Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/2013 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting –Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) July16, 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: June 18, 2013Regular meeting. o V.PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B.Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments relating to drive-throughs, commercial building setbacks, and SEPA Exemptions C. Public Workshop: Provide feedback for the selection of a preferred alternative of the Gorst Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS VI.BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer C.Old Business: D.New Business VII.ADJOURNMENT: The August regular meeting is canceled. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is September17, 2013 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT Subject to July 16, 2013Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULARMEETING June 18, 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 TiftAllisonDaniels, Current Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner AlbrightBill Webb, AECOM Consulting Commissioner Dinkuhn Commissioner Strube Commissioners Absent Commissioner Lambert(excused) Commissioner Simpson(excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR TIFTMOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER STRUBEMOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 21, 2013AS PRESENTED.VICE CHAIR TIFTSECONDED 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: Introduction ofthe Gorst Watershed Draft Planand Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Ms. Daniels referred to the three documents provided to the Commission: draft Gorst Creek Watershed Characterization and Framework Plan, draft Gorst Planned Action EIS, and draft Gorst Subarea Plan. She noted that the documents are also available at www.gorstwatershed.com. She said the purpose of the workshop is for staff to introduce the documents and explain how to use and review them and how they relate to one another. Staff will also pose specific questions the th . Commissioners should start thinking about in preparation for the public hearing that is scheduled for July 16 Ms. Daniels reminded the Commission that the objectives of the Gorst Creek Watershed and Gorst Urban Growth Area Subarea Plan is to create a livable community; foster economic development; protect water quality, habitat and fish; identify areas for development, restoration and protection; adopt a land use plan; and implement a long-range capital improvement plan to provide for thefuture of Gorst. She explained that the planning effortis based on guiding principles that were developed through a community visioning process. She announced that the projectis currently on schedule to be completed in early 2014. Ms. Daniels referred to the Draft Gorst Creek Watershed Characterization and Framework Plan (Volume 1), which sets up goals, policies and best management practices for the 6,000 acre watershed. It also guides water quality, habitat and land-use plans and activities. Shereferred to a map that identifies the boundaries of the Gorst Creek Watershed, specifically noting the location of the Gorst Urban Growth Area (UGA) and the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA)and areas where development would be most appropriate. She also noted the location of the watershed land, which must be protected. She said key topics for the watershed plan include thebest locationsfor growth, habitat restoration, and infrastructure (stormwater) investments. It is also important to develop measurable objectives to implement the plan. Ms. Daniels Next, referred to the Draft Gorst Planned Action EIS (Volume 2), which evaluates land use alternatives and potential mitigation measures. She explained that the planned action EIS is an optionin theSEPA review process. She advised that a summary of the more than 400-page EIS is included in Chapter 1 of the document. Chapter 2 discusses various alternatives and analyzes the affected environment to identify associated impacts. Chapter 3 talks aboutthe significant impacts to the affected environment and identifies potential mitigation measures. Chapter 4 provides references to the materials used in the analysis, and a distribution list of who the draft EIS was sent to was included in Chapter 5. All appendices associated with the draft EIS are contained in Chapter 6. She reviewedeach of the alternatives contained in the draft EIS as follows: Alternative1–“A Small Highway-Oriented Commercial and Industrial Center”. This alternative is based on Kitsap County’s current land use designations.Alternative 1 identifies high-intensity commercial mixed use, low- density residential, industrial and mineral resourceland uses. It is anticipated that this alternative could result in 33 additional dwelling units, a population increase of 82 and 742 new jobs. Alternative2–A Well-Designed Regional Commercial Center”. “This alternative would include commercial and medium and low-density residential land uses. The open space area would be identical to that identified in Alternative 3. The open space area is currently owned by the County and would be considered as a park. This alternative could result in approximately 538 additional dwelling units, a population increase of 985, and 606 new jobs. Alternative3–A Complete Community”. “This alternative would include mixed use, low-intensity waterfront, and residential land uses. A mixed-use land-use designation could include either residential or commercial development. The low-intensity waterfront land use would provide commercial development, but more emphasis would be placed on protecting the environment. This alternative could result in 597 additional dwelling units, a population increase of 1,082, and 333 new jobs. Ms. Daniels explained that, with the Gorst Creek Watershed and Gorst Urban Growth Area Plans, the City anticipates an increase in the number of dwelling units, population and jobs. If the City were to select Alternatives2 or 3, it would need to reallocate population through an amendment to the Countywide Planning Policiesto recognizethenew growth capacity. She advised that allthree alternativesavoid industrial land uses because ofthe area’s close proximity to SKIA. Ms. Daniels summarized the pros and cons of each of the alternatives against the SEPA required analysis categories as follows: Air Quality – Alternative 3 would result in less increase of air emissions and green house gases (GHG) than Alternative 2 due to the mixture of uses. The City should do its part to be consistent with the State’s desire to reduce overall GHG/air emissions. The City must also consider howsea-level rise will impact future public and private development plans. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 27 June 18, 2013~ Page of Earth, Water and Hazardous Materials – Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase development in the watershed, but the City’s stormwater plan and best management practices should result in an actual improvement in water quality and a reduction in flooding. Plants and Animals – The City’s shoreline regulations buffer is greater on Sinclair Inlet and the County’s buffer is greater on Gorst Creek. The EIS includes options for coordinating City and County regulations. She encouraged the Commissioners to review Appendix D, which talks about the shoreline buffers. Transportation – Alternative 3 would have less impact to state routes than Alternatives 1 and 2. The Commission should consider options for providing pedestrian crossings on state routes. Land Use, Aesthetics and Policies – Alternatives 2 and 3 would change the intensity and character of the area. However, the application of design guidelines would enable the City to provide for compatible development. Again, she said the Countywide Planning Policies would need to be changed to address the additional growth associated with Alternatives 2 and 3. Cultural Resources – The mitigation provided in the plans helps to ensure that tribal cultural resources are protected when development occurs. All three alternatives would resultin similar potential for disturbances. Public Services and Utilities – Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in increased population anddemand for services. Development of the mining site would also require an extension of utilities by the developer. Ms.Daniels said staff will schedule a public workshop with theCommission to identify a preferred alternative at their July th 16meeting. She emphasized that the Commission can select one of the alternatives as the preferred alternative,the preferred alternativecan be a mix and match of the two alternatives,or the Commission can come up with a new alternative that falls within the range of the alternativesstudied. Ms. Daniels explained that an environmental review is required for any proposed developmentthat is not exempt from SEPA. However, a Planned Action EIS studies proposals in advance, shifting the environmental review from the permit review stage to the planning stage. If a Planned Action EIS is adopted for the Gorst Creek Urban Growth Area (UGA), future proposalswould not need additional environmental review when they are consistent with the assumptions and mitigation measures contained in the Planned Action EIS. Proposals will still need to go through appropriate permit review procedures. She asked the Commission to provide feedback about whether the Planned Action EIS should apply to the entire Gorst Creek UGAor if some areas should be excluded. Ms. Daniels Next, reviewed the Draft Gorst Subarea Plan (Volume 3), which is intended to provide greater detail, guidance and predictability to future development within the 335-acre Gorst UGA. The plan contains guiding principles, goals and policies. It also contains a land-use plan that currently shows the three draft EIS alternatives, urban design concepts, best management practices and incentives, Gorst zoning and development regulations, design guidelines, and preliminary capital facilities planning. Ms. Daniels said that in addition to comments provided by the Planning Commission, the draft Gorst Creek Watershed and Gorst Urban Growth Area Plans will be guided by the Kitsap County Planning Commission’s recommendation as well as th publiccomments from a public meeting on June 20and comments that are received during the formal comment period. Chair Jose asked Ms. Daniels to explain why it is necessary for the City to work in conjunction with the County to create the Ms. Daniels Gorst UGA Plan.answered that the Gorst UGAis located within Kitsap County’s jurisdiction, and it is possible the City will annex the properties at some point in the future. She noted the City just put in infrastructure, including sewer, so the area is prime to be redeveloped. The City applied forand received a grant to fund the planning effort, and they have worked closely with the County to create the plan. In addition to review by the Bremerton Planning Commission and City Council, the plan will also be reviewed by the Kitsap County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The intent is that the plan would allow for a smooth transition if and when the properties areannexed. Ms. Daniels referred to images contained in the draft subarea plan that depict the potential typesandscale of land uses in each of the zones. She noted that this information is preliminary at this point because a preferred alternative has not yet been identified. She encouraged the Commissionersto carefully review the proposed zoning identified in each of the alternatives and imagine the type of development that might be allowedbased on these images. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 37 June 18, 2013~ Page of Ms. Daniels reminded the Commission that the SKIA Plan calls out incentives that could be incorporated into the Gorst Subarea Plan, as well, to encourage development. She explained that an incentive is a relaxation in development standards or allowances for greater development in exchange for providing public benefits or amenities. She encouraged the Commissioners to provide their thoughts and ideas related to incentives. Ms. Daniels explained that the Design Guidelines are not intended to limit development to a particular theme. Instead, one of the main focuses of the Design Guidelines is to improve the rights-of-way. This includes the concept of complete streets with safe sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. to make the subarea walkable and provide connections within the community. Ms. Daniels said the Gorst Subarea Plan will include a Capital Facilities Plan that identifies the improvements that are needed within the subarea. She referred to a map prepared by Kitsap County for a community-wide walking planthat would provide opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to get around in the subarea and connect to the surrounding neighborhoods. She said stormwater and flooding will also be addressed in the Capital Facilities Plan. She referred to a map that pinpoints the 17 areas where stormwater issues currently exist. Addressing these issues will require coordination between the City, County and private property ownersand may involve new regulations and incentives. Ms. Daniels announced that the draft Gorst Subarea Plan and EIS are open for a 45-day comment period, which ends on July th 24. In addition to the public comment period, there will befive public meetings at both the County and City levels. She th particularly invited the public and Commissioners to attend the Gorst Community Workshop on June 20starting at 5:00 th p.m. The next advisory committee meeting is scheduled for August 7, andthe topic of discussion will be direction for a preferred alternative. Lastly, she noted that public hearings will be conducted before both the City Council and Planning Commission in the fall. Ms. Daniels summarized that staff is currently seeking feedback from the Commission regarding the preferred land-use alternatives, zoning and incentives, mitigation for stormwater and flooding, how to coordinate City and County shoreline regulations, and the best way to handle multimodal travel in the Gorst UGA. Chair Jose issued a call to the public to address the Commission regarding the draft Gorst Creek Watershed and Gorst UGA Plans. Jack Stanfill, President, Chico Creek Task Force, voiced concern that the upper portion of the Heinz Creek Sub-Basin, six streams, and HeinzLake were not included in the Gorst Creek Watershed Characterization Report. He referred to a sub-basin assessment that was prepared for the Ueland Tree Farm’s Kitsap Lake property in June of 2012. He pointed out that Section 3.4.6 states that Heinz Creek and its associated tributaries run through the southern portion of the United Trust Fund (UTF) property and drain into Heinz Lake. Heinz Lake connects to Alexander Lake via an intermittent stream. Resident fish are present within the lake, but do not extend past the lake itself.He said Section 3.1 of the basin assessment states that the Heinz Creek sub-basin is located in the Gorst Creek watershedand is comprised of six tributaries that ultimately drain into Heinz Lake. The entire southern portion of the UTF property is within this sub-basin, not including the lake itself. Various wetlands are also associated with this sub-basin, as well. Heinz Lake is connected to Alexander Lake by an intermittent tributary, and Alexander Lake discharges to Heinz Creek, which eventually discharges to Gorst Creekand ultimately Sinclair Inlet. Mr. Stanfill expressed concern that the City is moving forward with studies and a draft subarea plan without having accurate information about the 450acres of mining property that islocated upstream. He particularly noted the steep bankwhere Heinz Creek comes off the Ueland Tree Farm(60 to 70% grade). Henoted that on one sideof the ridge, water flows down to the Union Reservoir. On the other side the water flows into Dickerson and Chico Creeks, which combines withHeinzCreek between Quarries B and C. The combined stream flows downhill into Heinz Lake, Alexander Lake, Heinz Lake, and the fish hatchery. No one has done a study of the type of heavy metals that will be in the water that flows down the hill. In addition, the new roads that will be constructed in the area may cause additional problems. He suggested that without including these properties, the study is invalid. Larry Matel, PortOrchard, said he was previously the managing engineer for transportation and stormwater for the City of Bremerton’s Public Works Department. He said he is extremely pleased the see the progressthe staff and consultants have made on putting together the Gorst Creek Watershed and Gorst UGA Plans. He said he left the area briefly, but he has Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 47 June 18, 2013~ Page of returned and is looking to get involved in the process again. He expressed his belief that the planswill set the tone for development on this side of Puget Sound. He summarized that there are many opportunities to consider, and one issue that is THE KITSAP SUN of particular interest to him is transportation. He referred to a recent article in about the 400-unit development near Anderson Hill Road, which will be marketed towards younger families and shipyard employees. He expressed his belief that this type of development offers a great opportunity to get people out of their cars. If the Gorst plans can provide adequate non-motorized connections to not only the shipyard, but downtown Bremerton and Port Orchard, the infrastructure will be second to none and will make the Gorst areaa great place for future generations to grow up and prosper. No one else in the audience expressed a desire to participate, and the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. Chair Jose advised that he serves as the Commission’s representative on the Gorst Creek Watershed and Gorst UGA Planning Advisory Committee. He specifically invited the Commissioners to share their thoughtsand questions with staff. Commissioner Dinkuhn asked if there is an opportunity to work with the State to potentially slow traffic down on the Mr. Webb highway before it gets to the Gorst UGA. Pedestrians will be a lot more comfortable around slower traffic. pointed out that the highway already has a level of service (LOS) rating of F or lower, so slowing traffic down would not likely be a good alternative. Anotheroption is to separate the pedestrians from the highway. One of the key goals of the subarea plan is to create a walkable community with beachfront access, andapedestrian crossover would provide safeaccess Chair Jose Mr. Webb over the highway. asked about the estimated cost of developing a fly-over pedestrian bridge. answered that it would cost more than $1 million and less than $10 million per bridge. Vice Chair Tift asked if the Navy has been involved in the subarea planning process. He also asked if the staff and/or Mr. Webb consultant havesomething in mind to provide access for bicycles.said they looked hard at a wonderful trail plan that would run along the Sinclair Inlet, and the Navy has been involved in the Advisory Committee. While the Navywill not officiallysay no to the Sinclair Inlet trail, they have indicated it is extraordinarily unlikelybecause of its proximity to the Navy Rail. However, it might be possible to get a bicycle connection to Port Orchard in the portion that would not be impacted by Navy Rail. He noted that Kitsap County is consideringoptions for an overland trail, but he does not think a bicycle connection can be made to theSinclair Inlet trail because of existing horizontal constraints. There would also be Ms. Daniels safety issues associated with providing bicycle lanes where cars merge onto the highway. said Kitsap County is working on an overall bicycle/pedestrian plan to coordinate and tie facilities throughout the county together. It is important Mr. Webb to keep in mind that there needs to be pedestrianandbicycle pathways through the Gorst UGA.noted that because the County’s plan has not yet been completed, the Gorst Subarea Plan could adopt the plan by reference as a generic idea the City could evaluate and potentially incorporate at some point in the future. Chair Jose pointed out that the mining area is envisioned in two of the alternatives as a key residential area, with Sherman Heights Road being the main access. He suggested that, as the area is developed, there will be opportunities to provide Vice Chair Tift bicycle access. asked about the growth potential associated with the mine site being redeveloped as Ms. Daniels residential. said the site is approximately 80 acres, and medium-density residentialzoningwould allow up to 15-units per acre. Chair Jose pointed out the need to address access into the Gorst UGAfrom the communities on Anderson Hill. Commissioner Albright asked if improvements can be made to address traffic congestion that occurs in locations along the Ms. Daniels highway where other roadways merge and the number of lanes is reduced. answered that staff is working in close coordination with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), who has a $500,000 allotment to study the area where traffic bottlenecks near the sewer treatment plant. Part of the requirement is to review the exits on either side of the problem area, and staff has provided information to aid WSDOT’s study. At this time, WSDOT doesnot have Mr. Webb any specific plans for addressing the problem. reminded the Commission that the City does not have the responsibility or the ability to alter the State highway, which is under WSDOT’sjurisdiction. He also noted that WSDOT’s study will not be completed until after the City has completed its Gorst Subarea Plan. Once WSDOT has a plan, the subarea Commissioner Albright plan could be modified accordingly. commented that transportation and mobility throughout the area is the most important issue, seconded by environmental issues. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 57 June 18, 2013~ Page of Chair Jose specifically requested Commission feedback about the area located in the center of the Gorst UGAand whether it Vice Chair Tift should be mixed-use, commercial, etc. suggested that, given the traffic patterns, commercial uses would be Mr. Webb appropriate for this area. However, access issues would need to be resolved. recommended that at least the properties facing the highway should be identified for commercial uses. He suggested the Commission consider a type of horizontal mixed use with commercial along thestreet front and residential in areas that do not haveprimary access from the highway. This would preventexisting homes from becoming non-conforming. This approach would not require existing residential properties to redeveloped, but it would allow property owners the choice to redevelop a site based on market conditions. Chair Jose agreed that commercial uses fit much more with the existing character of the area and would create fewer problems as the City transitions to the future. He also questioned the marketability of residential units located within the triangle of three highways. On the other hand, commercial development would result in more traffic congestion than Mr. Webb residential development. added that the highest and best use from a financial standpoint will likely be commercial, and a mixed-use designation would allow for both. Going straight commercial would decrease flexibility, but commercial development makes more sense for a large portion of that area. He noted that there is ahodge-podge of existing development, and the purpose of the mixed-use designation was to avoid causing properties to become non-conforming. At this time, the current land use is more residential than commercial. Chair Jose invited the Commissioners tocomment on whether the Planned Action EIS would be appropriate for the entire Gorst UGA or if certain areas should be excluded. He recalled that the Advisory Committee discussed that the properties on the near-shore side within the hook of the highway should be excluded from the Planned Action EIS. They discussed that Ms. Spencer these properties should be held to a higher standard because of their close proximity to the shoreline. pointed out that Alternative 3 includes a low-intensity waterfront zone,which would have considerably more regulations and mitigation measures to address development impacts. In this situation, it would make sense to include these properties in the Planned Action EIS. On the other hand, the properties along the waterfront in Alternative 2 would have the same regulations as other properties in the UGA. Because these properties would not have to meet a higher mitigation standard, they might not be good candidates to include in the Planned Action EIS. Chair Jose requested Commission feedback regarding potential incentives. He recalled that the SKIA Plan includes incentives; and he particularly likes the Evergreen Designation, which is a special award based on meeting exemplary Ms. Spencer thresholds of environmental protection. explained that a development incentive is the idea that a developer would propose to do something above and beyond what the code requires such as environmental mitigation and shoreline Commissioner Dinkuhn improvements in exchange for a development benefit. said she is leaning towards supporting Alternative 3because it would allow incentives to protect theshoreline and existing natural spaces. She said she would like to see incentives put in place to encourage both existing and future development to do better stewardship than their current policy. Chair Jose Ms. Daniels asked if the Commissioners have any preferences on the different tools of incentives. suggested the Commissioner Dinkuhn Commission review the incentives that are identified in the SKIA Plan. suggested that staff also Commissioner Albright research examples of incentives from other waterfront cities. referred to a mixed-use development Vice Chair Tift near Clear Creek in Silverdale and suggested that staff studySilverdale’s code as a possible example. agreed that the Clear Creek area has very similar characteristics tothe Gorst waterfront. Ms. Spencer noted that the consultants will review the correspondence submitted by Mr. Stanfill and provide a response after Commissioner Tift Mr. Stanfill careful consideration. asked if there is vehicular or pedestrian access to Heinz Lake. answered that there is an access road from Jarstad Park to Kitsap Lake, and existing logging roads and trails provide pedestrian access from Kitsap Lake to Heinz and Alexander Lakes. He said he visited the sites last spring and found them beautiful. Commissioner Dinkuhn Mr. Webb asked how the Gorst Creek Watershed boundaries were established.said the boundaries are based on a flow model that was created by the Department of Ecology. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 67 June 18, 2013~ Page of BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Jose reported that he attended a Gorst Creek Watershed and Gorst UGA Planning Advisory Committee meeting last week. He also attended a meeting regarding treesthat was held in the Mayor’s Conference Roomwherehe commented that the City is following the tree policies and adhering to the Comprehensive Plan goals related to urban tree cover. Director Report th Ms. Spencer starting at 5:00 p.m. The invited the Commissioners to attend the Gorst Community Workshop on June 20 meeting will take place at the Family Worship Center located at 3649 West Frontage Road. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business There was no new business scheduled on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at6:45p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ____________________________________________________________ Andrea L Spencer, AICPGreg Jose, Chair Executive SecretaryPlanning Commission Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 77 June 18, 2013~ Page of CommissionHearingDate: July 16, 2013Agenda Item:V B CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing on proposed Title 20 amendments DEPARTMENT: Community Development(DCD) PRESENTED BY: Nicole Floyd,Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Planning Commission public hearingwill focus on amendments to the Zoning Code in relationship to three separate topics previously discussed at the Planning Commission workshop held earlier this year in April. Attachment I includes all proposed amendments in legislative mark-up where new sections are underlinedand sections to be removed are struck- through.The proposed amendments are summarized as follows: SEPA Exemptions :Recognizing that DOE approved higher thresholds earlier this year, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of raising these thresholds at its workshops, th and directed staff at its April 16Workshopto prepare an amendment to increase the SEPA categorical exemption thresholds to the highest levels allowed by state law. Attachment I includes such amendments shown in legislative mark-up. Drive-Through Facilities: Theserevisions area direct outcomefrom the City Council’s annual retreat, whenCouncil requested DCDreview standards relating to drive-through facilitiesand the inconsistency between the requirements from zone to zone. The Planning th Commission, at its April 16workshop agreed with City Council and requested planning staff develop amendments to establish criteria for drive-through facilitiesthat addressessite design and aesthetic elementsnecessary to ensure consistencywith the comprehensive plan’s vision. Draft amendments establish general standards for all drive-through facilities throughout the City and significantly reduce the number of zones in which drive-throughs are prohibited. Maximum Front Yard Setbacks: Theserevisions arealso a direct outcomefrom the City Council’s annual retreat whenCouncilrequested DCD toidentify revisions to the zoning code which could facilitate redevelopment, while retaining the comprehensive plan “centers” concept. The Planning Commission discussed this at the Workshop, as well as receiving some public comment on the issue. The Commission directed staff to prepareamendments that would provide a better transition towards the centers concept by adding flexibility without compromising the Comprehensive Plan’s overall goals and policies. The following staff report presents a summary of the three proposed amendmentsin more detail and includes information about Staff’sresearch and analysis. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment I: Proposed text amendments in legislative format Attachment II: Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION : Move to recommend the City Council adopt the text amendments to BMC Title 20, as detailed in Attachment I, and based upon the staff report and the Findings and Conclusions presented in Attachment II. 1 STAFF REPORT AND ANALYSIS SEPA Categorical ExemptionsThresholds In 2012, the State Legislature passed amendments to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) that directly affects local governments. In part three of the Second Engrossed SubstituteSenate Bill (2ESSB)6406, the legislature enacted a numberof changes to SEPA that are designed to make this environmental law work better for cities, counties and project applicants by coordinating it more efficiently with current land use planning and development regulations, and by streamlining the regulatory process. The amendments went into effect on July 10, 2012. The Department of Ecology spent the remaining part of 2012 preparing SEPA rule updates to implement the 2012 legislation. The rules have been updated and went into effect on January 28, 2013.One of the amendments to SEPA is to allow local governments fully planning under GMA to establish separate flexible SEPA exemption thresholds. Maximum exemptions are identified in WAC 197-11-800, but local governments have the flexibility to establish exemptions within that range.In order for local governments to raise the levels of development activity that are exempt from SEPA review to the maximum specified in the amended SEPA rules, an amendment to the jurisdiction’s codified SEPA procedures must be made, and the process established in WAC 197-11-800(c) must be followed. The Planning Commission, during their workshops, reviewed the various exemption ranges, and recommended that the highest exemption levels be adoptedprimarily due to the City’s exemplary set of regulations specifically addressing potential adverse environmental impacts such as the Critical Area Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, Stormwater Manuals, and adopted Best Management Practices. Threshold Levels for SEPA Categorical Exemptions WAC 197-11-800(1)(c)and(d) Minor New Levels 1971-2012 2013 Highest Constructionallowed Highest Exemptions Available – outright by Exemptions Recommended by WACAvailable Planning Commission Dwelling Units4 dwelling 20dwelling units30 dwelling units and units60 multi-family units Parking Stalls20 stalls40 stalls90 stalls Commercial 4,000 square 12,000 square 30,000 square foot + 90 Buildingfeetfeet + 40 parking parking stalls stalls Grading100 cubic 400 cubicyards1,000 cubic yards yards 2 Auto Oriented Development and the Comprehensive Plan The following two topics (drive-through facilities and setbacks) areboth somewhat unique in that they are intrinsically tied to goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Both were created to directly implement the “Centers”concept which is intendedto promote new development intomixed use centers, where one can comfortably walk from their home to the grocery store, coffee shop, officeetc. When considering revisions to either