The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/21/2013 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) May 21, 2013 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: April, 2013Regular meeting. Î V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: B. Workshop: 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer. C.Old Business: D.New Business VII. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is June 18, 2013 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT Subject to May 21, 2013Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULARMEETING April 16, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Josecalled theregularmeeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners PresentStaff Present Chair JoseAndrea Spencer,Director,Department of Community Development Vice Chair TiftNicole Floyd, Current Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Others Present Commissioner Dinkuhn Scott Daniels, Deputy Director, Kitsap Health District Commissioner Lambert Commissioner Simpson Commissioner Strube Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHTMOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2013AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER DINKUHNSECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Jose asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the publicportion of the meeting. Workshop: 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update Overview of State Requirements for Comprehensive Plan Updates Director Spencer advised that the City will undertake a major update of its Comprehensive Plan in 2016. She referred them to a document that was prepared by the Washington State Department of Commerce, which provides a concise summary of the 14 Growth Management Act (GMA)goals. Recognizing that there are a lot of concepts associated GMA, she said staff felt it would be useful forthe Commission to have lectures by people both outside and inside the City who are experts in various fieldsto help themidentify areas where the current Comprehensive Plan is deficient or already strong. She introduced Scott Daniels, Deputy Director, Kitsap Health District, who was present to share information about how the City’s Comprehensive Plan could be amended to support public health. Comprehensive Plan Update Guest Speaker: Scott Daniels, Kitsap Public Health District, on Importance of Incorporating Public Health in a Comprehensive Plan Mr. Daniels saidhe was present to talkabout the connection between comprehensive planning and health. He referred to the “Kitsap Community Health Priorities” (KCHP) study(see this web page for report: )that was done to help identify and understand themajor health issues in Kitsap http://www.kitsapchp.com/CHAR_data.html County, which are chronic disease and climate change. Using the assessment data,people from throughout the community worked together to write a plan thataddresses the highest health priorities, and areport card was prepared to enable the health district to track very specific indicators year by year to identify changes. He shared a graphic illustration showing that the population in Bremerton and Kitsap County, as a whole, is rapidly aging. Any future plans by the publichealth district and the City must address this massive aging population.He particularly noted the increase in population between the ages of 45 and 69. He also referred to other data pieces from the report, which are interesting from a planning perspective such as: Race/Ethnicity(Sections A.2.1 and A.2.2). Bremerton has the most diverse population of any geographic jurisdiction in the County. It also has the lowest population growth (1.2%). As a comparison, population growth in Bainbridge/North Kitsap was over 11% and South Kitsap is growing very rapidly, as well. Income/Poverty(Sections B.2.1 through B.2.5). Bremerton has the lowest income and the highest poverty of any section in the County. Education(Sections B.3.1 through B.3.3). Bremerton has lower levels of education, as well. Single-Family Households(Section B.4.2). Of all the households that have children in the City of Bremerton, half are single-family households. This is a striking statistic from a planning perspective on a number of fronts. Built Environment(Sections C.2 and C.3) Crime(Sections F.2.4, F.2.5 and F.2.7). Bremerton has the highest crime rate in the county. This is a concern for the public health district; not just because people are subject to become victims of crime, but it creates safety concerns for people who feel less safe to go outside for physical activity. This can exacerbate chronic disease rates. Life Expectancy(Section H.1.1). The public health district has a saying that you can tell how healthy a person is based on zip code. In the City of Bremerton, life expectancy is the lowest in the County. Mr. Daniels said that although the data he provided is discouraging, the issues can be addressed and improved. He encouraged the Commissioners to review the sections identified, and specifically review the Bremerton data. Mr. Daniels advised that chronic diseases are the new leading causes of death in the United States. In the early 1900’s most deaths were related to infectious diseases such as pneumonia, tuberculosis and diarrhea. While these illnesses are still present in the community, their rateshave dropped significantly due to advances in health care. However, the rate of deaths associated with non-communicable, chronic diseases (heart disease, cancer, stroke) has rapidly increased. About80% of deaths in the United States are from chronic diseases, and 75% of all health care costs are for chronic diseases (about $1.7 trillion per year). Between 1996 and 2005, the number of people aged 25 to 44 with more than onechronic disease doubled. Almost one in two adults in the United States has at least one chronic disease, and about 1 in 15 children have been diagnosed with achronic disease. He said common risk factors are not enough physical activity, poor eating habits and/or tobacco use. Common riskconditions include obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol Mr. Daniels shared a graphic illustration comparing hospitalizations associated with diabetes in Washington State in 1990- 1992 to those in 2008-2010. He noted that the rate has significantly increased in every county, which is consistent with nationwide trends. He noted that in Kitsap County 41% of all adults are not getting enough physical activity and 72% are not eating enough fruits and vegetables. About 16% are current smokers, and this rate has actually gone down due to policy initiatives such as a ban on smoking in public places and increasing cigarette taxes. He further noted that Kitsap County is slightly lower (59%) than the national average on overweight or obese people, but Bremerton is a little higher (62%). About Mr. Daniels 40% of adults in the county now have high cholesterol and 30% have high blood pressure. shared data comparing the City of Bremerton with other jurisdictions in the county. He noted Bremerton has the highest rate of diabetes- Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 213 April 16, 2013 ~ Page of related hospitalizations, and Bainbridge Island has the lowest. He advised that this is due, in a large part, to social determinants of health (income, race, education level, etc.). Mr. Daniels said it is clear that the health system in the United States has significant problems. He provided a graphic illustration showing the life expectancy in various countries in the world and health spending per capita in United States dollars. He summarized that the United States spends significantly more per capita than any other country, but their life expectancy is lower than many. One identified problem is that the United States does not spend enough money to prevent illnesses. In 2009, only 1% of health care dollars were spent onprevention and 99% was spent on medical care after an illness had occurred or/and biomedical research aimed at fixing problems after the fact. He provided two pictures of upward- bound classes at Miami University in both 1967 and 2008, noting that the latter class was significantly more obese. Mr. Daniels explained that the characteristics of a healthycommunity include adequate pedestrian and biking infrastructure, less traffic, higher-quality housing, sufficient public transit, and community amenitiessuch as grocery stores, parks and community centers. The