Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/15/2008 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) January 15, 2008 5:30 P.M. th 345 – 6Street Meeting Chamber – First Floor I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL (quorum present) III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS IV. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA VAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 20, 2007 Regular meeting. o VI. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B. Public Meeting 1. Workshop to discuss Commercial Corridor development standards VII. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer. C.Old Business: D.New Business VIII. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is February 19, 2008 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us Public Hearings Procedures A. The public hearing is announced by the chairperson. The chairperson may set a time limit for public comment. B.STAFF REPORT: A member of the City staff provides a summary of the proposal, its location, and other information about the proposal. Visual aids may be used. C.WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Staff informs the Commission of written comments that have been received. Letters or petitions may be read into the record at this time. D.PUBLIC TESTIMONY: (in following order) a. Those in favor (proponents) of the proposal may comment. b. Those in opposition (opponents) may comment. c. Those having comment of a neutral nature may comment. d. Final staff comments. E.HEARING IS CLOSED: Commission deliberates and may ask questions of City staff, the applicant, or any member of the public. The hearing may be re-opened by additional public comment if determined appropriate by the chairperson. F. A motion is made to approve, deny, or take other appropriate action. The decision is made by roll call vote. How to Testify Effectively at a Public Hearing: Speak into the microphone (the meeting is being recorded). State your name for the record (address is optional). Keep testimony brief, concise and factual. Address all your concerns the first time. Use notes if necessary. Give written materials, maps, petitions, etc., to the secretary for the record. DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 1/15/08 Minutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 20, 2007 I. Call to Order Chairman Cockburn The meeting was called to order by at 5:32 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Mosiman, Commissioner Streissguth (arrived at 5:36), Commissioner Wheeler and Chairman Cockburn. Commissioners Kosusko and Hoell were excused. Quorum certified. Also present: Andrea Spencer, Geoff Wentlandt, and Pam Ransier (DCD staff); Mike Mecham and Larry Matel (PW&E staff); and John Perlic (consultant to the City). III. Approval of Agenda Chairman Cockburn introduced the agenda. It was agreed by general consensus to approve the agenda as presented. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Special Meeting held on October 23, 2007 were presented for approval by A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Chairman Cockburn. Commissioner Mosiman to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2007 as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner Wheeler: Yes; Chairman Cockburn: Abstain. The motion carried. VI. Public Meeting A.Call To The Public. (public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda) Chairman Cockburn asked if there were any commentsfrom citizens. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. B. 1. Public Hearing – 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. Action items were also included in the sub-area plan to guide Community Development and other departments in future development. Geoff responded to questions regarding building scale, stacked units, and build-out numbers brought forth by the commission at the Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 2007 Page 1 of 6 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 1/15/08 previous meeting. Using a slide showing local and international landmarks such as the large shipyard crane, the Smith Tower and Space Needle (Seattle), and the Eiffel Tower (Paris, France), Geoff illustrated how the proposed building heights in downtown Bremerton would measure in comparison. The issue of stacked flats in the proposed R-20 near Evergreen Park had been revisited and it is believed a workable solution has been found for owner-occupied, ground related stacked flats. For build-out or development numbers, additional research by staff has shown that the commercial increase under the proposed sub-area plan compared to the 2004 Comprehensive Plan would be about 3%; residential would be an increase of about 7% to 8%. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan had not taken into consideration the neighborhoods at the edges of the downtown core and had relied on a 2001 study called The Calthorpe Plan for projected density. Staff also requested the ability to make minor adjustments to the parking quantity and the addition of broader language regarding the Multi-Family Tax Incentive boundary before bringing this plan to City Council for action. Letters from Brad Rucker, Metrovations Development Company (Ron Sher), Kim McDonald, and Gardner Johnson were entered into the record. Chairman Cockburn asked if there were any comments from the public on this item. Mark Goldberg, MS Cavoad Co., Seattle, WA : “First I want to commend the City’s Department of Community Development staff for doing an incredible job of bringing in this company who did this sub-area plan. I’ve been in the development business over 30 years in the greater Seattle area, and this is one of the finest plans I’ve seen put together. As, I think, most people know, I’m very active in town here and I’ve been watching this thing come together and this is very well thought out. I’ve said to the people that, staff, over the years (none of them are here today), that until the City develops a plan that makes the land more valuable than the houses, none of these houses around here are ever going to disappear. This plan absolutely does it and I heartily recommend the passage of this and the tax abatement over all the area the plan, not just including condominiums, but in apartments. It’s critical that we have housing for the workforce that’s going to come here. Not everybody’s going to be able to afford a condominium. Thank you.” Pastor Dennis Payne, Ebenezer AME Church, Bremerton, WA: “We sit on Park Avenue and own property on McKenzie and, working with the staff, we recommend that this recommendation go forward. We’ve been in the City for 95 years and one of our biggest obstacles is parking and alleyways so we would love to see that area rezoned so that we can have some mixed-use and some condos or some apartments on top with the retail space on the bottom. I commend the committee for their work and ask that we would move this forward. Thank you.” Kurt Weist, Bremerton