of these code sections it is important to reflect upon the impact such revisions may have on the successful implementation of the Comprehensive Plans goals.Significant effort has been taken by Staff to ensure the proposed revisions do not inadvertently diminish the long-term viability of the Centers Concept. Instead, Staff’s intent is to bridge the gap between the existing development pattern and the goals for the future. These two sections have been challenging for Staff to draft because of their interconnectedness to implementation of the “Centers” concept. Since auto oriented businesses such as drive-through facilities or large seas of parking in front of businesses are contrary to the to the type of development thatachieve a dense walkable center, their permitted locations are currently severely limited by the Zoning Code.Transition from auto oriented development patterns to the Centers concept has not been as successful as was anticipated when the Zoning Code was adopted in 2005. Staff believes this transition would be more successful if the code provided more flexibility to allow this transition to take place over time.The proposed revisions reflect this effort towards flexibility, without alteration to the long term goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. For both topics, Staff focused on the following elements: 1.Consistency: Revisions are intended to ensure that all commercial zoning designations have similar requirements and use similar language so that code provisions are applied appropriately. Zones designated as a “Center” such as District Center, or Neighborhood Center are intended to be more intensely regulated for compliance with the “Centers Concept”because they are the primary focus areas in the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed revisions maintainthis emphasis. 2.Flexibility: Revisions are intended to acknowledge that every site is different, each with unique constraints. The proposed code language intendsto establish clear requirements, but to allow for minor code departure on a case by case basis provided specific criteria is met. In this way,the code maintains consistency with the Comprehensive Plan but achieves greater flexibility for unforeseen situations where specific compliance is not feasible. 3.Existing Development:Current code provisions focus primarily onnew development, where the site is void of existing structuresand new structures are built. Very little consideration for remodel or expansion of existing developed sitesis given.These existing developments make up a substantial portion of the Commercial property in Bremerton. Proposed revisions include provisions that accommodate existing development. 3 Drive-Through Facilities Significant attention was paid to drive-through facilities at the April Planning Commission Workshop. The Commission discussion focused primarily on the two major highways running through the City, Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way. There are several different commercial zones scattered along these highways, all of which havetheir own specific regulations. Some zones outrightly permit drive-through facilities without any specific requirements for their placement or design, while other zones prohibit such uses altogether. Additionally, the existing development pattern along these two highways is primarily auto oriented and includes a considerable numberof existing drive-through facilities throughout all of the zones. With so many existing drive-through facilities, it has been challenging for applicants to understand why a new drive-through is prohibited, when neighboring businesses have them. The Commission directed Staff to provide revisions that allowed drive-through facilities in more locations without negatively impacting the overall growth strategy of the Comprehensive Plan. The following summarizes the changes proposed. Enhanced code language is shown in the existing “Drive-Through Lane” section. The new language establishes criteria for all drive-throughs. This additional language resolves the issue of consistency as it ensures thatall drive-through facilities will beheld to the same standardregardless of the zone in which they arelocated.The new drive-through standards include the following: Clarification of Use : The proposed amendments include modifications to the definition section to clearly identifywhat components make up a drive-through facility (window and stacking lane) and to clarifythat a drive-through facility is not a separate use, rather it can be an accessory function to any permitted use in the applicable zone. Preferred Locations: Amendments encourage the drive-through facility to be located to the side or rear of the building when possible. When this is not possible, screening requirements have been added to reduce the visual impacts of the drive-through. Stacking Lane: Current code language does not explicitly identify the minimum number of waitingcars the lane must hold. This is typically important for small lots, to ensure waitingcars are not blocking traffic on the street. Thestacking lane requirement has been This drive-through lane is physically set at a minimum of 4 cars, and 6 cars for separated from the parking area, restaurant/food/drink uses. located behind and to the side of the building, screened with a combination Design: The Comprehensive Plan establishes that the of landscaping and a trellis, and most important design elements for drive-through provides additional aesthetics with its facilities includescreeningof the drive-through lane pavement treatment. andensuring safe pedestrian movement on and within 4 the site. The amendments establish design criteria that include:landscaping, screening, modified materialsfor the stacking lane, and enhanced pedestrian features. Signage: New requirements have been created to ensure proper size, placement and screening of menu boards to minimize impact on adjacent properties. Pedestrian Features: Acknowledging the Comprehensive Plan’s policies for pedestrian friendly centers a new provision requiring walkways distinguished with pavement treatment, is includedandintended to providesafe connections onto the site from public sidewalks, as well as within the site from parking areas. These new standards enable a reduction in the number of This pedestrian walkway zones that currently prohibit drive-throughs because these provides a safe connection requirements will facilitate better design and enhanced from a parking area to a pedestrian safety. The only zones that continue the building. prohibition on drive-through facilities are the District Center Core, Neighborhood Center Core, and Neighborhood Business. The following chart identifies the proposed relaxation of the prohibition. Allowed with Permitted UseProhibited Commercial CorridorDistrict Center Core ~Exception: Wheaton/Riddell Sub-Area Wheaton Way Redevelopment CorridorNeighborhood Center Core ~ Exception: Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center Freeway Corridor Industrial Neighborhood Business Industrial Park Employment Center Institutional TheDistrict and Neighborhood Center Core zones are extremely important in terms of achieving the “Centers Concept” outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. These areas include places such as Downtown, Manette, and Charleston where drive-through facilities seem out of character with the existing development pattern as well as the planned growth strategy. Two areas within these center zones are proposed to allow drive-through facilities because the properties within them are located on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way where existing development is dominated by auto oriented uses. Similarly, due to the small scale nature of the Neighborhood Business zone,drive-through facilities seem inappropriate. 5 Maximum Front Yard Setbacksand Parking The Planning Commission deliberated extensively on the topic of maximum front yard setbacks at the April Workshop and directed Staff to make amendments that enhanced flexibility without diminishing the long term goals of the Comprehensive Plan related to the “Centers” concept. One of the primary purposes of the maximum front yard setback is to place the building, rather than parking on the street frontage, much like one would see in a dense urban core such as Downtown. Particular attention is paid to street corners,as they anchor the entire street scapeand affect more than one street frontage.Due to the extensive discussions in the code about parking lot locations, careful attention must be paid to ensure increased setbacks are coupled with adequate parking standards to ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the street presence. Complaints about the maximum front yard setback have been primarily due to a lack of flexibility for unforeseen circumstances such as topography, or the added complexities from trying to design a new structure around existing onsite development. Additionally, Staff has struggled with the code language due to the lack of consistency between different zones, where some set the maximum at 5’ and others at 10’ with very few provisions to allow for an increase.The proposed revisions intend to resolve these issues without substantial impact to the Comprehensive Plan goals as follows: Improved Setback Flexibility : New language is provided that recognizes several scenarios in which increased setbacks may be appropriate and allows anyapplicant to request an increase. The list is not exhaustive, rather it is intended to provide guidance regarding what situations the increase may apply to,such as:topography, utilities, site constraints, to accommodate phased infill, for projects with existing occupied structures,etc. Prior to approval of the setbackdeparture, the applicant must demonstrate why an increased setback is needed, how it is the minimum necessary, what compensating features will be provided in order to facilitate a superior site design, and how it maintains consistency with the ComprehensivePlan.Staff anticipates that these criteriawill provide enough flexibility to allow for modifications when strict code compliance is not possible, but is challenging enough that applicants will make a concerted effort to comply with the code prior requesting a departure. Setback Consistency :Staff revised all zoning districts that establish a maximum front yard setback to ensure the language is consistent throughout them all. Rather than having a 5’ setback in some and 10’ in others, Staff proposes to list all at 10’. Parking: Each zone with maximum front yard setback requirements also includes a specific parking section which establishes regulations in excess of the standard parking chapter. These parking requirements are intended to fulfill the Comprehensive Plans vision to hide parking lots behind the building, rather than placing them in front of buildings. Each zone has slightly different language relating to parking, but most contain similar concepts such as: Minimize the amount of parking in front of the building. Prohibit parking on street corners 6 Access parking off of smaller ancillary roads when possible. Proposed revisions focus on increasing flexibility as with the maximum setback discussion above. Revisions are as follows: building Parking at the Building Frontage :Each zone establishes a slightly different maximum percentage for the amount of parking Site Frontage–50% max parking that may be between the building and the street frontage. Staff recommends establishing the same percentage for all of the zones, Happy Street proposed amendments use 50%. Additionally, the proposed amendments include clarifying language that helpsidentify what portions of the lot this requirement applies to. Parking at the Corner : Rather than prohibiting parking at the corner of two street intersections, the proposed amendments provide for some flexibility by establishing design criteria to screen the parking should it be locatedat an intersection. Such screening is intended to fully hide the parking areas. The wallor hedgeis intended to achieve the anchoring effect desiredby the Comprehensive Plan. Consistency: Although not discussed in detail, there are several revisions included throughout the attached proposed amendment document that are not intended to have substantiveimpact,but are to clarify the existing intent. For example, the word “principal”has been added in front of “arterial” because there are several different types of arterial roads within Bremerton. Another example is the removal of handicapped parking stall requirements as these requirements are more clearly addressed in the Building Code. 7 Attachment I Proposed Text Amendments to BMC Title 20 Amendments are in numerical order based on code section location. 