HomeMy WebLinkAbout5429ORDINANCE NO. 5429
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, amending the Bremerton Municipal Code
Title 20 related to Drive -through Facilities.
WHEREAS, through practical use and application of the Zoning Code the need
for modification has been identified; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton ("City") has established a procedure for
amending the Zoning Code in Title 20.18.020(d) of the Bremerton Municipal Code ("BMC"),
which requires amendments to the Zoning Code to be both consistent with the goals and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan and to be consistent with other applicable rules and regulations; and
WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan, County Wide Planning Policies, the State Growth Management Act, and other applicable
regulations and ordinances; and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a
workshop on the proposed amendments related to Drive -through Facilities; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2021 for Drive -through Facilities amendments, a State
Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") Determination of Nonsignificance ("DNS") was issued for
the proposed action with a comment period, and no appeals were filed; and
WHEREAS, March 17, 2021 for Drive -through Facilities proposed Zoning Code
amendments were circulated to Department of Commerce and the State Agencies for the
requisite review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, the public was notified by a legal advertisement in
the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing held by
the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the Zoning Code amendments and formulated a recommendation to forward the
amendments for City Council consideration; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2021, the public was notified by a legal advertisement
in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to snake comment and participate in the public hearing on
September 1, 2021 by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2021, the City Council conducted a public hearing
and considered all testimony prior to their decision; NOW THEREFORE,
1
Title 20 BMC Updates — Dfive-thfoug{� Facilities
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L Findings and Recitals incorporated. The findings and recitals set
forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION2a Planning Commission Findings. The findings and conclusions
adopted by the Planning Commission attached hereto as Exhibit A are adopted and incorporated
as if set forth herein in full.
SECTION3. Section 20.44.120 of the Bremerton Municipal Code entitled
"Drive -through Facilities" is hereby amended as follows:
20.44.120 DRIVE -THROUGH FACILITIES.
a
) Intent. The standards of this section regulate the installation of drive -through facilities
to ensure their design operation and associated impacts can effectively be mitigated. The
purposes of this section is to permit a drive -through facilities only when they:
Provide safe and efficient and on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation;
Minimize conflicts between queued vehicles and traffic on adjacent streets
and sidewalks; and
(3) Reduce impacts on abutting- uses, such as noise, visual, and light,
particularly to residential uses.
Lb)( -a) Applicability. Drive -through facility standards within this section applyto
construction of new or modified drive -through facilities. Drive -through facilities are a�
aeeessoryto a principal use of a strueture and therefore are only allowed when found in
association with a permitted use in commercial, mixed -use, or industrial zones, unless drive -
through facilities are expressly prohibited in the zoning districts regardless of the principal use.
(1) > ptio., While generally prohibited within the o.s 1.ber-1,eed business
(NB) and DGG zones, drive through f4eilities may -be permitted pfovided the business has d
vcrrrcmlar't.cccti.s-.n-rvneither ...,........... ......y ,.,, K.,..,...t, .....y.
site.(2) Drive through facilities standards within this section apply to the
eenstruetien ef new drive through f4eilities, the addition of a dFive through faeilit-y to e)iistifi
developments, and/or- the reloeation of an existing drive through f4eility On
(c) Procedure. All new or altered drive -through facilities shall be processed per the
underlying permit type per BMC 20.02. Approval of a drive -through facility may be granted
through either:
An administrative Type I Director's decision or concurrently with another
permit as regulated by BMC 20.02 when the proposed facility meets all criteria established per
BMC 20.44.120(e); or
(2) A Type III Conditional Use Permit per BMC 20.58.020 is required when a
proposal seeks alternatives to any of the criteria established per BMC 20.44.120(e). The Hearin
Examiner mayapprove alternatives to criteria presented in this section when the following are
met:
Any proposal to modify drive -through facility standards shall not
undermine the intent of this section or that of the underlyingzone. one.
2
Title 20 BMC Updates —Drive-through Facrllties
Ci ij Proposals seeking a drive aisle between a primary frontage and the
building shall demonstrate that all other site designs have been exhausted and found unworkable.
iii The applicant shall demonstrate how the proposed alternative fully
screens neighboring properties that the total amount of landscaping exceeds the total amount of
that created by adherence to standard landscaping and buffer requirements.
iv A public amenity shall be provided. Examples of public amenities
include: outdoor eating area outdoor artwork street furniture, plantings in window boxes public
trash receptacles or other alternative public amenity approved by the Hearings Examiner. Any
proposed amenity shall be architecturally compatible with the principal structure and shall be
maintained for the life of the project.
(v) Conditions such as site orientation, fencing, buffering, parking
location lighting access hours of operation and others may be imposed as a condition of
approval if it is found they are necessary to mitigate identifiable adverse impacts and ensure
compatibility with nearby uses.
(d) Submittals. Applications shall include the following components; the Director may
modify these requirements based on the size, scope and complexity of the project:
Vicinity Map. Showing the subject property in relation to all other
properties and major structures within a two hundred fifty (250) foot radius of the property;
Site Plan
All property lines, easements, fences, walls, signs, and other points
of referenc
ii Existing and proposed structures, pedestrian walkways, bikeway
parks playgrounds recreational areas and other areas and facilities of a public or recreational
nature.
iii Existing and proposed utility systems, drainage structures, fire
hydrants, and other infrastructure improvements.
iv An environmental summary, including such features as shorelines,
bulkheads creeks culverts wetlands steep slopes, and other "sensitive areas," etc.
Landscape Plan. A plan conforming to BMC 20.50 and other landscape
requirements of this section. This information may be shown on the site plan or maybe provided
in a separate plan;
Parking Plan. A plan conforming to BMC 20.48 and other requirements of
this section. This information may be shown on the site plan or may be provided in a separate
plan;
Applications may require a traffic impact assessment prepared by
qualified professional for the drive -through facility installation. Reports shall demonstrate that
stacked vehicles do not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic on abutting right -of -wad
interfere with the circulation of pedestrians traffic maneuvering, or other parking space areas)
located onsite.
Le)N Site Design Requirements. All drive -through facilities shall comply with the
following requirements:
(1) Location. All efforts should be taken to locate the drive -through facility
towards the side and/or rear of buildings. Drive -through facilities shall not be located between
the building and the street frontage except in the f6llowmg Girc ffistanwhen a site contains
more than one (1) street frontage the drive -through facility may be located between the building
3
Title 20 BMC Updates —Drive-th�•ouglz Facilities
and secondary Irontaae. Screeninz of secondary street frontages shall be a minimum of five (5
feet wide and at least four (4) feet in height.
(i) Primary F t. A drive through f. ility may be plaeed. between
)uilding and the street frentage enly when all other site designs have been exhatisted and are
deemed unworkable by the Direetor. The drive through facility shall be fully soreened f+om view
of the frenting street through the use of feattifes stieh as sight obseur-ing > walls, trellises,
and landseaping.
