A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight s agenda

Transcription

1 () AGENDA Regular Meeting Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) June 20, :30 P.M th Street Meeting Chamber First Floor I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL (quorum present) III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: o May 16, 2017 meeting. V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight s agenda B. Workshop: Overview of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: Nick Wofford B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer C. Old Business: D. New Business: VII. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is July 18, 2017 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at

2 Subject to June 20, 2017 Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING May 16, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Wofford called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Chair Wofford Vice Chair Tift Commissioner Conley Commissioner Goodnow (arrived at 5:59) Commissioner Jones Commissioner Nerf Commissioner Strube Staff Present Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Allison Satter, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Kelli Lambert, Planner, Department of Community Development Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER NERF SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2017 AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER STRUBE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Commissioner Goodnow was not yet present to participate in the vote.) PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Wofford asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting. Public Hearing: Amendments to Bremerton Municipal Zoning Code (BMC) Regulations Ms. Lambert reviewed that the Commission held a workshop on April 17 th to discuss proposed zoning code amendments. She summarized the zoning code amendments (Attachment I) as follows:

3 Appeals BMC Because of an oversight in the existing zoning code regarding who has standing to appeal a land-use decision, a property owner recently had to file two separate appeals. This discrepancy with the State Land Use Petition Act 9 (RCW 36.70C) and the Building Code (BMC ) can be corrected with a simple addition to the Appeals code. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment, which would add property owner as a party with standing to appeal. Fences BMC The purpose of this amendment is to remove the ambiguous term finished. This term is difficult to define. Staff recommends that the entire statement in Item G (All fences shall present a finished appearance on their outside face) should be eliminated. There are other codes in place to address property maintenance requirements. Occupied Recreational Vehicles (RVs) BMC As discussed at their last meeting, the City s current zoning code allows a property owner to occupy an RV on his/her property for up to a year while constructing a new home. It also allows an RV to be occupied for a cumulative period not to exceed 30 days during any 12-month period. An RV is a good resource for homeowners who have visitors; but it can also be a problem, and the City has received complaints. The City Council has made addressing this issue a priority, and the Code Enforcement Officer has indicated that it is problematic to track the 30-day allowance. The proposed amendment would require an RV permit to help track legallyoccupied RVs on private property. As proposed, the permit would be available online and, initially, there would be no fee to encourage compliance. In addition to identifying the dates of occupancy, etc., it would also show that the property owner has acknowledged the City s regulations. Automobile Service and Repair BMC The proposed amendment would revise the definition of automobile service and repair to add an additional sentence that reads, Servicing and repairing of automobiles on a residential lot for automobiles that are not registered to the property owners or tenants on the site shall be considered automobile service and repair. The intent of the amendment is to address situations where a property owner or resident in a residential neighborhood does substantial vehicle repairs, with multiple vehicles. The current code does not allow the use in residential zones, but when the Code Enforcement Officer has approached property owners in these situations, she has been told that they are not doing it for money and therefore the code doesn t apply. Automobile Service and Repair BMC An outcome of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update was streamlining and consolidation of the 5 commercial zones, which resulted in unintended consequences in that it removed automobile service and repair as a permitted use from all but the Freeway Corridor and Industrial zones. Staff has recently heard from several prospective automobile service and repair businesses that it is difficult to find a location where their businesses can locate. The proposed amendment would allow automobile service and repair as an outright permitted use in the General Commercial (CG) zone, which is intended to provide locations for high-intensity commercial uses serving the entire community. Automobile Service and Repair BMC When considering areas of Bremerton that may be suitable for automobile service and repair, existing buildings that are located in the Neighborhood Business (NB) zone were brought to staff s attention. These buildings were built for industrial or auto-related purposes and are well suited for this type of business. The intent of the NB zone is to provide for small-scale business districts that reflect the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. Because automobile service and repair can have impacts, staff is not recommending that the use necessarily be allowed outright in the zone. However, staff is recommending that the use be allowed as a conditional use in the NB zone. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requires an applicant to meet specific criteria before approval, and the City can place conditions on the use to mitigate the impacts. At their last workshop, the Commission agreed that the use might make sense if located in an existing building. Other criteria could include visual screening for parking areas adjacent to residential properties, limiting the hours of business, and prohibiting outdoor storage. In addition, staff is recommending that the use not be allowed in the Manette Neighborhood Center. Ms. Satter explained that ADUs are second, smaller dwelling units on the same grounds of a single-family home, and they can be either attached or detached to the main home. ADUs must provide for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the main residence. An ADU provides a complete, independent living facility for one or more people. The concept of ADUs is to promote infill within urban cities. She provided examples of different types of ADUs (detached, attached, and interior conversions). At the end, all structures on the residential property should appear like a single-family Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 2017 ~ Page 2 of 8

