Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/2014 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting –Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) May 20, 2014 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 IV.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 15, 2014meeting. o V.PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing to Amend theZoning Development Standards for District Center Core and Amend the District Center Core Designation on the Zoning Map in the th vicinity of Wheaton/Riddell, Wheaton/Sheridan,and Callow/11Street. VI.BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer C.Old Business: th D.New Business: Cancellation of June 17and August 19th, 2014 meetings VII.ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is July15, 2014 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/display.php?id=907 DRAFT Subject to May 20, 2014Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULARMEETING April 15, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: 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 AlbrightMark Koontz, Assistant City Attorney Commissioner Jose Commissioner Simpson Commissioner Strube Commissioner Wofford Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER WOFFORDMOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHTSECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER JOSEMOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2014AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER WOFFORDSECONDED THE MOTION, WHICHCARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Tift asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the publicportion of the meeting. Workshop: Comprehensive Plan Growth Strategy Ms. Floyd commented thatpeople have been studying what makes a desirable city for years. While not everyone agrees on all aspects of this issue, there is consensus that the following elements are important: Planning for Growth . It is anticipated that the Central Puget Sound Region will grow by almost 2 million people by 2040, totaling more than 5 million people. She briefly explained how the State arrived at the growth target numbers and how they were allocated to the various counties and cities. A chart was providedto illustrate the growth of the region’s footprint since 1940, noting that between 1970 and 2000 the population grew by 1.3 million people, which is nearly twice the rate of the national average. Growth is expected to continue at a rate of nearly 2 million between 2008 and 2040. Bremerton is one of five designated metropolitan cities (Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, and Bremerton) in the Central Puget Sound Regionthat areexpected to accommodate 32% of the region’stotal growth. Bremerton is expectedto grow significantly because it is in a regional location with existing infrastructure and jobs. The City must have policies and regulations in place that allow for this large-scale growth. The City’s Comprehensive Plan focuseson nine principles: distinctive growth in viable and convenient neighborhoods and activity centers; enticing new development; supportive transportation that provides seamless, efficient and varied options; improved access for pedestrian orientation; quality housing with broader choices to choose from; increased opportunities for businesses; environmental management that integrates natural systems; community service that focuses on the City’s assets; and design review to ensure there is quality, urban development. All of these pieces fit together to create a viable city. Bremerton has planned for growth using a Centers Concept, which places growth in key locations. Becausethe community indicated a desire to protect existing neighborhoods, about 76% of the population growth is anticipated to occur in the four District Centers (Downtown, Charleston, Wheaton/Riddell, and Wheaton/Sheridan). Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal 7 states that all multi-family designations outside of centers should be removed, and amap was provided to illustrate the pattern of shifting multi-family development to the centers. The City must evaluate and adopt design standards, codesand ordinances that allow for growth regardless of whether or not it occurs. Jobs. Thriving communities are those with robust job markets.Bremerton has three major employment sectors (naval, college, and hospital), and itwould be great if people who work in these places also livedin Bremerton. The Comprehensive Plan talks not only about accommodating growth, but making Bremerton a place where people want to live. It contains policies that call for designating employment centers that provided mixed-use environments and planning for an adequate supply of lands and infrastructure for new employment and economic expansion. The City has established two Employment Centers (South Kitsap Industrial Area and Harrison Employment Center), and there are vast amounts of land available for new employment and economic expansion. Local Character/Design Standards. People want to live in places that feel safe and are appealing, alluring and attractive. They also like to live in places that stand out and are recognizable from other places. Rather than just buying ahouse, people buy into the community. The Comprehensive Plan contains an entire chapter on Community Character, which provides a foundation for futuredesign parameters and incentive programs in the development code. It defines a center as a concentrated and planned mixed-use development area. Specific policies call for demonstrating excellent urban design qualities in new development; providing forsafe, pleasant and rich pedestrian experiences; and promoting the development of areas of special character by utilizing design guidelines. Most experts agree that the future belongs to main streets, town centers and mixed usedevelopments, and cities with a forward focus are more prepared to handle changing demands. For example, strip commercial and big box developments are no longer highly desirable. The economy, fuel prices and traffic congestion have restructured the retail landscape to includefewerand smaller stores. It is difficult to repurpose existing big box and strip mall developments, and there is currently over 1 billion square feet of vacant retail space nationwide. Pictures were providedto illustrate the current national market trend for more compact, mixed-use, and walkable developments. The City must plan for its future population, recognizing thatbaby-boomers and millennials are the largest populations in Kitsap County and the nation, and growth must accommodate their desires andneeds. Both groups are interested in low maintenance housing that is located close to shops and public transportation. At this time, Baby Boomers and Millennials are flocking to cities like Seattle and Portland, which have jobs and dense urban cores that are walkable and attractive with amenities at their fingertips. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 29 April 15, 2014 ~ Page of Most major cities in the United States have design standards to ensure that character is addressed. Examples were provided to illustrate how design standards can result in significantly different development that is more consistent with the community’scharacter.Although some people haveexpressed concern that design standards have discouraged development in Bremerton, experts agree that they actually enhance a community and bring development. However, itis important to find the balance between ensuring development enhances community character and pencils for developers. Transportation Options. Transportation and density are intrinsically tied. The more dense the population, the more likely the transit system will work for the community. Density can actually reduce traffic impacts because you end up with better systems. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, theCity’s district centers are located directly on the transportation routes. The Comprehensive Plan calls for encouraging efficient multi-modal transportation, and new development is required to incorporate transit, pedestrian and non-motorized transportation measures during the review process. The general goal is to reduce street widths, speed and crossingdistance to make pedestrian access easier. Open Space. Experts agree that neighborhoods within a walking distance of parks are more desirable, and Bremerton has a robust Parks and Open Space Planthatpromotes open and green spaces for everyone’s enjoyment and encourages a sense of place and identity within neighborhoods. The City currently has 30 parks in about 300 acres throughout the City. Ms. Floyd explained that common characteristics of the centers concept includes a core area characterized by well-designed, mixed-use structures featuring residential uses above street level commercial or office uses. The goal is to create a walkable environment that begins with friendly, active streetscapes extending to the less dense areas of the center and into surrounding neighborhoods. Public gathering places such as parks and plazas are essential, as is public transportation. Dierdre McKeel, Bremerton, said she is a proponent of light rail for Kitsap County, and including it as a goal in the Comprehensive Plan is the right thing to do. She said she has lived and worked in a number of different places, some with public transportation and some without. For example, Singapore has a wonderful transit system, and Japan has a train system. However,Oahu, Hawaii, does not provide an extensive public transportation system. Instead, theyhave used a lot of land to expand their highway system. She felt this was the wrongapproachandwould hate for Kitsap County to go that direction. She expressed concernabout stormwater pollution caused by vehicles. Developing light rail is one way to restore the waters. Light rail would also support energy independence from oil and gas. She noted there are federal initiatives where communities can develop a newlight rail system that is federally funded, and she suggested this is something the Cityshould look into. Commissioner SimpsonMs. McKeel asked if Ms. McKeel had a car when she lived overseas. said she did not have a vehicle for the first few years in Singapore. They got one later, but it was mainly used for travelinglonger distances. She Commissioner Simpson had a bike in Japan and Hawaii, but not a car. asked where she would expect the light rail route to Ms. McKeel be located. suggested that the lines could make loops around the City, and the loops could be connected at different transit centers. Commissioner Simpson asked for more information about the experts who have come up with all of the ideas noted in Ms. Floyd staff’s presentation. answered that experts include real estate developers, bankers, investors, magazine articles, Urban Land Institute, etc. She said she cited some of her sources in the Staff Report. Commissioner Simpson inquiredif the City could ask not to be identified as a metropolitan city because they cannot assume Ms. Spencer that much growth. replied the City was designated as a metropolitancity in Vision 2040, which was adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council. The City enjoys a lot of benefits of being designated as such, including grant opportunities and funding for transportation infrastructure. She suggested it would not be in the City’s best interest to be re- designated. She reviewed that the population numbers identified in the City’s 2004 Comprehensive Plan update were allocated by the State’s Office of Financial Management. Through work with the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC) the population numbers were adjusted to deal with the decrease in population over the last 10 years, and the numbers the City will plan for in the next update are the same as the 2004 numbers. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 39 April 15, 2014 ~ Page of Workshop: Wheaton/Riddell District Center Zoning Map and District Center Development Code Regulations Ms. Floyd said the City currently has four District Centers: Downtown, Charleston, Wheaton/Sheridan, and Wheaton/Riddell. She reminded the Commission that the four District Centers are supposed to absorb 76% of the City’s population growth. Because the Downtown District Center Subarea Plan is working well, no changes are being proposed at this time. The workshop will focus on the other three district centers where changes might be needed. Charleston District Center The is the smallest of the District Centers and is relatively built out. The center is 39 acres in size, and the anticipated growth is 1,400 people and 700 new jobs. The target density is about 40 units per acre. Currently, there are a number of one and two-story structures, and the idea is that the owners maydecide to redevelop the sites with greater height over the next 20 years. Wheaton/Sheridan District Center The is 81 acres in size, and the anticipated growth is 2,900 new residentsand 1,400 new jobs. This center is the location of the future Youth Wellness Campus, and a new Boys and Girls Club was recently developed. This district center has undeveloped sites with a lot of opportunity for future growth. Wheaton/Riddell District Center The is 100 acres in size, and the anticipated growth is 4,000 new residents and 2,000 new jobs.This center also has large undeveloped and underutilized areas and opportunity for growth. Ms. Floyd pointed out that all three of the District Centers have the same zoning pattern, with District Center Core(DCC) and R-10 zoning. She provided sampleillustrationsof the estimated land area that would be required to accommodate 120 units of housing and noted that 1.4 acres would be required in the District Center Core zones and 11 acres in the R-10 zones. She emphasized that zoning is important when figuring out how to accommodate the anticipated growth in each of the district centers. To provide context, she referred to the 400 Condominiums, which providesa pattern of the type of development anticipated in the District Centers. The project has 72 residential units and 16,000 square feet of retail space. The buildings are four stories tall, with a maximum height of 70 feet. The footprint of the project is approximately ½ acre. She pointed out that development of this scale would require 26 acres to accommodate 1,900 units, excluding roads, parking and open space. She reviewed the current zoning in each of the centers, described the issues, and identified potential mapping changesas follows: Charleston District Center The is almost completely zoned DCC, which has no density maximum. The existing zoning could accommodate the anticipated growth using development similar to the 400Condominiums. It was th and Callow that is zoned low noted that the automotive repair shop propertyis the only property at the corner of 11 density. The owner has expressed concern that if he discontinued the current use for more than a year, the property would have to be redeveloped as residential. As they consider mapping changes, this is a site that probably should be zoned commercial consistent with the other three corners. Wheaton/Sheridan District Center The is predominantly zoned asR-10, which limits density to a maximum of 10 units per acre. The growth required in the center cannot be achieved with the existing zoning. It would seem appropriate to reevaluate the zoning in this district, as well. One option would be to zone the entire district as DCC, which would accommodate schools as an allowed use. It was noted that both the Youth Wellness Center and Boys and the Girls Club are more suited to a commercial zone. Wheaton/Riddell District Center The is currently zoned half DCC and half R-10, and it would not be possible to achieve the anticipated growth based on the existing zoning. Historically, the properties in this district have been zoned as commercial and multi-family residential. Changing the zoning would allow the City to achieve the growth target of 4,000 people and 2,000 jobs. It was noted thatthe western portion of the district that is currently zoned R- 10 is developed as an industrial use, which is not an allowed use in either the R-10 or DCC zones. The other R-10 zone is located on the eastern side of the district. It is currently undeveloped and homeless camps have been a problem since 2001. At their last meeting, the Commission discussed zoning the entire district as DCC. Commissioner Jose asked how the current zoning was approved if it does not allow the City to accommodate the growth. Ms. Floyd said it was approved as a placeholder, with the idea that subarea plans would quickly follow. She noted that the Wheaton/Riddell Subarea Plan was adopted just two years later with zoning that allowed the City to achieve its growth DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 49 April 15, 2014 ~ Page of targets for thearea. However, the zoning was recently