!"1 Seeo d > rta. o 'Whe situ t. e th 11) +. +
t-ri�cJ 1'��c[C`lr�^t-ivrr "iii. �i J ocive
4entage the drive through faoility may be leeated between the building and seeondar-y f+40ntage
enly when all other site designs have been exhausted and found uwvNrerkable. Sereening ftem the
a f; t ed but not , e
$ccv^iicra'r"�zi�^vcrc^u��:-� e:b.,.., ..,.., .,., .e^y',.'.�..,
(2) Stacking. All drive -through facility stacking lnes shall meet the
following criteria: inelude t. ling lane that p ,ides room for .minimumof four (4) eaFs to
line up behind the drive through window. Fof festatirant/food/drink uses the stacking lane shall
(i� Stacking lanes shall be a minimum of eighty (80) feet behind the
ordering board/window, where the order is requested, except for facilities where vehicles do not
routinely stack up while waiting for the services, such as ATM -only locations. For
restaurant/food/drink uses the stacking lane shall provide room for a minimum of one -hundred -
twenty (120 feet).
ii After permitting and during operation, if the drive -through
facilities have negative traffic impacts on adjacent roads and/or businesses, the CiIY may require
additional traffic controls at the businesses' expense to alleviate the negative impacts. This could
include temporarypermanent solutions.
(3) Design. The drive -through lane(s) shall be designed as a dedicated lane,
physically separated from parking areas and internal parking circulation aisles in order to
enhance pedestrian safety and provide screening from adjacent properties and right-of-way. A
combination of two (2) of the following shall be provided adjacent to the drive -through lane(s):
(1) Landscaped strips, islands, or berms that are a minimum of three (3)
feet wide and fifty (50) square feet in size are required in addition to all other required
landscaping areas. Said landscaped areas shall include a mix of ground covers and shrubs that act
as a barrier between the drive -through lane and adjacent properties, right-of-way, and parking
area;
(ii) Hedges, decorative walls, fencing, or trellises that act as a visual
barrier between the drive -through lane(s) and adjacent properties, right-of-way and parking
areas;
(iii) Decorative pavement, alternative materials (bricks, stamped
concrete), or other durable ground treatment that clearly separates the drive -through lane(s) from
other driving and parking areas on site that will withstand heavy traffic conditions found in
association with drive -through lanes. Paint striping does not meet this requirement.
Div) When drive4hru facilities are open and other pedestrian -oriented
customer entrances to the businesses are unavailable, they must serve customers usingother
modes rather than vehicular. This may be accomplished by online ordering, pickup areas or
similar. Such pickup areas shall be illustrated on the submitted site plan.
(4) Signage.
4
Title 20 BMC Updates — Dt•ive-tha•occgh Facilities
(i) Each ordering location shall have a maximum of (1) one menu board.
One (1) additional menu board may be placed adjacent to the stacking lane for patrons waiting
behind the ordering station. Each menu board sign shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet and
have a maximum height of seven (7) feet.
(ii) Menu boards shall be located in a landscaped strip or island no
smaller than three (3) feet wide and fifty (50) square feet in total size. This landscaping area shall
be in addition to all other required landscaping. The menu board(s) shall be oriented away from
public streets and be intended for viewing by drive -through patrons only. Screening of the menu
board may be required when the board is located adjacent to the right-of-way or neighboring
properties. Screening shall ensure the board is not readable from the surrounding properties or
street.
(5) Pedestrian Features. In order to enhance safe pedestrian access, designated
walkways from all on -site parking areas and from the public sidewalk to a building entry shall be
provided as follows:
(i) Walkways shall be a minimum five (5) feet in width, clearly marked
and easily distinguished from driving surfaces by using a combination of landscaping strips or
islands that delineate the pedestrian walkways; and
(ii) Walkways shall include at least one (1) of the following treatments.
decorative paving, stamped/stained concrete or raised walkways with alternative materials (such
as brick, cobblestone, and decorative pavers) to clearly indicate the safe walking route.
Walkways through heavy traffic areas such as the drive -through must be made of durable
materials able to withstand heavy traffic conditions.
SECTIONS. Corrections. The City Clerk and codifiers of this ordinance are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including but not limited to, the
correction of scrivener, clerical, typographical, and spelling errors, references, ordinance
numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto.
SECTIONS. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences
of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council the � S 1� day of PtYLIe y� , 2021.
KEVIN GORMAN, Council President
5
Title 20 BMC Up�itrtes —Drive-through Facilities
Approved this �i Y N day of 5 e prk tab C r 2021.
G G RY WHEELER, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
KYLIE FINNELL, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of 2021.
EFFECTIVE the day of , 2021.
ORDINANCE NO.
6
Title 20 BMC Updates —Drive-throargh Facilities
Exhibit A
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Summary:
Proposed amendments to the Bremerton Municipal Code related to Drive -through Facilities.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Project Description:
The proposed amendment includes revisions to Bremerton Municipal Code 20.44.120, Drive -
through Facilities, as follows:
A. Expands zones where Drive -through Facilities are permitted.
B. Standardizes permitting procedures and submittal requirements.
C. Revises site design requirements.
2. Procedural History:
2A Planning Commission Workshops: February 22, 2021
2.2 Washington State Department of Commerce Notice: May 17, 2021
2.3 SEPA Threshold Determination DNS: May 17, 2021
2.4 Notice of Public Hearing: June 11, 2021
2.5 Planning Commission Public Hearing: June 21, 2021
3. Public and Agency Comment:
3A At the workshop held on February 22, 2021, one public comment were received.
3.1.01 Christopher Lux, expressed support.
4. SEPA Determination:
A Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued on May 17, 2021, to date no comments
or appeals have been filed.
5. Consistency:
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;
Ana/ysis: The proposed amendments continue to uphold the objectives and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, and implement the following policies:
The amendment continues to uphold the objectives, goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan such as:
o Policy LU1(B): Coordinate Bremerton's growth consistent with the Kitsap Countywide
Planning Policies and the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2040, and state
requirements.
o Policy LU4(C): Provide land use regulations that give opportunities for the
community to have fair access to livelihood, education, and resources.
1
Exhibit A
o Policy LU4(D): On an annual basis review and provide amendments, if necessary, to
the goals and policies and the Land Use Map to address changing circumstances
and/or emergencies.
o Policy LU1(A): Designate neighborhoods, communities, and centers throughout the
City and encourage the implementation of design guidelines for new development
and redevelopment that complement the designated purpose and scale.
o LWCen(A): Development regulations should encourage pedestrian oriented mixed"
use design in Centers and address such issues as:
(1) Locating buildings or features in the core of the Center at sidewalk edge,
(2) Providing windows and other architectural features that foster pedestrian
interest along street fronts,
(3) Adopting sign standards that reflect pedestrian scale,
(4) Encouraging and/or requiring architectural features that are of a scale and
type appropriate for viewing by pedestrians at the building front and immediately
nearby, and
(5) Development projects should be encouraged to provide amenities such as
street furniture, street trees, small public spaces and plazas, etc.
o LWCen(E): Consider the existing built environment when creating development
regulations
o LU2-Cen(C): Provide incentives and flexibility that encourage and enable
development in Centers, including alternative parking options like payment in lieu of
parking spaces.