4 home rather than an apartment in a single-family neighborhood. She explained that the State s 1993 Housing Policy Act requires cities with a population of over 20,000 and counties with a population of over 125,000 to plan and allow for ADUs. The City adopted the model ordinance that was proposed by the State, but it has the ability to modify the ordinance to address local needs and preferences. Ms. Satter shared examples of ADU s in other jurisdictions, noting that jurisdictions in Oregon have made more strides in incorporating ADU s into their housing stock than those in the State of Washington. She also shared pictures and described the features of a Bremerton ADU she previously lived in across from Kiwanis Park on 5 th Street. She explained that the benefits of ADUs include: increasing the community s housing stock without having further land development; facilitating efficient use of existing housing stock and infrastructure; providing an affordable housing option for many low and moderateincome residents; providing more opportunities for small housing options; improving homeowner s cash; and providing more opportunities for people to remain in their homes for longer periods of time. Ms. Satter reviewed that the median gross rent in Bremerton from 2011 to 2015 was $882. As identified in THE KITSAP SUN, rents are significantly rising. In 2016, the median rent was about $1,052. The City Council is concerned about rising rents and the need to provide places for more residents to live. The estimated 2015 household income for Bremerton is about $48,000, and allowing ADUs could provide an additional source of income for City residents. Ms. Satter said concerns have been raised that ADUs are associated with additional renters who do not always care for their properties. In 2005, the rental rate was 60% versus home ownership of 40%, and the argument was that a functioning City should have 60% home ownership and 40% rental. The zoning code was adjusted to encourage more ownership and fewer renters. Since that time, the City has acknowledged that it is a Navy community; and staff has researched home ownership rates in comparable cities (Lakewood, Washington 46%; Everett, Washington 44%; San Diego, California 47%; Gritton/New London, Connecticut 35%/41%; and Junction City, Kansas 46%). These statistics make it clear that military communities typically have a higher number of units to accommodate renters. Ms. Satter commented that everyone deserves quality housing. The current code prevents people from obtaining permits, but permits are needed to ensure quality construction. If quality housing is not available, the environment and transportation get impacted because people move out further from the places they work. Studies show that children who grow up without housing stability have a greater chance of lower economic success later in life. By the same token, children experiencing housing instability also experience reduced academic outcomes. Housing instability also negatively impacts a person s mental and physical health, and providing housing can lower public health and social service costs. The proposed amendments are intended to be one step towards removing the current impediments to having quality housing. Ms. Satter reviewed the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan related to housing. She summarized that the Housing Element Vision is to encourage the growth of Bremerton by strategically focusing on a wide variety of housing types throughout the City. Housing Goal II is to encourage the development of a variety of new housing options and densities to meet the changing needs of Bremerton s residents. Housing Goal III is to support access to quality and affordable housing to all Bremerton s residents. The supporting policies talk about infill development, providing opportunities for new housing for all (including ADUs), promoting infill projects that are cost efficient and utilize existing utility services, allowing the elderly to remain in their homes as long as possible, and eliminating unnecessary regulatory impediments of development of affordable housing as much as possible. The Land Use Element Vision is that Bremerton is a metropolitan city that provides for economic vitality and diverse lifestyles through a broad variety of jobs, housing and strategically-located commercial and recreational opportunities. This includes housing. It is important to adopt standards that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote infill for areas that are already developed, and allow ADU s that are associated with and subordinate to existing and new single-family dwellings when appropriate. Commissioner Goodnow arrived at 5:59 p.m. Ms. Satter reviewed the proposed amendments related to ADUs as follows: Remove the owner-occupied requirement BMC The current code requires that a property owner must occupy either the ADU or the primary residence of the ADU for a minimum of 6 months out of a year, and staff is proposing to remove this requirement to allow more opportunities for infill. This change will also allow owners with Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 2017 ~ Page 3 of 8

