Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/2013 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting –Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) September 17, 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: July16, 2013Regular meeting. o V.PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B.Public Hearing: 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 October 15, 2013 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT Subject to September 17, 2013 Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING July 16, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Jose called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Staff Present Chair Jose Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Vice Chair Tift Nicole Floyd, Current Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Allison Daniels, Current Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Dinkuhn Commissioner Lambert Others Present Commissioner Strube Lisa Grueter, Berk Consulting Commissioners Absent Commissioner Simpson (excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER LAMBERT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR TIFT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER STRUBE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2013 AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT SECONDED 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 public portion of the meeting. Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments Relating to Drive-Throughs, Commercial Building Setbacks, and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Exemptions Ms. Floyd recalled that the Commission previously discussed all three topics in both January and May. She said her staff report would cover the broad concepts, but she could cover the topics in more detail at the request of the Commission. Staff Report on SEPA Exemptions Ms. Floyd said it is important to remember that the State has allowed increases to the SEPA exemptions over the years, and most recently in 2012. She provided a chart to illustrate how the State SEPA exemption levels changed in both 1971 and 2012. She noted that the City of Bremerton chose not to adopt the maximum exemptions allowed by the State in 1971, and t allowed by the 2012 changes. During the earlier workshops the Commission recommended that staff bring to public hearing the option to raise the exemption levels to the highest levels primarily because the City now has an exemplary set of regulations that specifically address potential adverse environmental impacts such as the Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, Stormwater Manual and adopted Best Management Practices. She noted that these regulations were not available in 1971. She explained that utilizing the higher exemptions would expedite permit review. Projects that fall below the exemption limits would not be required to go through the three-month SEPA process. Staff is of the opinion that other City regulations would address any environmental impacts. Staff Report on Zoning Code Amendments Relating to Drive-Through Facilities Ms. Floyd said it is anticipated that the City of Bremerton will be the largest metropolitan area in Kitsap County in the intended to promote new development into mixed-use centers. She provided pictures to illustrate what the City is supposed to look like in the future. The goal is to encourage mixed-use development with commercial on the ground floor and residential units above. Street corners would become key anchors, and there would be places for citizens to walk, shop and interact. Because pedestrians, not cars, would be the major focal point, pedestrians should be in front of buildings and cars in back. Ms. Floyd noted that discussion about the focused on Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way. It was discussed that the existing development patterns focus on vehicular rather than pedestrian traffic. orm over time, very little transition has occurred during the last eight years except for more vacant buildings. She commented that consumer demand is important. Developers build what consumers want, and they contend that consumers want to be able to drive to a building and park in front. Ms. Floyd said that, although staff is not recommending changes to the vision outlined in the Comprehensive Plan at this ccessfully implemented if the code provided more flexibility to allow transition to take place over time. The proposed revisions are intended to provide this flexibility, without altering the long-term goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that transitioning from existing development to the vision outlined in the Comprehensive Plan will take a giant leap, and will require that properties be completely redeveloped with no existing non-conforming buildings remaining. Staff does not believe this approach is realistic at this time, given the current economy. The proposed revisions acknowledge that each site is different and has unique constraints. The revised language would establish clear requirements but allow for minor code departure on a case-by-case basis provided that specific criteria are met. Ms. Floyd advised that consistency is important. The revisions are intended to ensure that all commercial zones have similar requirements and use similar language so that code provisions can be applied appropriately. She noted that the current code provisions focus primarily on new development, and very little consideration is given for remodel or expansion of existing developed (non-conforming) sites. However, because existing development makes up a substantial portion of the commercial property in Bremerton, the proposed revisions include provisions that accommodate existing development. As an example, she provided a picture of an auto-oriented development. She explained that it is unreasonable to think that the property will be completely redeveloped to a different use within the next 20 years, but any remodel or addition to the property can be done in a way that is more consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Floyd -through facilities focused primarily on properties along the two major highways running through the City (Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way). Since that time, staff considered the use in other commercial zones in the City, as well. She explained that drive-through facilities are prohibited entirely in some commercial zones but are allowed in others without any design criteria. She said that instead of focusing just on Wheaton Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 211 July 16, 2013 ~ Page of Way and Kitsap Way, staff is now recommending that the City establish standards for all drive-through facilities regardless of the zone they are located in. She reviewed a chart provided in the Staff Report to illustrate where drive-through facilities would be permitted or prohibited. She noted that, as currently proposed, drive-through uses would be prohibited in the District Center Core, Neighborhood Center Core and Neighborhood Business Zones. She emphasized that the District and Neighborhood Center Core Z-through facilities in these zones would seem out of character with both the existing development pattern and the planned growth strategy. The exceptions would be the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea and the Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center. There are already