changed, and the growth targets are no longer achievable. She suggested that the zoning in the Wheaton/Sheridan District Center was also added as a placeholder, as well, withouta lot of thought about its layout. For example, the school property has split zoning, and the library, post office and other commercial uses are located in the R-10 zone. The zoning was likely intended to be temporary until a subarea plan was adopted. Ms. Floyd recalled that, at their last meeting, the Commission discussed potential amendments to the DCC Development Regulations, and she emphasized that the changes would apply citywide in all of the District Center zones. She reviewed each of the changes as follows: Mixed-Use Requirement. The existing code allows residential development as a secondary use, but only if it has a commercial component. In addition, residential uses must be placed in locations that do not conflict with street level frontage locations that are reserved for retail, office and other business uses. While this is consistent with what is encouraged throughout the Comprehensive Plan, it does not allow as much flexibility as developers want. Staff would likedirection from the Commission about the appropriateness of maintaining the mixed-use requirement as is. Other options include removing the mixed-use requirement completely or only applying the requirement to sites facing major street frontages. Height limit. Currently, the maximum height in the DCC zone is 50feet. While Bremerton is a “metropolitan city,” compatibility with surrounding residential properties must also be considered. A chart was provided to illustrate how Bremerton’s height limit compares with those of other cities in the region. It was pointed out that the Downtown District Center allows for a range of heightsfrom 80 feet to market driven. Greaterheights allow for growth targets to be more easily obtained and underground parking to pencil out. If the height limit is increased in the DCCzone, step down requirements could be applied at the edges to provide a transition to low-density residential neighborhoods. Staff requested feedback about increasing the height limit in the DCC zone from 50 feet up to 80 feet, includinga lower height requirement for properties adjacent to low-density residential zones. Transitions to Low-Density Residential. Transition requirements apply to any commercial zone in the City, including the DCC zone. The code was amended in 2007 to require a 10-foot visual screen where commercial and residential zoning meet. This provision replaced large setback requirements and is intended to soften the edges along commercial boundaries and provide visual, noise and light screening. The code also requires developers to retain significant trees to the greatest extent possible. An arborist report is required for removal of significant trees in undeveloped areas, and bonuses are offered for the retention of existing significant trees. Staff requested the Commission’s feedback on amendments that would add site-specific vegetation retention requirements to two heavily-vegetated areas in the Wheaton/Sheridan District Center (on school property) and the Wheaton/Riddell District Center (along Almira). Patricia Hennessy, Bremerton, Executive Director, Youth Wellness Campus, noted that they are currently working on a project just north of Sheridan on Wheaton Way on the old BremertonEast High Schoolsite. As proposed, the existing school buildings would be completely removed, the gymnasium renovated, and two or three new buildings would be constructed. She asked that the Commission consider extendingthe District Center Core Map to include this site, and also consider greater height allowances. She noted that the redevelopment project is an exciting community and economic development opportunity for Bremerton. Mike Benefiel, Bremerton, commented that the Wheaton/Riddell area is in dire need of improvement. He encouraged the Commissionersand the Cityto recognize that now is the time to fix the problem by updating the zoning to DCC to be compatible with the growth of commercial properties that will enhance the City and the adjoining neighborhoods. Dennis Stone, Bremerton, said that although he recognizes there is a demand and need for the Soil Factory business, it is not an appropriate use for its current location. The business started as a small “mom and pop” operation, but it has grown substantially over time. The noise, smell and vibrations created by the use have devalued surrounding properties, and it is time for a change. He suggested the Soil Factory should be relocated so the area can be redeveloped into uses that are more compatible with the neighborhood. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 59 April 15, 2014 ~ Page of Eric Sandall, Kitsap County, said he owns several properties within the City of Bremerton and he uses the services provided by the Soil Factory on a regular basis. Without this service, he would be required to spend significantly more time driving to other locations. He noted that the Soil Factory made a lot of concessions in the way they were operating, and they may have gotten out of control last year in an effort to clean the site up. However, the site is currently being used as a retail outlet for people like himself. He cautioned against putting the Soil Factory out of business, which would eliminate 20 or 30 jobs. Mr. Sandall recalled staff’s earlier comment that 39 acres would be required to accommodate 120 units in the DCC zone, excluding roads and open space. He questioned how many acres would be required if roads and open space are factored into the development. He cautioned that providing examples that do notmeetcode requirements can lead to public confusion. Tom Remick, Bremerton, said hisresidential property is also impacted by the Soil Factory, and he and his neighbors have made significant concessions, including a decrease in property values and quality of life. The adjacent residential property owners must deal with the impacts of this business every day, including weekends. While the Commission has heard from the land and business owners, it is also important to listen to the people who actually live nearby. In the past, there has been no real plan for development in the area, and the neighbors have watched the business grow from a permitted, single-parcel landscape business to the current business that occupies seven parcels, six of which are unpermitted. He pointed out that Bremerton currently has an opportunity to evolve and draw people from all diversities, but the City must act now. The decisions that are made now will not only affect the people who currently live nearby, but future generations. Richard Roberts, Bremerton, recalled that at their last meeting, the Commission passed a motion that zoned the entire Commissioner Jose Wheaton/Riddell District Center as DCC. said the motion was to direct staff to prepare the zoning map changes that are currently under consideration. Debbie Santini-Stone, Bremerton, said she supports DCC zoning for the entire Wheaton/Riddell District Center. She is tired of the dumping that goes on at the Soil Factory. Dale Herbold, Bremerton, said he and his neighbors support the planning effort to zone the entire Wheaton/Riddell District Center as DCC. The entire area is adversely impacted by the current zoning, and the City has received at least 42 letters of complaint from people who live nearby. Changing the zoning to DCC would open the entire East Bremerton area to quality redevelopment that is consistent with the vision outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. While other areas of Bremerton have developed in appropriate and attractive ways, that is not the case for the Wheaton/Riddell area. Chair Tift clarified that, at their last meeting, theCommission passed a motion recommending that the Wheaton/Riddell DistrictCenter be rezoned to DCC. However, staff subsequently pointed out that changing the zoning would require a public process andthey should consider how the change would impact other properties that are zoned DCC. At the end of the workshop discussion, the Commission will provide direction for staff to prepare a proposal for a public hearing in May. After the public hearing, the Commission will forward a recommendation to the City Council, who will make the final decision. Commissioner Simpson recalled that the owner of the property where the Soil Factory is locatedhas requested that the property be