5 historically unapproved ADUs who may have purchased non-conforming structures to make their properties legitimate by obtaining the needed permits. It is difficult for staff to enforce the current provision and verify that ADUs are being used legitimately, especially after a sale of the property. Even though it is required to have a Notice to Title on the property deed, the City s experience is that buyers do not acknowledge the notice in the large stack of closing paperwork. Some concerns have been raised that lax regulations encourage absentee landlords, but there is no evidence to support this claim. The Code Enforcement Officer enforces rental properties, as well as owner-occupied properties, and the City receives code enforcement complaints regarding both. She referred to an online article about Portland s experience with their revised ADU provisions, which remove the owner-occupied requirement. Staff suspects that, even with the proposed code amendment, the split of rental vs. owner properties will remain about the same. Currently, the staff and public spends a lot of hours researching whether or not an ADU is a legal unit, usually for situations that involve financing and often there is no evidence in the City s record of legitimate ADU s. In addition, if a tenant in an ADU reports an unsafe or unhealthy condition, the City requires that the landlord resolve the issue. Once a tenant learns that an ADU is illegal and he/she will have to leave, the complaint is often withdrawn. Once a complaint has been withdrawn, there is not a lot the City can do to get the property owner to bring the unit into compliance. Staff believes the City should consider opportunities to encourage property owners to bring the units into compliance. Setbacks requirements for ADUs BMC a. Most ADUs will be located in the Low-Density Residential (R-10) zone, where the current setback requirements are 15 feet in the front, 15 feet in the rear, and 5 feet on each side. Staff is proposing that detached ADU s be required to meet the same setbacks that are allowed for garages, which are considered accessory structures. Garages off alleyways can have a 0-rear setback and just 3 feet on each side. A 3-foot rear setback would be required on properties that are not located on an alleyway. The intent is to promote ADU s on top of garages. A 15-foot front setback would still be required. Who can have an ADU BMC c. The current code allows only one ADU on a residential lot, and this would not change. The proposed amendment is intended to clarify the limitation that only two units are allowed on a property. For example, a lot that already has a duplex would not be allowed to have an ADU, as well. Manufactured homes BMC d. A provision was added to allow manufactured homes as ADUs provided they comply with the design criteria for ADUs and with the provisions for manufactured homes found in BMC The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent to make ADUs more subordinate to the primary residence. She noted that there is a demand for tiny homes, which could be permitted as an ADU. However, the International Building Code (IBC) requires that housing must be placed on a permanent foundation. Roll up homes (wheels and chassis) will still be allowed, but they must comply with the City s RV standards. Maximum and minimum requirements BMC e. Staff is proposing three revisions to this section: Remove maximum size of 1,000 square feet, remove minimum size of 300 square feet, and acknowledge upstairs/downstairs flats as ADUs. As proposed, ADU s must be secondary dwelling units that are subordinate to the primary unit and are limited to 60% of the primary unit s habitable floor area. These changes will address tiny homes, which can be as small as 96 square feet. It will also help accommodate ADUs on top of garages and address situations where property owners install fake walls in order to pass inspection and reduce livable area. The proposal is to maintain the 60% (of the primary residence) size limitation, with no specific maximum or minimum identified. In an attempt to address older homes that have already been converted into two units, one upstairs and another downstairs, staff is proposing an amendment that will allow equal square footage for the principal unit and the ADU if the ADU is located completely on a single floor of the existing structure constructed before January 1, The idea is to encourage owners of existing ADUs to bring them up to code and obtain the necessary permits. Design standards BMC f. The current design standards for ADUs only have three provisions: ADUs must be constructed of similar materials as the principal unit, roofs must be the same pitch or greater, and the height cannot be more than 25% taller than the principal building. Staff is proposing to revise the design criteria to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed design criterion contains a list of 12 architecturally unique design elements, and the applicant of an ADU will need to incorporate at least 4 of the 12 to construct an ADU. The options include recessed entryways, dormers, gables, covered porches, offsets in building face or roof, bay windows, decorative cornices and rooflines, and shutters. The amendment would also allow a developer to propose an alternative feature that provides visual relief similar to the options listed. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 2017 ~ Page 4 of 8