several drive-through facilities in the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea, and the subarea plan provides regulations that are specific to the area. Allowing drive-through facilities, with specific criteria, seems appropriate in this one location. She also said that, due to the small-scale nature of the Neighborhood Business zone, drive-through facilities would be out of character. Ms. Floyd reviewed the proposed drive-through facility standards as follows: Clarification of Use. Drive-through facilities should be considered an accessory to any permitted use. The way the code is currently written calls them out as a separate use, but they are usually attached to a business or use. Definitions were added to make it clear that if you have an allowed use, a drive-through facility would be permitted as long as the criteria can be met. Preferred Locations. At their last workshop, the Commission discussed where drive-through facilities would be appropriate. The proposed amendments encourage the drive-through facilities to be located to the side or rear of the building when possible. When this is not possible, screening requirements were added to reduce the visual impacts of the drive-through facility. Stacking Lane. To address safety issues, at least four cars must be able to park behind the window to ensure waiting cars are not blocking traffic on the street. The current code language does not specifically identify a minimum number of waiting cars the lane must hold. The proposed amendment sets the stacking lane requirement at a minimum of four Chair Jose cars, and six cars for restaurant/food/drink uses. asked if the four-car requirement includes the car that is at Ms. Floyd the window. said the requirement applies to the space behind the window, and would not include the space for the car being served. She explained that the standard is flexible in terms of how long each of the spaces must be. Design. The Comprehensive Plan establishes that the most important design elements for drive-through facilities include screening of the drive-through lanes and ensuring safe pedestrian movement on and within the site. Pedestrian Features. Drive-through facilities, in general, are contrary to the Comprehensive pedestrians the primary users and vehicles the secondary users. This can be done by creating space that makes it clear the pedestrian has the right-of-way via designated walkways from parking areas, using a different material for drive- through lanes so they are easily identifiable to pedestrians, and enhancing landscaping to provide a buffer between the parking area and the drive-through lane. Signage. The current code does not have adequate signage requirements for drive-through lanes. The proposed amendment includes new requirements to ensure proper size, placement and screening. Ms. Floyd provided pictures of drive-through facilities currently located at two Starbuck locations to illustrate the concepts outlined in the proposed new design standards. She also provided pictures to illustrate the difference between a drive- through facility that is consistent with the proposed standards and one that is not. She summarized that the proposed standards are intended to facilitate better design and enhanced pedestrian safety. Staff Report on Zoning Code Amendments Relating Commercial Building Setbacks Ms. Floyd reminded the Commission that the purpose of the maximum front-yard setback is to place the building, rather than the parking, on the street front. The intent is to create the sense of an urban environment by pushing the building forward and providing parking behind. This concept encourages pedestrians, rather than vehicles, along the frontage. She provided pictures to illustrate the difference between development that is pushed up to the street front and development that is located further back on the lot to provide parking in front. Ms. Floyd advised that the proposed amendments are intended to provide more flexibility to address unforeseen circumstances such as topography and existing, on-site development without substantially impacting the Comprehensive Plan goals. She reviewed the revisions staff is recommending to provide additional flexibility as follows: Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 311 July 16, 2013 ~ Page of Setback Consistency. Currently, the maximum setback is different, depending on the zone. The proposed amendment would establish a consistent 10-foot maximum setback requirement for all commercial zones. In addition, the language related to setbacks in each of the zones would be made as consistent as possible. Improved Setback Flexibility. The proposed amendment would allow for an exception to the maximum 10-foot front- yard setback. This recognizes that there may be scenarios where a greater setback would be appropriate. However, in order to obtain approval of a setback departure, an applicant must demonstrate why an increased setback is necessary and how it is the minimum necessary. The Director would make the final decision. Possible reasons for a setback departure include topography, utilities, site constrains, and existing development. Parking at the Building Frontage and on Corner Lots. The current code states that parking in front of a commercial development should be minimized and parking on corners is prohibited. Each zone establishes a slightly different maximum percentage for the amount of parking that may be located between the building and the street front. Staff is recommending a consistent percentage of 50% for all zones. Rather than prohibiting parking intersections, the proposed amendments provide flexibility by establishing design criteria to screen the parking should it be located at an intersection. ntage (area between the sidewalk and the building along the entire frontage) and explained how the proposed amendments would be applied. She also provided examples to illustrate how the parking requirements could be achieved. Ms. Floyd explained how the proposed amendments would be applied to the property that is currently developed as Furniture Store. She recalled that there was a fire several years ago and half the site is now sitting vacant. As per the current zoning code, any development that occurs on the site must be pushed into the corner towards the two street fronts. The proposed amendments offer optional building locations, provided that the property owner submits analysis to demonstrate why the setback departure is necessary and how he/she would compensate for pushing the building back. Commissioner Dinkuhn asked if the 50% parking limitation would apply to both streets when a building is located at the Ms. Floyd corner and fronts two streets. answered that it would apply to both streets. Commissioner Lambert Ms. Floyd d that the current code does not differentiate between the different types of streets. The proposed amendments would identify classification map of streets. Ms. Floyd concluded her staff report and recommended the Commission conduct an open record hearing, consider testimony, and make a recommendation of the proposed amendments to the City Council. Public Comments Chair Jose opened the public hearing for comments related to the proposed amendments outlined by staff. Larry Matel, Port Orchard, said he was very impressed by the forward-thinking staff presentations with respect to urban design and transportation. He expressed his belief that the City of Bremerton has taken a strong leadership