(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.
submitted
And�a L. spencer/[director of Community Development
2
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: Garrett Jackson
Date: September 1. 2021
Subject: Amendments to the Zoning Code related to Drive -through Facilities
SUMMARY
City Council will be holding a public hearing on an Ordinance that amends the Bremerton
Municipal Code (BMC) related to Drive -through Facilities. The revisions expand the geographic
areas where Drive -through Facilities are permitted, add increased provisions for traffic safety,
and add a more inclusive public process in some instances.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission approved the proposed amendments with a vote of 5 to 2 at a Public
Hearing held on June 21, 2021. Dissenting Commissioners were concerned that additional
Drive -through Facilities might lead to increased traffic incidents with pedestrians and bicyclists,
potential greenhouse gas emissions, and requested Staff notify surrounding residential
properties to participate in the upcoming City Council Hearing. Staff could find no evidence that
drive -through facilities increased traffic incidents with pedestrians/bicyclists more than other
permitted uses in effected zones. Staff noted in materials provided to the Planning Commission
that technological advances in vehicles and drive -through facility processing, as well as the
relatively small geographic area effected by the proposed amendments, would likely not result in
a significant increase in greenhouse emissions. Per the request of the Planning Commission, an
invitation to the City Council Hearing was mailed on August 15th to all property owners within
300 feet of effected zones. Minutes from the June 21, 2021 Public Hearing are provided
following this memo.
Memo to Drive -through Facilities Ordinance
DRIVE -THROUGH FACILITIES
There are many Drive -through Facilities (i.e.drive-throughs) located throughout the City,
however, there are remaining areas where these developments are currently prohibited by the
zoning code. The following will explain the municipal regulatory background and purpose of
drive-throughs and outline potential additions being considered by the City to the Bremerton
Municipal code Title 20, also known as the Zoning Code.
The Zoning Code entry regarding drive-throughs in 2005 read in its entirety as follows, "Ancillary
drive -through lanes as defined by BMC 20.42.020 may be permitted in conjunction with an
allowable principal use, unless drive -through lanes are expressly prohibited in the zone district."
Code updates in 2013 and 2016 added required features for pedestrian safety, design criteria,
and loosened prohibitions on zones where these facilities were prohibited. While some of the
zones and terminology have changed since 2005, the purpose of the proposed Zoning Code
Amendments are to further loosen prohibitions on where drive-throughs may be located, provide
enhanced traffic safety measures, ensure practical design elements, and to continue to utilize
drive-throughs as an accessory use only.
sr o y,a�ooeu
Expanding Permitted Zones _ `° / v, P "a t°
If you live in Bremerton, or are traveling \� �'
through, chances are you've seen or visited
,�.
one of the City's drive -through locations for L
coffee, restaurants, pharmacies, or banking BAY VISTA V
SUBAREA �` � Up
While the Department of Community `cc
R-10
Development does not specifically track drive- MR101 Cr
throughs, Staff can account for at least 38
locations in the City; the image to the right illustrates a selection of existing drive-throughs and
zones they are located in. Currently, the only zones that prohibit drive-throughs are the
Neighborhood Business (NB) zone, portions of the District Center Core (DCC) zone, and two
zones within the Downtown Subarea Plan, which are the Downtown Waterfront (DW-DSAP) and
Pedestrian Oriented Mixed -Use (POMU-DSAP) zones. Drive -through prohibitions within the NB
zone, and the partial prohibition within portions of the DCC zone, are proposed to be removed to
provide a more equitable approach to where these facilities may be located. The two zones
within the Downtown Subarea Plan which specifically call out drive-throughs as prohibited uses
are not proposed to change with these amendments.
Properties that front Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way are
the portions of the DCC zone that currently allow drive-
throughs. This also points to the somewhat limited
expansion of the proposed amendments in some
locations, as much of the DCC zone either already
permits drive-throughs or are currently being developed
without them. The image to the right illustrates the
Wheaton/Riddell District Center, which is bisected by
Wheaton Way. The yellow hatched areas indicate
• Page 2
Memo to Drive -through Facilities Ordinance
properties that are already entitled to develop a drive -through under the
existing code, the green hatch areas indicate lots that are currently under
development, and yellow circles indicate existing drive-throughs.
Properties currently being developed are residential projects that would
be very unlikely to develop future drive-throughs. Of the remaining lots,
three are vacant and would be the most likely to potentially develop drive-
hroughs in the future under the proposed code provisions.
While the image on the previous page was provided to illustrate the I,E�o
limited scale of the proposed amendments, it also illustrates a potential r
lack of equity among neighboring properties as only parcels fronting
Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way are excluded from the drive -through
prohibition. This potential lack of equity is not limited to whether a
property is located on a particular street frontage. As the zoning code has
changed over time, some drive-throughs already exist in zones where
they are currently prohibited. The property owner at 2101 Burwell Place, as seen in the adjacent
image on the corner of Burwell Street & Naval Avenue, has been interested in developing a
drive -through on their parcel but they are prohibited because the lot is located in the NB zone.
The property owner has relayed frustration as the parcel directly to the north currently operates
a grandfathered drive -through. This potential disparity can lead to real
financial impacts. As relayed in the June 21, 2021 Planning Commission
Hearing Packet, there can be substantial financial benefits to having a
drive -through as some businesses have noted an immediate increase in
sales once a drive -through is added to an existing location, landlords are
able to charge 10-20% more in rent for properties with drive-throughs,
and while some businesses struggled during the pandemic drive -through
locations have thrived. As drive-throughs are utilized by a variety of
different business types, this likely leads to a competitive disadvantage to
prohibited properties.
Design Features
It is not the intent of the proposed code amendments to provide enhanced
business opportunities at the expense of required design features. As the
City encourages development that promotes pedestrian activity in
commercial zones, criteria of individual zones requiring pedestrian
features will not be altered with these proposed amendments. Examples
of such design features are: requiring buildings to be constructed near the
sidewalk, requiring parking and access not to be located between the
building and the street frontage, aesthetic requirements for buildings that
add interest from the street, and other features. The images to the right
provides two examples of differing site designs. The example above
illustrates a constructed drive -through that would not meet design
requirements as the building is completely surrounded by drive -aisles,
setback from the street, and the parking between the building and street.
The Example below would likely meet design requirements as the building
• Page 3
Memo to Drive -through Facilities Ordinance
is located at the sidewalk, there largely are no drive aisles separating the parking from the
structure, and generally provides a good non-autocentric version of drive -through development.