6 On-site parking BMC h. Although paved parking areas and driveways are already required in another section of the code, additional language was added to the ADU section to make the requirement clear and reduce confusion and misunderstandings. Utilities BMC j. The City recently changed its utility code, and property owners are no longer required to add a new water meter to a property to accommodate an ADU. However, it would remain an option so that property owners can charge the residents of both units separately. Adding a water meter is costly (about $10,000 to $12,000). The revised code allows a property owner to add an additional unit without providing another water meter, if the existing meter has sufficient capacity. To clarify the requirement, staff is proposing additional language that every ADU must be served by City water and sewer/septic system. Currently, people are promoting composting and incinerator toilets, which are allowed in the City. However, they cannot be considered the primary source within an ADU. Ms. Satter summarized that staff is proposing flexibility in the ADU code, which allows for better utilization of existing infrastructure, accommodates more people and dollars into the community and promotes more quality housing. It is important to remember that Bremerton is the metropolitan city of Kitsap County, and it is expected to be an urban, dense environment. Staff understands there are neighborhood concerns that allowing ADUs in residential neighborhoods will reduce property values, but there is no evidence to back up these concerns. In fact, studies show that the resale value of a property will increase if an ADU is added. There is also concern that non-resident landlord properties will be neglected, but there is no evidence to support the claim. The proposed amendment supports the Comprehensive Plan s goals and policies for quality housing, provides a variety of housing options, and has a potential to reduce the number of non-conforming properties. Because the proposed amendments to the ADU provisions are new and different and there could be unintended consequences, Ms. Satter said staff will provide a report to the Planning Commission no later than 18 months from the time the provisions are adopted. This will allow the Commission an opportunity to evaluate how well the provisions work and recommend amendments as needed. Chair Wofford opened the public hearing. There was no one in the audience who indicated a desire to participate, and Chair Wofford closed the public hearing. He invited the Commissioners to share their thoughts on the proposed amendments as follows: Appeals BMC The Commissioners did not have any comments or questions regarding these amendments. Fences BMC The Commissioners did not have any comments or questions regarding these amendments. Occupied Recreational Vehicles (RVs) BMC Vice Chair Tift asked if the City would permit an RV to be occupied for more than 30 days. Ms. Lambert answered that occupancy of more than 30 days would only be allowed in situations where a property owner is constructing a home. If a building permit has been issued for the property, the owner can occupy an RV for up to 1 year while the home is being built. As currently written, there would be no other circumstance that would allow someone to occupy an RV for more than 30 days. Commissioner Goodnow asked if the provision would pertain to the property or the RV. For example, would each different RV on a property be allowed a 30-day occupancy? He cautioned against allowing property owners to operate a type of Airbnb for RV s in their driveways. Ms. Lambert answered that the provision is intended to pertain to the property, and not to individual RVs that might be located on the property throughout the year. Ms. Satter added that only one RV is allowed on each lot. Vice Chair Tift asked how often a homeowner could obtain an occupancy permit for an RV. Ms. Lambert answered that the current language would limit occupancy to a total of 30 days, and only one RV could obtain an RV permit. However, the 30-day occupancy could be spread throughout the 12 month period. Automobile Service and Repair BMC , BMC , and BMC The Commissioners did not have any comments or questions regarding these amendments. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 2017 ~ Page 5 of 8

