Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/2014 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting –Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) March 18, 2014 5:30 P.M. th 345–6Street Meeting Chamber –First Floor I.CALL TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL (quorum present) IV.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA V.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 18, 2014meeting. o VI.PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B.Workshop: . 1Potential zoning modifications to implement the Wheaton/Riddell District Center VII.BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: Richard L. Tift B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer C.Old Business: D.New Business: VIII.ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is April 15, 2014 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT Subject to March 18, 2014Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULARMEETING February 18, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Tift called theregularmeeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners PresentStaff Present Chair TiftAndrea Spencer,Director,Department of Community Development Vice Chair DinkuhnNicole Floyd, SeniorPlanner, Department of Community Development Commissioner AlbrightGarrett Jackson,Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Jose Commissioner Simpson Commissioner Strube Commissioner Wofford Quorum Certified ELECTION OF OFFICERS COMMISSIONER JOSE NOMINATED COMMISSIONER DINKUHN TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2014. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THERE WERE NO OTHER NOMINATIONS, AND THE NOMINATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIRDINKUHNMOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHTMOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 2014AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONERJOSESECONDED 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. Diedre McKeel, resident if Council District 5,provided testimony that the city needs an increase of multi-family zoning throughout the city and the commission should consider expanding this zoning type. No one else in the audience indicated a desire to comment, and Chair Tift closed the publicportion of the meeting. Public Hearing: Zoning Code Amendments Mr. Jackson reviewed the following proposed Zoning Code Amendments, which are based on input staff received from the st Commission on January 21: Mobile Homes (BMC 19). Title 19 was originally adopted in 1960, and was last updated in 1976. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Housing and Urban Development placed a prohibition on mobile home construction. Manufactured homes are the modern-day successor to mobile homes, and standards for this use are established in BMC 20.46.040. Because Title 19 is obsolete and actually contradicts some of the regulations in Title 20, staff is recommending that it be repealed. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure. In 2009, the State Legislature passed SSHB 1481, requiring all cities and counties in the State to allow for battery charging stations as a use in all zones, with the exception of Residential, Resource and Critical Areas. The Commission directed staff to draft amendment to satisfy SSHB 1481. These amendments include changing theoff-street parking requirements (BMC 20.48) to read, “Where parking is provided in association with allowed uses within the associated zone, electric vehicle charging stations are encouraged and shall comply with City Building Code and Washington State Electrical Code.” In addition, the “Definition” Section (BMC 20.42) would be amended to allow for the following levels of charging stations contingent on their intensity. Levels 1 and 2 Charging Stations would be permitted outright as an accessory use in any zone in the City with available parking. Level 3, rapid charging stations would be allowed wheregas stationsare a permitted use, and battery exchange stations would be allowed whereautomotive service and repair businessesare a permitted use. Multi-Family in the Institutional Zone (BMC 20.98). The City received an application for a Zoning Code amendment from a private property owner to add multi-family as a permitted use within the Institutional Zone. Based off the recommendation of theCommission, staff drafted amendments adding multi-family to the list of allowed uses in the Institutional Zone and updated the permitted use list for the Employment Center Zoneto ensure that consistent terms are used in both zoning districts and in the definitions section of Title 20. Ms. Floyd provided an overview of the following proposed Sign Code Amendments: Special Purpose Signs (BMC 20.52.130). The proposed amendment would combine the Special Purpose Sign Standardswith the Residential Sign Standards. Special purpose signs are associated with existing signs (i.e. existing businesses, schools, parks, etc.) within the Low-Density Residential Zones, so it makes sense to combine language related to special purpose signs with the Residential Sign Standards. Sandwich Boards and Portable Signs (BMC 20.2.160 and 20.52.170). Sandwich board and portable signs are currently regulated by two separate code sections, which reference each other. The proposed amendment would combine the regulations into one section that includesa broader range of sign types. Itwould also allow for some flexibility as to sign location. Freestanding Neighborhood Business Signs Size Limitations (20.52.180). As per the current code, freestanding neighborhood business signs are limited to a size that is two square feet smaller than other signs allowed in the Residential Zones. The proposed amendment would make neighborhood business sign sizes consistent with other similar zoning districts. Nonconforming Signs (BMC 20.52). The current code calls for the removal of all nonconforming signs by 2015, which seems like a really strong approach that is not particularly consistent with other provisions of the City’s nonconforming chapter. A map was provided to illustrate the high number of nonconforming signs, which includes all those over 8 feet tall in most zones of the City except Industrial and Freeway Corridor Zones. At the workshop, DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 28 February 18, 2014 ~ Page of the Commission agreed to try a softer approach that would replace the current amortization requirement with requirements that are tied to voluntary actions by property owners. For example,the amortization requirement could be tied to alterations of the site, the sign, or the business associated with the sign. As currently proposed, alterations leading to removal include removal of signage cabinetry, alterations that exceed 25% of the replacement cost of the sign, and on-site improvements exceeding 75% of the assessed improvementvalue or $100,000. She emphasized that expanding, enlarging or adding electronic elements to nonconforming signs would be prohibited. Ms. Floyd recommended the Commission hold an open record public hearing, consider testimony, and recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council. Priscilla Bailey, Bremerton, said she is the owner of the building located at 4171 Wheaton Way where a nonconforming sign is currently located. She expressed concern that her modest sign would have to be removed by 2015 if the code is not amended as proposed. She said it is not clear what would be considered a “conforming sign” and whether it would even be visible to passing traffic along Wheaton Way. She cautioned that signs are important, and she supports the amendment that softens the amortization requirement. Councilmember Runyon, emphasized that he waspresent to voice his own viewpointand not that of the City Council. He questioned how practical the current 8-foot height limitation for signs. Becausemany vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles, are over 8-feet hightall, thesigns would not be highly visible tosmallervehicle operators on the roadway. He asked if any other communities in Kitsap County have adopted similar sign restrictionsand expressed concern that the sign code restriction could make the City’s businesses less competitive with other areas in the County. No one else indicated a desire to participate, and Chair Tift closed the public hearing. Commissioner Strube said he spoke with business owners in Gig Harbor, which has adopted a lower sign height. One owner indicated he was closing his business because no one could find itbecause his sign was not tall enough. While he Commissioner Strube supports the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of having nicer signs on Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way, voiced his concern that the height limitation might be too drastic. He said he would be interested in learning more about what a conforming sign would look like. Vice Chair Dinkuhn recalled that the Commission considered examples from Gig Harbor at their January workshop. She noted that in addition to lower signs, there was a heavy amount of landscaping that impacted visibility. She suggested that as the signs are lowered in Bremerton, property owners would likely modify the landscaping in such a way that it does not block the signs. Commissioner Albright said she recently drove up and down Wheaton Way to observe the different signage. Although she is not prepared to say that 8 feet is the right height, she did find that having signage lower was better in terms of findingwhat she was looking for as she was driving. Commissioner Simpson expressed concern that in all the examples provided, the lower signs seemed to be lost in the vegetation and landscaping and were not highly visible. When she drives down Wheaton Way, she looks for the taller signs. Rather than being distractions, they are quite helpful in providing direction. She expressed her belief that theyshould take a serious look at how signs can help rather than hinder the City’s ability to attract desirable businesses. Ms. Spencer clarifiedthat sign height is not the issue before the Commission at this time. The current questionis whether the City should amortize and get rid of all nonconforming signs in 2015 or take a different, softerapproach. The 8-foot height limit for signs has been in place since 2005, and the Commission could revisit the issue again as part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and subsequent code amendments. Commissioner Jose observed that all Commissioners appear to support the proposed amendment that would take a softer approach to amortization of the sign standards. He noted that,in addition to adjusting the amortization language, the proposed amendment also includes small changes to make the code simpler. He asked how the replacement costs of a sign Ms. Floyd would be calculated. said staff would use one of two methods: the City coulduse the bid price to calculate the cost to the applicant through the building permit fee or the applicant could submit an actual bid for the sign replacement. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 38 February 18, 2014 ~ Page of CommissionerJose referred to Page 7 of Attachment 1 and requested the following modifications: BMC 20.52.180(C)(2) –Change to read, “… the sign shall lose its nonconforming status if one of the following circumstances applies.” BMC 20.52.180(C)(3) –Change to read, “If the sign has not beenutilized . . .” Commissioner Wofford said he would like the ordinance to include a date certain for amortization of nonconforming signs. He pointed out that people typically use technology to find the location of specific businesses, and tall signs are not really necessary. He said he has visited cities where businesses prosper using small signs, as long as they provide a service that people want. He voiced concern about allowing nonconforming signs to remain in place indefinitely as long as no significant Commissioner Jose alterations are made. said he is opposed to a hard and fast deadline for amortization of nonconforming signs. He supports the proposed amendment, which would apply an amortization standard that is consistent with the rest of the City’s code. Commissioner Simpson referred to BMC 20.52.120(a)(2) and expressed concern that signsfor multi-family development are limited to atotal of four square feet. If the development is located on a corner andtwo signs are needed, they would have to be very small. She also expressed concern that BMC 20.52.120(a)(3) limits freestanding signs on residential properties to Ms. Floyd two square feet. clarified that these two provisions apply to signs for home occupation uses that occur inside individual residential units. Residential developments would be allowed to have entrance signs that are up to fifty square feet in size. Commissioner Albright referred to BMC 20.52.120(d), which prohibits advertising wind signs or devices that flutter, wave, Ms. Floyd revolve or sparkle. She asked how the City would enforce this prohibition if the proposed amendment is adopted. explained that code enforcement is complaint based, and the proposed amendment is intended to address the issues that have raised the most concern. This particular prohibition has not been identified as a continual problem. Chair Tift pointed out that the current sign code has been in place for nearly ten years, and some property owners have advertised their businesses with newconformingsigns(ex. new: Walgreens, Rite Aid, and Starbucks). The conforming signs appear to be highly visible and attractive. He noted that redevelopment along Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way has not progressed as rapidly as the architects of the current ordinance had anticipated, but some progress has been made. While he doesn’t want to abandon the current sign code requirements, he felt it would be a bit draconian to give property owners just ten months to amortize their nonconforming signs. He felt the proposed amendment represents a reasonable compromise. Commissioner Jose moved that the Commission forward the proposedamendments that would eliminate BMC 19 (Mobile Homes) and amendBMC 20.42 and BMC 20.48(Electric Vehicle Infrastructure)and BMC 20.98 (allowing multi-family in the Institutional Zone) to the City Council with a recommendation of approvalas presented. Commissioner Wofford seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Chair Tift summarized that the Commissioners appear to be in agreement over the need to replace the amortization section. Commissioner Wofford The debate is whether or not another benchmark date should be set. asked staff to share the Ms. Floyd concerns that have been raised related to the current 2015 amortization date. explained that City staff cannot ignore the 2015 amortization date, which is rapidly approaching, and notices must be sent to property owners. Because they anticipate a lot of push back from property owners, staff is seeking confirmation from the City Council and Planning Chair Tift Commission before proceeding. added that moving forward with the 2015 amortization date could result in enforcement actions and potential litigation. This could be costly to both the business owners and the City. While he is not in favorof abandoning the current sign code, he felt it would be counterproductive to require amortization by 2015. Ms. Floyd clarified that an amortization program requires a date certain. The proposed amendment would eliminate the amortization program and no date certain would be required. Code compliance would occur as alterations are made. Commissioner Simpson cautioned against placing an undue burden on business and land owners, particularly given the economy. She supports the proposed amendment, which would provide some flexibility for them to bring their signs into DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 48 February 18, 2014 ~ Page of Commissioner Wofford compliance over time as alterations are made. expressed concern that if there is no date certain for compliance, the City could end up with a few nonconforming signsfor years without the ability to enforce compliance. Commissioner Jose voiced concern that setting a date would just be “kicking the can down the road,” and the same concern wouldcome up again in the future. He recommended they eliminate the amortization date and let eventual compliance happen. Once again, he noted this would be consistent with City’s nonconforming standards for all other uses. Commissioner Jose moved that the Commission forward the proposed amendments to BMC 20.52 (Sign Code) to the City Council with a recommendation of approval as presented by staff and with the following modifications: if one of the following BMC 20.52.180(C)(2) –Change to read, “… the sign shall lose its nonconforming status applies.” BMC 20.52.180(C)(3) –Change to read, “If the sign has not beenutilized . . .” Commissioner Albright seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1, with Commissioner Wofford voting in opposition. Public Workshop: Wheaton/Riddell District Center Ms. Floyd explained that in preparation for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update, staff will present a series of workshops to the Planning Commission focusing on the different “centers’ throughout the City. The intent is to familiarize the Commission with the key elements of the current Comprehensive Plan so they can better assess what is working and identify the changes that are needed. Ms. Floyd explained that the Comprehensive Plan is a 20-year plan to accommodate growth in the City. It specifically identifies centers where the vast majority of the City’s growth (14,000 people) will be accommodated. The centers are intended to be densemixed-use, walkable environments, withnodes of commercial, residential and public gathering places. She provided a map to illustrate the location of the various centers, specifically noting those that have subarea plans adopted. The intent is for the Commission to have a workshop discuss regarding each of the centers, starting with the Wheaton/Riddell District Center. Ms. Floyd provided pictures to illustrate the current conditions on Wheaton Way, as well as what Wheaton Way could look like if redeveloped consistent with the Subarea Plan,which requires developers to provide 2 landscape strips, 2 sidewalks and a frontage road (cartway).She sharedacurrent proposal to redevelop the Papa Murphy’s site with two commercial buildings. She explained that because the frontage improvements require a significant amount of property, parking spaces would have to be eliminated and there would not be sufficient parking to meet the needs of the two businesses. In addition, there aresignificant costsassociated with the required infrastructure.The property owner is trying to figure out if the improvements will pencil out or if remodeling the existing building is a better solution. Ms. Floyd observed that most of the properties have remained unchanged since the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan was adopted in 2007. Staff is concernedthat,due to the economy,it is too costlyfor property owners to provide the infrastructure that would be required for redevelopment.Staff is alsoconcernedabout requiring Papa Murphy’s to put in a frontage road when it will probably be the only site that is redeveloped for a long time to come. Because the remaining existing structures will likely be there quite some time, the frontage would be incomplete. The Subarea Plangenerally assumes full redevelopmentwithin a relatively short time period, which is not the reality of today. Ms. Floyd also pointed out that the Subarea Planrequires bicycle lanes on Wheaton Way, but they are specifically prohibited in the City’s adopted Non-Motorized Transportation Planbecause they are too dangerous in this location. It is also important to note that the bike lane would be short and have no connections to other bike lanes. Ms. Floyd advised that the SubareaPlan has specific design standards for the “City Villa” site that arebased on plans from a previous developer that envisioned a high-density, mixed-use area with parks and open space. The current property owners are severely limited given that there is not currently a market for mixed-use residential development at this time. Questions have been raised about why this site, which is currently a gravel pit, cannot be redeveloped as commercial. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 58 February 18, 2014 ~ Page of Ms. Floyd summarized that when evaluating the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan, it is hard to say that the plan has had success. There are more vacancies now than ever before, and economic changes have made code compliance difficult and challenging. She reported that the Council discussed the subarea and directed the Commission to explore options before 2016. After further analysis, staff is offeredthe following three options: 1.Replace the Subarea Plan with the District Center Core Zoning. This would be most consistent with the Subarea Planwithout the plan’s extensive design restrictions. 2.Replace the Subarea Plan with the previous 2005 “placeholder” zoning of District Center Core(DCC)in the middle and Residential (R-10*)on both of the edges. This would probably be undesirable to the property owners and inconsistent with the Subarea Plan, which went through an extensive review process. 