healthybenefits from these positive community characteristics include fewer injuries, lower rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, less asthma and respiratory illness, fewer injuries, lowerstress, better mental health and greater social interaction. The economic effects include increased home values, increased productivity, increased home values, higher worker and student productivity and more local jobs. Environmental effects include reductionof fossil fuel use, higher air quality, increased energy efficiency and a smaller carbon footprint. He pointed out that the City of Bremerton’s Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue of pedestrian and biking infrastructure better than most. He noted that a lack of these types of facilities can impact residents. For example, noisy, busy streets can result in less social cohesion, more stress and mental health issues, and residents are less likely to meet each other. Having unsafe places to walk and bike can result in more pedestrian and cyclist injuries and less physical activity. Fewer sidewalks and bike lanes can result in less physical activity and higher rates of chronic disease. Mr. Daniels said the public health district workswith cities to encourage active living by providing walking and biking infrastructure, complete streets, traffic calming, public transportation and linkages to transportation, mixed-use development, schools within walking distance from residential areas, outdoor recreational facilities, and safe neighborhood design. They also work with cities to increase opportunities for healthy eating by encouraging urban agriculture, community and school gardens, local food processing and value added production, more access to healthyfood retailersand farmer’s markets, less access to unhealthy food and convenience stores. Mr. Daniels NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF HEALTH. shared study information he found in the In this study, one-third of the women living in a low-incomeneighborhood were given housing vouchers to move to a higher-income neighborhood. Over a 10-year period, the obesity and diabetes rates in this group of people improved compared to those that stayed behind. The study concluded that the health improvements were similar to diet and exercise programs or the use of medications to treat diabetes. Moving someone to a better neighborhood resulted in measurable health improvements. That is why it is important to improve the quality of neighborhoods and communities. Mr. Daniels said the Kitsap Public Health District also hired outside assistance to review the various comprehensive plans in Kitsap County. The purpose of this exercise was to help local planning staff and elected officials understand how Comprehensive Plans can be amended to improve public health. The consultant reviewed the City of Bremerton’s plan and provided recommendations on how itcould be improved to encourage healthyliving and eating. The analysis points out the strengths of the City’s plan, as well as the areas that might be improved. Mr. Daniels emphasized that, in addition to working with state and local governments, the health district also works closely with schools, health care providers, daycares, work places, etc. to address problems from a collective impact standpoint. He summarized that working collectivelyis the only way to improve health, lower health care costs, and make communities safer. He advised that the health district is developing a model workplace wellness policy that will be implemented first by the health district and Kitsap Mental Health Services. For example, the health district is working with partners to improve nutritional standards for school lunches. They are also working to develop joint use agreements with schools sothe recreational facilities can be open to the community for physical activity. They are working with state and local governments to suggest planning improvements and with parks departments to create smoke-free parks. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 313 April 16, 2013 ~ Page of Mr. Daniels said the health district is working with various agencies to decrease chronic disease under the umbrella of the 5210 Program (5 or more fruits and vegetables, 2 hours or less recreational screen time, 1 hour or more of physical activity, and 0 sugary drinks, more water and low-fat milk). He advised that this is a program that individuals can work on at home, at work, at school, etc. Mr. Daniels summarized his presentation by reviewing that: Your zip code identifies your community’s health. Bremerton’s health is an important factor in community planning. Chronic diseases are the leading causes of death and disability and are increasing rapidly in the county and nationally. The high cost of health care is driven primarily by chronic diseases, and this affects everyone. Prevention through collective impact is the key to reversing the trends in chronic diseases. Integrating health into land use and transportation planning is a critical effort to reduce chronic diseases, and it literally saves lives. Planning has a profound impact on community characteristics, which impact not just health, but the economy and the environment. Commissioner Simpson asked if the health district has data to support a gene link to chronic diseases. She also pointed out that life expectancy in the early 1900s was about 45 and life expectancy now is 75 to 80. She questioned if the data is Mr. Daniels skewed because people are living so much longer that chronic diseases are becoming more pervasive. said they know that the rate of infectious diseasesis significantly lower than where it was in the early 1900s, and that is why people are living longer. They can also predict the amount of genetic component in death and disability rates, and studies show that genetic factors have significantly lower impact on health than the choices an individual makes. Commissioner Albright Mr. asked if the health district’s data is broken down into the various zip codes in Bremerton. Daniels answered that much of the informationwas mined from census data. They also mined data from behavioral risk surveys of adults and healthy youth surveys done by school districts. The data is aggregated primarily by municipal jurisdictions and school districts. While zip code data does exist, this high level of data was not aggregated into the health district’s report. However, they do know that lower levels of chronic disease are found in neighborhoods that are safer, have higher incomes, and higher levels of education. Commissioner Simpson While public transportation is great, asked how encouraging people to take a bus rather than walk Mr. Daniels would result in less public obesity. explained that people who use mass transit tend to walk to and from bus Commissioner Simpson stops. This physical activity is positive. said that while organic food is fantastic and farmer’s markets have wonderful items, most people cannot afford to shop for organic produce or at farmer’s markets. This leaves out Mr. Daniels an entire segment of the population who cannot purchase the healthier food anyway. agreed that the cost of healthy food is a significant concernandis a difficult issue to address. The health district’s goal is to increase access to healthy foods and increase education to help people make healthier choices. Vice Chair Tift commented that sidewalks can make a significant difference in improving public health. Having lived in various neighborhoods around Bremerton, more people walk in areas where there are safe sidewalks. In addition to building community, sidewalks can provide health benefits, as well. Commissioner Dinkuhn referred to the graphs Mr. Daniels provided to illustrate changes in the age of the population. She asked if the last graph that showed a very large swell in the aging population was specific to Bremerton or representative of the entire country. Mr. Daniels said the graph represents Kitsap County data, and is similar to trends throughout the United States. He stressed the importance of planning forthis aging population. Commissioner Tift pointed out that Navystatistics show that 43% of the shipyard’s workforce lives in Bremerton, based on zip code. However, it is important to keep in mind that zip codes extend far beyond the boundariesof the City. He said it Mr. Daniels would be very helpful to determine how much of the work force actually lives in Bremerton. said he believes it would be possible to obtain this information. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 413 April 16, 2013 ~ Page of Workshop: Zoning Code Amendments Ms. Floyd recalled that the Commission discussed SEPA in January, specifically the City’s ability to increase exemptions (things that do not have to go through the SEPA process). The Commission raised several questions at that time, and the purpose of tonight’s discussion is to provide additional clarification. She explained that applications that are not exempt from SEPA review are required to complete a 17-page application and pay a $320 processing fee. The SEPA review process takes about three months to complete. The majority of the SEPA reviews result in Determinations of Non-Significance (DNS), whichmeans that the City’s existing codeadequately addressesimpacts associated with the development.Oncea DNS is issued, the applicant can move forward with the permit process. A very small number of projects receive a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS), which means that the existing code is not sufficient, and additional mitigation is necessary. Typically, the additional mitigationrelatesto impact feesfor schools, roads, etc. Jurisdictions must have good reasons to support the added mitigation requirements. Very few projects receive a Determination of Significance (DS), which means that no amount of mitigation would make the project fall below the threshold. In these cases, extensive reports and studies are required and the process is very long. Ms. Floyd explained that SEPA rules allow local jurisdictions to establish their own exemption levels within a range identified in state law, and the City of Bremerton has adopted exemption levels at the lowest end of the current range. Recent state legislation in 2012allowedjurisdictions to automatically process permits at a higherexemption level without having to make any legislative changes at the local level, and theCity of Bremerton has been exempting developmentprojects at the higher level. However, the change is temporary. In order to continue to use this exemption level or to utilize the newest and even higher exemption level, the City must adopt an ordinance bythe end of 2013. She provided a table to illustrate the lowest exemptions available, which were adopted by the City in the 1970’s; the highest exemptions available between 1971 and 2012, and the new 2013 highest exemptions available. She explained that the City has the ability to establish exemption levels anywhere within the parameters of the chart. Ms. Floyd also provided a table to illustrate the outcome of the approximately 25 SEPA applications that were submitted in 2007. She emphasized that it is important for the City to have the ability to impose mitigation when needed. She reviewed that a DNS was issued for agravel mine, which involved 165,000 yards of grading, and pointed out that this project would not be exempt from SEPA review based on the highest exemption level. An MDNS was issued for a 101-unit subdivision, and the City required a fire sprinkler system as additional mitigation. A project of this size would also be subject to the SEPA review based on the new highest exemption level. She noted that a DS was issued for the Bay Vista Subarea Plan proposal, and the applicant prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS)as part of a subarea planning process. Ms. Floyd suggested that when reviewing the proposal to increase the exemption levels, the Commission should consider the costs and benefits associated with the change. She noted that while the higher levels may exempt more projects from the lengthy SEPA review process, the change would also decrease the public’s ability to participate in the process. She explained that, typically, comments received during the public comment period from private citizens are related to a general dislike of the project and not based on conditions that can be mitigated. Very rarely do the comments relate to situations that can be conditioned, and they typically come from agencies such as the school district, fire department, etc. She explained that the City could mix and match the options to establish the right exemption levels. For example, many jurisdictions have set a lower exemption level for subdivisions and a higher exemption level for grading, and Kitsap County has set a different levelfor grading within 200 feet of the shoreline versus outside of the shoreline. Ms. Floyd said staff will be working to draft amendments, and they would like the Commissioners to provide feedback about what they believe would be reasonable exemption levels. She summarized that if Bremerton does not take action, the exemption levels would remain as they are identified in the current code language:100 cubic yards, 20 parking stalls, 4,000 square foot building, or 4-lot subdivision. The previous maximum exemption levels were 500 cubic yards, 40 parking stalls, 12,000 square foot building or a 9-lot subdivision. The new maximum exemption levels are 1,000 cubic yards, 90 parking stalls, 30,000 square foot building, and a 30-lot subdivision. Chair Jose invited the public to comment on the proposed changes to the SEPA exemption levels. No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Commission. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 513 April 16, 2013 ~ Page of Commissioner Lambert If the highest exemption levels are adopted, asked if the City would have the ability to vet an application for potential impacts if it did not require any other type of permit and was exempt from the SEPA requirement. Ms. Floyd answered that would not be possible. She explained that some type of permit must be required in order to trigger Director Spencer a SEPA review, and the SEPA review would beextra based on the thresholds. clarified that for example if the City adopts the higher SEPA exemption levels, an application for a 25,000 square foot building in the commercial district would go straight to the building permit process as a permitted useand no public process would be required. However, there would be a public processforaproposal that requires a conditional use permit, a shoreline permit, etc. Chair Jose thanked staff for providing a table to illustrate the outcome of the SEPA reviews that have been done in recent years. He said he reviewed the significant projects and determined that most would have required SEPA review based on the increased thresholds. He said he supports raising the thresholds to the maximum level possible. The City would still have the abilitytoreview impacts associated with significant projects, but the change would alleviate the significant burden the SEPA process unnecessarily places on many projects. Commissioner Dinkuhn recalled that at their earlier discussion, it was suggested that the City match the thresholds established by Kitsap County. She suggested this would be an appropriate approach so theCity does not push potential Chair Jose development out into the county as a result of stricter requirements. referred to the information provided by staff to compare the requirements of various jurisdictions, including Kitsap County. He noted that Kitsap County distinguishes Director Spencer between grading within the shoreline jurisdiction and grading outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. pointed out that Kitsap County has already adopted the highest exemption levels that were available in 2012, but the City is at the forefront in adopting changes based on the new 2013 levels. At this time, they do not know if the County will adopt the higher exemption levels. They must also keep in mind that the County has both urban and rural areas. She recommended the City offer a competitive market and encourage growth to come to the City by making the permit process as streamlinedas possible. That means that the SEPA threshold should be at the higher end, provided the proposal is not located ina critical Ms. Floyd area, etc. also pointed out that because Kitsap County adopted the highest levels available about 10 years ago, they can wait to see what happens over the next several years without experiencing a significant loss. If the City waits too long to adopt the new highest levels, they would drop back down to the very lowest thresholds that are significantly lower Director Spencer than the county’s current thresholds. reminded the Commission that the legislature gave the City the