Enhanced Safety Measures
Previous amendments to the code have added features to ensure the safety of pedestrians and
vehicles, and the proposed code amendments would further that work. In order to assist in the
review of safe traffic conditions, the proposed code adds a provision allowing the City to require
a traffic impact assessment prepared by a qualified professional which demonstrates the safe
circulation of pedestrians and vehicles both on and off site. As conditions created by
development can sometimes be speculative, the proposed code also permits the City to require
potential traffic mitigation measures after the permitting process has been completed in order to
alleviate potential unforeseen unsafe conditions. Finally, the City recognizes that every iteration
of drive -through development may not be able to meet prescriptive requirements, and in such
cases where applicants may seek alternatives to prescriptive requirements, the City proposes to
provide a more robust public review through the Hearings Examiner permitting process. This will
ensure that the public has an opportunity to review project plans, and provide feedback on
proposed traffic safety measures. Alkin-all, these added provisions will help ensure that safe
traffic conditions continue with the development of individual Drive -through Facilities. It should
be noted that under both the existing and proposed code, it is likely that some properties will not
be able to meet the dimensional requirements to ensure sufficient site safety, and accordingly
will not be able to be provided with permit approval. Some properties are likely too small, or
contain preexisting structures/development situated in such a way as to render the property
nonconductive to adding a drive -through.
Accessory Use
The proposed amendments are not intended to change the accessory nature of drive-throughs.
While there are plenty of examples of drive -through coffee stands, ATMs, etc. that offer no
interior service or interior/exterior seating options, these structures also provide little opportunity
for community building. Whether it's a coffee shop, fast-food restaurant, or other similar
business, public seating can provide a space to gather and build relationships outside of home
and work. Urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg touted the need for communities to have a third -
place for people to gather easily, inexpensively, regularly, and pleasurably; a "place on the
corner," real life alternatives to television, easy escapes that do not necessitate getting into an
automobile. While having a 100% drive -through, without interior/exterior seating or services,
may potentially be an attractive business model, it would not provide citizens and visitors a
place to gather and enjoy the City and so it not proposed for change.
i
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF VIRTUAL MEETING
June 219 2021
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chait• Tift called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present
Chair Wofford (arrived at 5:50 p.m.)
Vice Chair Tift
Commissioner Flemister
Commissioner Coughlin
Commissioner Mosiman
Commissioner Pedersen
Commissioner Rich
Commissioners Excused
None
Quorum Certified
Staff Present
Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development
Garrett Jackson, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development
Sarah Lynam, Project Assistant, Department of Community Development
Others Present
CHAIR CALL FOR MODIFICATIONS TO AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 2021, AS SUBMITTED.
COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC MEETING
Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda)
Vice Chair Tift invited comments from citizens on items that were not on the agenda. There were none.
Public Hearin: Amendments to the Zoning Code Related to Drive-Thru Facilities
Mr. Jackson explained that the Commission's responsibility is to conduct a public hearing, consider public testimony,
deliberate and then make a recommendation to the City Council. He reviewed that they could recommend approval as is or as
modified by the Commission, or they could recommend denial. They could also continue the hearing to a future meeting.
Mr. Jackson referred to the proposed code amendments that were provided as Attachment A of the Staff Report. He advised
that the proposed amendments would:
• Expand the zones where drive-thru facilities are permitted to include all Commercial, Mixed -Use and Industrial zones,
unless drive-thru facilities are specifically prohibited in the zone.
• Add a "Submittals" Section that formalizes what documents need to be turned in with the permit. It includes a new
requirement to potentially require a Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by a qualified professional, certifying that
the plans are safe for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. This assessment is currently performed by the Public Works
Department. The proposed amendment would not change that process, but it provides the Public Works Department
an additional tool to help assess specific sites.
• Revise the "Procedures" Section to potentially require a Hearing Examiner level decision in cases where the applicant
doesn't meet the prescriptive requirements of the code. This would add a more scrutinized public process for any
proposal seeking alternatives to the code.
• Add the potential for post -permit issuance traffic mitigation. If problems come after a drive-thru is installed and
mitigation isn't included with the permit, this provision ensures that the traffic problems can be handled at a later date
after permit issuance.
Mr. Jackson reviewed that, at a previous workshop, staff provided examples of undesirable drive-thru facilities. The examples
illustrated the need to avoid situations where the stacking lanes completely surround the building and there is no safe access
for pedestrians to enter the business, where pedestrian entrances are directly after the drive-thru window where cars receive
food, and where cars in the parking lot back directly into the stacking lanes.
Mr. Jackson shared an example of adrive-thru facilities that would meet the City's code requirements. The building is located
close to the street and there are no drive-thru lanes between the building and the roadway. The drive-thru is not the primary
focus of the building, and access to the building is provided from all parking areas with only one area crossing the drive-thru
lanes at the front of the stacking lane.
Mr. Jackson explained that adrive-thru helps ensure that a business's bottom line is maintained by providing that third place
for people to obtain services. It adds an extra tool for businesses to continue to maintain their service levels. A drive-thru can
be particularly helpful for citizens with mobility impairments, and it offers a convenience for customers. Typical businesses
that provide drive-thru service include restaurants, pharmacies, banking, and coffee shops. Drive-thru service is a private
decision made by individual businesses based on whether or not it can help their bottom line. He referenced two articles that
indicate, `Landlords are able to charge 10-20%higher rentsforpropertiesivithdrive-thr•nfacilities,"and "Drive-thrufacilities
make accessibility for customers significantly more convenient, and in turn, increase sales as much as 70% for some national
chains. " Mr. Jackson reported that the majority of recent commercial development has included a drive-thru component
(banks, pharmacies, coffee shops, restaurants, etc. As more proposals come in, that trend will likely continue.
Mr. Jackson recalled that, at a previous meeting, a commissioner requested information on the existing drive-thru facilities
throughout the City. Although permitting information is spotty, his calculation includes 3 pharmacies, 8 banks, 2 car washes
and 26 restaurants.
Mr. Jackson advised that, as the proposed code amendments would allow drive-thru facilities in all Commercial, Mixed -Use
and Industrial zones, it would alter where drive-thru facilities are currently prohibited. For example:
• Neighborhood Business Zones. The current code only allows drive-thru facilities in the Neighborhood Business and
District Center zones if the property is located off of Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way. However, there are no
Neighborhood Business zones located off of these two streets, so the use is effectively prohibited at this time. The
proposed amendments would allow drive-thru facilities in all Neighborhood Business zones, which are intended to
serve the neighborhoods they are located in. He briefly reviewed where the Neighborhood Business zones are located
and described the current development, noting that there are already some drive-thru facilities.
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 Page 2 of 9
• Downtown Regional Center. Currently, there are two zones in the Downtown Regional Center that specifically
prohibit drive-thru facilities: Pedestrian -Oriented Mixed -Use Zone and Downtown Waterfront. There are currently
three drive-thru facilities in the center, all at banks.
• District Centers. The current code allows drive-thru faces in District Centers that are located off of Kitsap Way
or Wheaton Way. He shared a map of the Charleston District Center, noting the properties that front on Kitsap Way
that could potentially have a drive-thru. Some aide located on the cliff side of Kitsap Way where a drive-thru would
be unfeasible. Because the code only allows drive-thru facilities on Kitsap Way, the use becomes somewhat arbitrary
at the point where Kitsap Way transitions into 61h Street. He reviewed the other District Centers, noting how properties
aide currently developed, where existing drive-thru facilities are located, and which properties are likely to redevelop
with and without drive-thru facilities.