rezoned to DCC. However, regardless of the zoning, an agreement between the landowner and the City requires Mr.Koontz that the Soil Factory use be discontinued no later than December 31, 2015. explained that the three parties to the agreement are the landowner (Royal Valley LLC), the tenant (Soil Factory), and the City of Bremerton. The agreement was to include additional conditions on the special-use permit in consideration of the City withdrawing its notice of intent to revoke the special-use permit. One of the terms of the agreement is that the special-use permit will terminate 180 days after a zoning change at the subject property to a commercialuse similar to DCC. If the zoning changes prior to July 1, 2015, the termination date of the special-use permit will be December 31, 2015. He emphasized that the agreement does not take into account any agreement the landowner may have with the tenant, and the earliest the special-use permit would terminate Director Spencer would be December 31, 2015. cautioned that the City’s decision making about a current use on the site is irrelevant to the orders of the day. The Comprehensive Plan calls for District Center growth, and the Commission’s task is to make the right land-use decisions to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan growth targets can be met. As demonstrated, the growth targets cannot be met by the current zoning. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 69 April 15, 2014 ~ Page of Commissioner Simpson said she would like the baseball field to be excluded from the DCC zone in the Wheaton/Sheridan Commissioner Jose District Center so it can remain intact as an open space. pointed out that parks are outright permitted Director Spencer uses in the DCC zone, and added that schools and their associated sports fields are actually conditional Vice Chair Dinkuhn uses in the R-10 zone. agreed that the zoning should accommodate the sports field, recognizing that the landowner may not want to retain the use in thefuture. Commissioner Albright requested clarification of what could happen at the street level if strictly multi-family development Ms. Floyd is allowed in the DCC zone. said the appearance at the street level would depend on the development. For example, in a large multi-family residential development, all the buildings could look similar, including those on the street frontage. Removing the commercial requirement would allow more flexibility, but it would not necessarily achieve the mixture of usescalledout in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Simpson pointed out that the District Centers have not changed to accommodate the growth that was Ms. Floyd envisioned in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan, and she questioned where the growth has actually gone. said some subdivisions have been approved; but not a lot of development has occurred since 2008 when the economy took a downturn. There has been an uptick in permits and interest in developing senior housing and apartment complexes, and most would be Director Spencer located in the District Centers. added that there are a number of land-use approvals on the books for growth in the Downtown District Center. Vice Chair Dinkuhn asked if there is a reason why the Commission should not consider extending the Charleston District Ms. Floyd Center to include the corners at the north and south ends that are zoned R-10. pointed out that these properties are primarily developed as single-family residences. Preserving the existing neighborhood character might be more important than redeveloping properties with multi-family units. COMMISSIONER JOSE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE FOR PUBLIC HEARING THE THREE DISTRICT CENTER MAPS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE PRESENTEDATTHE WORKSHOP. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Jose said the Commission has heard loud and clear support for DCC zoning in the Wheaton/Riddell District Center, and he sees no reason why DCC zoning should not be extended throughout. He also supports extending the DCC zoning in the Charleston and Wheaton/Sheridan District Centers as previously discussed. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Jose recalled the table provided by staff to illustrate that Bremerton’s height limits are far lower than some of the other jurisdictions. At their last meeting they discussed that, particularly in the Wheaton/Riddell District Center, it does not make sense to have such low height limits. Increased height is necessary in order tomeet the density targets. He reminded the Commission that the height restriction would be a limit and not a mandate, and he would support an 80-foot or greater height limit. Vice Chair Dinkuhn said she supports a height limit greater than 50 feet so that parking can be located under the buildings. Ms. Floyd However, she asked if having parking under the buildingswould conflict with having retail on the street level. advised that blank facades are prohibited on the public rights-of-way, and there arealso requirements for the location of parking and its access. In addition, transparent windows are required along the street front. Based on the requirements, it would not be easy to put a parking garage along the front of a building, but it could easily be placed below. Commissioner Wofford said he would also support an 80-foot height limit, with a provision for additional height in exchange for providing certain public amenities. He also supports a provision that would require height to be stepped down Ms. Floyd on propertiesthat are closer toresidential neighborhoods. said the provision for additional height in the Downtown District Center is complex and based on floor area ratios and bonuses. She cautioned against implementing a similar program for the other District Centers. She noted that the existing design and developmentstandards relatedto the DCC zone are quite robust. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 79 April 15, 2014 ~ Page of The Commission indicated support for an 80-foot height limit in the DCC zone, and they were also in favor of a stepback requirement for development located closer to low-density residential zones. They agreed to allow staff to recommend an Commissioner Albright appropriate step back provision. questioned if an 80-foot height limit would be acceptable to the Commissioner Jose residents who live west of the Charleston District Center. commented that the transition requirement should address this concern. COMMISSIONER JOSE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARECODE AMENDMENTLANGUAGE THAT ESTABLISHES A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF80 FEETIN THE DCC ZONE, WITH A POTENTIAL STEP BACK REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CLOSER TO LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. The Commissioners expressed some interest in allowing height greater than 80 feet in exchange for certain public amenities. Commissioner Jose suggested they start with an 80-foot height limit. If there is significant interest in a greater height limit, the limit could be reevaluated at a future time. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Jose suggested that removing the commercial requirement for development on non-major roadways would be a good compromise that fits with the intent of the zone. The commercial requirement could be maintained for development Commissioner Strube that fronts on major roadways. agreed. COMMISSIONER STRUBE MOVED THAT STAFF PREPARE CODE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE SO THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD ONLY APPLY ON MAIN ROADWAYS IN THE DCC ZONE. VICE CHAIR DINKUHN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Jose Ms. asked if the existing transition requirements would maintain a vegetative barrier along Almira. Floyd said the 10-foot visual screen provision would not apply to the properties along Almira because they are not side or rear property lines, but the code would require that significant trees be preserved to the extent possible because Almira is unlikely to become a development’s primary frontage due to topography and access. In addition, an arborist report would be required for the removal of significant trees in undeveloped areas. While this is not strong language, it does encourage tree Commissioner Jose preservation. said he is interested in maintaining a green strip between Almira and