3.Maintain the Subarea Plan until 2016 when the plan could be reevaluated and updated. Ms. Floyd said staff is seeking input from both the Commission and the public regarding the best approach moving forward. Priscilla Bailey, Bremerton, said she owns property within the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea and is concerned that the plan has resulted in a blighted zone next to her building. She expressed her belief that properties will neverbe redeveloped if owners are required to give up land for roadways, walkways, and landscaping that provide no benefit to their businesses. She also expressed concern about the restrictive requirements that 60% of the building front must be glass and only one row of parking is allowed in front of the building. She said the plan does not match the demands and needs of the community. There is no great pushfor residential development, and the area is not pedestrian-friendly. She summarized that the current Subarea Planis too restrictive and discourages development. She asked that the City revert back to the zoning that was in place immediately prior to the Subarea Planor even expand the DCC Zoning into the areas zoned R-10*. Mike Benefiel said he lives in the neighborhood adjacent to the gravel pit, which is the blight of Bremerton. Although there are restrictions, they are never enforced and the site just gets smellier, noisierand bigger each year. He found the Commission’s previous discussion about how pole signs are eyesores to be interesting given that his neighborhood has been dealing with the impact of this huge factory for 12 years. Tom Remick said he also lives in the neighborhood adjacent to the gravel pit. He has paid close attention to the evolution of the City, and he has had the opportunity to be the spokesperson for his neighbors as they have fought to get rid of the business. The neighbors are concerned about why the City implemented the restrictive Subarea Planwhen the economy took a drastic dive. He pleaded with the Commissionersto consider changes that would allow and encourage re-development to move forward. He noted the changes that have occurred on Kitsap Way, and he asked the Commission to consider going back to a more reasonable commercial (not industrial) zoning so the City can continue to grow. Diedre McKeel, Bremerton, recommended that asthey review the“centers” that are located throughout the Cityand update the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission should consider how to accommodate both bicycle and pedestrian traffic by providing safe connections between the commercial centers and the residential areas. Councilmember Runyon said he was one of the four Councilmembers who at the council retreat spoke in favor of reducing restrictions and making the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan more flexible. He expressed his belief that the plan needs to be rebalanced by looking at market conditions. Property owners should be allowed to develop properties per the market. Gary Weber said he is a commercial real estate broker that specializes in retail real estate. He was hired by Carl Zarelli to help fill his buildings with tenants. He commented that while the Subarea Plan is well done, it will not work fora number of reasons as explained by Ms. Floyd. He recalled that ten years ago, developers and cities were partnering to build “village” projects, but only about 50% of these projects are viable today because they don’t have a component other than retail.In order for a project to be viable, it must have a mixed-use component (residential or office), which provides the economic driver to make the project work. Retail, itself, will not substantiate a project. He noted that Kitsap County is not a hot multi- family residential market now, and the office market is not strong, either. Implementing the current Subarea Plan would require a market that does not currently exist in Bremerton. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 68 February 18, 2014 ~ Page of Mr. Weber referred to the R-10* zoning on either side of the DCC zoning. He explained that, as he works with potential tenants, retailers will likely insist on having a view corridor to the main street. In fact, the lease will likely stipulatethat nothing can be constructed in front of the retail space. Retailers are interested in spaces that have good visibility, signage, access and parking. Commissioner Wofford commented that he has observed numerous developments with frontage roads, particularly on the east coast. The buildings are set 30 to 50 feet back from the street and tend to get lost in the landscaping. Also, he expressed concern that frontage roads tend to become speedways because the main roads are blocked. He said he is not in favor of requiring frontage roads along Wheaton Way. Commissioner Strube observed that the current Subarea Planis not working, and he would support changes that allow the district to grow. Commissioner Jose recalled that the intent of the Subarea Plan was for the area to transition over time through strict regulations. However, the strategy of strict regulations and very prescriptive standards obviously didn’t work and they need to try something different. He reminded the Commission of their more recent work on the SKIA and Gorst Subarea Plans Ms. Floyd where they learned that flexibility in zoning attracts development. When pointed out that DCC zoning would Commissioner Jose allow for more flexibility, said he would be in favor of extending the DCC zoning Chair Tift observed that the businesses located in the Fred Meyer Complex areattractive and thriving, and the property where Albertson’s used to be located was previously a hot bed of retail activity in Bremerton. He cautioned against underestimating the power of this retail area if it is properly developed and cared for. He agreed that they need to address the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan post haste rather than waiting until the Comprehensive Plan is updated in 2016. Ms. Spencer explained that the Commission could recommend the City Council revoke the Subarea Plan(Option 2), and the zoning would revert back to the 2005 zoning that had DCC in the middle and R-10* on both edges. If the Commission wants to explore other zoning configuration options, then the bestapproachwould be replace the Subarea Plan with DCC zoning Ms. Floyd (Option 1). This would allow them to expand the DCC zoningbeyond its original boundaries. added that the owners of the R-10* zoned property have voiced opinions that they would like commercialas opposed to residential zoning. The mining propertyis already zoned residential, and it is not working. The mining operation owners have indicated that the current business will exist in perpetuity if the property remains residential in zoning, and that is not an outcome anyone wants to see. Commissioner Jose moved that the Commission direct staff to recommend that the Subarea Plan be revoked and prepare a workshop and public hearing process to explore expanding the District Center Core (DCC) Zoning beyond its original boundaries prior to Subarea Planadoption (Option 1). Commissioner Albright Ms. Floyd asked if DCC zoning would include industrial and light industrial uses. said the list of outright permitted uses would be the same as those currently allowed along the corridor. Industrial uses would only be allowed in the Industrial zone. Vice ChairDinkuhn Ms. Floyd asked if DCC zoning would allow for mixed-use zoning. answered that residential uses would be allowed as secondary uses in the DCC zone. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Spencer explained that the Commission could recommend that the City Council revoke the Subarea Planimmediately, which means the zoning would default to DCC and R-10* Zoning while the Planning Commission works on a permanent change to the zoning. The Commission indicated support for expediting the revocation of the Subarea Plan. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 78 February 18, 2014 ~ Page of BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Tift expressed appreciation for staff’s hard work preparing items to come before the Commission. Director Report Ms. Spencer announced that the Kitsap Economic Development Alliance has invited the Commissioners to participate in a webinar titled, “Repurposing Aging Retail Centers.” The webinar will be held in the Mayor’s Conference Room on February th from 10:30 a.m. to noon. She asked interested Commissioners to notify staff so that a public meeting could be 27 advertised,if necessary. Old Business: Vote on By-Law Changes The Commission briefly reviewed the proposed changes to the Planning Commission Bylaws. Commissioner Albright moved that the Commission approve the amendments to the Planning Commission Bylaws, as presented. Commissioner Strube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. New Business There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:15p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ____________________________________________________________ Andrea L.Spencer, AICPRichard L. Tift, Chair Executive SecretaryPlanning Commission DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 88 February 18, 2014 ~ Page of Commission Meeting Date: February 18, 2014 Agenda Item: VI.B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Workshop to discuss potential zoning modifications to the Wheaton-Riddell District Center DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Nicole Floyd, Senior Planner SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a workshop on February 18, 2014 and during the meeting the Commission had discussions about the Wheaton-Riddell District center, and staff presented information how the area has not realized the growth that was envisioned in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. Following a workshop where public testimony was provided, the Planning Commission passed a motion to recommend two actions: 1. The City Council should revoke the Wheaton-Riddell District Center Subarea Plan immediately, therefore reverting to the zoning that was in place prior to Subarea Plan adoption in 2007, and 2. Directed staff to prepare alternative zoning for the District Center for Planning Commission discussion and deliberation over the coming months. Staff has completed the first work item identified above. The City Council accepted the Planning Commission’s recommendation and on March 5, 2014 unanimously passed Ordinance No. 5241 revoking the Wheaton-Riddell Subarea Plan. The zoning in the District Center that is now in effect is a mix of District Center Core and R-10* (see Attachment I). Under the State Growth Management Act (GMA), the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan vision for the Wheaton-Riddell District Center can be accomplished with either of these two tools: 1) Adoption of a Subarea Plan, or 2) Zoning. Given that the City has not realized District Center success with the adoption of a subarea plan, Staff recommends that we utilize the city’s zoning code to implement the Comprehensive Plan for this District Center. The implementing zoning districts for the Wheaton-Riddell District District Center CoreR-10* Center are: (see Attachment II) and (see Attachment III). The Commission can choose to apply any combination of these two zoning districts throughout the Center, and is not required to apply the R-10* designation at all. The purpose of this workshop is essentially twofold: 1. Determine how to designate (i.e. “paint”) the zoning map for this area. A choice of two zones (colors) is available. 