in the consideration of form, function and design of the City; not only with respect to land-use planning and development, but also with respect to stormwater. He commented that the proposed amendments are in line with what he has seen happen in a number of other progressively-oriented communities throughout the western states and United States, in general. He said the proposed revisions will set a tone for the future of what Bremerton will be as time goes on. He asked the Commission to recommend approval of the modifications as presented. While there may be some push back from some citizens who support the status quo, the City must look towards a new generation of citizenry, as well. Ralph Ericson, Bremerton, said he owns property located at Kitsap Way and Marine Drive, which was shown in one of the illustrations provided during the Staff Report. He said he has been trying to develop the property for a number of years, but has been held back by the poor economy and because the City codes are too restrictive. The land has remained vacant and does not produce income for either the owners or the City. He noted that extensive planning has gone into the proposed amendments, and they represent an approach that he can work with to develop the property. He encouraged the Commission to recommend approval of the proposed revisions as presented by staff. While he recognized Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 411 July 16, 2013 ~ Page of the ultimate goal of the Comprehensive Plan vision, the current requirements are tough ondevelopers. The amendments are just one way to encourage development that will help to revitalize the community. Chair Jose closed the public hearing. Commission Deliberation and Action Commissioner Strube to see that the City is willing to compromise to make the situation better for businesses in the community. He said supports the amendments, as proposed. Commissioner Lambert flexible. While they must work with the Comprehensive Plan that is currently in place, staff has put a lot of thought into making it flexible to accommodate whatever business might come in. She said she supports the proposed change, as proposed. Chair Jose Commissioner Simpson, shared correspondence from who was unable to attend the hearing. She recommends adoption of the proposed amendments, as well. COMMISSIONER DINKUHN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 20 AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT I BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT II. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Public Workshop: Provide Feedback for the Selection of a Preferred Alternative of the Gorst Subarea Plan and Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Ms. Daniels introduced Lisa Grueter from Berk Consulting, who was present to help answer questions from the Commission. She announced that the draft Gorst Subarea Plan, draft Gorst Creek Watershed Characterization Framework Plan and the thth associated EIS was released on July 10 and public comments will be accepted until July 24. She noted that all comments would be considered when the City moves forward with a preferred alternative. Ms. Daniels advised that the purpose of the workshop is for the Commission to help identify a preferred land-use alternative to proceed in the planning effort for the Gorst Urban Growth Area (UGA) Subarea Plan. She reminded the Commission that the City of Bremerton is working jointly with Kitsap County to outline three potential futures for the Gorst Watershed and UGA. She noted that the Gorst UGA is currently lo annexation into the City of Bremerton. Working together to create the subarea plan would allow for a smooth transition if and when annexation occurs. th Ms. Daniels announced that a public workshop on the draft Gorst Subarea Plan on was held on June 20. Staff has also conducted workshops with both the Kitsap County Planning Commission and the Bremerton Planning Commission. In addition, staff has met on several occasions with the Advisory Committee and other project partners. All of the entities will come together to help determine the preferred alternative. The Planning Commission's recommendation and guidance will be very valuable in creating the subarea plan for the Gorst UGA. Ms. Daniels reviewed the project objectives as follows: To make Gorst a place where people shop, live and recreate. To protect the water quality, environmental aspects and habitat while fostering economic development. She noted that Gorst is an endangered species habitat area, and salmon and steelhead run through Gorst Creek. Identify areas for development and restoration protection based on science. Adopt a land-use plan for Gorst. Implement a long-range capital improvement plan. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 511 July 16, 2013 ~ Page of Ms. Daniels said the main focus of her presentation is to review the three alternatives the Commission discussed at their last workshop in more detail. She encouraged the Commission to provide feedback regarding the pros and cons of each alternative. She said she anticipates a public hearing on the preferred alternative before the Planning Commission in October. She reminded the Commission that the EIS required the City to evaluate three alternatives. She reviewed the alternatives and the public comments that were received for each one. Alternative 1 A Small Highway-Oriented Commercial and Industrial Center. Ms. Daniels said this alternative is rehensive Alternatives 2 and 3, but they high-The County allows for residential along the freeway corridor, and the City of Bremerton does not. She also - Ms. Daniels advised that the majority of those in attendance at the public workshop were not in complete support of Alternative 1. Some individuals liked the existing Low-Density Residential, likely because that is where their homes are located. They did not like the high-intensity Commercial Mixed Use Zone, and they preferred that the Industrial zones be changed to Open Space. Overall, the alternative was not supported. Alternative 2 A Well-Designed Regional Commercial Center. Ms. Daniels explained that the mine area is going to be reclaimed at some point in the future. Regardless of the preferred alternative, the property will remain designated as Mineral Resources until the mining activity is completed. The mining company is required to complete a reclamation plan when the mining use is discontinued. Alternative 2 is centered around a commercial center, with residential uses on the outskirts. As per Alternative 2, the mining area would be designated as Medium-Density Residential. Low-Density Residential would be located to the west, and the areas surrounding the highways would be identified as Commercial Corridor. The Commercial Corridor Zone would allow most commercial uses, excluding industrial uses. The majority of the areas that are currently identified as Industrial would be changed to Open Space. Ms. Daniels reported that two negative comments were received at the workshop about the proposed Medium-Density Residential Zone. There was support for the commercial area to the north, and there was substantial support for designating properties as Open Space. They expressed a desire to maintain the waterfront zone, with very little support for commercial uses in the area. They heard from a number of people that they would like lower-intensity development Ms. Daniels on the properties located along the creek to protect