20.04.100 USE OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS (d)Threshold levels for categorical exemptions. WAC 197-11-800 establishes certain actions as exempt from SEPA. Under (1)(c) of that section, raised levels of exemptions for the following types of actions are allowed as exempt from SEPA except as provided in WAC 197-11- 305 and 197-11-800(1)(a): (1)The construction or location of 30 or fewer single family residential units. (2)The construction or location of 60 or fewer multifamily residential units. (3)The construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage building with 30,000 square feet of gross floor area, and with associated parking facilities designed for 90 parking spaces; (4)The construction of a parking lot designed for 90 parking spaces; Any landfill or excavation of 1,000 cubic yards throughout the (5) lifetime of the fill or excavation, and any fill or excavation classified asClass I, II, or III forest practice under RCW 76.09.050 or regulations thereunder. 20.42 DEFINITIONS: Drive-through facility "" means an automobile-oriented component of a permitted use that includes both service window(s)and a stacking lane facility designed primarily for drive-through trade, and which provides service and caters to patrons while in their motor vehicles. Drive-through facilities conduct a majority of their business transactions with customers served in their motor vehicles. This doesnot include gas stations, service stations, and auto repair garages.(See BMC 20.44.120). Drive-through lanes "" means a secondary or ancillary drive-up service at a business that is primarily oriented to walk-in or sit-down customers. The business must conduct a majority of transactions with walk-in or sit-down customers. (See also BMC 20.44.120, Ancillary drive-through lanes.) “Stacking Lane”meansa designated driving lane provided for vehicles waiting for, receiving,andexiting after receivinga service at a drive up window from a permitted use.The lane is physically separated from other traffic and pedestrian circulation on the property and includes adequate area for cars to wait for service. 1 Attachment I 20.44.120ANCILLARY DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIESLANES. Ancillary drive-through lanes as defined in BMC 20.42.040may be permitted in conjunction with an allowable principal use, unless drive-through lanes are expressly prohibited in the zone district. (a)Applicability: Drive-through facilities are an accessoryto a principaluse of a structureand therefore are only allowed when found in association with a permitted use. Drive-through facilities are, expressly prohibited insome zoning districtsregardless of the principaluse. (1)Exception: While generally prohibited within the NCC and DCCzones, drive-through facilities may be permitted in the following areas provided the business has direct vehicular access from either Wheaton Way or Kitsap Way: (i)Properties zoned Neighborhood Center Core (NCC)that are within the Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center; and (ii)Properties within the Wheaton Riddell Sub-Area Plan. (2)Drive-through facilities standards within this section apply to the construction of new drive-throughfacilities, the addition of adrive-through facilityto existing developments, and/or the relocation of anexisting drive- through facilityonsite. (b)Site Design Requirements: All drive-through facilities shall comply with the following requirements: (1)Location: All efforts should be taken to locate the drive- through facility towards the side and or rear of buildings. Drive-through facilities shall not be located between the building and the street frontage except in the following circumstances: (i)Primary Frontage: A drive-through facility may be placed between a building and the street frontage only when all other site designs have been exhausted and are deemed unworkable by the Director. The drive-through facility shall be fully screened from view of the fronting street through the use of features such as sight-obscuring fencing, walls, trellises, and landscaping. (ii)Secondary Frontage: When a site contains more than one street frontage the drive-through facility may be located between the building andsecondary frontageonly when all other site designs have been exhausted and found unworkable.Screening from the secondary frontage is encouraged, but not required. (2)Stacking: All drive-through facilities shall include a stacking lane that provides room for a minimum of four (4)cars to line up behind the drive- through window. For restaurant/food/drink uses the stacking lane shall provide room for a minimum of six (6) cars. 2 Attachment I (3)Design: The drive-through lane(s) shall be designed as a dedicated lane, physically separated from parking areas and internal parking circulation aisles in order to enhance pedestrian safety and provide screening from adjacent properties, and right-of-way.A combination of the two of following shall be provided adjacent to the drive-through lane(s): (i)Landscaped strips, islands, or berms that are a minimum of 3’ wide and 50sf in sizeare required in addition to all other required landscaping areas. Said landscaped areas shall include a mix of ground covers and shrubs that act as a barrier between the drive-through lane and adjacent properties, right-of-way, and parking area; (ii)Hedges, decorative walls, fencing, or trellis that act as a visual barrier between the drive-through lane(s) and adjacent properties, right- of-wayand parking areas; (iii)Decorative pavement, alternative materials (bricks, stamped concrete), or other durable ground treatment that clearly separates the drive-through lane(s) from other driving and parking areas onsite that will withstand heavy traffic conditions found in association with drive-through lanes Paint striping does not meet this requirement. (4)Signage: (i)Each ordering location shall have a maximum of one menu board. One additional menu board may be placed adjacent to the stacking lane for patrons waiting behind the ordering station. Each menu board sign shall not exceed 30 square feet and have a maximum height of 7’. (ii)Menu boards shallbe located in a landscaped strip or island no smaller than 3’ wide and 50sf in total size. This landscaping area shall be in addition to all other required landscaping.The menu board(s) shall be oriented away from publicstreetsand be intended for viewing by drive-through patrons only.Screening of the menu board may be required when the board is located adjacent to the right-of-wayor neighboring properties.Screening shall ensure the board is not readable from the surrounding properties or street. (5)Pedestrian features:In order to enhance safe pedestrian access, designated walkways from all onsite parking areas and from the public sidewalk to abuilding entry, shall be provided as follows: øï÷ Walkways shall be a minimum 5’ in width, clearly marked and easily distinguished from driving surfaces by using a combination of landscaping strips or islands that delineate the pedestrian walkways; and øî÷ Walkways shall include at least one of the following treatments: decorative paving, stamped/stained concreteor raised walkways with alternative materials (such as brick, cobblestone, and decorative pavers) to clearly indicate the safe walking route. Walkways through heavy traffic areas 3 Attachment I such as the drive-through must be made of durable materials able to withstand heavy traffic conditions. 20.48.260 DRIVE-THROUGH STACKING REQUIREMENTS. Drive-through stacking requirements can be found in Chapter 11.12BMC 20.44.120. COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR 20.62.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (a)Lot development shall be in accordance with the following standards, unless allowed for otherwise by law: (1)Maximum front yard setback: Tenfive(105)feet. At least sixty-five (65) percent of the building’s front facade must meet the maximum front yard setback.The setback may be increased if the Director finds that such increase is the minimum necessary to facilitate a superiorsite design.In order to obtain approval for anincreased setback,the applicant shall submit a written analysis establishing how the project facilitates superiorsite design, is the minimum necessary, is consistent with specific goals and policies within the Comprehensive Planand iscompliant with all applicable sections of theBMC. The following list identifies examples of circumstances whereincreased setbacks may be found to be appropriate: (i) When thesite includes more than one street frontage; (ii) To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other physical site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible; To accommodate phasing of infill development; (iii) On sites that are significantly developed with existinglegally (iv) established nonconforming uses or structureswhereby strict code compliance will not facilitate effective circulation; and; For projects that in the opinion of the Director provide (v) enhanced public amenities within the setback area which includes, but is not limited to the following:public plazas, increased landscaping,architectural features, improved pedestrian connections. 20.62.