2. To determine if any changes need to be made to the development regulation text associated to the zones in question. In order to help achieve these goals, the following report is intended to give an overview of the zoning options available, provide discussion of where zoning modifications may be desired, and include discussion of zoning code text amendments that might be appropriate to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan is accurately administered in this center. The Commission should be aware that the meeting has been widely advertised to property owners in the district as well as within 500 feet of the property. HISTORY Between the years of 1988 and 2005 the entire District Center was zoned as commercial. It included a mix of general business (GB) and shopping center (SC) zoning as seen on the map to the right. This commercial zoning has been consistent for over 25 years with only one area of difficulty – the western edge. In this area a Special Use Permit was issued to allow for an industrial sand and gravel operation directly adjacent to existing single family residential neighborhood. This industrial complex has grown over the years and is a significant disturbance to the adjacent neighborhood. A recent article in the ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĞŶƚĞƌŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ Kitsap Sun focuses on this and can be viewed in Attachment IV. For the most part, the development pattern established during this time period has remained unchanged to this day. In 2005, following the Comprehensive Plan update which implemented the Centers Concept the zoning changed to District Center Core along Wheaton Way, and Low Density Residential along the outer edges adjacent to the neighboring residential areas. This change in zoning did not reflect the existing development pattern (Commercial uses became legal nonconformities), nor did the placeholder zoning fully evaluate the overall growth targets for the center. It was understood that the location of the zoning boundaries were only temporary and included less density than would be determined appropriate upon further study. Per the Comprehensive Plan, Centers are intended to be primary location for growth. As a District Center, the Wheaton Riddell Sub-Area is expected to accommodate extensive growth. The Plan calls for just shy of 2,000 residential units within the approximately 100 acre area. Just for scale, the “400 Condos” on Washington Ave in Downtown includes 72 units on just shy of one acre. To meet these targets 20 similarly sized residential buildings would need to be constructed to meet the residential target. The area is also intended to accommodate more than 1,800 new jobs. In order to achieve this level of growth, tall and dense development would be necessary. In reflection it is unclear why the low density zoning was chosen as a placeholder in an area intended to accommodate a significant portion of the City’s growth. Staff speculates that using the Low Density Residential zone as a placeholder would significantly limit growth and ensure minimal impact to the neighboring residences for the short time until a detailed development strategy could be adopted for the area. This zoning was only in effect for two years before the Sub-Area Planning Process was completed and the zoning was replaced by the Sub-Area Plan. WHEATON RIDDELL SUB-AREA PLAN OVERVIEW The Sub-Area Plan, adopted in 2007 include several different commercial zoning districts that generally mirror the adopted zoning code requirements for “District Center Core” for the types of allowed uses. The Sub-Area Plan zones all differ, not so much in what uses are allowed, but in what the code requires for development regulations that shape the overall look of each new building. Generally, all zones in the Sub-Area Plan except the City Villa Site uses the District Center Core list of uses and include many of the same design standards from the District Center Core zone. While the City Villa Zone is not identical to the District Center Core zone, it is more similar to it, than to the Low Density Residential zone because it allows a mix of all residential uses and commercial uses. In order to meet the large growth targets established in the Comprehensive Plan, the area will need to be developed at a high intensity with a mix of commercial and multi-family units. Simply put, the Low Density Residential zoning will not accommodate this level of growth and therefore does not seem appropriate for this location. Even the 50’ height limit of the District Center Core zone seems limiting for the expected growth of this area. ZONING COMPARISON: Property owners throughout the Sub-Area have stated that their preferred zoning would allow for commercial development, as has been allowed for more than 25 years. The zoning established in the Sub-Area Plan included several zones, all allowing some commercial capacity. The District Center Core zone allows for commercial and mixed use (commercial and residential mixed) and the Low Density Residential zone is limited to single family residential uses only. With all these different zoning districts it is hard to easily determine the differences and similarities. Staff has prepared a chart that identifies the key similarities and differences between these zones: 6IUYMVIQIRX6(''7YF%VIE4PER7YF%VIE4PER7YF%VIE4PER7YF%VIE4PER ;LIEXSR7MXI-RXIVMSV)EWX)HKI'MX]:MPPE *VSRXEKI Residential Commercial CommercialCommercialCommercialCommercial %PPS[IH 9WIW Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Residential Residential Residential Residential 35’ 50’ 65’55’55’4 stories ,IMKLX 10/acre Unlimited UnlimitedUnlimited20/acreUnlimited (IRWMX] Residential Wall: 10% of Wall: 100sfWall: 100sfWall: 100sfWall: 100sf 7MKREKI onlyfacade Free: 8’ monument Free: 8’ monument Free: 8’ monument Free: 8’ monument Free: 8’ monument None Window Window fenestrationWindowWindowRoof slope (IWMKR fenestration fenestration fenestration 7XERHEVHW Building entrances Building entrances Building entrances Building entrances Building entrances Reduced blank Reduced bulk standards Reduced bulk facades Awnings Awnings Awnings standards Ground floor res. Ground floor res. Ground floor res. Reduced blank facades Reduced blank entrances entrances entrances facades Intersection features North south orientation required Intersection Awnings features required None 10’-20’ NoneNoneNone85’ along Almira :IKIXEXIH &YJJIV None None Frontage road 30’-55’Mid-Site Circulator 85’ vegetated buffer Specific & extensive 3XLIV6IUvW roadalong Almira St. street design req’s. Amenity zone 5’-15’ Public Plaza req’d. Mid- site circulator road Cartway road Bike lane Req’d. ROW Improvements Hollis St. Alley ZONING VS WHEATON RIDDELL PLAN - SIMILARITIES : Uses: All the commercial zoning districts allow for commercial and mixed use development which are key in achieving the growth targets established for this area Height limits: The height limits of the most recent and applicable commercial zones vary between 50’ to 65’. Interestingly, of all the commercial zoning districts represented in the chart above, the District Center Core zone has the lowest. Increasing the height in this area would enable growth targets to be more easily achieved and would be in line with the previous Sub- Area Plan. While not a necessary change, it is one to consider and have a discussion on. Prior to making this change, review of all locations throughout the city that have the District Center Core zoning district would be necessary prior to making this change. Design Standards: Design Standards establish how each new structure is to be constructed and how they are to look on the exterior. All of the commercial zones have very similar design standards. Although there is some variation, it appears that the Sub-Area Plan standards grew from the District Center Core Design Standards as they all use similar wording and include the same key features. Maintaining these design standards will ensure growth of the Center is done in an attractive way. ZONING VS WHEATON RIDDELL PLAN - DIFFERENCES: Residential Uses: The Sub-Area Plan’s commercial districts allow for all types of residential. The District Center Core only allows for residential when it is mixed with commercial. Revisions to the District Center Core zone development regulation text to allow for all types of residential would allow for greater flexibility for development, but would not ensure mixed use in every building. Consideration of other locations throughout the City of this zoning district would be necessary prior to this change. Other Requirements: The Sub-Area Plan includes many “Other Requirements” that developers have found to be difficult and expensive such as the frontage road ways, mid-site circulator roads, extensive street design features and required street improvements. The District Center Core does not require these same features. Eliminating these requirements may not achieve the quality site design envisioned in the Sub-Area Plan, but Staff anticipates that these improvements have inhibited development due to their cost. Softening the Western Edge: The western edge is currently occupied by an industrial complex and therefore any new use, be that commercial or residential, would represent a softening of the impacts to neighboring residences. Within the Sub-Area Plan, Low Density Residential development was planned in a narrow swath adjacent to the western most boundary of the Sub- Area. Staff contends that the District Center Core, rather than Low Density Residential zoning district offers the most immediate potential for a new, less intense use along this boundary. This is due to the current market trends, which are not as favorable for residential development as for commercial development. Low Density Zoning would likely ensure the industrial use would remain in place until the residential market demands return. Although commercial uses are often considered more intense, under the District Center Core zoning, a visual buffer of evergreen trees and shrubs would be required at a depth of at least 10’ adjacent to the areas zoned Low Density Residential. This buffer, accompanied by the topography differences along this boundary would likely represent a much more pleasant living environment than what is currently in place. Softening the Eastern Edge: Along the eastern edge of the Sub-Area is an approximately 20 acre site that remains forested. Through the Sub-Area Planning process the residential community living along Almira Drive attended several meetings and voiced their desire to maintain the forested setting of their street. In response, the Sub-Area Plan established that in order to develop the site for commercial use, an 85’ natural vegetation buffer along the entire length of the property would be required to be maintained. By removing the Sub-Area Plan, this requirement has also been removed. Revision to the District Center Core zoning district code requirements could be implemented that re-instate this requirement. PROVIDING DIRECTION: Staff is looking to the Planning Commission, property owners, and community to guide further code amendment. Staff anticipates that based on comments received, additional research and code amendments will be prepared. Please review the materials and be prepared to identify what key areas need further clarification or study. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I:Zoning Currently in Effect with Revocation of Sub-Area Plan Attachment II: District Center Core Zoning Code Section (BMC 20.70) Attachment III: Low Density Residential Zoning Code Section (BMC 20.60) Attachment IV: Kitsap Sun Article – “Neighbors Lean on East Bremerton Landscape Supply Business” Attachment I Zoning Currently in Effect with Revocation of Sub-Area Plan 1 Attachment II Chapter 20.70 DISTRICT CENTER CORE (DCC) Sections: 20.70.010INTENT. 20.70.020OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USES. 20.70.050PROHIBITED USES. 20.70.060DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 20.70.070DESIGN STANDARDS. 20.70.080PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 20.70.090LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. 20.70.100SIGN STANDARDS. 20.70.010INTENT. The intent of the district center core (DCC) zone is to establish base threshold standards for district centers that preservefuture opportunity for full realization of the centers concept. The DCC designation assumes that future amendments to the zoning code will more fully implement the centers intent. (Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.70.020OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USES. Thefollowing uses are permitted outright: (a)Bed and breakfast; (b)Co-location of wireless telecommunications facility per BMC20.46.140; (c)Community facility; (d)Day care facility; (e)Drinking place; (f)Entertainment use; (g)Finance, insurance and real estate; (h)General office and business services; (i)General retail; (j)Group residential facilities -Class I; (k)Hotel and lodging place; (l)Medical office and clinic; (m)Motion picture theater; (n)Museum and gallery; (o)Nursing/convalescent home; (p)Park, playground and open space; (q)Personal services business; (r)Physical fitness and health club; (s)Public or private park, playground or open space; (t)Public administration; (u)Residential as a secondary use; (v)Restaurant; (w)School and education; (x)Senior housing complex; (y)Transportation facility; 1 Attachment II (z)Veterinary clinic. (Ord. 5008 §15, 2007: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.70.050PROHIBITED USES. (a)Drive-through lanes except within the Wheaton/Riddell District Center when the business has direct vehicular access from Wheaton Way. (Ord. 5222 §13, 2013: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.70.060DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Lot development shall be in accordance with the following unless allowed for otherwise by law: (a)Maximum front yard setback: ten (10) feet. At least sixty-five (65) 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: (1)When the site includes more than one (1) street frontage; (2)To accommodate existing topography, utilities, or other physical site constraints that make compliance with the setback infeasible; (3)To accommodate phasing of infill development; (4)On sites that are significantly developed with existing legally established nonconforming uses or structures whereby strict code compliance will not facilitate effective circulation; or (5)For projects that in the opinion of the Director provide enhanced public amenities within the setback area which include, but are not limited to, the following: public plazas, increased landscaping, architectural features, improved pedestrian connections. (b)Side yard setback: zero (0) except when adjacent to the low density residential zone (R-10) where a ten (10) to twenty (20) foot visual screen is requiredpursuant to BMC20.50.050(b). (c)Rear yard setback: zero (0) except when adjacent to the low density residential zone (R-10) where a ten (10)to twenty (20) foot visual screen is required pursuant to BMC20.50.050(b). (d)There is no maximum density for residential as a secondary use. (e)Maximum building coverage: sixty (60) percent base maximum; provided, that through the use of any combination of the following, building coverage may be increased up to eighty-five (85) percent maximum: (1)Projects containing mixed uses: ten (10) percent bonus. (2)Projects with a three (3) or four (4) story building: ten (10) percent bonus. (3)Projects providing a pedestrian-oriented plaza or area of at least one hundred fifty (150) square feet along a pedestrian walkway at an intersection corner, bus stop or other key pedestrian area approved by the City. Such areas shall contain seating for at least four (4) people, a trash receptacle and three (3) or more of the following: a pedestrian shelter, a drinking fountain, a bike rack, pedestrian-scale lights, 2 Attachment II pavers on the walkway surfaces, a kiosk, a street vendor station providing food or beverages, trees, an appropriately sized statue or sculpture, or a public restroom. Interior courtyards with these amenities qualify if they would be readily apparent and accessible to pedestrians on adjoining sidewalks: twenty (20) percent bonus. (4)Projects providing a through-block corridor that facilitates pedestrian access in a location approved by the City: five (5) percent bonus. (5)Projects providing at least fifty (50) percent of their required parking underground or within the building: twenty (20) percent bonus. (f)Maximum development coverage: maximum development coverage by impervious surfaces, seventy-five (75) percent; provided,that through the use of any combination of the mechanisms listed in subsections (e)(1) through (5) of this section, up to ninety-five (95) percent maximum development coverage may be allowed. (g)Maximum building height: fifty (50) feet. (Ord. 5222 §14, 2013; Ord. 5046 §15, 2008; Ord. 5008 §16, 2007: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.70.070DESIGN STANDARDS. (a)Building Design. (1)To enhance the pedestrian environment, commercial uses shall include large windows along any facade facing the public sidewalk or sidewalks providing circulation within a site. Windows shall allow views into interior building spaces. At least seventy-five (75) percent of all such facades, measured to ten (10) feet above the sidewalk or surface grade, shall be comprised of such windows. (2)At least one (1) of the following amenities shall be required along building facades facing the public sidewalk: outdoor eating areas, street furniture such as benches, bike racks and trash receptacles, and plantings in window boxes. (3)Building entrances shall be easily identifiable from the street and sidewalks. This may be accomplished by: (i)Ornamentation and/or architectural detailing around the door; and (ii)One (1) or more of the following techniques: (A)Recessing the entrance area at least three (3) feet; (B)An entrance area that protrudes at least three (3) feet; (C)A canopy, portico or overhang extending at least five (5) feet over the sidewalk in the entrance area. (4)Bulk. Building modulation shall be used to reduce the appearance of mass and bulk of the structure. This can be achieved by utilizing any combination of at least two (2) of the following: (i)Setback of upper floors by at least ten (10) feet. However, such setbacks shall not be applied to more than fifty (50) percent of a facade facing a major arterial. (ii)Recessed or protruding doorways per subsection (a)(3)(ii) of this section. (iii)Overhangs, awnings, canopies, or arcades between eight (8) and twelve (12) feet above the sidewalk. (iv)Window fenestration per subsection (a)(1) of this section. (5)Blank Facades. Building facades shall not present a blank facade to view from public rights-of-way, common parking areas, or residential properties. Such 3 Attachment II facades may be broken by windows, trellises, columns, variations in plane, or other devices that add variation and interest to the facade. (6)Structures at the intersection of two (2) arterial streets shall include a significant architectural feature at the building corner that provides visual emphasis at the corner. This may be accomplished in one (1) or more of the following ways: (i)The inclusion of a major entryway at the corner. Such entryways must be marked by an awning, recessed area, colonnade, or other architectural feature that defines the entry. (ii)The inclusion of a building element the height of which varies from the remainder of the building by at least ten (10) percent. (iii)A plaza at the corner that includes a fountain, artwork,or planting of at least ten (10) feet in height. (b)Site Design. In addition to other standards provided in this chapter, site design shall meet the following requirements: (1)Circulation. Clearly defined pedestrian and vehicle circulation routes shall be provided such that all portions of the site are linked. (2)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 BMC20.46.120. No garbage enclosure shall be permitted between a street and the front of a building. (Ord. 5222 §15, 2013; Ord. 5046 §16, 2008; Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.70.080PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Parking shall meet the standards of Chapter20.48BMC and the following requirements: (a)For nonresidential uses, the minimum parking requirement is one (1) space per employee. (b)On-site parking for nonresidential uses shall not exceed four (4) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. (c)On-site parking shall be to the rear or side of buildings and 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 which applies to the entire length of the property regardless of building width. Corner lots have two (2) site frontages as they are positioned on two (2) 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)A four (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 (one hundred (100) feet 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 (3) feet tall at time of installation and shall be additional to the landscaping required in Chapter20.50BMC. (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 4 Attachment II pedestrian access. The entry shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate a sidewalk that is a minimum of five (5) feet 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. (e)Access to parking shall be provided per the following priority: (1)First, from an alley if available; if an alley is not available, then from local street; (2)If neither is available, then from a nonprincipal arterial street; (3)If none of the above are available then from a principal arterial street. 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 shall be 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 building occurs, 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. (Ord. 5222 §16, 2013: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.70.090LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. Landscaping shall meet the standards of Chapter20.50BMC. (Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.70.100SIGN STANDARDS. Signs shall meet the standards of Chapter20.52BMC. For freestanding signs, the maximum size and height standards of Figure 20.52(a) shall apply. (Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 5 Attachment III Chapter 20.60 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-10 ) Sections: 20.60.010INTENT. 20.60.020PERMITTED USES. 20.60.030ACCESSORY USES. 20.60.040CONDITIONAL USES. 20.60.060DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 20.60.065ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND LOT AREA. 20.60.066ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND LOT AREA IN A CENTER. 