the stream. noted that the impacts of Alternative 2 would be greater than the impacts associated with Alternative 1 because it calls for redevelopment of the mine property as Medium-Density Residential. However, the subarea plan will provide smart planning principles and guidance in an effort to reduce the potential impacts. Commissioner Lambert asked about the point of leaving the mining property zoned as Mineral Resources, if the use Ms. Daniels will discontinue within 10 years. explained that if Alternative 1 goes forward for the next 20 years, the mining company would be required to obtain a rezone in order to complete their reclamation plan. Alternatives 2 and 3 would make the mining operation non-conforming with the subarea plan, but the use would be allowed to continue. Future reclamation of the site would require compliance with the current code. Alternative 3 A Complete Community. Ms. Daniels said this alternative moves away from the commercial corridor concept. The mining area would be designated as Neighborhood Mixed Use, which would allow for medium-density residential and small neighborhood businesses. The area designated as Gorst Creek Residential would allow for clusters different type of development may be necessary. The Gorst Mixed Use area would allow both residential and commercial uses. She noted that the area along the waterfront was identified as Low-Intensity Waterfront, which would allow commercial development but with more stringent environmental requirements. The open spaces would be the same as those proposed for Alternative 2. Ms. Daniels said most of the participants at the public workshop agreed that the City should start with Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative, but also include some elements from Alternatives 1 and 2. The citizens indicated support for Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 611 July 16, 2013 ~ Page of the waterfront remaining accessible to the community. She said regardless of the preferred alternative, Kitsap County is planning a boardwalk in the waterfront area someday. Citizens want more protection for the creek and expressed a desire for more residential zoning along the creek. There was a mixed reaction to the proposed Neighborhood Mixed Use Zone, with some expressing their desire that it remain as residential development. Chair Jose issued a call to the public to comment on the agenda item. Jack Standfill, Chico Creek Task Force, commented that there should be a reclamation permit in place with the Department of Natural Resources for the mine site. He asked how much of the property would be reclaimed and restored, and what the process will be. He suggested that perhaps some trails through the property could be included. Larry Matel, Port Orchard, said he attended the Kitsap opportunity for public input. Once again, he applauded the efforts of the City staff and consultants in taking a long-term look at the Gorst area and the future of this part of Kitsap County and Bremerton proper. He said that, in preparation for the meeting, he reviewed the documentation provided on line, which is voluminous and daunting. He suggested the City provide an executive summary for public dissemination to help the citizens understand the important issues. From the standpoint of land-use planning and being a planner, himself, the concept of trying to look forward to the highest and best use is a traditional approach to land-use planning, and he finds no fault with the process that has taken place thus far. He said he supports Alternative 3, which would provide a reasonable mix of trying to accommodate existing uses while looking to the future. Mr. Matel said that, as a transportation planner, he analyzed the impacts of large redevelopment projects in other parts of the country. Making transportation fit and serving the land uses will be a significant factor to consider. He noted that they anticipate 77,000 to 80,000 cars per day through the corridor, and realizing redevelopment of the commercial properties will be challenging. They must consider the potential conflicts for getting vehicles into and out of the sites even without the future growth in this part of Kitsap County. He said he read with interest a while back that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is considering some type of transportation planning effort for the area. This will have to happen in order for the Gorst Subarea to be an enticing place for developers to make significant investments in the future. He clarified that his comments are not meant to suggest the City should not identify a preferred alternative. However, as they move forward with their subarea planning efforts, transportation will be a key factor in making the area viable in the future. Mr. Matel said that at a previous Commission meeting he mentioned the concept of non-motorized connections from the Gorst Subarea to the rest of Kitsap County, including the Cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard, the South Kitsap Industrial Area, etc. As the east side of Puget Sound becomes more congested, people will look to move to Kitsap County. They have the opportunity to plan now for the complete needs of the community from the standpoint of transportation. While the automobile has been, and most likely will remain, a major method of transporting people in the future, the concept of seriously looking at alternative transportation (pedestrian and bicycle) will be key to helping mitigate some of the impacts. He said he read information that indicated they are anticipating an additional 500 to 600 new homes in the Gorst Subarea, which equates, under current transportation planning estimates, to another 5,000 to 6,000 cars per day through the corridor. The highway facility in this area is already maxed out during peak hours, and long term plans needs to be in place He recommended there be some dialogue established between the City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, the United States Government (Navy), and WSDOT that looks at a forward-thinking, sustainable transportation system in the area. Mr. Matel commented that the Sinclair Trail should also be an important element of the Gorst Subarea Plan. He said he has worked with trail advocates in the area to try and revive the momentum of the Sinclair Trail charette that was held a few years ago. He has also read with interest the things that are happening with the United States Navy and their inability to forward the waterside aspect of the trail. However, he does not think all is lost. The state highway is still available; and with some creative engineering with WSDOT and its new leadership, there are opportunities that are compatible with the Navy, WSDOT, Kitsap County and the Cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard. Providing an opportunity for visitors to make a tour from Bremerton to Port Orchard and then take the ferry home would add a lot of economic vibrancy to the City without bringing in a lot of extra growth. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 711 July 16, 2013 ~ Page of Mr. Standfill thanked the staff for doing a great job of answering the citizens concerns and questions. He also thanked the Commission for allowing public input at their workshop meetings. He said the Chico Creek Task Force has people ready to build a north/south trail over to Jarstad Park, and it will be called the Pleasant Valley Trail. Mr. Matel said it is also important for pedestrians to have the ability to get from the Charleston area to the Gorst Subarea. Currently, this is both impossible and illegal. In a recent conversation with a State Patrolman, he learned that only bicycles and motorized vehicles are permitted. He expressed his belief that WSDOT has a responsibility to the non-motorized segment of the community to make the area safe and passable for pedestrians. Commissioner Strube said he prefers Alternative 3, but he is having a hard time with the concept of adding more people into the Gorst Subarea without having a bypass for the highway. He agreed that the City should work with WSDOT to find a solution. He reminded the Commission that when the area floods, the community is crippled. He said he would like the waterfront area to be improved, but he questioned how the proposed Low-Intensity Waterfront Zone would impact the Ms. Daniels existing development. He noted that the Subaru dealership is a successful business in this location. answered that neither the proposed Low-Intensity Waterfront Zone nor the proposed Shoreline Master Program would allow for new Ms. developments of these kinds to be established. The Subaru dealership would become a legal non-conforming use. Grueter commented that the intent of the zone is not to prohibit commercial uses, but to allow them in a different format. However, no decision has been made as to the types of uses that would and would not be allowed. She noted that a car sales business requires a lot of impervious surface, and the City is interested in reducing impervious surface in this area. The new Ms. Daniels said the intent of the Low-Density Waterfront Zone is for development to go up versus out to reduce the amount of impervious surface. It may be possible for a property owner to negotiate with the City to obtain approval to expand existing development upward in exchange for reducing the amount of impervious surface. Commissioner Strube pointed out that many businesses in the waterfront area have struggled, but the Subaru dealership has thrived. As much as he would like to see the waterfront area redevelop into less intense uses, he does not want to drive out Ms. Daniels the sales tax revenues generated by this successful business. noted that the dealership site is essentially built Chair Jose out, and the property owner would be allowed to maintain and repair the site for as long as the use continues. commented that if the Subaru dealership were to do a substantial redevelopment, a number of other codes would apply to severely constrain what they could do. The Low-Intensity Waterfront Zone would not add too many additional requirements Ms. Daniels over and above those that already exist. concurred. Commissioner Albright asked if other uses currently located in the waterfront area would be allowed to continue if Ms. Daniels Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative. said the uses would be allowed to continue, but the non-conforming regulations would apply. She said another issue for the Commission to consider is whether or not there should be a specific non-conforming section of the code that is unique to the waterfront area. Chair Jose summarized that the participants at the public workshop indicated a preference for Alternative 3, and this preference was voiced by other citizens, as well. He asked the Commission to provide input on whether they should start their discussions with Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Commissioner Lambert said she likes Alternative 3, particularly the Low-Intensity Waterfront and Gorst Creek Residential Zones. She said she would not have a problem with the former mining site being either Medium-Density Residential Ms. Spencer (Alternative 2) or Neighborhood Mixed Use (Alternative 3). noted that there was not a lot of public support for the Medium-Density Residential Zone (Alternative 2), but there was significant support for the Neighborhood Mixed Use Ms. Grueter Zone (Alternative 3) which would provide opportunities for small retail close to home. said that, while there was general support for the Gorst Mixed Use Zone, there was some discussion that the access and viability of this area to have amenities that residents would want is more limited in the triangular area that is between the two highways. Commissioner Albright Ms. Daniels asked how many people participated in the community workshop. answered that there were between 20 and 25 people in attendance, but only 18 signed in. Approximately 12 stayed for the small group discussions at the end. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 811 July 16, 2013 ~ Page of Chair Jose Commissioner Simpson shared correspondence from regarding her preferences for the preferred alternatives. She recommends Alternative 2, but with the change that the mine area be designated as Neighborhood Mixed Use rather than Medium-Density Residential. Commissioner Strube suggested that the area in vicinity to the mine property could be identified as Commercial instead of Ms. Grueter Gorst Mixed Use. said the property is accessed from Sherman Heights Road, and most of the properties are Ms. Daniels considered vacant by the County Assessor. noted that the property is owned by Lockhart, and it is proposed to Ms. Grueter be developed as a business center. noted that this area did not receive much attention at the public workshop. Ms. Spencer added that the property owner has submitted an application to Kitsap County to develop the site as a business center. Chair Jose referred to the properties that are designated as Gorst Creek Residential in Alternative 3 and Low-Density Residential in Alternative 2. He asked the Commission to share their thoughts and preferences regarding these to Commissioner Lambert designations. said she likes the Gorst Creek Residential Zone, as it allows units to be clustered to lessen the environmental impacts associated with redevelopment. She pointed out that the Gorst Creek Residential Zone would likely result in less development and better protection for the waterways that run through the area. Commissioner Dinkuhn noted that the Gorst Creek Residential Zone would provide an opportunity for the City and the County to focus more on restoration of the entire area. She expressed her opinion that Alternative 1 is not viable. No one believes the current situation should remain. Therefore, they only have two alternatives to talk about. She wished a third alternative would have included reclamation of the entire area. She asked if the City and/or County would possibly entertain ideas of offering incentives for the existing businesses to encourage them over time to move out of the areas designated in Alternative 3 as Low-Intensity Waterfront, Open Space/Recreational and Gorst Mixed Use. These uses could then be Ms. Daniels replaced with lower-intensity uses that would better protect the watershed and waterfront. said the Low- Intensity Waterfront Zone would include additional requirements to protect the environment. If an existing use wants to expand beyond what the requirements will allow, the owner would likely look for a new location. In addition, transportation Ms. Spencer issues may encourage existing uses to relocate. suggested that rather than writing these types of incentives into a plan, the City and County have an action plan to move the desired concepts forward. For example, the County has demonstrated action with recent land acquisition and shoreline reclamation. Commissioner