7 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) BMC Commissioner Conley referred to the proposed amendments in BMC a and asked if an ADU would be allowed to locate on top of a garage that does not comply with the current setback requirements of the zone. Are their provisions for grandfathering in these structures? Ms. Satter explained that the non-conforming provisions try to get things into conformance. If a property owner is proposing changes or repairs to a structure that equate to more than 75% of its value, the current code requires that the garage be built to meet all code requirements. Director Spencer clarified that the non-conforming provisions require that the ADU would not increase the non-conformance. For example, you could do an ADU on top of a garage that is nonconforming, but the ADU portion of the building would have to meet the setback requirements. That means it might need to be stepped in from the property line. Vice Chair Tift asked if community covenants that limit the number of homes on each property to one would take precedence over the ADU ordinance. Director Spencer answered affirmatively. She explained that the use would be permitted by City code, but the City does not enforce community covenants. Staff tries to notify applicants when their current covenants do not allow ADU s, if we are aware of the restriction. Commissioner Goodnow referred to RVs being used on residential properties versus tiny homes on trailers. He asked if someone could make the case that their RV is a tiny home on a trailer. Ms. Satter answered that tiny homes are considered RVs if they have wheels and therefore the RV provisions would apply. In order for a tiny home to be considered an ADU, it would have to be connected to a permanent foundation and the chassis would need to be removed. Commissioner Goodnow asked if there is way for someone to permanently occupy a tiny home on a trailer in Bremerton. Ms. Satter answered that it would be considered an RV, and the 30-day occupancy limit, if adopted, would apply. Commissioner Goodnow commented that tiny homes seem to be growing in popularity and need to be addressed. Ms. Satter noted that they would be allowed in mobile home parks, and manufactured parks can be located in low-density residential zones. Director Spencer said the proposed ADU amendments are intended to allow the City to proceed cautiously. Removing the owner-occupancy requirement for ADUs is a sensitive topic, and staff wants to ensure that the resulting ADU units are quality and do not compromise the fabric of the neighborhoods. Any housing in the neighborhoods should be permanent. Tiny homes rolled into backyards are not intended to be a true housing solution, at this point, especially with the removal of the owner-occupancy requirement. Commissioner Nerf clarified that, as proposed, the provision in BMC e, which pertains to splitting a house into two units (primary residence and ADU), would apply to properties constructed before January 1, Does that mean that the structure had to exist before that time, or that the division had to exist before that time. Ms. Satter said it means that the structure had to exist before that time frame, not the ADU split, and is not intended to apply to new construction. Chair Wofford asked if ADU s would be required to meet the City s current limitations on impervious surfaces. Ms. Satter answered affirmatively. She referred to BMC A, which requires that ADUs comply with the development standards of the underlying zone, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height. The lot coverage limitation for most residential zones is 60%. This requirement will be a limiting factor for a number of properties in the City, especially when 3 parking spaces are required for the ADU and primary residence. Chair Wofford noted that, as proposed, an ADU could connect to the septic system that is in place for the primary residence. He asked if it would be appropriate to require an ADU to be hooked to a sewer line if one runs by the property. Ms. Satter said that, as per the current provision, a property that is within 200 feet of a sewer line must hook up to the sewer line when adding a new unit or the septic system fails. That means that, even if a primary residence is served by an existing septic system, a new ADU would be required to hook up to sewer. Chair Wofford recalled that in her presentation, Ms. Satter referred to ADUs as granny flats, in-law apartments, etc. These terms infer that the main unit will be owner-occupied. He said he supports retaining the owner-occupancy requirement. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 2017 ~ Page 6 of 8