local authority to raisethe thresholds to the highest exemption levels on a temporary basis for 2013. However, code changes are necessary in order to continue the higher exemption levels after 2013 or to implement the new highest exemption levels. She summarized that there is an impetus for the City to act now. Commissioner Strube asked if staff foresees any major issues associated with raising the exemption thresholds to the Ms. Floyd maximum level allowed by the State. said the only major issue is the reduction of community input, and she is Director Spencer seeking Commission feedback particularly regarding this concern. pointed out that most of the DNS’s that were issued were for projects larger than the increased thresholds. A public process would still be required for significant projects. She emphasized that mitigation is only for requirements that are above and beyond what the City code requires. Because the City already has robust codes to address impacts related to traffic, the environment, etc.,there is often no need Chair Jose for the additional SEPA tool. reminded the Commission that when the SEPA law was initiated, there were far fewer processes and approvals required for projects. In the intervening decades, the Growth Management Act, Shoreline ManagementAct, etc. have imposed additional processes to deal with impacts. Now that there are other tools to deal with impacts, he questioned the need to continue with a 1970’s era policy. Chair Jose Director Spencer asked what type of action staff is looking for from the Commission. said amotion would provide clarity as to the direction the Commission wants to go. She said she likes the county’s approach of establishing a Commissioner Albright lower exemption threshold for projects located within a shoreline jurisdiction. requested more Ms. Floyd information about how a lower exemption threshold would impact properties within the shoreline jurisdiction. clarified that any development within the shoreline jurisdiction or the shoreline buffer would require a SEPA review. Chair Jose reminded the Commission of the City’s extensive process of updating the Shoreline Master Programto adequately address all potential impacts related to shoreline development. He said he would be against differentiating between the shoreline jurisdiction and other properties in the City. He also said he learned through the Gorst Creek Subarea Planning process that the real issues related torunoff and drainage are causeduphill properties and not the properties near the Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 613 April 16, 2013 ~ Page of shoreline. He summarized his belief that a lower threshold for grading near the shoreline would not track with current science. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE ADRAFT SEPA AMENDMENT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING THAT INCORPORATES THE NEW 2013 HIGHEST EXEMPTIONS LEVELS. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Floyd advised that over35 different PowerPoint presentations about the Comprehensive Planwere made to the Commission prior to the plan’sadoption in 2004. However,none of the current Commissioners were serving during that time. She reviewed that throughout the process there was overwhelming support to create a planthat tailored the expected growth into several dense, mixed-use, mini cities or “centers”throughout Bremerton. The goal of the plan isto create a wide range of housing choices, support stronger neighborhoods, provide a variety of transportation choices, enhanceconvenience with places to work and shop, improve pedestrian orientation, and foster distinctive, attractive places with a strong sense of place. She provided a picture to illustrate the concept, showing retail uses on the bottom, office in the middle, residential uses above and parking behind the building. Ms. Floyd pointed out that seniors, single-parents and starter couples represent 50% oftoday’s market, and it is anticipated they will represent at least 60% of the market in 20 years. Studies have shown that this population group wants to live in places where there is easy access to services, urban amenities and social settings. By and large, these people want to live in urban centers, and the City of Bremerton must capture some its lost vitality by planning for the future. To illustrate the concept further, she provided a picture of Wheaton Way as it is currently developed, and a picture of how the subarea plan envisions the street will be developed in the future. Ms. Floyd explained that while the growth strategy and “centers” concept is working well in some areas such as the Charleston District, Downtown District, and the Manette Neighborhood Center, which were developed in a pedestrian- friendly pattern at the outset;the City has experienced challenges implementing the full vision of the concept where existing development was focused around automobile traffic such as Wheaton Way andKitsap Way. Contrary to the visionin the Comprehensive Plan, these areas are becoming increasingly vacant and dilapidated rather than growing into thriving community centers. She advised that the current code establishes a maximum front-yard setback requirement that is intended to push the buildings forward, and design standards were created to require windows and building modulation. Significant landscaping buffers are required to make it feel safer to walk on the street. Ms. Floyd said the purposeof this discussion is to discuss how they can work towards the goals in the Comprehensive Plan in a phasedapproach. She noted that the economy has changed since 2004, and development patterns are difficult to change, as well. The designated centers areat a disadvantage because they are competing against properties within the City limits that do not have the same code requirements. Developers are choosing to invest in properties that are less encumbered with regulations and easier and less costly to develop. The City Council has asked the Commission and staff to consider ways to amend the zoning code to allowdevelopment opportunity butnot prohibit implementation of the “centers” concept. They have specifically asked them to work on amendments relating to drive-thrulanes and maximum front yard setbacks. Ms. Floyd referred to the property where Arnold’s Furniture is located at the corner of Kitsap Way and Morgan Avenue. She explained that partof thebuilding was destroyed by fire. Because the property owner did not obtain a permit to replace the building within one year, his property is now subject to the new code requirements, and the building must be developed closer to the street front. Complying with the setback requirement would not be a problem if the site was empty, but the proposed new building would block the view of the existing building. Thismay not be an ideal situation. It can also be difficult to push buildings located on sloped lots towards the street front, and it would eliminate the ability to widen the street at some point in the future. In addition, developers say that consumers want to drive up and park in front of businesses.She summarized that it costs more to meet the City’s design standards, and more and more buildings on Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way are being vacated. Some of this is related to the poor economy, but muchdue to the more stringent zoning code requirements. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 713 April 16, 2013 ~ Page of Ms. Floyd At a minimum, recommended that the same setbacks should be applied to all commercial zones. Perhaps there could also be some exemptions that allow more flexibility for corner lots or slopes. She reviewed each of the areas where changes may be warranted as follows: Red Apple Market Areaon Kitsap Way. The current zoning in this area is Neighborhood Business and Limited 10-foot Commercial, both of which have a maximum setback requirement that pushes the buildingsto the street front. Neither zone allows drive-thru uses. There is existing development inthe area and no landscaping along the street. There are no sidewalks, and future development is likely to be in the form of additions, remodels or expansions. The taco shop, with a drive-thru, is non-conforming but the use is not likely to change in thenear future. Any expansion of the Red Apple Market would need to occurtowards the street front in order to comply with the code, and she does not believe the owners are interested in doing that. Oyster Bay Centeron Kitsap Way. This is a neighborhood center that is currently zoned Neighborhood Business. 