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS. On-site parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.48 BMC, and the following standards shall be met: (a) On-site parking shall be to the rear or to the side of buildings on the site and shall not occupy more than fifty (50) percent of the site frontage facing the arterial streetfrontage(s).The sitefrontage includes all of the area between the right-of- wayandfrontbuilding wall; this applies to the entire length of the property 4 Attachment I regardless of building width.Corner lots have two site frontages as they are positioned on two street frontages. (b) All efforts shall be taken to avoid placing Pparking shall not be placed on street corners.Parking located between the building frontage and street corners shall be fully screened. Screening shall consist ofthe following: (1) Afour(4)foot tall decorative wall within the front yard landscaping areathat fully screens the parking areas. The wall shall be located such that it blocks views of the parking from the right-of-way.For long spans of frontage (100’ or more), the wall shall include modular articulationto add architectural variety. (2) Shrubs or other alternative materials may be substituted for the wall, provided it is demonstrated that the shrubs/alternative will provide equal to or better visual screening than the wall. Shrubsshall be a minimum of three feet (3’)’ tall at time of installation and shall be additionalto the landscaping required in BMC 20.52. (3) Openings may be required within a wall section in order to provide asidewalk from the right-of-wayto the building entry. The entry shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate a sidewalk that is a minimum of 5’ in width, clearly marked, and distinguished from driving surfaces by using decorative paving, stamped/stained concrete, or raised walkways with alternative materials (such as brick, cobblestone, decorative pavers). Paint striping does not meet this requirement. (c) Access to parking may be from adjacent non-principal arterial streets, or from driveways off of the principal arterial. (d) Driveways providing access to parking area shall be well marked. WHEATON WAY REDEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR 20.64.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (a)Lot development shall be in accordance with the following standards, unless allowed for otherwise by law: (1)Maximum front yard setback:is Tenfive(105) feet.except that front yard setback may be increased if the Director finds that such increase is necessary to accommodate pedestrian features per BMC 20.64.070or equivalent.At least sixty-five (65) percent of the building’s front facade must meet the maximum front yard setback;Thesetback may be increased if the Director finds that such increase is the minimum necessary to facilitate a superior site design. In order to obtain approval for an increased setback,the applicant shall submit a written analysis establishing how the project facilitates superior site design, is the minimum necessary, is consistent with specific goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan and is compliant with all applicable sections of the BMC. The following list identifies examples of circumstances where increased setbacks may be found to be appropriate: (i)When the site includes more than one street frontage; 5 Attachment I To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other (ii) physical site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible; To accommodate phasing of infill development; On sites that are significantly developed with existing legally (iii) established nonconforming uses or structures whereby strict code compliance will not facilitate effective circulation; and; For projects that in the opinion of the Director provide (iv) enhanced public amenities within the setback area which includes but is not limited to the following: public plazas, increased landscaping, architectural features, improved pedestrian connections. 20.64.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS. On-site parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.48BMC and the following standards shall be met: (a)On-site parking shall be to the rear or to the side of buildings on the site and shall not occupy more than fiftyforty(4050) percent of the site frontage facing the arterial streetfrontage(s).The site frontage includes the area between the right- of-wayand front building wall; this applies to the entire length of the property regardless of building width. Corner lots have two site frontages as they are positioned on two street frontages. (b) All efforts shall be taken to avoid placing parking on street corners. Parking located between the building frontage and street cornersshall be fully screened. Screening shall consist of the following: Afour(4) foot tall decorative wall within the front yard landscaping (1) area that fully screens the parking areas. The wall shall be located such that it blocks views of the parking from the right-of-way. For long spans of frontage (100’ or more), the wall shall include modular articulation to add architectural variety. Shrubs or other alternative materials may be substituted for the (2) wall, provided it is demonstrated that the shrubs/alternative will provide equal to or better visual screening than the wall. Shrubs shall be a minimum of three feet (3’)tall at time of installation and shall be additional to the landscaping required in BMC 20.52. Openings may be required within a wall section in order to provide (3) a sidewalk from the right-of-wayto the building entry. The entry shall be the minimum necessary to accommodatea sidewalk that is a minimum of 5’in width, clearly marked, and distinguished from driving surfaces by using decorative paving, stamped/stained concrete, or raised walkways with alternative materials (such as brick, cobblestone, decorative pavers). Paint striping does not meet this requirement. (c)Access to parking may be from adjacent non-principal arterial streets, or from driveways off of the principal arterial. 6 Attachment I (d)Driveways providing access to parking area shall be well-defined, highly visible entryways. (e)On-street parking shall be allowed to help satisfy parking requirements, provided paved street widths provide adequate room pursuant to City standards for on-street parking. NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER CORE 20.66.050PROHIBITED USES. (a)Drive-through lanes except within the Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center when the business has direct vehicular access from Kitsap Way. 20.66.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (a)Maximum Ffront yard setback:no minimum front yard setback. The maximum front yard setback shall be ten (10) feet. At least eighty (80)sixty five (65)percent of the building’s front facade shall meet the maximum front yard setback.The setback may be increased if the Director finds that such increase is the minimum necessary to facilitate a superior site design. In order to obtain approval for an increased setback,the applicant shall submit a written analysis establishing how the project facilitates superior site design, is the minimum necessary, is consistent with specific goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan and is compliant with all applicable sections of the BMC. The following list identifies examples of circumstances where increased setbacks may be found to be appropriate: (i)When the site includes more than one street frontage; To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other (ii) physical site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible; To accommodate phasing of infill development; On sites that are significantly developed with existing legally (iii) established nonconforming uses or structureswhereby strict code compliance will not facilitate effective circulation; and; For projects that in the opinion of the Director provide (iv) enhanced public amenities within the setback area including, but not limited to the following: public plazas, increased landscaping, architectural features, improved pedestrian connections. 20.66.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS Parking shall meet the standards of Chapter 20.48 BMC and the following requirements: 7 Attachment I (a) For nonresidential uses, the minimum parking requirement is one (1) space per employee, plus one (1) handicapped-accessible space; (b) On-site parking for nonresidential uses shall not exceed one (1) space per three hundred (300) square feet of floor area; (c)On-site parking shall be to the rear or to the side of buildings on the site and shall not occupy more than fifty (50) percentof the site frontage facing the arterial street(s);The site frontage includes the area between the right-of-way and front building wall; this applies to the entire length of the property regardless of building width. Corner lots have two site frontages as they are positioned on two street frontages. (d)All efforts shall be taken to avoid placing parking on street corners. Parking located between the building frontage and street cornersshall be fully screened as follows: (1)Afour(4) foot tall decorative wall within the front yard landscaping area that fully screens the parking areas. The wall shall be located such that it blocks views of the parking from the right-of-way. For long spans of frontage (100’ or more), the wall shall include modular articulation to add architectural variety. (i)Alternate architectural features, shrubs may be substituted for the wall, provided it is demonstrated that the shrubs/alternative will provide equal to or better visual screening than the wall. Shrubs shall be a minimum of three foot (3’)tall at time of installation and shall be additional to the landscaping required in BMC 20.52. (ii)Openings and architectural features may be required within a wall section in order to tie the wall feature into the architecture of the building and to provide pedestrian access. The entry shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate a sidewalk that is a minimum of 5’ inwidth, clearly marked, and distinguished from driving surfaces by using decorative paving, stamped/stained concrete, or raised walkways with alternative materials (such as brick, cobblestone, decorative pavers). Paint striping does not meet this requirement. (e) Access to parking shall be provided from the adjacent public facilities per the following priority: (1)First, from an alley if available; (2)If an alley is not available, then from local street; (2)If neither are available,then from a non-principal arterial street,if available; (3)If none of the above are available then either an alley nor a non-from a principalarterialstreet.street are available, from an arterial.; Project applicants shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that access design has been considered with the preceding priorities. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed access is provided from the highest priority facility per the above list; 8 Attachment I DISTRICT CENTER CORE 20.70.050 PROHIBITED USES . (a)Drive-through lanes except within the Wheaton/Riddell District Centerwhen the business has directvehicularaccess from WheatonWay. 20.70.