8 Commissioner Goodnow requested clarification about the requirement that ADU s must have paved driveways and parking spaces. Ms. Satter said the definition of a paved surface is a surface that is constructed of bounded materials. That means it cannot be gravel or rocks. A property owner has several options, including pervious pavement, and the 3 required parking spaces must each be at least 8 x 18. VICE CHAIR TIFT MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE BREMERTON MUNICIPAL CODE (BMC) AS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT 1, BASED UPON THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT II. COMMISSIONER GOODNOW SECONDED THE MOTION. Chair Wofford suggested that the motion be amended to exclude the proposed amendment to BMC , which would eliminate the owner-occupancy requirement for ADUs. Commissioner Goodnow clarified that the current requirement is that the primary residence or ADU must be owner-occupied for at least 6 months each calendar year. Ms. Satter said it is not uncommon for property owners to mislead the City about occupancy, and the requirement is very difficult to enforce. Even though a Notice on Title is required, the current standard practice is for both units to be rented. None of the other Commissioners indicated support for an amendment to the motion, but Director Spencer noted that the City Council would be advised of Chair Wofford s concerns about owner occupancy via a minority report. She agreed that this is a concern, and that is why staff is recommending an evaluation check 18 months after code adoption. Chair Wofford suggested that it might be difficult to reinstate the owner-occupancy requirement at a later date. Vice Chair Tift expressed his belief that the proposed amendments related to ADUs could have unintended consequences, and it will be important for staff to report back to the Commission after a period of time. Director Spencer expressed her belief that the risk/reward associated with the proposed amendments will be worth it. People are doing this already, and the changes may encourage them to obtain the required permits and get people into quality housing units. However, staff is absolutely committed to providing a report. THE MOTION, AS STATED, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Wofford did not have any items to report. Director Report Director Spencer reviewed permit statistics, which are a good indicator of the value of new construction. In April, the City issued permits that were valued at $3.8 million, more than the previous two year combined (2015 was $1.9 million and 2016 was $744,000). February was a similar story. This is an indication that permit activity is heating up and will likely get hotter based on inquiries staff is receiving. Director Spencer said staff has been following online Region of Boom stories on KUOW, which talk about the growth trends in Puget Sound outside of Seattle. She received an from KUOW, that Bremerton will be the next area highlighted, and she and Ms. Satter were interviewed last week for their radio program, along with other members of the community. The story will be published in late June or early July. She said Bremerton is a great community that is different than anywhere else. She worries about gentrification and what the influx of money from King County will mean for the community. It is important for the City to improve its codes so it gets the right kind of housing stock for all of its residents. She voiced appreciation to the Commissioners for their willingness to entertain amendments to the ADU provisions, which step outside their box of comfort. She felt the changes would be good for the City s future. Old Business There was no old business. Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 2017 ~ Page 7 of 8

9 New Business Commissioner Nerf reported that he recently attended a seminar on Homelessness that was sponsored by the League of Women Voters. At the event, references were made to wooden tents, which are sometimes referred to as tiny houses. He suggested it would be good for the City to clearly understand what the terms mean and have some provisions in place for these types of housing units. Director Spencer said she has been struggling with this issue a lot because there is not clarity. She is scheduled to meet with Kitsap County s DCD Director to learn more about what the terms mean and what infrastructure needs to be in place to support the units. Commissioner Goodnow said he recently read that a number of tiny homes were constructed for the homeless on the waterfront in Port Orchard. Director Spencer said she is trying to understand more about how the county is permitting the tiny houses, which appear to be constructed similarly to storage sheds. While she understands that they offer an inexpensive solution, it does not seem right to ask someone to live in that kind of condition. Commissioner Goodnow acknowledged that it is a step up from a tent or tarp behind a building. Commissioner Jones said her daughter worked for the Low-Income Housing Institute in Seattle, which has an entire program for tiny houses. She suggested staff could find some valuable information from the institute s website. The homes in Seattle look more like houses than sheds, but they were small. Director Spencer said the tiny homes in Seattle all have their own facilities inside, which seems to be the right solution. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:54 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: Andrea L Spencer, AICP Executive Secretary Nick Wofford, Chair Planning Commission Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 2017 ~ Page 8 of 8