10 feet Drive-thru uses are not permitted, and a maximum setback of is required. The business with the drive-thru is non-conforming and the property will likely be redeveloped at some point in the future. However, it is not likely that redevelopment will occur on the QFC siteany time soon. City staff has received inquiries about the possibility of developinga drive-thru restaurant in the middle of the parking lot. Although the building would be pushed towards the street, the drive-thru use would not be allowed. People are confused about why this type of use is not allowed in a location that seems logical. While there is sparse landscaping at this time, there are good sidewalks. Commercial Corridor on Kitsap Way. This area is zoned Commercial Corridor and drive-thru uses are allowed. 5 feet However, the maximum setback requirement is . She said she believes the setback requirement is to ensure that drive-thru uses are not placed along the street front. There is limited landscaping and good sidewalks, but any future development is likely to be in the form of additions, remodels and expansions. While some of the buildings meet the design standards, she questioned if the existing development meets the vision of creating a “center.” The Corridor on Wheaton Way. One side of the street is zoned District Center Core, which does not allow drive- 10-foot thru uses and requires a maximum setback. The other side is zoned Commercial Corridor, which allows 5-foot drive-thru uses but requires a maximum setback. This difference is difficult to explain to property owners and prospective developers. Wheaton Way is narrow and most of the buildings are pushed close to the street front. There are several existing drive-thru uses, some of them non-conforming. Wheat Way and Riddell. A portion of this area is zoned Wheaton Frontage, which does notallow drive-thru uses 35 and 55 feet but requires a minimum setback of between . The remainder of the area is zoned Wheaton Way 5 feet Redevelopment Corridor, which allows drive-thru uses, but requires a maximum setback of . Ms. Floyd explained that when development standards are too difficult to meet, property owners tend to hold on to exactly what they have because it costs too much to change to anything new. She suggested that the City’s goal should be to create zoning requirements that meet the vision in the Comprehensive Plan but allow for more flexibility. She provided a picture of a building that was constructed in 2007 and meets all of the code requirements, but she questioned if it is really consistent with the vision inthe Comprehensive Plan.She also provided pictures of attractively designed drive-thru uses and suggested the Commission have a brief discussion about what makes some drive-thru uses better than others. She noted that there are currently no design standards for drive-thru uses. Commissioner Albright pointed out that the Walgreens and Starbucks drive-thrus are difficult to negotiate because the sites Commissioner Lambert aretoo densely developed. agreed that these drive-thrus are tight, but their design is aesthetically pleasing. She said she likes that you can enter the Starbucks without crossing the path of the drive-thru. A separate entrance Commissioner Strube helps. asked how many potential businesses have been turned away because of strict code Ms. Floyd Director Spencer requirements. said she does not have an exact count, but the number is significant. recalled that at their March retreat, the City Council discussed ways to improve the condition of the City. One idea wasto improve the vitality of the commercial districts. They specifically asked staff what is stopping people from developing commercial uses in the City, and her first response was that they have to turn people away because projects are not compatible with the current code. The situation becomes even more difficult because drive-thru uses may be allowed on one side of the street, but not the other. She suggested a better approach would be to allow the use, but provide standards to guide design so that Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 813 April 16, 2013 ~ Page of development accomplishes key elements of the Comprehensive Plan vision such as pedestrian friendly, walkable commercial areas. Chair Jose suggested that screening and visual separation between the cars and everything else are important features of any drive-thru uses. The finishes and landscaping associated with a drive-thru use are important elements. It is also important to separate pedestrian and automobile spaces. Commissioner Dinkuhn said she drove up Kitsap Way during the afternoon to refresh her memory of the existing drive-thru uses. She said she does not want to outright prohibit drive-thru uses, but there are some obvious, better-planned drive-thrus. Most of them belong to banks, wheredrive-thru uses are oriented on the site so that pedestrians are notrequired to walk across trafficand cars are able to maneuver incomfortable but small areas in convenient and efficient ways.She suggested that, through good site planning, the City couldencourage businesses with drive-thru components to better plan them so there is incentive for people to get out of their cars. The drive-thru should not be the first thing they see, and may not be the most convenient way to get in and out of a business. Instead of prohibiting the use, drive-thru should be done in a more pedestrian friendly way that provides a more pleasing visual experience, as well. The plan of having a drive-thru loop around to the back and exit into a parking rather than throwingcarsback out into traffic is also a huge factor in providing both pedestrian and driver comfort. Commissioner Simpson said that whileit is good exercise, she does not see American’s trending towards walking. When she lived in Paris, she had to walk everywhere, and she loved walking. But when she came home, she was grateful to have a car so she could go where she needed to go. She suggested that the independence of having a car is more of who American’s are. It is nice to have beautiful pathways, but she does not see that most Americans will embrace the idea. Chair Jose agreed that it is important, through the planning process, to encourage people to achieve the public health goals discussed earlier in the meeting. But drive-thru capability is very important for many people such as the elderly or mothers with children in car seats. They need to provide options for all people. He summarized that it appears the Commission does not support an absolute prohibition on drive thru uses. However, instead of permitting the use outright, perhaps some design criteria could be established so they are more compatible with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision. Commissioner Albright questioned the actual demand for drive-thru uses. She said she sees a lot of drive-thrus in Ms. Floyd Bremerton that are not heavily utilized. said she does not have information about the actual demand for drive- thrus, but it is challenging to tell property owners they outright cannot have them. She suggested that a better approach would be to allow the use, but put in place design standards so the uses areconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision. Commissioner Albright concurred. Vice Chair Tift pointed out that national chains are required to constantly improve, and the businesses will likely be remodeled approximately every ten years. He noted that, often, you can get better service from a drive-thru than if you walk inside. The drive-thru industry is geared towards making improvements to speed people through. He expressed his belief that the existing drive-thrus on Kitsap Way are much better than those on Wheaton Way. Those on Kitsap Way are more modern and well situated. He agreed that allowing drive-thrus on one side of the street but not the other is absurd and needs to be changed. Ms. Floyd summarized that the Commission likesthe site design features provided at some drive-thrus, such as the stone paving, etc. Separate entrancesfor the queuingand vehicular circulation is important, as isvisual separation and screening. It is also important to keep pedestrians safe. They should look to banks for examples of good site design. Perhaps drive- thrus should not be located in the most convenient