the rest of the development, and he would support a code provision that preserves developer flexibility and is simple to implement. Rather Ms. Floyd than an 85-foot buffer, he felt a 20-foot buffer would be more reasonable. noted that the property owner, Mr. Zarelli submitted a comment letter that indicated support for a 20-foot buffer. Vice Chair Dinkuhn asked if the transition requirements mandatethat a certain percentage of the significant trees be Ms. Floyd retained. answered thatthere is no specific number forthe amount of trees that must be retained, and the zone Director Spencer allows development coverage of up to 100%. suggested that perhaps a better approach would be to Commissioner Wofford include a provision that specifically prohibits access from Almira Drive. suggested that the Commission also consider the opportunity to place similar access restrictions on the eastern portion of the Wheaton/Sheridan District Center. Commissioner Simpson expressed concern about placing access restrictions on the eastern boundaries of the Wheaton/Sheridan and Wheaton/Riddell District Centers, depending on what is developed on the sites. She felt a better Commissioner Wofford approach would be to establish a minimum setback. noted that allowing access through the buffer would be counterproductive. The Commission generally agreed that at least a portion of the vegetated buffer should be maintained on the eastern boundaries of both the Wheaton/Riddell and Wheaton/Sheridan District Centers. Staff agreed to provide draft code language that protects residential neighborhoods where adjacent rights-of-way abut the District Centers. Commissioner Simpson requested that staff provide a map to identify the existing City parks at the next Commission Director Spencer meeting. Rather than providing a map, agreed to send the Commissioners a link to the Parks and Open Space Plan, which was recently updated. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 89 April 15, 2014 ~ Page of BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Tift did not have any items to report during this portion of the meeting. Commissioner Jose submitted hisletter of resignation from the PlanningCommission, announcingthat he has accepted a job Chair Tift in Washington, D.C. andwill be relocating.On behalf of the Commission, thanked Commissioner Jose for his Director Spencer remarkable service. also thanked Commissioner Jose for his service. Director Report Director Spencer announced that staff would present the Commission’s recommended zoning code amendments (electric th . She vehicle charging stations, removal of mobile home provisions, and sign amortization) to the City Council on April 16 advised that staff has been extremely busy, and permit revenues and inquiries are up. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business Commissioner Wofford asked the Commissionersto consider going paperless, and they agreed to consider the option further. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:39p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ____________________________________________________________ Andrea L Spencer, AICPRichard L. Tift, Chair Executive SecretaryPlanning Commission DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 99 April 15, 2014 ~ Page of Commission Meeting Date: May 20, 2014 Agenda Item: V.A CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to Amend the Zoning Development Standards for District Center Core and Amend the District Center Core Designation on the Zoning Map in the vicinity of Wheaton/Riddell, th Wheaton/Sheridan,and Callow/11 Street. DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Nicole Floyd, Senior Planner SUMMARY The Planning Commission has held several workshops over the last few months related to the District Center Core zoning district. This zoning designation is located in three distinct areas throughout the City: Charleston (Callow Avenue), Wheaton/Sheridan, and Wheaton/Riddell. Discussion at the Planning Commission workshops over the past several months has directed Staff to prepare amendments relating to: Mapping of the District Centers – Increasing the District Center Core zoning to better achieve the City’s long term growth strategy and to allow for more flexibility in terms of allowed uses in these areas. Modify the District Center Core development Standards as follows: Amend the allowed uses of the chapter to allow for multi-family residential, o Increase height limits from 50’ to 80’ o Require a 20’ dense vegetated buffer along Almira Drive to protect the existing o forested nature of the street. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment I: Proposed Mapping Amendments Attachment II: Proposed Text Amendments to BMC 20.70 – The District Center Core Zone Attachment III: Findings and Conclusions RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to recommend the City Council adopt the mapping amendments to the official zoning map as shown in Attachment I, and adopt the text amendments to BMC 20.70 as detailed in Attachment II, and based upon the Staff Report and the Findings and Conclusions presented in Attachment III. ϭ HISTORY This Public Hearing packet has grown out of a discussion related to the City’s upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. The Planning Commission’s February workshop focused on the Wheaton Riddell District Center as an example of how the Comprehensive Plan allows for and encourages the development of unique “Sub-Area Plans” to be developed so that a district can implement development regulations that are tailored to the surrounding neighborhood and property owners desires. While the Sub-Area Planning process has been successful on other parts of the City, the unique Sub-Area Plan for the Wheaton/Riddell District Center has faced many challenges. One of the key issues relates to street design requirements that were required only in this Sub-Area. These street design requirements were particularly onerous and costly, which discouraged new development. The Sub-Area Plan requirements were in line with the financing and development markets prior to the economic recession of 2008, but following the recession some of the Sub- Area Plan’s requirements were found to be onerous and infeasible due to the changed economic climate. Following the February Workshop, the Planning Commission recommended the Sub-Area Plan be revoked and replaced with the zoning which was in place previously. The City Council followed the Planning Commission’s recommendation and revoked the Wheaton Riddell Subarea Plan on March 5, 2014. This revocation resulted in the zoning for the area reverting back to the zoning in place in 2005 prior to the Sub-Area Plan. This previous zoning included two zones that are seen in several areas throughout the City – District Center Core, and Low Density Residential. Following the revocation, the Planning Commission began studying both the zoning map and the development standards for this District Center. Both the March and April workshops focused on potential impacts and benefits related to code amendments. In both topics (mapping and development regulations), the Planning Commission recognized that the discussion should be broadened to include both of the other District Centers, as changes to development standards would be applicable citywide, not just in the Wheaton/Riddell District Center. In this way, the Commission could better assess the overall Citywide impacts of the proposed changes. At the April Planning Commission Workshop the Planning Commission provided Staff with clear guidance to make mapping amendments and development regulation amendments and to present those amendments for a Public Hearing at the May Planning Commission meeting. The following report discusses the amendments that are proposed and the rationale for said changes. Significant discussion, community input, and deliberation have been conducted throughout the last three Workshops. Each workshop has included a Staff Report, much like this one and a PowerPoint presentation. For more detailed information about the discussions held regarding this topic, please review the previous Planning Commission Packets and PowerPoint presentations at: ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘Đŝ͘ďƌĞŵĞƌƚŽŶ͘ǁĂ͘ƵƐͬĚŝƐƉůĂLJ͘ƉŚƉ͍ŝĚсϰϯϴ͘ Ϯ ANALYSIS There are essentially two separate topics for review: mapping changes, and development regulation changes. This report covers each of these topics seperately. Mapping: The District Centers are designated as the principal areas targeted for growth within the City. Bremerton has been designated as what is known as a “Metropolitan City” and is therefore expected to be prepared to accommodate the most growth of all the Cities within Kitsap County. There are only five “Metropolitan Cities” within the greater Puget Sound region including Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett and Bremerton. As each of these Cities is the largest within their respective Counties, Bremerton is the largest city within Kitsap County. Every jurisdiction is required to have a Comprehensive Plan, which is a document that establishes how a jurisdiction will grow. Bremerton’s Comprehensive Plan was written in 2004 and assumes a growth target of approximately 14,000 new residents. One of the basic elements of the 2004 Comprehensive Plan is to preserve existing neighborhood character by focusing a majority of the Cities allocated growth into “Centers” rather than existing neighborhoods. Of these Centers, the bulk of the growth is allocated to the following four areas: Downtown Regional Center Wheaton / Riddell District Center Wheaton / Sheridan District Center Charleston District Center It is important to note that the City is required to develop codes that allow the City to accommodate their designated growth targets, but achieving that actual growth is not required. Many have noted that due to the economy the growth expected has not been realized over the last several years. In fact, due to the economic recession, national growth has not been as strong as projected prior to the recession. Nevertheless, the City cannot create codes that would prohibit the growth that is assigned to be placed within its boundaries. Significant discussion was held at the March Workshop related to how the existing zoning pattern would allow for development and if the zoning established in the three District Centers would allow each to accommodate the growth assigned to it. As discussed in the previous packets, due to the Comprehensive Planning designations, there are only two zones in which any District Center can be mapped: Low Density Residential, or District Center Core. Of the two zones, only one of them encourages the density necessary to meet Bremerton’s assigned growth targets – the District Center Core zone. It is for this reason that the Planning Commission directed Staff to evaluate and provide maps for the expansion of the District Center Core zoning to replace the Low Density Residential zoning within these districts. Each is discussed below: ϯ Charleston District Center: The Charleston District Center is the smallest of the three District Centers occupying approximately 39 acres. Accordingly, its anticipated build out is less than the other two larger District Centers. The Charleston District Center is unique in that it is already predominately mapped as District Center Core (red). There are only two small areas that are mapped as Low Density Residential (yellow) and in both of these areas the development pattern includes existing single family residential developments. The only exception is the automotive shop located on th the corner of Callow Avenue and 11 Street. This automotive shop is mapped as single family residential and is the only corner of the intersection mapped this way. For this reason, Staff recommend replacing the residential zoning with commercial zoning on this single piece of property within the Charleston District Center. Otherwise, the mapping of the District appears to be accurate and complete, and consistent with the growth strategy in the Compressive Plan.These mapping changes can be reviewed by looking at Attachment I. Wheaton / Sheridan District Center This is the second largest District Center occupying approximately 81 acres. It sits between Sylvan Way and Sheridan Road and is directly accessed from Wheaton Way. Much of the District is the old East Bremerton High School and therefore has significant redevelopment potential as there are few existing buildings on the grounds. Unlike the Charleston District Center, nearly 2/3rds of the District are mapped as Low Density (yellow) which significantly limits the allowed uses onsite. Many of the existing developments within the District would not be permitted within the Low Density Residential Zone. In-fact schools are only conditionally permitted in the Low Density zone, but are outrightly permitted within the District Center Core zone. Staff anticipates that increasing the District Center Core zoning (red) across more of the map would allow for a wider array of allowed uses and would likely increase the redevelopment potential of the site. The Youth Wellness Campus coordinator spoke at the April Planning Commission meeting requesting the mapping be changed to District Center Core as it better fit their design plans for 7 acres of the District Center. The Planning Commission directed Staff at the April workshop to prepare maps that replace the Low Density Residential zoning (yellow) with the District Center Core zone (red). These mapping changes can be reviewed in Attachment I. ϰ Wheaton / Riddell District Center This is the largest District Center occupying approximately 100 acres, as such it is expected to accommodate the largest portion of the population growth within the City. While the area has been predominately commercially zoned since the 1980’s, there have been many tweaks and changes throughout the years. Typically these changes have reflected different project proposals and marketing strategies. Since the revocation of the Sub-Area Plan earlier this year, the zoning map has split the district nearly in half with half as District Center Core (red) and the other half as Low Density Residential (yellow). It is interesting that while half of the district (nearly 50 acres) is zoned Low Density Residential, there are no Low Density residential uses within the District, and several commercial and industrial uses within the District. This district has been the primary focus for the majority of the last three Planning Commission workshops. The areas of change are only on the left and right sides of the maps, as the middle area adjacent to Wheaton Way has remained commercial (red). Significant discussion about both the Eastern and Western edges is provided in the March Planning Commission Packet. Discussions at the last several Workshops have concluded that the area is slated for significant growth in Bremerton and therefore should be zoned to ensure that this growth can occur. The R-10* zone does not support the growth targets established in the Comprehensive Plan, nor does it promote the type of development anticipated for this district. The Planning Commission directed Staff at the April workshop to prepare maps that replace the Low Density Residential zoning (yellow) with the District Center Core zone (red). These mapping changes can be reviewed in Attachment I. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The development standards are the same for all three districts. Any applicant applying for a permit within any of the three districts would be required to comply with the District Center Core Zoning regulations (BMC 20.70). Since these development standards are applicable in all three Districts, it is important to consider the impacts of these potential code amendments in each. Allowing Residential of all types: The current code only allows residential uses within the District Center zone when it is mixed with ground floor retail uses. This requirement for mixed use ensures that both residential and commercial growth targets are being achieved and promotes a “walkable” Center. One reason to require mixed use is to minimize extensive apartment complexes without providing commercial amenities within walking distance. This promotes walkability and better implements the Centers concept. It also ensures that the commercial entity is the predominant feature along the fronting roadway. The Charleston District is a location where it is easy to see how providing ground floor retail with apartments above would be significantly more desirable than simply an ϱ apartment complex. The retail component activates the street and brings a commercial vibrancy to the District. Alternatively, there are some locations and situations where mixing commercial and residential in every building is not desirable or marketable. While the City wants to activate street level commerce, some project