planning Commission review. Since development is within the parameters set forth in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan no additional environmental impact was found with adoption of the more detailed Plan element and development standards. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations also require a 60 day State Agency Review and Comment Period. The document has been forwarded to State agencies for review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing on the Non Motorized Transportation Plan, and formulate a recommendation to City Council for adoption. OPTIONS 1. Hold a public heaing, consider testimony, and formulate a recommendation to City Council for adoption of the staff recommended Non Motorized Transportation Plan. 2. Hold a public hearing, consider testimony, and formulate a recommendation to City Council for adoption of the staff recommended Non Motorized Transportation Plan with amendments. 3. Continue the public hearing to a later time to allow additional discussion on the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. 2 ATTACHMENTS Attachment I: Draft Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (As distributed to the Planning Commission during the 10/23/07 Planning Commission Meeting.) 3 Commission Meeting Date: November 20, 2007 Agenda Item: V.B.3 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing on Revision to Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Geoffrey Wentlandt SUMMARY th During the September 18 meeting Planning Commission made a recommendation to City Council for approval of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment docket. Amendment I in the docket concerned land use redesignation of 97.09 acres in the Werner Rd. corridor. Staff brings a minor modification back to the Planning Commission on Amendment I in advance of City Council’s action on the docket scheduled for December, 2007. Please also refer to the Staff Report and associated materials from the September 18, 2007 meeting for background. When Planning Commission recommended Amendment I to Council it directed staff to work with the applicant to fine tune the size and location of a neighborhood business pocket. While working with the applicant in preparation for further hearings, it became apparent that while minor, the preferred adjustment was beyond the latitude Planning Commission had given to staff. Therefore, staff brings forward the adjustment to Planning Commission for its consideration. RECOMMENDED MOTION Move to revise the Planning Commission’s recommend action on the 2007 Attachment I Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket as shown in based on the Attachment II revised Findings of Fact & Conclusions in . ANALYSIS The applicant applied for, and Planning Commission recommended, land use redesignation from Industrial and City Utility Lands (97 total acres) to primarily Low Density Residential (LDR +/- 96 acres) with a pocket of Neighborhood Business (NB 1 – several acres). Both the size and the location of the NB pocket were discussed by Planning Commission. Questions were 1) whether the NB should be located on Werner Rd. or integrated within the residential area; and 2) whether adequate NB acreage should be given so it could grow into a Neighborhood Center over time. Staff developed a revised recommendation after looking more closely at factors including: the site plan of the adjacent planned subdivision, the character and traffic pattern on Werner Rd., and additional input from applicants and neighbors. The bulk of the proposal remains LDR. The following changes are proposed: A Neighborhood Business designation of 1.5 acres is integrated within the residential area rather than on the edge. An Industrial Park transition area of roughly 7 acres is proposed at the edge of Werner Rd. See Attached map. Resized / Relocated Neighborhood Business The Neighborhood Business (NB) is located more centrally within the Low Density Residential area to better serve a future neighborhood. The NB area is 1.5 acres to allow for an NB pocket that could at some future time transition to Neighborhood Center (NC). The NB is positioned in an area nearer the geographic center of the development and along the most major arterial roadway that will connect from Werner Rd. into and through the proposed development on the adjacent site. The applicant also indicates a potential area that could transition to Neighborhood Center at a future time in the vicinity of the NB. Staff recommends the location and size because it better meets the intent of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as follows: LU1C Focus on central organizing features in planning communities, Centers and neighborhoods. LU1L Strategically locate amenities such as parks, sidewalks, community centers, and gathering places to support residential areas. LU4A Improve pedestrian access to commercial and community services within Centers and neighborhoods. Industrial Park Buffer at Werner Rd. A revised land use redesignation to Industrial Park (IP) for that portion of the site closest to Werner Rd is proposed. After further discussing with the applicant, and choosing to move the Neighborhood Business area within the Low Density Residential, the recommendation for a transition area of Industrial Park near Werner Rd. was developed. The proposal is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described below and has several urban design and land use advantages. The 7 acre tail of the site connecting to Werner Rd. would be flanked by Industrial on both sides. A roadway onto Werner Rd. to future development in the LDR area would be located here, but the 7 acre tail itself may not be appropriate or viable for single family development. Further, staff received input from property owner Ace Paving, which is a joint applicant, that it would like the Werner Rd. corridor to continue having a semi-industrial character and land uses. The Light Industrial designation at Werner Rd. would create an organization of land uses whereby Werner Rd. would retain an industrial character. The large LDR neighborhoods would be primarily oriented to the south and east, and would retain some buffer from Werner via the 7 acre Industrial Park (IP) designation. With Industrial Park (IP) the land use is more orderly and better meets the Comprehensive Plan policies and direction as follows: LU pg. 57. Industrial Park Policy Direction: Provide for appropriate locations for light industrial uses in a well planned complex. Industrial Parks should include adequate landscaping, architectural standards, and other site design consideration to assure compatibility with neighboring uses – especially residential areas. LU1J Buffer surrounding communities from regional transportation corridors, allowing for transitional and sensitive development patterns. Ensure flexibility and options for buffering. OPTIONS 1. Recommend the revised 2007 Comprehensive Plan Docket to City Council for Adoption. 2. Do not revise the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Docket. 3. Formulate another recommendation for Amendment I of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan docket. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I – Proposed Revision to Amendment I of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. Attachment II – Revised Planning Commission Findings of Fact & Conclusions for 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed revision to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, conduct a public hearing, consider public testimony, and recommend adoption of the revised amendment to City Council.