and prominent locations. Instead, they couldbe located on the back side to reduce theirpresence from the street side. Commissioner Dinkuhn referred to the examples provided by staff. She likes the way the Jack in the Box drive-thru is accessed through a parking lot rather than from Wheaton Way. Also, the landscape strip that is provided at the Kentucky Commissioner Tift Fried Chicken drive-thru provides a visual break from the traffic that is flying by. noted that the Ms. Floyd Kentucky Fried Chicken structure was recently remodeled. added that the McDonald’s on Wheaton Way recently Chair Jose submitted an application for a permit to redevelop the site. noted that when the Burger King on Kitsap Way was remodeled, an ADAaccessible pedestrian crossing was provided. The drive-thru is landscaped and tucked on the side of the Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 913 April 16, 2013 ~ Page of Commissioner Lambert property. Cars exit into a parking lot at the rear of the building rather than the busy street. Commissioner Albright observed that all four examples provided by staff exit and enter from a parking lot. said the latte businesson Kitsap Way always has cars lined up waiting for service. This indicates good business commerce and vitality to the area. However, the current code prohibits the use. Commissioner Strube observed that Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way are main thoroughfares (highways). As much as they would like them to be walkable neighborhoods, there are numerous cars on the streets; and he does anticipate this will change. While he supports the idea of creating design standards for landscaping, drive-thru uses, etc., he expressed his belief Commissioner Lambert that it makes sense to have a more business friendly zoning code. said she has walked the stretch of commercial area along Kitsap Way, and she does not consider it a great walkable area. She agreed with Commissioner Strube that, realistically, this area is going to be a business corridor. But they should also remember that some people must use public transportation, and they need to have safe places to walk. Ms. Floyd cautioned against going beyond what the Comprehensive Plan allows. They are currently talking about potential zoning code amendments and not updates to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission appears to be suggesting that these areas be reviewed once again when the Comprehensive Plan is updatedin 2016.However, she summarized that the City Council has directed the staff and Commission to address both Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way and find ways to be more flexible while maintaining the current Comprehensive Plan criteria. Staff is seeking feedback and direction from the Commission as they prepare draft code amendments for their future consideration. Commissioner Albright expressed her belief that it is not reasonable to require buildings on Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way Director Spencer to be set closer to the road. She supports a more lenient setback requirement. observed thatall the zoning on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way requires a maximum setback of either 5 or 10 feet, with the exception of the Wheaton Frontage Zone, which has a setback requirement of between 35 and 55 feet. She further observed that the current zoning is successfully implementing the Comprehensive Plan vision in areas where existing development already complied with the concept, but that is not the case in areas where existing development is non-conforming. She explained that the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan acknowledges the existing conditions and that development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision would be phased in over time. She summarized that having hard and fast setback requirements is not achieving the City’s goal, and the commercial areas along Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way are actually dying because the City is turningaway potential developers. While she acknowledged that staff has not had a lot of time to think about possible solutions to this problem, they recognize the need to phase inthe improvements over time on sites that do not conform. Staff is seeking concurrence from the Commission about whether or not they should pursue this issue. Chair Jose invited members of the public to provide testimony. Steve Gyverson, Bremerton, said he owns property on Wheaton Way (next to Flowers to Go). Beforehe purchased the property in 2004 from the school district, he received assurance from the Planning Department that the current zoning would allow him to develop a car dealership on the site. However, during the year it took him to secure financing and purchase the property, the City had changed the zoning and car dealerships were no longer allowed. A few weeks later, he received a letter from the City informing him that he would be fined $500 per day if he did not mow the weeds on the property. Hewas upset that no one notified him of the change. He said he has two dealerships in Tacoma, and the proposed new dealership in Bremerton would have employed approximately 25 people. Itwas going to be a nice development. He said he has been servicing the note on the property since 2004, and his property taxes are current. He suspects there would be more property owners present, butmany have already had their properties foreclosed on because of the rezone. He suggested that the rezone, rather than the economy, has had the most significant impact on these two commercial areas. He said he has been approached by several businesses, but they declined the property because drive-thrus are not allowed. Ralph Erickson, Bremerton, said he owns property on KitsapWay where Arnold’s Home Furnishings is currently located. He said he has spent a lot of time talking to Planning Department staff about zoning and setback issues. He said he is encouraged about the Commission’s current conversation about setbacks and drive-thrus. He was born and raised in Bremerton and has owned his commercial property for 60 years. He does not want to relocate his business, but it is important to recognize the problems that property owners on Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way are faced with.He encouraged the Commission to allow staff to present their ideas. They deal directly with the property owners and have a clear understanding of the problems. The staff and the property owners need the Commission’s help to address this problem. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 1013 April 16, 2013 ~ Page of CarlZarelli, East Bremerton Plaza LLC, said he owns one of the “ugly” properties at the corner of Wheaton Way and Riddell Road (where the former Rite Aid was located). He said he has been working with the Planning Department staff and the City Attorney for months. He recently submitted a drawing with a drive-thru. He said he isveryaware of the Comprehensive Plan vision and how it has impacted the properties on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way. He said he is not against landscaping, bicycle pathways, and encouraging people to get out of their cars and walk. All of these are good ideas, but there are some issues that need to be addressed. It is important that the Commission carefully listens to what the issues are. While he recognized that the current discussion is related to maximum front setback and drive-thru uses, he said the existing parking restriction isalso a problem. The Subarea Plan also calls for an interior circulator street. He suggested that perhaps the location of the circulator street could be adjusted to flow through the properties. He cautioned that drive-thru businesses are not only fast-food restaurants, but banks, pharmacies, and other necessary services that are needed after hours. He said that many retailers are not interested in locating in these two commercial areas unless the minimum parking requirement is raised to at least 4 to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. He noted that the rule of thumb for restaurants is 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. A good developer understands the parking requirements and how to get the highest and best use out of their property. He summarized that while planning is good, it must work in practical application. Impractical codes that do not work will only drive businesses away. Vice