20.60.068ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND LOT AREA IN UNDERUTILIZED URBAN FRINGE AREAS. 20.60.080OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 20.60.090LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. 20.60.100SIGN STANDARDS. 20.60.010INTENT. The intent of the low density residential (R-10) zoning district is to accommodate single-family housing by infilling at a range of lot sizes consistent with urban growth patterns. Some attached single-family housing may be appropriate when responding to sensitive areas or with innovative design. Residential development at higher densities is encouraged at the edge of designated centers. (Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.60.020PERMITTED USES. Only one (1) principal use shall be allowed on each residentially zoned lot unless allowed for otherwise by law. This limitation shall not include permitted accessory uses associated with a permitted principal use. The following uses are permitted outright: (a)Cemetery; (b)Co-location of wireless telecommunications per BMC20.46.140; (c)Day care facility of twelve (12) or fewer persons receiving care; (d)Education and schools (K-12) of twelve (12) or fewer students; (e)Foster home; (f)Group residential home; (g)Manufactured home per BMC20.46.040; (h)Parks, playgrounds and open space equal or less than one-half (0.5)acre (twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780) square feet); (i)Single-unit dwelling unit, detached; (j)Single-unit dwelling unit, attached (zero (0) lot lines) per BMC20.60.060(b); (k)Worship and religious facilities of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet gross floor area or less; (l)Incubator for business associated with a worship and religious facility or community facility, provided the following conditions are met: (1)The incubated business is a use that is permitted outright in the neighborhood business zone, BMC20.82.020; 1 Attachment III (2)Landscaping and signage requirements of the neighborhood business zone, Chapter20.82BMC, shall be met; and (3)The parcel upon which the incubated business is situated shall have frontage on an arterial street. (Ord. 4977 §9, 2006: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.60.030ACCESSORY USES. The following accessory uses may be permitted when found in connection with a principal use: (a)Attached or detached accessory dwelling unit per BMC20.46.010; (b)Detached garage, carport, and parking facilities for the residents of the property; (c)Home occupation per BMC20.46.030; (d)Other necessary and customary uses determined by the Director to be appropriate, incidental and subordinate; (e)Playhouses, patios, cabanas, porches, gazebos, swimming pools and incidental household storage buildings. (Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.60.040CONDITIONAL USES. The following uses may be permitted, provided a conditional use permit is approved pursuant to BMC20.58.020subject to the corresponding conditions: Bed and breakfast (a),provided: (1)The operators of the business shall occupy the house as their primary residence; (2)No more than one (1) full-time equivalent (FTE) employee who is not a resident of the dwelling may be employed; (3)No more than six (6) bedrooms are made available for rent to guests and all guest rooms are contained within the principal structure; (4)Two (2) off-street parking spaces, plus one (1) off-street parking space per each guest bedroom, are required; (5)Off-street parking spaces maybe reduced, provided the applicant can demonstrate parking will not spill over into nearby residential properties and any streets; (6)Rooms shall not be made available to guests for more than fourteen (14) days during any thirty (30) day period; (7)No commercial receptions, parties, or other public gatherings, or serving of meals to nonresident guests for compensation, are allowed; and (8)Any remodeling of the residential structure shall maintain the residential nature of the structure and not alter the structure in such a manner that would prevent it from being used as a residence in the future. Group residential facilities -Class I (b), provided: (1)All state licensing requirements are satisfied; (2)The site is located on a collector or higher street; (3)Minimum setbacks, height and lot coverage of the underlying zone shall apply; (4)Off-street parking shall be at a minimum of one (1) space per each employee during the peak shift, plus one (1) space per two (2) residents thefacility will provide service to; 2 Attachment III (5)If counseling services are provided to nonresidents, additional parking spaces are required at one (1) per three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area used for counseling services; (6)The number of required off-street parking spaces may be reduced, provided the applicant can demonstrate that parking will not spill over into nearby residential properties and any streets; and (7)Landscaping is provided meeting the minimum requirements for nonresidential uses prescribed in Chapter20.50BMC. Additional landscaping for screening purposes may be required if it is found necessary to mitigate any impactsto adjoining residential properties. Senior housing complex (c), provided the conditions set forth in BMC20.46.090are satisfied. Nursing/convalescent homes (d), provided: (1)All state licensing requirements are satisfied; (2)The site is located on a collector or higher street; (3)Minimum site area shall be no less than one (1) acre; (4)Minimum setbacks, height and lot coverage of the underlying zone shall apply; (5)Off-street parking shall be a minimum of one (1) space per six hundred (600) square feet of gross floor area; (6)The number of required off-street parking spaces may be reduced, provided the applicantcan demonstrate that parking will not spill over into nearby residential properties and any streets; and (7)Landscaping is provided meeting the minimum requirements for nonresidential uses prescribed in Chapter20.50BMC. Additional landscaping for screening purposes may be required if it is found necessary to mitigate any impacts to adjoining residential properties. Day care facilities (thirteen (13) or morepersons receiving care) (e), provided: (1)All state licensing requirements are satisfied; (2)The site is located on a collector or higher street; (3)Off-street parking shall be a minimum one (1) space per each five (5) children based on the state license maximum occupancy load; (4)One (1) loading/unloading space without backup is required for the first twenty (20) children and one (1) additional space for up to each additional twenty (20) children; (5)The number of required off-street parking spaces may be reduced, provided the applicant can demonstrate that parking will not spill over into nearby residential properties and any streets; (6)Landscaping is provided meeting the minimum requirements for nonresidential uses prescribed in Chapter20.50BMC. Additional landscaping for screening purposes may be required if it is found necessary to mitigate any impacts to adjoining residential properties; and (7)The maximum height of a fence or wall within a front yard setback may be increased up to six (6) feet, provided it enhances safety and security of an outdoor play area. 3 Attachment III Adaptive reuse of public and semi-publicbuildings (f), provided the conditions set forth in BMC20.46.070are satisfied. Manufactured home park or expansion ofexisting parks (g), provided: (1)It is exempt pursuant to RCW58.17.040from requirements for property segregation; (2)The minimum site size shall be five (5) acres; (3)Density shallmeet the underlying zone; (4)Adequate water, sewer, and utility services are available to all building sites; (5)A fire protection system meeting the requirements of the City Fire Marshal is provided; (6)Interior circulation shall meet the City Engineer road standards plus the following standards: (i)All interior circulation routes shall be constructed within a tract or easement; (ii)Roads and driveways shall be paved; (iii)The City Fire Marshal and City Engineer shall approve all fire turnarounds; (7)The following setbacks shall apply to manufactured homes or mobile homes, together with their additions and appurtenant structures, accessory structures, and other structures on the site (excluding fences), excluding any hitch or towing fixture: (i)From interior roads, at least fifteen (15) feet from centerline of the tract or easement, but in no case shall the setback be less than five (5) feet from the paved surfaced edge; (ii)Structures near the perimeter lot lines of the property shall comply with the setbacks of the underlying zone; (iii)A minimum of ten (10) foot separation between all manufactured homes; (8)Off-street parking spaces shall be provided in the following manner: (i)One (1) parking space per home site; plus (ii)One (1) parking space for each five (5) home sites for guest parking; plus (iii)Additional parking spaces to provide for the parking needs of offices, community buildings, recreational facilities, or other uses within the park that may be used by park residents or others; (9)Outside storage of vessels (boats), household items and equipment is prohibited, except a common central storage area may be provided for residents of the park. The storage area shall be screened by a minimum five (5) foot high by five (5) foot wide sight-obscuring barrier consisting of landscaping and fencing or wall, and shall meet minimum setbacks of the underlying zone; (10)Ten (10) percent of the site shall be maintained as common recreational open space for the use of residents and: (i)May include community areas and facilities such as playgrounds, swimming pools, and hobby and craft shops; 4 Attachment III (ii)However, it shall not include required landscaping areas, perimeter setback areas, parking areas, storage areas, building separation areas or other areas deemed impractical by the Director for the recreational enjoyment of the residents; (11)Trees meeting the standards set forth in Chapter20.50BMC shall be provided along all property lines abutting a residential zone and public streets. Exceptions for trees may be allowed when a property line abuts an alley or is obstructed by a building or other structure; (12)Adequate lighting to illuminate streets, driveways, and walkways for the safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles is required; and (13)All water, sewer, electrical, and communication service lines shall be underground. Worship, religious, and community facilities greater than twenty thousand (h) (20,000) squarefeet , provided: (1)The site is located on a collector or higher street; (2)The site area shall be one (1) acre or more; and (3)Landscaping is provided meeting the minimum requirements for nonresidential uses prescribed in Chapter20.50BMC. Additional landscaping for screening purposes may be required if it is found necessary to mitigate any impacts to adjoining residential properties. Golf course (i), provided: (1)A site plan review and a site development permit are approved pursuant to Chapter20.58BMC; (2)Through the conditional use permit, modifications