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Lot development shall be in accordance with the following unless allowed for otherwise by law: (a)MaximumFfront yard setback: no minimum front yard setback. The maximum front yard setback isten (10) feet. At least sixty five (65)eighty (80) percent of a building’s front facade shall meet the maximum front yard setback. The setback may be increased if the Director finds that such increase is the minimum necessary to facilitate a superior site design. In order to obtain approval for an increased setback,the applicant shall submit a written analysis establishing how the project facilitates superior site design, is the minimum necessary, is consistent with specific goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan and is compliant with all applicable sections of the BMC. The following list identifies examples of circumstances where increased setbacks may be found to be appropriate: (i)When the site includes more than one street frontage; To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other (ii) physical site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible; To accommodate phasing of infill development; On sites that are significantly developed with existing legally (iii) established nonconforming uses or structureswhereby strict code compliance will not facilitate effective circulation; and; For projects that in the opinion of the Director provide (iv) enhanced public amenities within the setback area including but not limited to the following: public plazas, increased landscaping, architectural features, improved pedestrian connections. 20.70.070 DESIGN STANDARDS. (b)Site Design. In addition to other standards provided in this chapter, site design shall meet the following requirements: (1)No less than thirty (30) percent of the frontage of a site along arterial streets, as measured in lineal feet, shall be occupied by commercial structures set back ten (10) feet or less from a public right-of-wayright-of-way. In addition, such commercial structures shall be either mixed-use structures with residential or office uses above or be constructed so as to allow future addition of at least two (2) additional stories containing residential or office uses. (2) Circulation. Clearly defined pedestrian and vehicle circulation routes shall be provided such that all portions of the site are linked. 9 Attachment I (3) Storage. Outside storage of any kind is prohibited with the exception of garbage cans and/or dumpsters. Garbage cans and dumpsters shall be placed in an enclosure per BMC 20.46.120. No garbage enclosure shall be permitted between a street and the front of a building. 20.70.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS . Parking shall meet the standards of Chapter 20.48 BMC and the following requirements: (a) For nonresidential uses, the minimum parking requirement is one (1) space per employee, plus one (1) handicapped-accessible space. (b) On-site parking for nonresidential uses shall not exceed four one(41) spacesper three hundred (300)one thousand (1,000)square feet of floor area. (c) On-site parking shall be to the rearor side of buildings facing the arterial streetand shall not occupy more than fifty (50) percent of the site frontage facing the arterial street(s).The site frontage includes the area between the right-of-way and front building wall; this applies to the entire length of the property regardless of building width. Corner lots have two site frontages as they are positioned on two street frontages. (d) All efforts shall be taken to avoid placing parking on street corners. Parking located between the building frontage and street corners shall be fully screened as follows: (1)Afour(4) foot tall decorative wall within the front yard landscaping area that fully screens the parking areas. The wall shall be located such that it blocks views of the parking from the right-of-way. For long spans of frontage (100’ or more), the wall shall include modular articulation to add architectural variety. Alternate architectural features, shrubs may be substituted (i) for the wall, provided it is demonstrated that the shrubs/alternative will provide equal to or better visual screening than the wall. Shrubs shall be a minimum of three foot (3’)tall at time of installation and shall be additional to the landscaping required in BMC 20.52. Openings and architectural features may be required within (ii) a wall section in order to tie the wall feature into the architecture of the building and to provide pedestrian access. The entry shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate a sidewalk that is a minimum of 5’in width, clearly marked, and distinguished from driving surfaces by using decorative paving, stamped/stained concrete, or raised walkways with alternative materials (such as brick, cobblestone, decorative pavers). Paint striping does not meet this requirement. (de) Access to parking shall be provided from the adjacent public facilities per thefollowing priority: (1) First, from an alley if available;if an alley is not available, then from local street; (2) If neither are available, then from a non-principal arterial street; 10 Attachment I (3)If none of the above are available then from a principal arterial street. ) If an alley is not available, from a nonarterial street, if available; (3) If neither an alley nor a nonarterial street are available, from an arterial. (e) Project applicants shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that access design has been considered with the preceding priorities. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed access is provided from the highest priority facility per the above list. (f) Driveways providing access to parking shallbe well marked. (g) Reduction in number of required parking spaces. The Director may reduce the number of required parking spaces on a site by up to ten (10) when a remodel, expansion, alteration, or change in the use or tenancy of an existing buildingoccurs, provided: (1) For sites with multiple uses or structures, the reduction shall be applied to the entire site and not to individual uses. (2) When a use is nonconforming to the required number of off-street parking spaces, it shall not be allowed to reduce the number of existing spaces. NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS 20.82.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Lot development requirements shall be in accordance with the following standards unless allowed for by law otherwise: (a)Maximum front yard setback: ten (10) feet. At least sixty five (65)seventy-five (75)percent of a building’s front facade must meetthe maximum front yard setback.The setback may be increased if the Director finds that such increase is the minimum necessary to facilitate a superior site design. In order to obtain approval for an increased setback,the applicant shall submit a written analysis establishing how the project facilitates superior site design, is the minimum necessary, is consistent withspecific goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan and is compliant with all applicable sections of the BMC. The following list identifies examples of circumstances where increased setbacks may be found to be appropriate: (i)When the site includes more than one street frontage; To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other (ii) physical site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible; To accommodate phasing of infill development; On sites that are significantly developed with existing legally (iii) established nonconforming uses or structureswhereby strict code compliance will not facilitate effective circulation; and; For projects that in the opinion of the Director provide (iv) enhanced public amenities within the setback area including but not limited to the following: public plazas, increased landscaping, architectural features, improved pedestrian connections. 11 Attachment I 20.82.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Parking shall meet the standards of Chapter 20.48BMCand the following. (a)On-site parking shall be to the rear or to the side of buildings on the site and shall not occupy more than fiftyforty(4050) percent of the site frontage facing the arterial street frontage(s). The site frontage includes the area between the right- of-wayand front building wall; this applies to the entire length of the property regardless of building width. Corner lots have two site frontages as they are positioned on two street frontages. (b) All efforts shall be taken to avoid placing parking on street corners. Parking located between the building frontage and street corners shall be fully screened as follows: (1)Afour(4) foot tall decorative wall within the front yard landscaping area that fully screens the parking areas. The wall shall be located such that it blocks views of the parking from the right-of-way. For long spans of frontage (100’ or more), the wall shall include modular articulation to add architectural variety. (i)Alternate architectural features, shrubs may be substituted for the wall, provided it is demonstrated that the shrubs/alternative will provide equal to or better visual screening than the wall. Shrubs shall be a minimum of three feet (3’)’ tall at time ofinstallation and shall be additional to the landscaping required in BMC 20.52. (ii)Openings and architectural features may be required within a wall section in order to tie the wall feature into the architecture of the building and to provide pedestrian access. The entry shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate a sidewalk that is a minimum of 5’in width, clearly marked, and distinguished from driving surfaces by using decorative paving, stamped/stained concrete, or raised walkways with alternative materials (such as brick, cobblestone, decorative pavers). Paint striping does not meet this requirement. (c)Access to parking may be from adjacent non-principal arterial streets, or from driveways off of the principal arterial. (d)Driveways providing access to parking area shall be well-defined, highly visible entryways. LIMITED COMMERCIAL 20.84.060 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (a)Maximum front yard setback: ten (10) feet. At least sixty five (65)seventy-five (75)percent of a building’s front facade must meet the maximum front yard setback.The setback may be increased if the Director finds that such increase is the minimum necessary to facilitate a superior site design. In order to obtain approval for an increased setback,the applicant shall submit a written analysis establishing how the project facilitates superior site design, is the minimum necessary, is consistent with specific goals and policies within the 12 Attachment I Comprehensive Plan and is compliant with all applicable sections of the BMC. The following list identifies examples of circumstances where increased setbacks may be found to be appropriate: (i)When the site includes more than one street frontage; (ii)To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other physical site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible; To accommodate phasing of infill development; (iii)On sites that are significantly developed with existing legally established nonconforming uses or structureswhereby strict code compliance will not facilitate effective circulation; and; (iv)For projects that in the opinion of the Director provide enhanced public amenities within the setback area including, but not limited to the following: public plazas, increased landscaping, architectural features, improved pedestrian connections. 