10 Commission Meeting Date: June 20, 2017 AGENDA TITLE: DEPARTMENT: CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM Agenda Item: V.B.1 Workshop for 2017 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Docket: Overview Community Development PRESENTED BY: Allison Satter, (360) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City adopted a new Comprehensive Plan in June Comprehensive Plan amendments are processed on an annual cycle. Five amendments are included for the Planning Commission s consideration in Amendments to the City s Comprehensive Plan are regulated by Bremerton Municipal Code This workshop s intent is to summarize the Comprehensive Plan proposed amendments for the 2017 annual Comprehensive Plan docket, process and anticipated schedule. ORDERS OF THE DAY: Provide direction to Staff on proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and provide feedback on anticipated schedule and any questions regarding the process. DECISION CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS The City of Bremerton s Comprehensive Plan establishes a blueprint for our future a document that will guide the City in its decision making for the next 20 years. The Comprehensive Plan provides a set of policies that direct future growth and development. Additionally, the Plan identifies potential strategies that will help effectively guide City leaders in making substantive and thoughtful decisions for the community. To update this document, per State laws and the City s code (BMC 20.10), the Comprehensive Plan may only be updated once a year (with a few exceptions such as a Subarea Plan adoption or emergency amendments to prevent or avoid imminent danger to the public). The City has a window to accept applications for the Comprehensive Plan between the first business day of January to the first business day in April. If an applicant missed the submittal date or submitted an incomplete application, the next opportunity to apply will be in January-April As Planning Commission is considering the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, the Commission will have to verify that the following has been considered (BMC ): 1. In considering the annual amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission shall consider all proposed amendments concurrently to assess their cumulative effect onto the City and the environment. 2. The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan if: 1

11 (a) There exists an obvious technical error in the pertinent Comprehensive Plan provisions; or (b) All the following criteria have been met: (1) The amendment is consistent with the Washington State s Growth Management Act; (2) The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or other goals or policies of the City; (3) If the amendment was reviewed but not adopted as a part of a previous proposal, circumstances related to the proposed amendment have significantly changed, or the needs of the City have changed, which support an amendment; (4) The amendment is compatible with existing or planned land uses and the surrounding development pattern; and (5) The amendment will not adversely affect the City s ability to provide urban services at the planned level of service and bears a reasonable relationship to benefitting the public health, safety and welfare. Planning Commission shall consider the Comprehensive Plan proposed amendments through workshops and a Public Hearing. Planning Commission will provide a recommendation to City Council regarding this amendments. Staff is anticipating the schedule for the proposed amendments to be the following: Workshops: o June 20, 2017, an overview of the proposed amendments. o July 18, 2017, further analysis on the proposed amendments. o If needed, additional workshops could be performed in August or September. Environmental Review: July through September Staff will conduct environmental review and submit the draft amendments to local and state agencies, and the tribes for agency review. Public Hearing for Planning Commission: October 17, City Council Decision (subject to change): November 15, 2017 Public Hearing. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: OVERVIEW For 2017 annual Comprehensive Plan docket cycle, there is five proposed amendments to revise the Comprehensive Plan; four proposed amendments from City Staff and one request from the public. As for the four City proposed amendments, the following is a summary of each proposed amendment and Staff s preliminary analysis: 1. Address Puget Sound Regional Council s (PRSC) Comprehensive Plan Recommendations from our certification process: Vision 2040 calls for economic development efforts within the region to include programs and provisions for distressed areas and areas with disadvantage populations. The City should work to develop and add to the plan supportive policies, programs, and strategies that address Vision 2040 s policies. The policies from PSRC s Vision 2040 regarding this amendment are the following: 2