sites are too large or include several buildings of which some are too far removed from the main street to create the urban design along the streetscape that was envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. For this reason Staff recommend revising the allowed uses and development standards within the District Center Core zone to allow for residential uses of all types (except Group Residential Type II – alternatives to imprisonment) with specific criteria that require a mix of residential and commercial unless along the street frontage. The amendments intend to allow for single use residential buildings to be located behind mixed use or commercial structures. They also clarify that if a building cannot be viewed from a public street, then mixed use would not be required. These revisions ensure that a mix of commercial and residential is maintained along the street frontage, but allows for a departure from this requirement when the building or buildings are separated from the street frontage. For example, a large commercial structure could be located along the street frontage and then several apartment buildings could be located behind the commercial structure and not be oriented to the public Right of Way. Height: The District Center Core currently has a height limit of 50’. The previous Subarea Plan for the Wheaton Riddell Area allowed heights of up to 65’. Neither the Charleston District nor Wheaton / Sheridan District have been a part of a neighborhood planning effort such as the recently revoked Subarea Plan. This means that the areas mapped as District Center Core (Shown in red on the previous page) within these two districts have had a height limit of 50’ since 2005. Over the last few Workshops, the Commission has debated increased heights and the potential impacts. Taller buildings often encourage a more efficient and environmentally friendly development pattern because they are utilizing less space and require less infrastructure to be constructed. In terms of utilization of tax dollars, taller, more dense housing units are less expensive to provide services to such as police, fire, roads, sewer, water, electricity, etc. which represents lower costs to providing these essential services in the long run. Taller buildings also allow for development to put parking underneath the building which is more efficient than surface parking, often leaving open space, or additional developable areas. There is a direct correlation between higher density and reductions in traffic because transit is more efficient and successful with higher densities. A height increase from 50’ to 80’ would likely allow for future developers to more easily achieve the goals within the Comprehensive Plan while also profiting from the project. A height limit of 50’ is somewhat challenging for developers as it requires more expensive infrastructure to construct, but often does not provide significant increases in revenue. The construction costs of building mid to high rise buildings is significantly higher than traditional wood frame construction seen in structures of less than 40’ in height. The added expense is primarily due to the need for large underground parking garages, steel beam framing, elevators, etc. The increased height limit will offer more opportunity to recoup the cost of steel construction. The condominiums ϲ recently constructed in Downtown Bremerton along the waterfront on Washington Avenue are 70’ tall, are constructed of steel frames and concrete, and include a parking garage etc. It is anticipated that construction of similar structures within the District Centers would be appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals. Compatibility with the adjacent developments just outside the District Centers has been an Attachment II important consideration. The proposed amendments seen in , include a 100’ perimeter area that would more closely regulate buildings within 100’ of the abutting Low Density Residential areas surrounding District Centers. Additionally, the code amendments include a requirement for building heigt limits of four stores within 50’ of the Low Density Residential zoned properties and building modulation to limit height impacts for buildings between 50’ to 100’ from the Low Density Residential zoned properties. Staff anticipates that these provisions will adequately address any impacts related to an increase in height for the District Centers. Vegetated Buffers Adjacent to Low Density Zoning : The primary focus of this topic has been the Eastern Edge of the Wheaton / Riddell District Center along Almira Drive. The Sub-Area Plan called for a vegetated buffer to ensure the existing forested nature of Almira Drive would be maintained. With the revocation of the Sub- Area plan, the requirement for a vegetated buffer was also removed. Staff looked through the existing landscaping requirements to determine if existing code language would provide adequate provisions and found that because Almira Drive is technically a street frontage, the vegetated buffer requirements found in the landscaping chapter may not adequately address neighborhood concerns. Due to this, Staff recommends placing a specific requirement within the District Center Core chapter that ensures a “Type II” vegetated buffer is required in this location. Type II vegetated buffers are typically required between incompatible uses such as a sports complex and residential homes. The intent of the Type II vegetated buffer is to provide 20’ of dense vegetation that will visually screen the more intense use from the residences. The proposed amendment would require 20’ of dense vegetation along Almira Drive, which will preserve the existing vegetated nature of the streetscape. Existing significant trees and shrubs can be used to meet this requirement. The only other location within all three District Centers that has an existing natural vegetated nature is on the Eastern side of the Wheaton / Sheridan District Center along an alley. In this case, the alley is treated in the code as a “rear yard” and therefore the existing code section would clearly require a Type I, vegetated buffer to be installed or maintained. The Type I vegetated buffer requires 10’ of dense vegetation, rather than the 20’ required for the Type II buffer. The Type I vegetated buffer is the standard buffer applied in locations where commercial and residential zoning adjoin. As this is an alley rather than a full street frontage, it seems appropriate to apply the standard 10’ buffer. No code revisions are necessary for the 10’ buffer to be applied in this location. CONSLUSION: The attached amendments, both mapping and text, reflect Staff’s understanding of the direction given by the Planning Commission at the last three public workshops. The proposed ϳ amendments will implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan while allowing for greater opportunity for re-development of the three District Centers within the City. Staff therefore recommend the Planning Commission hold an open record public hearing, consider testimony and recommend the amendments seen in Attachment I and II to the City Council for adoption. ϴ Attachment I Mapping Amendments Proposed mapping amendment to Charleston District Center: Hash marks indicate the area to be changed from Low Density Residential to District Center Core. 1 Attachment I Proposed mapping amendment to Wheaton / Sheridan District Center: Hash marks indicate the area to be changed from Low Density Residential to District Center Core. 2 Attachment I Proposed mapping amendment to Wheaton / Sheridan District Center: Hash marks indicate the area to be changed from Low Density Residential to District Center Core. 3 Attachment II Proposed Amendments: 20.70.020OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USES. The following 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 of all types except Group Residential Type IIas a secondary use; (v) Restaurant; (w) School and education; (x) Senior housing complex; (y) Transportation facility; (z) Veterinary clinic. 