20.84.080 PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Parking shall meet the standards of Chapter 20.48BMCand the following:. (a)On-site parking shall be to the rear or to the side of buildings on the site and shall not occupy more than fifty (50) percent of the site frontage facing the arterial street frontage(s). The site frontage includes the area between the right-of-way and front building wall; this applies to the entire length of the property regardless of building width. Corner lots have two site frontages as they are positioned on two street frontages. (b) All efforts shall be taken to avoid placing parking on street corners. Parking located between the building frontage and street corners shall be fully screened as follows: (1)Afour(4) foot tall decorative wall within the front yard landscaping area that fully screens the parking areas. The wall shall be located such that it blocks views of the parking from the right-of-way. For long spans of frontage (100’ or more), the wall shall include modular articulation to add architectural variety. Alternate architectural features, shrubs may be substituted (ii) for the wall, provided it is demonstrated that the shrubs/alternative will provide equal to or better visual screening than the wall. Shrubs shall be a minimum of three foot (3’)tall at time of installation and shall be additional to the landscaping required in BMC 20.52. Openings and architectural features may be required within (iii) a wall section in order to tie the wall feature into the architecture of the building and to provide pedestrian access. The entry shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate a sidewalk that is a minimum of 5’ in width, clearlymarked, and distinguished from driving surfaces by using decorative paving, stamped/stained concrete, or raised walkways with alternative materials (such as brick, cobblestone, decorative pavers). Paint striping does not meet this requirement. 13 Attachment I (c)Access to parking may be from adjacent non-principal arterial streets, or from driveways off of the principal arterial. (d)Driveways providing access to parking area shall be well-defined, highly visible entryways. EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT 20.92.020 OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USES. The following uses are permitted outright: (a)Co-location of wireless telecommunications facilities per BMC 20.46.140; (b)Community use facility; (c)Day care facility, all; (d)General office and business services; (e)Finance, insurance and real estate(no drive-through facilities); (f)General retail(no drive-through facilities); (g)Hotels and lodging places; (h)Medical offices; (i)Outdoor athletic fields; (j)Park playgrounds and open space, and parks; (k)Personal service business; (l)Physical fitness and health clubs; (m)Public administration; (n)Residential uses of the following types: (1)Group residential facility -Class I; (2)Multi-unit structure; (3)Nursing convalescent home; (4)Senior housing complex; (5)Single unit structure, attached or detached; (6)Townhouse; (o)Restaurants and drinking places(no drive-through facilities); (p)Schools and education uses; (q)Transportation facility; (r)Veterinary clinic; (s)Worship and religious facility. INSTITUTIONAL 20.98.020 OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USES . The following uses are permitted: (a)Co-location of wireless telecommunications facilities per BMC 20.46.140; (b)Community facility; (c)General office and business services; (d)General retail associated with an institution; (e)Higher education and colleges; (f)Hospitals; 14 Attachment I (g)Medical offices and clinics; (h)Outdoor athletic fields and park playground and open spaces; (i)Parking as a principal use; (j)Public administration; (k)Residential uses of the following types: (1)Group residential facility -Class I; (2)Nursing convalescent home; (3)Senior housing complex; (4)Single-unit dwelling unit, detached; (5)Single-unit dwelling unit, attached; (l)Restaurants(no drive-through facilities); (m)Schools and education uses; (n)Transportation facility; (o)Welfare and charitable services and facility; (p)Worship and religious facility. 15 AttachmentII FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary: The proposed amendments to Bremerton Municipal Code Title 20 Land Use Chapter, relate to drive- through facilities, front yard setbacks in commercialzoning districts, and SEPA categorical exemption threshold amounts. I.FINDINGS OF FACT Project Description 1.: The proposed amendment package includes three sets of amendments to Bremerton Municipal Code Title 20 Land Use Chapter, relatingto: Revise various sections of Title 20 –Zoning relating to drive-through facilities a) specifying the commercial zoning districts within the city limits where the facilities are permitted; and b) establishing development and site design standards for the drive- through facilities when allowed. Revise various sections of Title 20 –Zoning relating to maximum front yard setbacks in commercial zoning districts within the city limits, and allowing for minimal increases in the maximum front yard setback to achieve superior site design andinfill development. Adding a new subsection to Title 20.04.100 Use of Categorical Exemptions, to increase the City’s SEPA categorical exemptions to the highest exemptions allowed by WAC 197- 11-305 and 197-11-800(1)(a). Procedural History 2.: 2.1Planning Commission Workshops:January 15, 2013 and April 16, 2013. 2.2Notice of Public Hearing: June 28, 2013 2.3SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: June 28, 2013 2.4Planning Commission Public Hearing: July 16, 2013 Public Comment 3.: 3.1At the April 16, 2013 Planning Commission Workshop, public comment was offered by Steve Gyverson, Ralph Erickson, and Carl Zarelli. 3.2Written comment received to date:(to be inserted) 3.3Public Hearing testimony:(to be inserted) SEPA Determination 4.: A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on June 28, 2013, with a comment deadline of July 15,2013, and an appeal deadline of July 29, 2013. Consistency 5.: Text amendments to Title 20 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 Title 20 if the criteria outlined below are met. 1 (1)It is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan; Analysis: The proposed amendments continue to uphold the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and implement the following policies: CC1H: Utilize development standards to ensure that land uses or structures that are accessory to a principal use are developed in a manner compatible with the principal structure and the character of the surrounding area. CC2A:Utilize zoning and design standards that have flexibility and incentives to ensure excellence in urban design, and which are compatible with surrounding land uses. CC2B:Ensure that infill construction and area redevelopment are done in a manner that reinforces the neighborhood’s desired and defined character and that architecturally compliments the commercial and residential areas. LU3A:Provide development incentives and flexibility within the Zoning Code to encourage desirable design elements with flexibilities within the Zoning Code provisions for all new development and redevelopment. EC1C:Encourage redevelopment of underutilized land. EC5A:Expedite the permit and development process. (2)It does not conflict with other City, state and federal codes, regulations and ordinances. Analysis:The proposed amendments do not conflict with any other regulations. II.CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code Title 20 Land Use Chapter, meets the requirements in BMC 20.18.020(d) text amendments, and therefore recommends to the City Council, the adoption of amendments to Title 20. Respectfully submitted by: _____________________________________ Andrea L. Spencer, Executive Secretary Approved by: ________________________________ Greg Jose, Chair 2 Commission Meeting Date:July 16, 2013Agenda Item:V.C CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Discussion of Preferred Alternative for the GorstUrban Growth Area utilizing the GorstWatershed Draft Plans and Draft Environmental Impact Statement DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Allison Daniels, Planner; 360.473.5845 MEETING PURPOSE The purpose of this workshopis to help identify a preferred land use alternative to proceed in the planning effort for the Gorst UGA Subarea Plan. In addition to staff outlining the three alternatives, staff will brief the Planning Commission on the comments received to-date including the Gorst Public Meeting, Kitsap County Planning Commission, and written comments. PROJECT OVERVIEW Jointly City of Bremertonand Kitsap County are working on a multi-year effort with the Gorst community, federal, state and local agencies and local Tribes outlining three potential futures for the Gorst watershed and urban growth area for the 2015-2035 planning period.June’s Planning Commission workshop, Staff discussed with the Commissioners that the three potential futures (Alternative 1-No Change,Alternative 2-CommercialCenter and Alternative 3-Complete Community) were the bookends(a range) of land use and growth options in the Urban Growth Area (UGA)that was analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS).With the bookends, the Draft EIS identified detail associated environmental impacts of each alternative and the required capital facilities needed to serve them. The three alternatives have associated zoning identified.TheDraft Gorst UGA Subarea Plan identifies goals and polices and also provides the design and development scales of the potential zones. With the consideration of the draft EIS analysis and Subarea Plan, extensive public outreach and comment opportunities,the next step is to identify, from the three alternatives, which is the preferred alternative that bestserves Gorst.The preferred vision may consistent with one of the three alternatives or may be a “mix and match” of various features. The final “vision” selected will be the basis for the Gorst Subarea Plan and the Final EIS expectedlate 2013. Attachment I To help facilitate this discussion, Staff has prepared which is the three alternatives and a summary of the environmental impacts identified through the Draft EIS. In summary the three alternatives can be described as such: Alternative 1 –A small highway oriented commercial and industrial center Alternative 2 –A well-designed Regional Commercial Center Alternative 3 –A Complete Community. HISTORY (DISCUSSED IN JUNE’S PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP) The City of Bremerton and Kitsap County announced on Monday, June 10, 2013the release of the draft Gorst Subarea Plan, Watershed Characterization and Framework Plan, and associated Environmental Impact Statement were available for public review and comment. The subject documents are available electronically at the project website, www.gorstwatershed.com(Planning Commissioners have been provided printed materials).The comment period for the draft documents ends on July 24, 2013. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I –Three Proposed Alternatives. Draft documents(Draft EIS and Subarea Plan)can be located at the project website at www.gorstwatershed.com. STAFF RECOMMENDATION This information is presented for Planning Commission consideration and discussion. Staff request that Planning Commission provide guidance on a Preferred Alternative for the Gorst Urban Growth Area.