12 MPP-Ec-11: Address unique obstacles and special needs as well as recognize the special assets of disadvantaged populations in improving the region s shared economic future. MPP-Ec-12: Foster appropriate and targeted economic growth in distressed areas to create economic opportunity for residents of these areas. MPP-Ec-13: Support the contributions of the region s culturally and ethnically diverse communities in helping the region continue to expand its international economy. We will be utilizing the City s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Kitsap Public Health District to help address those specific Vision 2040 policies. 2. Further define the connection between the Downtown Regional Center and Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton (NBK-Bremerton)/Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PSNS-IMF) within the Downtown Regional Center (DRC) analysis of the Land Use Element. Currently the Land Use Element within the Comprehensive Plan addresses NBK- Bremerton and the adjacency of the City s DRC. The following is an excerpt from that Element of the current language and map in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan: The shared border with the nearly 400 acre Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton provides an employment boon to the DRC and the remainder of Kitsap. Each day thousands pass between the common border shared by Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton and the Downtown Regional Center. The DRC/Naval Base Kitsap relationship provides a model of intense compact development unmatched in a West Sound region typified by continued sprawl. The symbiotic nature of the DRC and Naval Base ensures the ongoing success of each respective entity, while providing an opportunity to showcase a form of urbanism to the region. Staff would like to see additional information within this section such as: (1) make reference to PSNS-IMF as part of NBK-Bremerton and their adjacency to the City and (2) address that though the City considers NBK-Bremerton and the PSNS-IMF as part 3

13 of the DRC, the City has no jurisdiction on land use planning or requiring permits on the federal land. 3. Correct mapping error for tax parcel number A portion of this lot (about 0.5 acres) was not included into the City of Bremerton Land Use Maps though it is within City jurisdiction (highlighted below in the red box). The subject area is located near Werner Road. Ueland Tree Farm LLC/Hunters Hill is the property owner and coordination with them is already occurring. LDR City County LDR City County Werner Rd 4. Gorst Subarea Plan minor updates. Proposed amendments include updating the Gorst Subarea Plan to be consistent with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit update and preparing the document for potential annexation of this 4

14 Penn Plaza Urban Growth Area (UGA). The Gorst Subarea Plan can be located at the following City website: The City did receive one public request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Land Use Maps: 5. Request to change the Land Use Designation for five lots from Low Density Residential (LDR) to General Commercial (GC) at the corner of 15 th Street and Thompson Drive (subject area highlighted below in the red box). GC HDR LDR This lot has been recently logged, with a request for multifamily housing. However, as it is currently Low Density Residential designation it only allows for one home per lot, thus the proposal could not be approved. The applicant is requesting General 5

15 Penn Plaza Commercial (GC) designation as this would allow for multiunit structure however, the City has to review the proposal for all the allowed uses that could possibly go on this site upon a new land use designation. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, the General Commercial designation is intended to serve high-intensity commercial uses. Those uses include general retail (a big box store to a small shop), a hospital, gym, hotel, school, and majority of residential uses (from single family to multi-family units). Thus Staff is very concerned with the large scale businesses that could be located at this site, and our preliminarily findings do not support this proposal. Staff is concerned as this property is located on the hill side, it will have a greater visual impact than the currently designated General Commercial (GC) area which is Penn Plaza. Penn Plaza is located in the valley/depression as can be seen on the topography map provided below (property proposed to have a new land use designation is highlighted in red). The subject property can be seen from a great distance away, including being able to see the Warren Avenue bridge. Staff is concerned with the greater impact this could have if fully developed as a large commercial property (which would be allowed by the change in land use designations). GC 15 th Street For map changes to the Comprehensive Plan, if accepted by City Council, it will an additional process for the rezone to amend the Zoning Code Land Use Maps. This will be anticipated to be completed in January through April 2018 to amend the Zoning Code. Upon that approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps, than the property owner could apply to develop their lot with the new land use designation. 6