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 1 Attachment II (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 required pursuant 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, projects with five (5)or more story building: fifteen (15%) 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, 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 (580)feetexcept: (i) Structures within fifty (50) linear feet of parcelszoned for Low Density Residential shall not exceed four (4) stories in height; and (ii) Structures between fifty (50) and one hundred (100) linear feet of parcels zoned for Low Density Residential shall include architecturalfeatures to gradually transition the building height from four (4) stories to a maximum height of eighty (80) at the one hundred (100) foot distance from the Low Density Residential zoned parcel. (h)Mixed-Use Requirement: All structures that includeresidential uses located adjacent to, are oriented towards, or are viewablefrom a public Right-of-Way shall provideretail/ commercial uses alonga minimum of sixty five percent(65%) of the ground floor building façade.On corner lots, the requirement shall be applied to both frontages facing apublic Right- of Way. 20.70.090LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. Landscaping shall meet the standards of Chapter20.50BMCand the following standards shall be met:. (a) All development proposedon properties abutting Almira Drive NEshall provide a Type II visual screen as established in BMC 20.50.050(b), 2 Attachment III FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary: Amendmentsto the Official Zoning Map to expand the District Center Core Zoning (DCC) and BMC 20.70,the DCC related to development regulations such as adding multi-family housing as an allowed use, increasing height limits, and modifying visual screening requirements. I.FINDINGS OF FACT Project Description 1.: The proposed amendment package includes revisions to both the Official Zoning Map and BMC 20.70follows: Expand the DCC zoning within all three District Centers by replacing the Low Density Residential zoning in all areas except those that are currently developed with low density uses. Modify The DCC development regulations as follows: Add residential uses of all types except group residential Class II as an out-rightly o permitted use and eliminate residential as a secondary use. Revision also requires amendment to the developmentstandard sub-section to ensure mixed use is required along primary streetfrontages but allows for standalone residential where there is no primary street presence. Increase height limits from 50’ to 80’ with specific requirements for a reduced o height offour stories when within 50’ of the low density residential zone. Add language in the landscaping section of the DCC to ensure the vegetated o characterof Almira Drive is maintained by requiring a 20’ visual screen through vegetation preservation or planting. Procedural History 2.: 2.1Planning Commission Workshops:February 18, 2014, March 18, 2014, and April 15, 2014 2.2SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: May 8, 2014 2.3Commerce Notice: May 8, 2014 2.4Notice of Public Hearing: May10, 2014 2.4Planning Commission Public Hearing: May 20, 2014 Public and Agency Comment 3.: th 3.1February 18Workshop: Priscilla Bailey: expressed concerns regarding the realistic nature of the sub-area plan and asked the plan be revoked. Mike Benefiel: Expressed concerns regarding the Soil Factory property Tom Remick: Stated that the Sub-Area Plan is not beneficial to re-development Diedre McKeel: Suggested that all “Centers” should be reviewed multi-modal transportation should be emphasized. Councilman Runyon: Recommended flexibility and balance by looking at market conditions when developing codes. 1 Attachment III Gary Weber: Representative of Carl Zarelli, pointed out that mixed use is the future of development, but the market in Bremerton is not strong enough to support it just yet. th 3.2March 18Workshop: Priscilla Bailey: Pointed out that growthtargets have not been achieved in the past and expressed skepticism that they would be achieved in the future. Design standards and restrictive codes may not entice development. Expressed concern about a vegetated buffer on Almira Drive as homeless camps are a persistent problem. Gary Lindsey: Representing Royal Valley Properties stated that the property owner of the Soil Factory site would prefer commercial zoning rather than residential. Nearly 50 acres of vacant properties in this District offer significant redevelopment potential and submitted an exhibit outlining development regulations he would like. Don Cole: Showed support for the soil factory and felt that aggressive growth assumptionsare not realistic. Carl Zarelli: Read the comment letter he submitted, and expressed concern over future development. He requested changes to the DCC to allow for greater flexibility in uses and development standards. Robin Waite: Asked about incentives for redevelopment. Ken Melbourne: Employee of the Soil Factory, commented that the City’s growth strategy is not desirable. He referred pointed out that the community relies on the soil factory. Eric Sandall: As a real-estate investor he considers the Soil Factory a valuable service and requested the City allow the current business to remain until market demands change. Barbara Roberts: Pointed out the problems with living near the Soil Factory, such as dust, noise, and smell from the business. Written comment received: Patricia Hennessy, Executive Director of the Youth Wellness Campus. Pat O’Leary of WSDOT Highway Advertising Control Program, , commented February 202014. th 3.3April 15Workshop: Patricia Hennessy: Representing the Youth Wellness Campus voiced support of increased heights and DCC zoning across the Wheaton / Sheridan District. Mike Benefiel: Voiced support of DCC zoning in the Wheaton / Riddell District. Denis Stone: Stated that the Soil Factory has outgrown its current location and would like to see more compatible uses on the site. Eric Sandall: Suggested that the Soil Factory has made concessions and has reduced impacts to the neighborhood over the last year. Tom Remick: Noted that impacts to his residence and neighborhood have grown as the business has expanded. He showed support for rezoning the property to commercial. Richard Roberts: Questioned why this topic was being discussed as the Planning Commission passed a motion at the last meeting to re-zone the District. Debbie Santini-Stone: Supports the DCC zone for the entire Wheaton/Riddell District. Dale Herbold: Supports re-zoning to DCC as it would allow for re-development. Pointed out that the City has received at least 42 code complaint letters about the Soil Factory by neighboring residents. Written Comments Received: Jerry Wheeler submitted a letter addressing concerns about development along Almira Drive and the location of future 2 Attachment III meetings and Tom Remick submitted a letter supporting DCC zoning in the Wheaton / Riddell District. 3.4At the February 18, 2014Planning Commission Public Hearing public testimonywas offered by: SEPA Determination 4.: A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on May 8, 2014, to date no comments or appeals have been filed. Consistency 5.: Text amendments to Title 20 shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020(d). The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to Title 20 if the criteria outlined below are met. (1)It is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan; Analysis: The proposed amendments continue to uphold the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and implement the following policies: CC2A:Utilize zoning and design standards that have flexibility and incentives to ensure excellence in urban design, and which are compatible with surrounding land uses. CC2B:Ensure that infill construction and area redevelopment are done in a mannerthat reinforces the neighborhood’s desired and defined character and that architecturally compliments the commercial and residential areas. LU3A:Provide development incentives and flexibility within the Zoning Code to encourage desirabledesign elements with flexibilities within the Zoning Code provisions for all new development and redevelopment. EC1C:Encourage redevelopment of underutilized land. EC5A:Expedite the permit and development process. (2)It does not conflict with other City, state and federal codes, regulations and ordinances. Analysis:The proposed amendments do not conflict with any other regulations. II.CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code Title 20 Land Use Chapter, meets the requirements in BMC 20.18.020(d) text amendments, and therefore recommends to the City Council, the adoption of amendments to Title 20. Respectfully submitted by: _____________________________________ Andrea L. Spencer, Executive Secretary 3