Mi•. Jackson summarized that the examples were provided to show the limited amount of area that could potentially house a
new drive-thru facility. Most of the properties have already been developed, so most of the new drive-thru facilities would be
add-ons to existing development. He noted that many of the properties, particularly in the Neighborhood Business zone, would
be too small to accommodate all of the code requirements of a drive-thru. Expanding the area where drive-thru facilities are
allowed would not automatically entitle individual properties to have one. Because these zones are intended for pedestrian -
oriented uses, the pedestrian, bicycle and pedestrian safety requirements would still preclude a lot of properties from having a
drive-thru.
Mr. Jackson further summarized that the proposed amendment would expand the existing code to allow drive-thru uses in the
Mixed Use, Commercial and Industrial zones. The additional "Submittal" Section would formalize the submittal process, and
the "Procedures" Section would be revised to potentially elevate the decision to the Hearing Examiner when the basic
prescriptive code criteria cannot be met. There would also be potential for post -permit issuance of traffic mitigation.
Chair Wofford joined the meeting at approximately 5:50 p.m.
Erin Harris, Bremerton, observed that, in other jurisdictions, areas that have drive-thru facilities tend to have high collision
rates with pedestrians on the sidewalk. She asked if this has been taken into account and what vehicle/pedestrian gation
measures are being planned via the Traffic Impact Assessment. She asked if would specifically prohibit left -turn motions from
the adjacent roadway into the drive-thru. The left -turn motion is what commonly results in vehicle/pedestrian collisions. She
said it is also important to allow adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting the drive-thru.
Mr. Jackson said he hasn't seen specific research on pedestrian drive-thru incidents, but the Public Works Department reviews
sight distance requirements for all commercial driveways, including drive-thru facilities. He concluded that the City's code
does its best to separate modes of transportation and ensure safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrians moving from
parking spaces to a business are supposed to have a clear, delineated pathway, and drive-thru facilities are supposed to be
completely separated from the general parking.
Ms. Harris clarified that she is most concerned when pedestrians are on the adjacent sidewalk and vehicles are traveling from
the roadway into the drive-thru. That's where the high propensity for vehicle/pedesh•ian collision occurs. In crash statistics
from other jurisdictions, these show up as mid -block collisions and they are not necessarily flagged as drive-thru situations.
Because of the high number of accidents associated with drive-thru facilities, a number of jurisdictions in the country are
banning them in urban areas. She agreed that there are a number of benefits associated with drive-thru facilities, but she wants
to make sure the adjacent traffic patterns are adjusted to make them safe for pedestrian and bicyclists that are passing by the
location. This includes looking at the left turns entering into the driveway, as well as making vehicles exiting the driveway
stop well before they get to the sidewalk so they have time to look for both pedestrians and vehicles.
Mr. Jackson emphasized that these concerns can be addressed via the Traffic Impact Assessment. Professional traffic
engineers can help buttress the work that the Public Works Department is currently performing. He underscored that the code
would require that drive-thru lanes must be separated from the general traffic in an effort to promote safety for pedestrians.
Vice Chair Tift commented that the issue of pedestrian safety is not necessarily limited to drive-thru facilities. For example,
on Kitsap Way, there is Ace Hardware, McDonalds, Papa Murphy's Pizza and Taco Bell, and every single access point in and
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 � Page 3 of 9
out of these businesses presents a pedestrian hazard if drivers are not watching carefully. He understands the potential hazards,
and the vegetation and bicycle lane on Kitsap Way add to the problem.
Vice Chair Tift opened the hearing for public testimony.
Christopher• Lux, Bremerton, said he and his wife own the property at the corner of Burwell and Navel (Sprout and Thistle),
and they have been working towards developing Street Eats Bremerton, as well as Gravity Coffee drive-thru. He observed that
staff is proposing that drive-thru facilities be allowed in all commercial zones except for those where it is specifically excluded,
but the current code specifically excludes the use in the Neighborhood Business zone. Mr. Jackson clarified that the current
code language would allow drive-thru facilities in Commercial and Industrial zones, and District Centers are zoned Mixed -Use
but are selectively allowed to have drive-thru facilities. The Mixed -Use zone was added later for clarification purposes, but
drive-thru facilities are already permitted in Mixed -Use zones under certain circumstances. Drive-thru facilities would be
permitted in the Neighborhood Business zones if the proposed code is adopted.
Mr. Lux referred to Mr. Jackson's description of the preferred and non -preferred design, particularly the concept of maximizing
pedestrian access to the buildings. He pointed out that there are use cases, such as coffee stands, banks or pharmacies, where
the drive-thru is the sole access point and there is no pedestrian access. He suggested there needs to be a site -by -site
understanding of the proposal to make sure it provides safety for pedestrians rather than excluding specific design elements,
such as pedestrian access to the building.
Alcash Juneja asked if the proposed amendments would allow adrive-thru facility at the Noah's Ark location. Mr. Jackson
answered that it would be permitted.
No other membet•s of the public indicated a desire to speak, and Vice Chair Tift closed the public portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Pedersen commented that staff has done a good job presenting the best proposal possible, but he felt the
amendments would still result in worse biking and walkability in the neighborhoods. While he is sympathetic to the commercial
landowners, the burden of proof hasn't been satisfactorily met. In order to support the amendments, lie would need much more
data showing that they wouldn't result in more bicycle and pedestrian accidents.
Commissioner Flemister asked if there is a lot -size requirement for being allowed to add adrive-thru facility. Mr. Jackson
answered that there is not a minimum lot size requirement, but there is a minimum length for queuing lanes. The drive-thru
lane must be at least 120 feet, which is meant to accommodate eight cars. If the property cannot accommodate that length, the
application would be elevated to a Hearing Examiner decision, and the property owner would have to provide some very
convincing safety improvements.
Commissioner Coughlin said he tried to think of all of the cons and concerns associated with the amendments, and most were
addressed in the Staff Report. However, some were not:
• Public Health. Some have raised the concern that obesity rates will be higher with greater access to fast food. He
noted that South Los Angeles banned fast food and drive-thr•u windows and obesity rates went up, which indicates
that people want the service and are willing to drive further to get it.
• Carbon Emissions. He couldn't find any studies showing that drive-thru facilities resulted in increased carbon
emissions. If they are prohibited in an area, people will likely be willing to drive further to get the service. Given that
vehicles will become more efficient and less polluting over time, the impact would be negligible.
• Greater and More Convenient Access. Drive-thru facilities provide greater access for the disabled, working families,
etc.