to parking and landscaping may be allowed in order to facilitate good design; (3)Access to the site shall be from an arterial streetor highway; and (4)Other conditions are applied as deemed necessary to mitigate impacts to nearby residential properties and ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. Schools, parks and associated uses (j)may be approved in accordance with the following: (1)The following uses are permitted through approval of a conditional use permit: (i)All public schools and associated gymnasiums and auditoriums; (ii)Private schools (K-12) with thirteen (13) or more students; (iii)Parks and playgrounds greater than one-half (1/2) acre; (iv)Outdoor athletic fields; (v)Boat launching and related facilities; (vi)Maintenance and service yards; (vii)Bus and other vehicle and equipment maintenance and storage facilities; (viii)Administrative office related to the facilities greater than two thousand (2,000) square feet gross floor area; (ix)Buildings and structures for nonprofit groups on public lands; (2)Uses permitted pursuant to subsection (j)(1) of this section shall be subject to complying with the following conditions: (i)Front, side and rear yard setbacks of structures and outdoor storage areas shall be at least thirty (30) feet; 5 Attachment III (ii)Setbacks may be reduced for those portions of a structure fronting interior streets; (iii) The maximum height for any new construction may be increased to match the architecture of existing buildings; provided, that it is set back an additional foot from any property line for each additional foot of allowed height, and in no case shall the new construction exceed forty-five (45) feet; (iv)Landscaping is provided meeting the minimum requirements for nonresidential uses prescribed in Chapter20.50BMC. Additional landscaping for screening purposes may be required if it is found necessary to mitigate any impacts to adjoining residential properties; (v)Additional measures may be required if deemed necessary to mitigate any noise impacts to adjacent residential uses; and (vi)The maximum height of a fence or wall within a front yard setback may be increased to six (6) feet, provided it enhances safety and security around an outdoor play area. Public utility facilities located aboveground (k), provided: (1)Landscaping is provided meeting the minimum requirements for nonresidential uses prescribed in Chapter20.50BMC. Additional landscaping for screening purposes may be required if it is found necessary to mitigate any impacts to adjoining residential properties; (2)The maximum height of a fence or wall may be increased within a front yard setback that will provide screening from adjacent uses and enhance safety and security around the facility; and (3)Exceptions to setbacks may be allowed if the applicant can demonstrate that the public interest is better served by allowing the modification. Law enforcement and fire facilities (l), provided: (1)Landscaping is provided meeting the minimum requirements for nonresidential uses prescribed in Chapter20.50BMC. Additional landscaping for screening purposes may be required if it is found necessary to mitigate any impacts to adjoining residential properties. (2)The maximum height of a fence or wall may be increased within a front yard setback that will provide screening from adjacent uses and enhance safety and security around the facility. Neighborhood businesses (m), provided: (1)The use is listed as a permitted use in BMC20.82.020; (2)The use is a preexisting use that has legally operated within the previous twelve (12) month period; and (3)The use is not expanded beyond its existing footprints. Community facilities under twenty thousand (20,000) square feet (n), provided: (1)Additional landscaping outside what is required in Chapter20.50BMC (Landscaping) may berequired for screening purposes in order to mitigate impacts to adjoining residential properties; (2)A parking analysis may be required to establish that adequate on-site parking will be available for the proposed use. (Ord. 5111 §3, 2010: Ord. 4977 §10, 2006: Ord. 4971 §15, 2006; Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 6 Attachment III 20.60.060DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (a)Lot Standards. Lot development requirements shall be in accordance with this section and the following standards unless allowed for by law otherwise: (1)Setbacks. (i)Minimum front yard setback is fifteen (15) feet; (ii)Minimum side yard setback is five (5) feet; (iii)Minimum rear yard setback is fifteen (15) feet. (2)Maximum structure height is thirty-five (35) feet. (3)Maximumstructure height in (R-10) areas within the downtown regional center shall be pursuant to Figure 20.74(a) and shall supercede subsection (a)(2) of this section. (4)Minimum lot width is thirty (30) feet. (5)Maximum development coverage is sixty (60) percent. (b)Zero (0) Lot Line (ZLL) Development. An attached single-family dwelling and/or garage structure may have a single shared side or rear lot line, and a setback reduced to zero (0), provided the structure complies with building code fire separation requirements. (c)Accessory Structures. The following standards shall apply but are not limited to: garages, carports, shops, barns, covered patios, cabanas, gazebos, and incidental household storage buildings, excluding accessory dwelling unitsper BMC20.46.010and structures not requiring a building permit: (1)The maximum area for all accessory structures shall be eighty (80) percent of the principal residential use not to exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet. (2)Setbacks of detached accessory structures are pursuant to BMC20.44.060. (d)Garages, Storage Buildings and Shops. (1)Any garage, storage building or shop structure shall be designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of a single-family residence including the following: (i)Constructed of similar materials as the principal unit; (ii)A roof of equal or greater pitch as the principal unit; (iii)A height no more than twenty-five (25) percent greater than the principal unit not to exceed thirty-five (35) feet. (2)Any garage, storage building, or shop may be exempt from the accessory structure size requirements provided it is contained within the principal unit. (3)Garage, Carport, and Shop Vehicle Entrance Setbacks. When the vehicle entrance faces the street, the garage, carport, or shop shall have a front yard setback of at least twenty (20) feet, except as provided in BMC20.44.020(Traditional Front Yard Setbacks). (e)Lot Area for Parks and Schools. Parks and schools may exceed maximum lot area requirements if approved by a conditional use permit. (Ord. 5008 §7, 2007: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.60.065ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND LOT AREA. The purpose of this section is to establish compatible levels of density within existing neighborhoods. The intent is to allow infill residential development at densitiesequal to or slightly higher than existing residential densities in the vicinity to encourage 7 Attachment III neighborhood compatible infill over time. The following density and lot area standards are applicable to development within the zone: (a)Minimum Density. The minimum required density is five (5) dwellings per acre. (b)Maximum Density. The maximum allowed density is subject to neighborhood compatibility and the neighborhood average lot area as determined in subsection (f) of this section, and the following corresponding target densities: Target NeighborhoodDensity (Net) Average Lot Area:(Dwellings Per Acre): (1)Low 7,501 sq. ft. or 6 greater (2)Medium 6,001 to 7,500 8 sq. ft. (3)High 6,000 sq. ft. or less10 (c)Maximum Lot Area. The maximum lot area is eight thousand seven hundred twelve (8,712) square feet, with the following exceptions: (1)The lot area may be modified through the approval of a residential cluster development pursuant to BMC20.58.060; (2)One (1) lot within a proposal for a division of land may exceed eight thousand seven hundred twelve (8,712) square feet, provided the remaining lots do not exceed the eight thousand seven hundred twelve (8,712) square foot maximum lot size; and (3)A flag lot that complies with the requirements in BMC20.44.100may exceed eight thousand seven hundred twelve (8,712) square feet, provided the total area of the flag lot does not exceed thirteen thousand sixty-eight (13,068) square feet. (d)Minimum Lot Area. The minimum allowed lot area is subject to neighborhood compatibility and the neighborhood average lot area as determined in subsection (f) of this section, and the following corresponding lot area: Minimum Lot Neighborhood Area Average Lot Area: Allowed: (1)Low 7,501 sq. ft. or 6,000 sq. ft. greater (2)Medium 6,001 to 7,500 5,000 sq. ft. sq. ft. (3)High 6,000 sq. ft. or less4,300 sq. ft. (e)Exception to Minimum Lot Areas and Maximum Target Density. (1)The minimum lot area may be modified through the approval of a residential cluster development pursuant to BMC20.58.060, provided the development complies with the maximum density requirement set forth in subsection (b) of this section. (2)The minimum lot area in a center may be modified pursuant to BMC20.60.066(c). 8 Attachment III (3)One (1) remainder lot within a proposal for a division ofland may be less than the minimum allowable lot area, provided it is in no smaller than four thousand three hundred (4,300) square feet, and provided the reduction is the minimum necessary to create the other conforming lot(s). (f)Determining Neighborhood Compatibility and Neighborhood Average Lot Area. New development is required to be compatible with the density of the surrounding neighborhood. Compatibility is determined by calculating the average lot area of all existing lots within one hundred fifty (150) feet from the outer boundaries of the site subject to the following standards: (1)All lots greater than eight thousand seven hundred twelve (8,712) square feet shall be rounded down to eight thousand seven hundred twelve (8,712) square feet todetermine average lot area; (2)The platted or unplatted lot boundaries recorded with the Kitsap County Assessor shall be used to determine average lot area; (3)Flag lots meeting the requirements in BMC20.44.100shall have their lot area divided by one and one-half (1.5) to be used to determine lot area; (4)All lots containing two (2) or more dwelling units (not including accessory dwelling units) and all lots containing nonresidential uses shall be rounded down to four thousand three hundred (4,300) square feet to determine average lot area; (5)All lots containing multifamily residential uses with twenty-five (25) or more units shall be considered ten (10) lots with areas of four thousand three hundred (4,300) square feet each for the purposes of this calculation. No further bonus is allowed, regardless of the number of units exceeding twenty-five (25). (g)Target Density/Minimum Lot Area Discrepancy. Should a discrepancy arise between the number of subdividable lots allowed through the use of the minimum allowable lot area and the target density, the minimum allowable lot area shall be the controlling factor in cases where