ChairTift Mr. asked if Mr. Zarelliowns the entire property where the Lowes, Albertson’s and Rite Aid were located. Zarelli answered that they have owned the entire property since the early 1960’s. They also own the 20 acres behind it. He said he has had offers to purchase the property, but he has held off because he recognizes the property’spotential. Mr. Zarelli said he is not against redeveloping properties and providing amenities people like. Drive-thrus can be done correctly. Again, he emphasized that planning must be practical. They must accept that Wheaton Way is a fast-moving highway. He said he currently has a few letters of intent for his property, but the perspective buyers are waiting to hear the outcome of this discussion. Commissioner Dinkuhn reminded the Commission of the need to plan for the communities they want, and not necessarily deal with the communities they have. She does not want to continue to operate with the status quo because that is the way it has always been. She would like the Commission to look forward to what they really think is better for the entire community. She referred to a drawing provided in the presentation to outline the possibilities forWheaton Way to becomea tree-lined street, with trees down the center rather than a left-turn lane in both directions. While this may be idealistic, it is much better to focus on as a possibility rather than just continuing with what they already have. Commissioner Simpson pointed out that because Wheaton Way is a state highway, the City does not have the ability to put Director Spencer trees down the center. This would be a state decision. said she previously worked for the City of Shoreline, which is bisected by Highway 99. She explained that Shoreline, in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), did an entire project to renovate the Highway 99 right-of-way to look very much like the picture provided for Wheaton Way. This was a very long, intensive process, andrequireda lot of right-of-way acquisition. Requiring buildings to be located within five feet of the public right-of-way would eliminate the possibility of widening the roadway to accommodate additional right-of-way improvements. She summarized that the properties along Wheaton Way could be developed as per the drawing, but a lot of work and partnerships would be required. Commissioner Simpson asked what code changes are needed to address the property owner’s concerns and help them be Director Spencer successful. answered that it is important to both acknowledge the existing non-conforming status of these commercial areas and create zoning provisions that allow the Comprehensive Plan vision to be phased in over time. The current zoning provisions that implement the Comprehensive are so strict that they do not acknowledge the pre-existing condition. Taking a more gentle approach to implementing the Comprehensive Plan would be more appropriate. She suggested that staff needs to provideinformation on possible ways to provide a more gentle approach to achieving what the Comprehensive Plan goals. Chair Jose commented that if they were starting with vacant properties, they could adopt a development code that facilitates development that is exactly consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. However, that is not the case for properties on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way. New urbanism and the idea of mixed-use development are nice, but it does not work in all areas. In fact, it clashes with the current conditions in these two areas. The current code sets the bar very high as far as cost and complexity; so high that people decide not to jump at all. He suggested that rather than removing the bar Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 1113 April 16, 2013 ~ Page of completely, it could be lowered so that existing development couldmake some improvements. Perhaps 10 or 20 years in the future when the next round of capital improvement happens, the code couldbe tightened a little more towards the vision they want. This would allow for a gradual process rather than the current all or nothing approach they have in place now. He said that while he does not know exactly what code changes are needed, he believesthey are on the right track. Chair Jose observed that allowing drive-thru businesses on one side of the street and not the other seems unfair. It also seems unfair to require buildings on one side of the street to be set closer to the street front. He suggested that perhaps there is a way to build in transition zones between the different types of zoning. Perhaps drive-thru lanes could be allowed as conditional uses. This would allow for a public process, but the process should not be burdensome. The Commission indicated support of staffpursuing potential code amendments related to setback requirements and drive- thru business. However, they acknowledged that more work is needed to determine the best approach for addressing the problems. Vice Chair Tift said he would also be interested in learning about other issues thatmay bedriving business away from these Director Spencer two areas. said the two issues currently before the Commission are the major reasons for turning applications away. While Mr. Zarelliexpressed his belief that the code does not allow enough parking, staff has never turned down an application because it would provide too much parking. However, she agreed to review the parking requirements again. Commissioner Simpson referred to a picture provided in the staff presentation, which looks a lot like Winslow Way in Bainbridge Island. She said that last time she visited Winslow Way, she noticed that most of the spaces were vacant and they had very few retail uses. Few people were living in the units above, either. While the concept is a desirable idea, she Commissioner Albright questioned if it is a feasible option for Bremerton. referred to University Village as a good example of the “center” concept. It has gone through many different changes over the years andsetbacks are currently about 60 feet, Mr. Zarelli but it still has a village feel. She noted, however, that parking was a challenge. pointed out that University Mr. Zarelli Village is not located on a state highway. once again asked the Commission to consider changing the maximum parking standard. Chair Jose summarized thatthe Commission is very much interested in economic developmentin the City. Theyalso recognize thateconomic competitiveness is one of the most important issues they face. He encouraged the staff to identify all roadblocks to economic developmentbecause the Commission is eager to address them. The remainder of the Commission concurred. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Jose did not have any items to discuss during thisportion of the meeting. Director Report Director Spencer reported that at theCity Council’s March retreat, there was a lot of emphasis on making improvements to local neighborhoods. One issue, in particular,is related to code enforcement. She explained that the City’s current code enforcement program is complaint driven, and the City only has one code enforcement officer. Some of the City’s biggest code enforcement problems are associated with “zombie” properties that are vacant because they have gone through foreclosure people are no longer living in themand the banks are not adequately maintaining them.The homes are in limbo and are a huge driver for crime and reductions in property values. She referred to journal articlesthatprovide scientific data that these “zombie” homes result in increased crime not just on the block they are in, but the entire neighborhood. These vacant homes are bad for the community. Director Spencer advised that, under the direction of the City Council, staff has prepared a “vacant and abandoned property” ordinance that would require vacant properties that have been abandoned as a result of foreclosure to register with the City and identify a local property manager. The property manager would be requiredto inspect the property on a monthly basis to Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 1213 April 16, 2013 ~ Page of ensure code compliance, that the property is secure, etc. The property owner would be required to post contact information of the local property manager on site. While no other jurisdiction in Washington State has a vacant and abandoned property ordinance, they have been successfully implemented in