Commissioner Coughlin said he supports the proposed amendments overall. He suggested that perhaps Commissioner
Pedersen's concerns about pedestrian impacts could be addressed by requiring a Traffic Impact Assessment for all drive-thru
applications. Mr. Jackson emphasized that the review is already being done by the Public Works Department, and the Traffic
Impact Assessment would be an additional requirement to help the Public Works Department assess individual sites. Staff
isn't proposing that the assessment be required for all applications because some sites can easily meet all of the requirements
without posing a safety issue. The Public Works Department would have the ability to require the additional analysis, if there
k
PPRnVEC
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 � Page �4 of 9
are any unusual site conditions. Director Spencer said she equates this to the recommendation the Commission made relative
to boundary line adjustments. The code was written to say the City may require a title report or not. Some boundary line
adjustments move lines in a very minor way and it doesn't make sense to spend all the money to require a title report when the
request is straight forward. She cautioned against mandating that extra time and resources be spent when it isn't necessary in
many situations. She explained that the Public Works Department does an extensive review of business access to a site, and
they have worked hard to consolidate all of the access points along Wheaton Way. The proposed amendments would add more
study requirements for the drive-thru, itself, but not for the development as a whole,
Commissioner Coughlin commented that drive-thru facilities provide real benefits to disabled and working families. He
researched other cities and found that Portland, Oregon, increased its drive-thru provision and added a new section of code that
encouraged drive-thru facilities to give access to pedestrians and bicyclists who ordinarily access the building. For example,
if the business was open until 8 p.m., but the drive-thru until 10 p.m., the business would be required to serve pedestrians and
bicyclists at the drive-thru from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. He felt that was a great way to have drive-thru serve not just cars, but also
pedestrians and bicyclists. If that were to be allowed, he would assume that appropriate safety measure would be taken.
Director Spencer voiced concern about the liability associated with the City enacting code requirements that mix cars,
pedestrians and bicyclists together. If they considered this approach, she would rather they focus on serving walk-up customers
in a separate place than the drive-thru facility. Vice Chair Tift concurred with Director Spencer.
Commissioner Mosiman referred the Commissioners to the public hearing that was conducted in 2013 relative to proposed
code amendments for drive-thru facilities. The amendments were being considered at the request of the City Council because
the Comprehensive Plan was not working as expected, and the anticipated development was not happening. There was an
identified requester, as well as an identified purpose. In other business before the Planning Commission, he has always
appreciated having a clear understanding of why the Commission is being asked to consider a proposed amendment. However,
he doesn't know where the current proposal came from or why it was made. When considering proposals, he likes to understand
the problem the Commission is being asked to address, but that isn't clear to him at this point. He asked staff to explain who
made the request and why it is being made.
Director Spencer responded that staff has had several conversations with people who want to develop in Bremerton. When
staff informs them that drive-thru facilities aren't permitted, they generally choose to develop elsewhere in Kitsap County or
other nearby jurisdictions that have less stringent requirements. The proposed amendments are intended to address the City's
economic situation by encouraging redevelopment opportunities. In addition, it could be argued that the City current
regulations are somewhat arbitrary. They are currently only allowed on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way, yet 6`h Street is not that
much different than Kitsap Way. Most of the commercial zoning is on high -traffic corridors, which seems to be an appropriate
place. She cautioned that the City is currently competing with Kitsap County, Poulsbo, and Port Orchard, all of which allow
drive-thru facilities with very few design standards. She suggested that the current proposal represents a good balance. It
provides good design standards to address walkability, but also allows drive-thru facilities to serve the community needs.
During the pandemic, the drive-thru option was very advantageous to keeping the local businesses alive. In addition, the Mayor
has voiced concern that the current code is an impediment to development and redevelopment. Lastly, she expressed her belief
that drive-thru service is the way of the future, and it can be allowed with good site design. The proposed regulations are still
more onerous than those in Kitsap County.
Commissioner Mosiman agreed that the pandemic increased the demand for drive-thru service for at least the short-term
because the indoor dining restaurants were closed down. He cautioned that they appear to be looking for along -term solution
to what is potentially a short-term problem. It would be a mistake to make a decision based on a short-term situation that will
have impacts for decades to come. Regarding earlier comments about emissions, he agreed that vehicles are changing, but
slowly. The turnover rate for vehicle sales is about 6% per year, and the majority are still gas or diesel vehicles. These vehicles
will be part of the fabric of society for decades to come, and expecting automobile technology to solve this problem is decades
away.
Commissioner Mosiman reviewed that in 2013, it was recognized that drive-thru uses needed to be expanded on auto -centric
corridors. Because Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way were already auto -centric, it didn't make sense to prohibit drive-thru uses.
The work done by the Planning Commission in 2013 was well considered, and the Charleston District Center was specifically
identified as a success story that did not need drive-thru uses. Now they are proposing to change the Planning Commission's
2013 work without providing any demonstratable evidence that the situation has changed. The Neighborhood Business and
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 Page 5 of 9
District Center zones are Mixed -Use, which means there are residential properties. He is concerned that the proposal would
allow drive-thru facilities right next to people's homes, and he doesn't believe that a 10-foot buffer would be sufficient. They
need to consider the impacts associated with hours of operation, light pollution from the business and car headlights, noisy
vehicles, diesel fumes, etc. He said he doesn't have a problem expanding drive-thru uses into auto -centric areas, but he doesn't
support allowing them next to residential development.
Commissioner Mosiman reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan describes the Neighborhood Business character as "small-
scale commercial or mixed -use nodes with uses such as grocers or converted residential structures or pun pose -built structures
that are sensitive to the small-scale residential context. " In addition, Land Use Goal 1 calls for reducing traffic congestion,
and the proposed amendments would do exactly the opposite. Again, he is opposed to allowing drive-thru uses in areas where
there is residential development. He suggested that before the Commission makes a decision, residents in the District Centers
should be notified of the proposal and invited to provide feedback.
Commissioner Mosiman directed attention to the Comprehensive Plan, as well as City, County and State documents where
they are attempting to reduce carbon emissions. He expressed his belief that the proposed amendment would fly in the face of
that goal. The average wait time in a drive-thru is 4 minutes 25 seconds, which means that cars idle for that amount of time.
Commissioner Rich said she came to the meeting thinking that the proposed amendments made sense and that the current
code was arbitrary and didn't link up with the way people drive around Bremerton. She said she appreciates staff s research
on the benefits of drive-thru facilities to working families, people with disabilities, etc. She suggested that the concerns could
be addressed by more detailed information from staff, as well as more specific examples of how the code would be applied.
She asked how the process would be impacted if the Commission decided to postpone its recommendation until the residents
living in the District Centers have been notified and invited to provide input on the proposal.
Vice Chair Tift commented that he was on the Commission in 2013 when the drive-thru code provisions were last updated.
At that point in time, the Commission's frame of reference was largely focused on fast-food restaurants rather than pharmacies
and other drive-thru businesses that have grown as a result of the pandemic. He expressed his belief that drive-thru is valuable
in neighborhoods, and he submitted that Hi-Lo is probably already a drive-thru by virtue of Uber Eats, Door Dash and other
companies that deliver food from restaurants. He said lie doesn't believe that the doomsday claims that have been raised will
materialize in the heart of a neighborhood because it won't be profitable for a company to set up something that would attract
diesel trucks and large volumes of traffic.