Albright suggested that the bottom-line problem is transportation and traffic. Regardless of the types of uses allowed, it is important for people to be able to get around the area. If the car dealership is made nonconforming, the use on the site would change if the property is sold. However, the new owner would have the same problems with traffic and Ms. Spencer access. said the subarea plan would identify improvements to interior streets and rights-of-way to address traffic issues and improve pedestrian access. However, the highways are controlled by WSDOT. She noted that WSDOT Ms. has invested $500,000 to research and study congestion near the sewer treatment plant, including the Gorst area. Grueter said the EIS indicates that a mixed-use pattern with an increase in jobs (not as much as Alternatives 1 and 2) and adding more residential would actually reduce the amount of congestion on the state routes by about 5%. Traffic is a Chair Jose problem regardless of the alternative, but Alternative 3 would result in slightly less congestion. pointed out that residential development would spread trips throughout the day. Commercial uses would have a greater impact on traffic during the peak times. Chair Jose asked staff to address what requirements would be put in place for the Gorst Mixed Use Zone to protect the Ms. Grueter watershed and stream. answered that all of the alternatives would have a requirement to comply with critical area and shoreline regulations. For the version of the subarea plan that would come before the Commission in the fall, they are considering incentives to help development back away from the creek. The advantage of the Gorst Mixed Use Zone in Alternative 3 was more to recognize that most of the area is already in residential use, with very little commercial use. One commenter suggested either residential only or a reduced intensity pattern be extended through the Gorst Creek Floodplain. A pattern of this type would still allow for a mixture of uses but would result in a smaller footprint. The concept might work Chair Jose well as a middle ground between all mixed use and residential. commented that, either way, the mixed-use zone Ms. Grueter would have sufficient protection for the streams. answered that it could. One of the mitigation measures called out in the EIS is the possibility of extending the Low-Intensity Waterfront Zone to further reinforce protection of the creek beyond just the buffer. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 911 July 16, 2013 ~ Page of Ms. Daniels advised that, earlier in the day, the Kitsap County Planning Commission indicated support for expanding the Low-Intensity Waterfront Zone to include the larger triangular portion of the Gorst Mixed Use Zone that is located west of Highway 3. She asked the Commission to share their thoughts on expanding the Low-Intensity Waterfront Zone to the properties that surround the creek or are located within the floodplain. This would allow the City to apply stricter Commissioner Dinkuhn requirements. indicated support for this change. She felt it would be a more responsible approach considering the possibility that the area will continue to flood until changes are made. It is also important to keep in mind that sea levels are anticipated to rise, and it would be irresponsible to develop homes and businesses in the areas that might be affected by rising tides. the proposed zoning for the smaller triangular portion of the Gorst Mixed Chair Jose Use Zone that is located south of Highway 3, pointed out that a mixed-use zone can allow both residential and commercial development and allows a developer to determine what is in his/her best interest to develop. Zoning the properties as mixed use would allow market demand determine the type of development that takes place. He expressed his belief that Gorst Mixed Use is a more appropriate zone for this area. Chair Jose Ms. asked if extending the Low-Intensity Waterfront Zone further to the west would create more nonconformity. Grueter said that, while they have not yet written the use allowances, it is possible to prohibit residential uses on the shoreline side of the highway, but allow both residential and commercial uses on the properties west of Highway 3 to reflect Ms. Spencer the pattern of current development. asked if it would be possible to maintain this area as a GorstMixed Use Ms. Grueter Chair Zone, but with a low-intensity overlay. agreed that is another option the Commission could consider. Jose Ms. Daniels asked if a low-intensity overlay would create more nonconformity than a straight mixed-use zone. pointed Chair Jose out that the majority of the properties along the creek are developed as residential. noted that most property owners in this area would likely favor the Gorst Mixed Use Zone, which would allow for more development options. He emphasized that, regardless of the zoning, rules would be in place to protect the shoreline. He questioned if the Commission was in favor of providing more flexibility for property owners while still retaining the protections, or if they towant to ramp up the protections beyond those proposed in Alternative 3. The majority of the Commission indicated a preference for zoning the triangular property west of Highway 3 Gorst Mixed Use, but with an overlay or some other method of providing additional protection for the creek. Commissioner Dinkuhn agreed that the Gorst Mixed Use Zone would offer more flexibility, but the Commission must also keep in mind the community they want to create. If they focus on this area as becoming a green space that people want to live around rather than giving them more opportunities to live in it, it could be a better place. Rather than focusing on the commercial potential, they should focus on creating a reason for people to visit and recreate in the area. She noted that the Gorst area has a very negative reputation at this time. Development needs to be more aggressively focused on creating a Vice Chair Tift positive environment that people want to live and play in. agreed with Commissioner Dinkuhn. Gorst has not changed for many years, and the Commission should focus on what will make the area attractive to new families. Although not Commissioner Dinkuhn pointed out that if the area is developed like it is or without an intense focus on it being more of a green space, it runs the risk of becoming rental property. People will not stay in the area for a long time, so they will not be as invested in the community. If they focus on developing the area to become a place of pride, the area will have an entirely different feel and demographic for social economics. Vice Chair Tift pointed out that if the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) develops as per the adopted plan, Gorst would become a much more attractive location for redevelopment, as well. That being the case, Alternative 3 has the potential to Ms. Daniels make the Gorst Subarea a destination. said people who had have lived in Gorst for more than 40 years participated in the community workshop and they take pride in their community. However, she acknowledged that there is room for improvement. Chair Jose observed that development is taking place on properties near the Gorst Subarea, and it is anticipated that the mine property will be redeveloped into more than 400 residential homes. He expressed his belief that the subarea will naturally look like. Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 1011 July 16, 2013 ~ Page of BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Jose reported that he continues to be involved in the Gorst Subarea Planning Process as a member of the Advisory th Committee, and he attended the June 20 community workshop. He invited the Commissioners to share their ideas so he can express them at the Advisory Committee meetings. Director Report Ms. Spencer recognized Ms. Floyd for her excellent work on the proposed zoning code amendments. The amendments were not easy to draft, and she spent a lot of time considering different options for solving the problems. She came up with a sophisticated, yet simple, allows development to occur. She explained that when the zoning code was written, different staff members worked on each of the chapters, which resulted in a number of inconsistencies. The proposal brought forward by Ms. Floyd fixed a number of problems with the existing code. Ms. Spencer announced that Kitsap and Jefferson Counties have been nominated by Naval Base Kitsap to be a candidate to participate in a joint land-use study funded by the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment . The next step is to go forward with an actual application to receive grant funding. Under the Growth Management Act, the City and County is required to update its Comprehensive Plan by 2016. The plan must many issues including affordable housing, to transportation, to historic preservation, and others. The plan must also ensure that the land use decisions do not impact nt land-use study. She advised that the City Council will take ain the study at their next meeting. Kitsap County will be the lead in submitting the grant application, which is due by August. It is anticipated that the study will begin in early 2014 and that the process will include design charettes and community open houses. Ms. Spencer announced that Parks and Recreation Department is undertaking a major effort to update the Parks, Recreation rd and Open Space Plan, and a general public meeting is scheduled for July 23 at the Sheridan Park Community Center starting at 5:30 p.m. The Commissioners are invited to attend and participate in the process. Ms. Spencer reminded the Commission that their August meeting has been cancelled. The next regular meeting will be th September 17. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business No new business was scheduled on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea L Spencer Greg Jose AICP, Executive Secretary Chair, Planning Commission Draft Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 1111 July 16, 2013 ~ Page of CommissionHearingDate: September 17, 2013Agenda Item:V.B CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing on the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Allison Daniels, City Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan in December 2004. Comprehensive Plan amendments are processed on an annual cycle to allow for changes to the Plan which reflect current conditions that may not have been addressed prior toor sincethe Plan’s adoption. Amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan are regulated by BMC 20.10, and applications must be submitted prior to st April 1to be considered in the annual docket. The City received one Comprehensive Plan Amendment application in 2013 for onesite-specific land use map redesignation request. The proposed amendment is summarized herein. A tentative schedule for the adoption process is: September 17, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. Planning Commission Public Hearing October 23, 2013 at 5:30 p.m .City Council Workshop November 6, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. City Council Public Hearing STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the 2013 Comprehensive Plan annual amendments, consider public testimony, and formulate a recommendation for City Council’s recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as detailed in this staff report and attachments, and based upon the Findings and Conclusions in Attachment IV. OPTIONS: 1.Recommend that the City Council adopt the Comprehensive Plan 2013 Amendment Docket as drafted by staff and presented in this staff report and attachments. 2.Recommend the City Council adopt the 2013 Amendment Docket as modified by the Commission. 3.Recommend denial of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. PROJECT INFORMATION: The following discussion outlines the one proposal comprising of the 2013 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 2013Amendment, Land Use DesignationChange of Two Parcels : On March 27, 2013, Olympic Property Group/West Hills LLC submitted a request for a land use map rd change. The submitted amendment request includes two parcels located at 3Avenue West and Sinclair Way/West Sunn Fjord Lane (tax id #282401-1-085-2001and 282401-1-086-2000). The parcels are currently designated Industrial Park, and the proposal is to redesignate them toLow Density Attachment I. Residential. See Prior to this proposal for a Comprehensive Plan Map change, this area was planned to be Phase 2of the Wright Creek Industrial Park. The previous phase, Wright Creek Phase 1,which is north of the proposed area, was platted 6 years ago to nineindustriallots. 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 1. The two proposed parcels, which consist of 36 acres, are currently undeveloped except for unpaved roads and power-line towers. The current zoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation is Attachment II Industrial Park. identifies the surrounding zoning which is the following: ZoningExisting Uses North Wright Creek Industrial Park and undeveloped COBIndustrial Park (IP) East Undeveloped R-10 lots, Sunn Fjord COB Low Density Residential (R-10)Apartments, and warehouses KCUrban Medium Residential (UMR) &Industrial (I) SouthResidential uses (primarily single-family UMR and KC Urban Reserve (UR)homes), and undeveloped WestUndeveloped and Wright Creek Industrial Park R-10 and IP *COB –City of Bremerton jurisdiction **KC -Kitsap County jurisdiction Site History: The subject property was acquired by Olympic Property Group (Pope Resources at the time) in 1992, within the context of a larger project. In 1997, approval was granted by the City for the West Hills Planned Unit Development, consisting of 210 acres of residential and 60 acres of industrial. A development agreement between OPG and the City of Bremerton was approved in 2000 and recorded upon the property. The property owner sold the residential portion of the project in 2006, and began infrastructure improvement for the Wright Creek Business Park, phase 1 in 2007. Of the nine lots of Phase 1, only one is developed. Phase 2 –the subject property of the Comprehensive Plan amendment request –has remained undeveloped, with partially developed street and storm pond. Staff Analysis and Conclusion: Staff has reviewed the submitted Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, and compliance with BMC 20.10.080, Decision Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The amendment to change the land use designation from Industrial Park to Low Density Residential for the subject site meets the Attachment IV decision criteria set forth in the BMC, thus Staff supports this proposal. Please see “Findings and Conclusions” for a detailed analysis of how the proposal is consistent with the BMC decision criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. ATTACHMENTS : Attachment I: Site LocationMap Attachment II: Aerial view with Zoning Attachment III: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Attachment IV: Planning Commission Findings and Conclusionsfor 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket www.LDCcorp.com åóèôâíîóîõø÷éóõîûèóíîé Fx. 425.482.2893Woodinville, WA 98072 æóùóîóèãïûì íööóùóûðâíîóîõïûì Ph. 425.806.186914201 NE 200th St., #100 ùóèãâíîóîõøóõóèóâ÷øöêíïùóèãéùóèãíöúê÷ï÷êèíî åêóõôèùê÷÷ñ çîóîùíêìíêûè÷øùíçîèãâíîóîõ ñóèéûìùíçîèãõóé èô÷ùóæóð÷îõóî÷÷êóîõõêíçì ìûêù÷ðúíçîøûêãñóèéûìùíçîèãõóé Residential ùíðíêû÷êóûðìôíèíõêûìôã çéøû Infrastructure ø÷éùêóìèóíîéíçêù÷ûõ÷îùã íðãïìóùìêíì÷êèãõêíçìððù Commercial éíçêù÷óîöíêïûèóíî Industrial íìï ö ÏÄØÀïíø  Àóõï ûÈÈÛÙÔÏ×ÎÈóóó FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION 2013 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment I.FINDINGS OF FACT Project Description 1.: The City adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan in December 2004. Comprehensive Plan amendments are processed on an annual cycle to allow for changes to the Plan that reflect conditions that may not have been addressed prior or sincethe Plan’s adoption. Amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan are regulated by BMC 20.10. One application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment has been submitted and is included for the Planning Commission’s consideration in 2013. Procedural History 2.: 2.1The Bremerton Municipal Code allows applications for Comprehensive Plan Amendments annually between January 1 and the first business day of April. 2.2On March 27, 2013, Olympic Property Group/West Hills LLC applied for a land use designation change for two parcels. 2.3On May 21, 2013 Planning Commission held an informal public workshop to introduce the 2013 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket. 2.4On August 19, 2013 staff notified the Washington State Department of Commerce the intent to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 2.5On August 21,2013 staff published the SEPA Determination of Non-significance in the Kitsap Sun. 2.6On September 7,2013 a notice of Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Kitsap Sun and the public was invited to comment. 2.7On September 17, 2013 Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the 2013 Comprehensive Plan docket. Public Comment 3.: 3.1A comment letter dated February 25, 2013 from George Prew of Prenun Properties. 3.2At the May 21,2013 Planning Commission Workshop, public comment was offered by Jon Rose, president of Olympic Property Group. 3.3Public Hearing testimony: a._________________________________________________________________ b._________________________________________________________________ c._________________________________________________________________ SEPA Determination 4.: 4.1A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on August 21, 2013, with a comment deadline of September 4, 2013, and an appeal deadline of September 18, 2013. 4.2Comment received from Kitsap County on September 3, 2013. Consistency 5.: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.10.080. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to the comprehensive plan if the criteria outlined below are met. BMC 20.10.080(b)(1) The amendment is consistent with the Growth Management 5.1 Act . The amendment has been evaluated with the goals and policies of the Growth Management Act and has been found to be consistent with the Act. Further, the amendment has beenevaluated for consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which was created to achieve the goals of the GMA. BMC 20.10.080(b)(2)The amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan or 5.2 other goals or policies of the City . The amendment continues to uphold the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the following policies: LU 11B:Provide wider variety in residential designations throughout the city to achieve a greater diversity of housing. LU20J:Regularly monitor the relationship between land supply and demand to ensure that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are met. H3: Provide a variety of housing types and densities to meet changing needs of Bremerton residents. H3C:Stimulate the production of new housing for all incomes, ages and family types. H6A:Increase opportunities for home ownership with theCity of Bremerton. EC1C:Encourage redevelopment of underutilized land. BMC 20.10.080(b)(3)If the amendment was reviewedbut not adopted as part of a 5.3 previous proposal, circumstances related to the proposed amendment have significantly changed, or the needs of the City have changed, which support an amendment. The needs of the City havechanged since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, and economic circumstances have significantly changed to merit the change in use from industrial park to residential. Since the 2004 adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the supply of industrially zoned land has increased significantly, including the 3400 acres included in the recently approved South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA), within the city limits. The increase in supply of industrial land, combined with the decrease in demand due to the regional and national economic recession, has resulted in the subject property being vacant and underutilized for well over a decade (the original approval of the subject site for industrial park was in 1997 and a development agreement approved in 2000). The change of use from industrial park to low density residential will facilitate a different market for the undeveloped property, and will thereby, also increase the City’s new residential unit supply. The conversion is not inconsistent with the existing and adjacent industrial developed property,and will provide a transition between the existing multifamily residential to the east and the underdeveloped residentially zoned property to the west. BMC 20.10.080(b)(4)The amendment is compatible with existing or planned land 5.4 uses and the surrounding development pattern. The amendment is compatible with existing land uses and the surrounding development pattern, which includes single family and multi family residential uses adjacent and in the immediate vicinity. BMC 20.10.080(b)(5)Theamendment will not adversely affect the City’s ability to 5.5 provide urban services at the planned level of service and bears a reasonable relationship to benefitting the public health, safety and welfare . The amendment will not affect the City’s ability to provide urban services, as urban services currently exist at or near the subject property, and all further necessary improvements will occur at the time of project development. Further, facilitating new single family residences will be beneficial to the public health, safety and welfare by increasing the City’s new housing stock, providing opportunity for development of vacant and underutilized land, and providing housing units to accommodate the City’s population. II.CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission concludes that the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket has met the requirements in BMC 20.10.080, and therefore recommends approval by the City Council. Respectfully submitted by: _____________________________________ Andrea L. Spencer, Executive Secretary Approved by: ________________________________ Greg Jose, Chair