Housing Authority, 110 Russell Road, Bremerton, WA : “I also am very pleased with the process that the City has gone through up to this point with the sub-area plan. The Housing Authority owns a significant piece of property on Park thth Avenue between 7 and 8 and Warren. Included on that parcel of land is an existing Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 2007 Page 2 of 6 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 1/15/08 multi-family apartment complex, The South Court Apartments, and we’ve also spent some money doing brownfield remediation of property that’s been contaminated. That work has been completed on the block. We’re looking forward to providing a development on that block that is something that will be a benefit to the City of Bremerton and provide workforce affordable housing for residents here. [Inaudible] talked with planning staff and consultants, let them know what our plans are and we’re very pleased with the direction that’s going with [inaudible] fits in very well with our vision of what we should do with that property, so I would endorse the work that’s been done thus far and look forward to Council approval as well. Thank you.” It was noted that several members of the Ebenezer AME Church concurred with Pastor Payne’s earlier comments regarding the Downtown Regional Sub-Area Plan. Chairman Cockburn asked if there were any further comments from the public on this item. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. Chairman Cockburn asked for clarification on how traffic to the ferry would flow as the Geoff obvious choice, Pacific Avenue, was slated for “pedestrianization”. explained that ferry traffic “trickles in” as compared to the rush of traffic leaving the ferry, thus the Mike Mecham emphasis on pedestrian traffic. , City Engineer, agreed, adding that the tunnel project would alleviate the heavier traffic exiting the ferry. Chairman Cockburn expressed concern regarding the addition of a median or turn lane th Mr to 11 Street and how that would impact the high volume of traffic in that area. . Mecham said that staff was waiting for a traffic study from EK Engineers (consultant to VIA Architecture). A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy recommend to City Council an amendment to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan adding the Downtown Sub-area Plan (shown in Attachment I), and an amendment to Zoning Code Chapter 20.80 to activate the development regulations of the Downtown Sub-area Plan (shown in Attachment II) based on the Findings and Conclusions (shown in Attachment III), and allow for correction of minor errors and omissions in advance of City Council review. Called for a vote: Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner Wheeler: Yes; Chairman Cockburn: Yes. The motion carried. 2.Public Hearing – Non-Motorized Transportation Plan:Mike Mecham, City Engineer , introduced the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. Using a Power Point slide show, Mr. Mecham gave an overview of the plan. He noted that many of the items listed in the plan would most likely not come to be for many years, but stressed the importance of having a non-motorized transportation plan in place when applying for grant money for sidewalk and roadway improvements. Stakeholders were included in the plan’s 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 as letters and e-mails from citizens. Mr. Mecham’s presentation highlighted areas of the city that needs Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 2007 Page 3 of 6 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 1/15/08 improvement and reviewed the plan to correct and enhance the non-motorized portion of Bremerton’s transportation problems. Chairman Cockburn asked if there were any comments from the public on this item. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the Meeting. Commissioner Kennedy asked about the appropriateness of having curb cuts in the Non- Mr. Mecham motorized Transportation Plan. said it was because it could still be regarded as separate from the plan when applying for grants, but the information was important for inventorying sidewalk needs. th Commissioner Wheeler asked about the proposed use of center left turn lanes on 6 Street. John Perlic (Parametrix) said that the language had been changed to be a center or left turn lane a center median, depending on the access needed. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Wheeler recommending the Non-motorized Transportation Plan per Attachment I to City Council for adoption. Called for a vote: Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes; Commissioner Wheeler: Yes; Chairman Cockburn: Yes. The motion carried. 3.Public Hearing – 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: Geoff Wentlandt, City Planner, presented the request for a land use designation rezone near Werner Road. The request had been introduced at the September 18, 2007, Planning Commission meeting and had been revised per the commission’s instructions to staff regarding the size and location of a proposed Neighborhood Business. The revised request also included the retention of an Industrial Park land use designation at Werner Road to allow the area to remain semi-industrial in character while providing access to the proposed residential development. Chairman Cockburn asked if there were any comments from the public on this item. Jeff Pantier, Hatton Godat Pantier (engineering/planning firm representing TriWay th Enterprises): “I was here on September 18, last time, and so I thank you for taking the time to hear this again. You thought you were done, but we’re back. I think that the work that Geoff has done here with this revised proposal is a better proposal than the one th that was brought before you on September 18. It’s a result of, as Geoff put it, sort of an understanding with the property owners in the area. I thought that it was interesting, in your deliberations back in September, that the Commission shared a common goal with that of TriWay Enterprises; that is, TriWay believes that, with the development of the West Hills project, along with this additional land that’s the subject of this Comprehensive Plan amendment, that there will be a need for some commercial services to support this residential development. And in looking at that, we thought that it would be better served and, as Mr. Mecham talks about making the city pedestrian friendly and so forth, I think that this is in line with that because what we’ve done is located the commercial area, the 1.5 acre area in red, central to the entire development, and so that’ll make it more accessible for the residents that are going to live in the development. It’s probably a little hard to see or put it in perspective on that map [indicates the map Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 2007 Page 4 of 6 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 1/15/08 provided to the commissioners by staff], but it truly