Director Spencer explained that a public hearing and a recommendation from the Planning Commission is required whenever
the City adopts changes to the zoning regulations. The recommendation is then scheduled for a public hearing before the City
Council. The City Council could take action following its public hearing, or it might choose to study the issue more before
adoption. The timeline for adopting most zoning code amendments is a month or two. She reminded them that property owners
are waiting for the Commission and City Council to take action on the amendments so that proposed development can move
forward. If the Commission's recommendation is a split vote, they could move the recommendation forward with a minority
report that clearly outlines the concerns. Staff could then do more public outreach to encourage citizen comments at the City
Council's public hearing.
Commissioner Coughlin said he doesn't envision the code change would result in a lot of new businesses where there are
none now. The proposed amendment would simply allow existing businesses and perhaps a few new businesses to have drive-
thru capability. While he appreciates the concerns about more traffic in residential areas, the code provides sufficient
safeguards to mitigate the impacts. He noted that carbon emissions from both public and private transportation worldwide is
only about 27%, and he doesn't see any significant increase of carbon emissions associated with the use. If the Commission
decides to postpone a recommendation to allow more time to reach out to nearby residents, they should make it clear that they
do not expect the proposal would result in an explosion of businesses in the area that weren't there before. Instead, it would
provide flexibility to a few businesses that could benefit from it.
Commissioner Pedersen said he believes the disability/accessibility argument is valid, but the counterpoint would be
encouraging curbside pickup windows rather than frill -on drive-thru facilities. He commented that staff did a good job with
mapping to illustrate the impacts of the amendments, and it is clear that they would result in more drive-thru uses next to
residential areas. He didn't believe that a 10-foot buffer would be sufficient. He also felt the proposed amendments would
APPROVED
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 Page 6 of 9
increase auto -centric neighborhoods as opposed to encouraging pedestrian and bicycle activity. The areas that are being
compared to Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way are death traps for bicyclists and pedestrians, and he is opposed to creating any
more of these situations in the City.
Commissioner Mosiman voiced concern about the misinformation that has been provided. They aren't talking about call
ahead, pickup, Door Dash, Uber Eats, etc. They are talking only about drive-thru uses where cars are stacked up. He
encouraged the Commissioners to read the Comprehensive Plan, which sets out the vision for Bremerton. The Land Use
element in the Comprehensive Plan talks about a vision for Neighborhood Business and District Centers. He voiced concern
that opening the areas to drive-thru uses would go against the vision outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. While it is likely
true that the amendments would not result in an explosion of drive-thru businesses, that is wishful thinking rather than
definitively correct. The purpose of the zoning code is to put limits on what may happen. He is in favor of supporting the
business community, and he would be willing to consider expanding drive-thru uses in the auto -centric areas, but not in the
District Center and Neighborhood Business zones. They need to carefully consider the impacts this change would have to the
quality of life of the residential property owners in these areas.
Commissioner Coughlin reminded the Commissioners of his earlier suggestion that the proposal be amended to require
businesses to provide opportunities for walkup service when the indoor dining is closed but the driveAhru is open. Director
Spencer noted that staff prepared some alternative language to address this issue that ensures there isn't a conflict between
pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles.
Director Spencer agreed with Commissioner Mosiman that the City's vision is to create good center and mixed -use
development. However, it is important to keep in mind that the Commission is only considering a small portion of the
development code. The overall intent and underlying principles of each of the zoning districts would still have to be met. She
explained that drive-thru uses are an accessory to an existing business. The actual building would have to meet all of the code
requirements, such as transparency and buildings that are located at the street front. Drive-thru uses would be located behind
the building and wouldn't be the primary feature. She suggested it would be helpful for Mr. Jackson to explain the development
regulation intentions, which cannot be undermined by a proposed development. He could also share suggested language for a
potential amendment to address Commissioner Coughlin's concern.
Mr. Jackson referred to the Findings and Conclusions (Attachment B) that were included in the Staff Report. He explained
that the Findings and Conclusions are required to show how a proposed amendment would meet the Comprehensive Plan goals.
He specifically referred to Policy LU-1, which states:
A. Development regulations should encout•age pedestrian -oriented mixed -use design in Centers and address such issues
as:
I . Locating buildings or features in the core of the Center at sidewalk edge,
2. Providing windows and other architectural features that foster pedestrian interest along street fronts,
3. Adopting sign standards that reflect pedestrian scale,
4. Encouraging and/or requiring architectural features that are of a scale and type appropriate for viewing by
pedestrians at the building front and immediately nearby, and
5. Development projects should be encouraged to provide amenities such as street furniture, street trees, small
public spaces and plazas, etc.
Mr. Jackson said it is staffs intention that the proposed amendments would not affect these policies. Drive-thru uses are
intended to be accessory and located at the rear of the building. They would not supersede any of the pedestrian goals.
Next, Mr. Jackson shared alternate language to implement Commissioner Coughlin's recommendation that drive-thru
businesses provide opportunities for walkup service when the indoor dining is closed but the drive-thru is open. The alternative
language also addresses the concerns that have been raised about mixing pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic. The proposed
language would be:
"id'hen drive-thru facilities are open and other pedestrian -oriented customer entrances to the businesses are
zmavailable, they mzrst serve czrstomers zrsizzg other• modes rather than vehicular. T/pis may be accomplished by on-
line ordering, pickup at or similar. Such pickup at shall be ilhtsb aced on, e submitted site plaza. "
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 215 2021 Page 7 of 9
Mr. Jackson commented that the words, or similar" were added to recognize that there may be variations that would
accomplish the same goal. The intent is to make sure that any area that is designated as such is shown on a site plan to ensure
that pedestrians are safe. Director Spencer suggested that the motion could include allowing staff to work on language for
alternate means to serve pedestrians and bicyclists.
COMMISSIONER COUGHLIN MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT TEXT
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 OF THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) AS DETAILED IN
ATTACHMENT A, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED
IN ATTACHMENT B. HE FURTHER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO ADD LANGUAGE TO SUPPORT
WALKUP AND BICYCLE SERVICE AND CONDUCT OUTREACH TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
ADJACENT TO THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS FOR PUBLIC INPUT. CHAIR WOFFORD SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 5-2 WITH COMMISSIONERS COUGHLIN, FLEMISTER, RICH, TIFT AND
WOFFORD VOTING IN FAVOR AND COMMISSIONERS MOSIMAN AND PEDERSEN VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
BUSINESS MEETING
Chair Report
Vice Chair• Tift said he is anxious to get back to some form of in -person meetings. He has heard from some constituents that
they are missing out on important testimony because of the difficulty some people have with Zoom meetings. He noted a letter
to the editor in THE KITSAP SUN from Diane Manning, who was quite annoyed with the lack of opportunity to comment at
Commission meetings due to technology difficulties.