various states including Californiawhere the foreclosure rate is th particularly high. She announced that the City Council is scheduled to take action on the proposed ordinance on April 17. She pointed out that other jurisdictions are watching this process closely, and she anticipates that it won’t be long before similar ordinances are adopted elsewhere in the State. Director Spencer explained that, as currently proposed, there would be no fee associated with the property registration, and an on-line tool would be implemented so that owners couldregister on-line. If a property owner fails to register, a $1,000 base fine would be assessed, with an additional $100 for each day that the violation continues. There would also be a $1,000 fine if a property manager fails to inspect the property on a monthly basis. She summarized that the proposed ordinance is an innovative approach, and they are working quickly to adopt it. She thanked Commissioner Dinkuhn for the letter from Sustainable Bremerton supporting the proposed ordinance. She reported that she has discussed the proposalwith several groups, including realtors and real estate agencies, and there is a lot of support for implementing the ordinance. Commissioner Dinkuhn said she was glad to see one of the homes at the end of the Manette Bridge was demolished last nd Director Spencer week. reported that on April 22, staff will request an order from the Hearing Examiner to address the remaining two homes that are under different ownership. She explained that the proposed new ordinance would not require the ownersto register the properties because they are not in foreclosure status. However, the ordinance would require them to post contact information for the property managerson site. Director Spencer also reportedthat representatives from various City departments have been working together to improve response times for taking care of graffiti issues. The previous response time of approximately 45 days has been reduced to just three days. In addition, the City now offers an on-line application for reporting graffiti problems,and an app has been developed for i-phones. This allows people to report problems quickly so they can be resolved in a timely manner. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business There was no new business to come before the Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:41p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ____________________________________________________________ Andrea L SpencerGreg Jose AICP, Executive SecretaryChair, Planning Commission Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 1313 April 16, 2013 ~ Page of Commission Meeting Date:May 21, 2013Agenda Item: V.B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: 2013Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket DEPARTMENT: Department of Community Development PRESENTED BY: Allison Daniels, Long-RangePlanner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City adopted an updatedComprehensive Plan in December 2004.The Comprehensive Plan can be amended annually to allow for changes to the Plan that reflect current conditionsthat may not have been addressed prior to the Plan’s adoption.Amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan are regulated by BMC 20.10.010which allows application for amendmentsbetween January 1 and April 1 of each year.The City has received one applicationin 2013and it issummarized below. Any amendment to the comprehensive plan requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission to be considered for City Council’s approval. A tentative schedule has been set with the following dates: May 21, 2013at 5:30 p.m .–Planning Commission Workshop September 17, 2013at 5:30 p.m .–Planning Commission Hearing. October 23, 2013at 5:00p.m. –City Council Workshop November 6, 2013at 5:30 p.m. –City Council Public Hearing and adoption or rejection The following discussion outlines the one proposal comprising the 2013Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. Amendment,Land Use Designations Change of TwoParcels: rd The proposal is to change the Comprehensive Land Use Map for two parcels located at 3Avenue West and Sinclair Way/West Sunn Fjord Lane(tax id # 282401-1-085-2001, and 282401-1-086-2000) Attachment I from “Industrial Park”to “Low Density Residential”,area highlighted in . Prior to this proposal for the ComprehensivePlanMap change, thisareawasplanned to be Phase II of the Wright Creek Industrial Park.The previous phase, Wright Creek Phase I, which is north of the proposed area, was platted 6 years ago to nine lots. Today, one lot is developed and eight lots still remain vacant and undeveloped. This proposal would not affect the plat conditions of approval for Phase I. The twoproposedparcels, which consist of 36 acres, arecurrentlyundevelopedexcept for unpaved roads and power-line towers. The current zoning designationand Comprehensive Plan Land Use Attachment II designation is Industrial Park.identifiesthe surrounding zoning which is the following: Zoning Existing Uses North COB*Industrial Park (IP)Wright Creek Industrial Park and undeveloped East COB Low Density Residential (R-10), Undeveloped R-10 lots, KC**Urban Medium Residential Sunn Fjord Apartments, and (UMR) and Industrial (I) zoneswarehouses South UMR and Residential uses (primarily single-family homes, KC Urban Reserve (UR)and undeveloped West R-10 and IPUndeveloped andWright Creek Industrial Park *COB –City of Bremerton jurisdiction **KC –Kitsap County jurisdiction Attachment III All Comprehensive Plan amendments must meet the criteria in BMC 20.10.080 (). Staff has not yet analyzed if the proposal meet the criteria. Weare presenting the amendment docket to the Commission early in the process so that the Commission can weigh in early on the proposal and direct staff to prepare additional research to support the proposal if necessary. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I:Site Location Attachment II: Aerial view with Zoning Attachment III: Bremerton Municipal Code Decision Criteria for Comprehensive Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION The purpose of this workshop is to provide the Commission with an early overview of the Comprehensive Plan application received during this year’s application window, to ask staff clarifying questions about the proposal prior to the development of a recommendation, and to determine what additional information the Commission requires before the public hearing. No action is proposed at this time. Industrial îðòïðòðèð ÜÛÝ×Í×ÑÒ ÝÎ×ÌÛÎ×ßò Ì¸» Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ³¿§ ®»½±³³»²¼ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ý±«²½·´ ³¿§ ¿¼±°¬ ±® ¿¼±°¬ ©·¬¸ ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±²ô ¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ý±³°®»¸»²·ª» Ð´¿² ·ºæ ø¿÷ Ì¸»®» »¨·¬ ¿² ±¾ª·±« ¬»½¸²·½¿´ »®®±® ·² ¬¸» °»®¬·²»²¬ Ý±³°®»¸»²·ª» Ð´¿² °®±ª··±²å ±® ø¾÷ ß´´ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ½®·¬»®·¿ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ³»¬æ øï÷ Ì¸» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ · ½±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ù®±©¬¸ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ß½¬å øî÷Ì¸» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ · ½±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ý±³°®»¸»²·ª» Ð´¿² ±® ±¬¸»® ¹±¿´ ±® °±´·½·» ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§å øí÷ ×º ¬¸» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ©¿ ®»ª·»©»¼ ¾«¬ ²±¬ ¿¼±°¬»¼ ¿ ¿ °¿®¬ ±º ¿ °®»ª·±« °®±°±¿´ô ½·®½«³¬¿²½» ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¸¿ª» ·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§ ½¸¿²¹»¼ô ±® ¬¸» ²»»¼ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¸¿ª» ½¸¿²¹»¼ô ©¸·½¸ «°°±®¬ ¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬å øì÷ Ì¸» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ · ½±³°¿¬·¾´» ©·¬¸ »¨·¬·²¹ ±® °´¿²²»¼ ´¿²¼ «» ¿²¼ ¬¸» «®®±«²¼·²¹ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °¿¬¬»®²å ¿²¼ øë÷ Ì¸» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ©·´´ ²±¬ ¿¼ª»®»´§ ¿ºº»½¬ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿¾·´·¬§ ¬± °®±ª·¼» «®¾¿² »®ª·½» ¿¬ ¬¸» °´¿²²»¼ ´»ª»´ ±º »®ª·½» ¿²¼ ¾»¿® ¿ ®»¿±²¿¾´» ®»´¿¬·±²¸·° ¬± ¾»²»º·¬¬·²¹ ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿´¬¸ô ¿º»¬§ ¿²¼ ©»´º¿®»ò ß¬¬¿½¸³»²¬ ×××æ Þ®»³»®¬±² Ó«²·½·°¿´ Ý±¼» Ü»½··±² Ý®·¬»®·¿ º±® Ý±³°®»¸»²·ª» Ð´¿²