nine (9) or fewer lots are being created, and the target density shall be the controlling factor in cases where ten (10) or more lots are being created. (Ord. 5008 §8, 2007: Ord. 4972 §1, 2006; Ord. 4971 §16, 2006: Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.60.066ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND LOT AREA IN A CENTER. When a property zoned low density residential (R-10) is located within an area designated a neighborhood or district center by the Comprehensive Plan, the following density and lot area standards apply: (a)Minimum Density. The minimum required density is five (5) dwellings per acre. (b)Maximum Density. The maximum allowed density is fifteen (15) dwellings per acre. (c)Minimum Lot Area. The minimum allowed lot area is three thousand (3,000) square feet, except as modified by the approval of a residential cluster development pursuant to BMC20.58.060. (d)Maximum Lot Area. The maximum lot area is pursuant to BMC20.60.065(c). (Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 9 Attachment III 20.60.068ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND LOT AREA IN UNDERUTILIZED URBAN FRINGE AREAS. (a)When a property zoned low density residential meets the criteria for an underutilized urban fringe area per subsection (a)(1) of this section, the density and lot area standards of subsection (b) of this section shall apply. (1)A property shall be classified as underutilized urban fringe when the average lot size of all lots within three hundred (300) feet of the site’s outer boundaries is greater than eight thousand seven hundred twelve (8,712) square feet, and the property meets one(1) of the following criteria: (i)The property is outside of the December 1, 2005, Bremerton City limits; or (ii)The property is inside of the December 1, 2005, Bremerton City limits and is a single project equal to or greater than fifty (50) acres in size. (b)The following density and lot area standards shall apply to lots in underutilized urban fringe areas: (1)Minimum Density. The minimum required density for that portion of the site not containing critical areas is seven (7) dwellings per acre. (2)Maximum Density. The maximum allowed density is ten (10) dwellings per acre. (3)Minimum Lot Area. The minimum lot area is four thousand three hundred (4,300) square feet. (4)Maximum Lot Area. The maximum lot area is six thousand twohundred (6,200) square feet. (Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.60.080OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter20.48BMC. (Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.60.090LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter20.50BMC. (Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 20.60.100SIGN STANDARDS. Signs shall meet the standards of Chapter20.52BMC and the following: (a)One (1) sign with a sign area of up to eight (8) square feet may be allowed to advertise a permitted bed and breakfast, provided it matches the architectural features of the primary residence. (b)For a home occupation sign, the residential district sign regulations in BMC20.52.120shall apply. (c)When an established business use is located in the low density residential zone, the special purpose sign regulations in BMC20.52.130shall apply. (Ord. 5008 §9, 2007: Ord. 4971 §17, 2006; Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) 10 Attachment IV City, neighbors lean on East Bremerton landscape supply business By Josh Farley Friday, March 7, 2014 EAST BREMERTON—Piles of stumps, sand, rock and bark fill the land once planned as the site of Kitsap’s regional mall. The Soil Factory has occupied at the property off Riddell Road —behind a shopping center that includes Goodwill, Petco and other businesses —for 12 years. It doubles as a drop-off spot for asphalt, concrete and yard waste. But the business isn’t likely to last much longer inside city limits. Neighbors complain it’s noisy, dusty, and shouldn’t be located near a residential area; the city alleges the business has outgrown the location. The company, the landowner and the city forged an agreement last month that allows The Soil Factory to operate in a limited capacity, but requires it to close if (more likely when) the city rezones the property from residential to commercial. Martin “Marty” Goit, The Soil Factory’s owner, said he has tried to be a good neighbor and work with the city. He worries that if his business closes, landscaping services will increase costs because they won’t have a location to dump and get material locally. Goit also wonders what Bremerton-area residents will do without a place to take yard debris. The closest similar facility is in Belfair, he said. “What are people supposed to do with the brush?” he asked. Tom Remick, who lives on nearby David Drive, said he and other neighbors have “just flat-out had enough” of having an industrial site as a backyard. “This does not belong in a residential neighborhood,” he said. “We don’t want Marty to go out of business. We just want him to go.” 1 Attachment IV Remick says his house rumbles when heavy equipment is used at The Soil Factory. Dust drifts into his backyard and his house. And there’s often an odor that wafts onto his property. Remick and his neighbors straddle the Bremerton city boundary. They live in unincorporated Kitsap County and The Soil Factory is in Bremerton. Thus, enforcement efforts have come from Bremerton City Hall. “It no longer belongs in a city we are trying to grow,” said Bremerton Mayor Patty Lent. SITE HISTORY What is now The Soil Factory property was once known as Clare’s Marsh. It was a dairy farm where residents would congregate in winters for ice skating when the marsh froze over. The late Ron Ross, one of the area’s most prominent developers, had big plans in the 1970s to build a regional shopping mall there. But a backlash from downtown Bremerton property owners, including Ed Bremer, thwarted the development.Though Ross eventually received a $2.4 million settlement after filing an antitrust lawsuit, his dream of building regional mall had passed. Retailers moved on to Silverdale, where Kitsap Mall opened in 1985. Ross was left with land that yielded little more than an annual property tax bill. An abundance of sand was excavated from Clare’s Marsh and used in other developments on the Wheaton Way corridor. But for years, the property would be mainly used by children who played among its dunes. “It was like a beach sand,” recalled Leslie Daugs, who grew up nearby and who now represents the area as its city councilwoman. “It was a fun play area.” Ross ultimately found tenants in the landscaping industry. The City Council gave its blessing to businesses doing industrial work on land not zoned for it. But “it was meant to be a mom and pop” landscaping business, said Janet Lunceford, Bremerton’s code enforcement officer. Goit’s Soil Factory was the latest landscaping business to open on the spot, in 2002. His business expanded tenfold, he said, when local governments banned the burning of yard debris and waste inside city limits and urban growth areas. The Soil Factory became a full-service recycler of organic material. It crunched up old chunks of asphalt and concrete in a rock crusher and chewed up tree stumps and yard waste in a grinder. The remnants were sorted into landscaping materials. 2 Attachment IV Those crushers and grinders were noisy and the products they produced were noisy and smelly, neighbors said. “The stink in our garage was so bad, you’d be checking your shoes to see if you stepped in something,” Remick said. “You couldn’t barbecue, because dirt would get in your meat.” TOO MUCH SAND A few incidents, including a fire in one of its piles, brought in more complaints. City lawyers said the tipping point was the arrival in 2013 of the approximately 27,000 cubic yards of sand from a Kitsap County stormwater pond construction on Glud’s Pond Road. The city viewed its storage in a corner of the property as a violation of land-use rules; more importantly, the Glud’s Pond soil showed “the operation had become much larger than what it was originally,” Bremerton Assistant City Attorney Mark Koontz said. On Sept. 5, the city notified The Soil Factory of its intention to revoke thebusiness’s special use permit, citing numerous violations. The “large pile of dirt,” as the city referred to it at the time, exceeded the “limited soil processing” that was to be allowed at the site. Goit contemplated fighting the city in court, but elected to settle. The agreement forged in February prohibits any grinding of asphalt or concrete; limits stump grinding to 24 days a year; allows The Soil Factory to use heavy equipment only on weekdays before 3:30 p.m.; and calls for a site cleanup. The Glud’s Pond sand also had to be covered with a tarp and other dust control measures implemented. The city can fine Goit $500 for any violation, and $100 a day for each subsequent day he is out of compliance. The agreement also mandates that The Soil Factory must close if the city changes zoning on the property to commercial. To Goit, it’s the death sentence. “I feel we’re done,” Goit acknowledged. With many of the industrial operations shut down, Goit has resorted to hauling much of the debris to the closest alternative in Belfair. He’s unsure if that will pencil out financially, but at least it brings customers to the location where they might purchase landscaping materials, he said. Numerous area contractors and landscapers use the facility. Kelly Ensor, who owns Olympic Northwest Asphault, said that added mileage would jeopardize his business. “If I had to go that much further to get material, I don’t know if I’d still be in business,” he said. Pat Walters, a handyman who landscapes for many people living in Silverdale Mobile Estates, said he’s been able to keep prices low for many of his customers, who are retired and on fixed incomes. 3 Attachment IV If The Soil Factory close, “I’m going to have topass on my costs to the residents,” said Walters, who has 150 petition signatures from people who want the business to remain open. Opponents have their own petitions. Residents on David Drive, NE Normandy Drive and Broadmoor Loop have signed on to attestto the dust, odor and noise issues. Ellen Ross-Cardoso, manager of property owner Royal Valley LLC and daughter of the late Ron Ross, said she wants to make sure that The Soil Factory is a good neighbor as long as it remains open. She is in no particular rush to see The Soil Factory gone, but considering the $17,000 annual property tax bill she would like best for the property to become commercial land. The property’s residential zoning has prohibited Royal Valley from doing anything with it, she said. “It’s been rendered essentially worthless,” she said. “It’s been zoned high density residential and no one wants high density residential.” The city intends to push ahead with rezoning the property as commercial, spelling the end of The Top Soil Factory in its current location, Lent said. Lent said the city is still attempting to find land elsewhere that the business could operate. “We need something like this,” she said of the operation. “We just need it in an area where it belongs.” 4