Chair Wofford announced that it is time for the Community Block Grant process to start, and he has been the participant
representing the Planning Commission on the Grant Committee for the past several years. He asked if any of the other
Commissioners were interested in serving in that role. Director Spencer reviewed that committee members review and score
all of the applications in August. In September, the committee meets to conduct interviews, debate as a committee, and make
a recommendation to the City Council on how to spend the Community Block Grant money. She said she finds it a very
rewarding experience because you get to see the good work that is being done by non-profit organizations in Kitsap County.
It's also sad because there is such great need and not enough money to give everybody what they ask for. Commissioner
Coughlin indicated he would be interested in serving on the Grant Committee.
Director Report
Director Spencer announced that the Mayor and City Council President are talking about how to open up for in -person
meetings. She reported that there has been an increase in participation and engagement from the public because it is easier for
many to attend virtual meetings. Some people want to continue the virtual meetings even after the in -person meetings resume,
and staff is working to update equipment to support that endeavor. At this time, she doesn't have a timeline for when the in -
person meetings will resume.
Director Spencer announced that Ms. Satter has left the City, and Garrett Jackson was promoted to the position of Planning
Manager. She is currently recruiting for Mr. 7ackson's position during a time when the City is experiencing record permit
activity. The next meeting is scheduled for July 19t", but given all of the other demands on staff time, it may need to be
canceled.
Director Spencer reported that the City Council adopted the Planning Commission's recommendations on boundary line
adjustments, lot size averaging and double -wide mobile home width.
Old Business
Commissioner Coughlin recalled that, at the last meeting, there was an outstanding question to staff about whether single -
wide recreational vehicles (RVs) would be allowed on single-family lots as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Director
k
PPRnVEC
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 � Page 8 of 9
Spencer responded that nothing in state law would prohibit the City from writing regulations that allow any size of
manufactured housing. When Mr. Jackson was doing research for manufactured housing, he discovered that Bremerton and
Poulsbo are the only jurisdictions that mandate double wide and regulate the size. The County doesn't have any requirements.
She suggested they wait and see how the manufactured home amendments work over the next few years, and then they can be
adjusted as necessary.
New Business
Commissioner Coughlin asked if there are any other Planning Commission items that will appear before the City Council
before the Commission meets again, and Director Spencer answered no.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectively Submitted by:
Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes
June 21, 2021 Page 9 of 9
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
City Council
Garrett Jackson
September 1. 2021
Amendments to the Zoning Code related to Drive -through Facilities
SUMMARY
Per Council request at the August 25L Study Session, attached you will find maps which illustrate
existing commercial districts affected by proposed Drive -through Facility zoning code amendments.
These maps illustrate 1) the existing boundaries of each commercial district, 2) sites that could
potentially develop drive-throughs in the future, and 3) sites that are likely to be excluded from
consideration for future drive-throughs. Each map also provides an inset map illustrating the location of
the subject commercial district. In the legend of each map, the total number of single-family residences
located on parcels that could potentially site a future drive -through is noted. Under today's code these
sites could develop any number of commercial uses, the proposed code would permit these sites an
accessory drive -through to primary uses already allowed in the zone. These results will be more fully
explained during the presentation at the scheduled hearing.
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES
You will find sites that are currently permitted by code to develop drive-throughs, and site which would
permit drive-throughs if proposed amendments are adopted, illustrated in green on the provided maps.
Please note that if a property currently fronts on Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way, the existing code already
allows a drive -through facility at that location. Many of these sites appear to be fully developed with other
commercial uses, so it may not seem feasible to add a drive -through to an existing site. Staff research,
however, indicates that adding a drive -through to an existing site tends to increase sales, so fully
developed commercial sites were retained in the analysis.
NOT LIKELY TO BE DEVELOPED
Properties illustrated as Not Likely to be Developed indicate that these specific parcels are doubtful to
construct a Drive -through Facility in the future. Excluded properties are either government owned
properties, new residential projects under development, or are under'/4 of an acre (10,890 square feet) in
size. Staff consulted with a Drive -through Facility developer, and they relayed that a'/z acre site (21,780
square feet) would be a pretty tight location to develop a drive -through and that they prefer a larger lot.
As staff reviewed existing drive -through sites located in the City, however, smaller sized lots were
observed with Drive -through Facilities that appear to potentially meet zoning standards. So while it may
be unlikely that properties less than a'/2 acre in size would qualify, Staff chose a conservative approach
and instead excluded all properties that are less than % acre in size.
.L ,
-NE ROSEWAY LN --z
-
E AROAQ SLILalgrit
INSIGNIA LOOP
` M '
- WORRALE-DR =
r
�
r OAK-ST
Memo to Drive -through Facilities Ordinance
• Page 8
• •0 0_ r
LA
z�rn
" r. r' ST
r ,.
ui
f _ _ d 8T
w �
1
NOW
fifts- -- ®.
t ..
5TH-S�-
+t
ma
Uf. .
0 Commercial District
LLj Potential
Development
Get 1 Single-family Horne in GreenNot Likley to be Developed
t
Memo to Drive -through Facilities Ordinance
• Page 12
U&I s a p eu fi
PART OF THE USA TODAY NETWORK
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
Angela Hoover
City Of Bremerton
345 6 Th Street Suite 100
Bremerton WA 98337
STATE OF WISCONSIN, COUNTY OF BROWN.
I, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: That I am now,
and at all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned was
the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of KITSAP SUN;
that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by
the order of the Superior Court of the County of Kitsap, in which
County it is published and is now and has been for more than 6
months prior to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to,
published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper
in Bremerton, Kitsap County, Washington, a weekly newspaper in
Kitsap County, Washington and is now and during all of the said
time, was printed in an office maintained in the aforesaid place of
publication of said newspaper; that the following is a true text of an
advertisement as it was published in regular issues (and not in
supplement form) of said newspaper on the following date(s), to
wit: And on
09/03/2021
such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during
all of said period.
Subscribed and sworn to before on 09/0,3/2021
Legal CI
Notary, State of Wl,��unty of Brown
My commision expires "
Publication Cost: $13.55
Order No: 6248628
Customer No: 288797
PO #:
TI-IIS 1S NOT AN INVOICE!
Please do nol use r•enrilrance.
SHELLY HOFiA
Nota-ry Public
State of Wisconsin
# of Copies:
1
PO Box 52I73, Phoenix. A . 85072-2173
CITY OF BRE]VI ERTON,
WASH I NGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 5428
AN ORDINANCE of the City
Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington,
repealing Chapter 6.20 of the
Bremerton Municipal Code
entitled "Carryout Bags."
ORDINANCE NO. 5429
AN ORDINANCE of the City
Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington,
amending the Bremerton
Municipal Code Title 20
related to Drive -through
Faci I ities
PASSED by the City Council
on the 1ST day of September
20210
The full text of this ordi-
nance is available from the
City Clerk's Office, 345 Sixth
Street, Suite 100, Bremerton,
WA 98337.
#6248628, Sep. 3, 2021
RECEIVED
SEp 13 2021
OFFICE OF THE
CITY CLERK
( Page 1 of 1