is about as centrally located as you can get, considering where the main collector roadway traverses through the site from Pendergast Park area and then on up to Werner Road. So, we like that location; we also th like the idea that one of the findings that was made back in September 18 was that the Commission urged staff to continue to work with the property owner, TriWay Enterprises, with the development of this commercial area in such that, maybe it could grow to something larger than an acre and a half in the future. We support that and we agree that we think there’s potential for something greater there. You see the area that Geoff’s dotted in red around their potential future expansion; we believe that that’s a very good possibility that we’ll be back to you in a few years to talk about that. But we also understand that the plan needs to unfold before we go there. I would urge the Commission to recommend approval of this to the Council, and include a similar finding th that the Commission made September 18 whereby the staff continues to work with TriWay and address the needs for a commercial center in this area, of appropriate size, to serve the entire neighborhood. I’m happy to answer any questions if you have any. Thank you.” Chairman Cockburn asked if there were any further comments from the public on this item. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. There was general discussion regarding clarification of where the access road to the development would be. Staff used an aerial map to show the access roads. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to revise the Planning Commission’s recommended action of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket as shown in Attachment I based on the revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions in Attachment II. Called for a vote: Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes; Commissioner Wheeler: Yes; Chairman Cockburn: Yes. The motion carried. Chairman Cockburn closed the Public Meeting. VI. Business Meeting A.Chairman’s Report: None. B.Director’s Report: Andrea Spencer, Director of Community Development, reported that Geoff Wentlandt had been promoted from Planner II to Senior Planner. Because of a heavy City Council agenda, staff is recommending cancelling the December 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Community Development has received a $125,000.00 grant to be used for the study of school siting and its relationship to the City’s land use plan. C.Old Business:None Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 2007 Page 5 of 6 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 1/15/08 D.New Business: None. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for January 15, 2008. Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________________ Andrea Spencer, Executive Secretary Approved by: _______________________________________ John Cockburn, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 2007 Page 6 of 6 Commission Meeting Date: January 15, 2008 Agenda Item: V.B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Workshop to discuss modification to the Commercial Corridor development standards relating to setbacks from neighboring residentially zoned properties. DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Nicole Ward, City Planner SUMMARY Since the adoption of the Zoning Code in 2005 staff has become more familiar with the code and has recognized areas in need of improvement. 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 purpose of this meeting is to have a round table brainstorming session to determine the best plan of action. This round table discussion typically takes place within the planning department, however due to the complexity of this issue it seemed appropriate to get Planning Commissions input prior to drafting any code revisions. The issue at hand relates to the Commercial Corridor Zone (CC) and the setback required from adjoining residential properties. The CC zone requires all properties adjacent to the Low Density Residential Zone (R-10) to maintain a 60’ setback from the R-10 zone. The intent of this requirement is to buffer the residential properties from adverse impacts including light, glare, and noise from a commercial use. The problem is that this 60’ setback has denied several properties the right to build anything at all on their property, and has reduced the building envelope of most of the properties to less than half the property size. The setback clearly must be reduced while maintaining the initial intent of buffering the residences from neighboring commercial uses. The CC zone is not unique in that all of the zoning districts within the City have properties that are adjacent to the R-10 zone. Each zone has provisions to buffer the impact of commercial or industrial development from the R-10 zone through setbacks and landscaping requirements, as seen in Exhibit A. Zones with similar allowed uses require a 10’ setback, while zones that allow more intense industrial and manufacturing uses require a 20’ setback. The Wheaton Way Redevelopment Corridor (WWRC) requires a 30’ setback which may also need to be addressed in this process. Screening provided through landscaping may provide equal or better protection for residences than a setback alone because a landscaping can block light, and noise without using much land. While working on this project staff reviewed the screening requirements in the landscaping section of the code and the various screening requirements within the code. The zone specific requirements seem to change from zone to zone and are not necessarily any more restrictive than what is applied to all zones through the landscaping section of the code. Within the attached PowerPoint presentation is a chart comparing the requirements of different zones and a sample of other jurisdictions screening requirements. Staff is requesting your ideas and input on how best to modify the code to achieve the best possible outcome for both the commercial and residential property owners. OPTIONS Staff has internally reviewed this issue and provided the following potential policy directions: Reduce the CC setback to be consistent with other commercial zones and require a 10’ setback. This could include or exclude a landscaped buffer. Reduce the CC setback to be consistent with the Freeway Corridor and Industrial zones by setting the setback at 20’. This could include or exclude a landscaped buffer. Change the WWRC setback to match that of the CC zone and or other commercial zones. Standardize the sight obscuring landscaping requirements to be consistent from zone to zone. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: PowerPoint presentation with maps and graph STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Commission review the materials provided and provide direction to staff for the drafting of revised code language to present at the February Planning Commission Hearing. No action is required at this time.