Minutes for Planning Commission Meeting - City of Bremerton

More documents

Recommendations

Info

effect. He did know for sure that there is a criterion that, if a person did own an ADU,there was a certificate to that effect and it was recorded to guarantee it was, in fact, anADU.The next section covered Conditional Use Permits which are proposed to take the placeof Special Use Permits. Under the current regulations, Special Use Permits have a list offive criteria for making decisions on approval of land use activity. However, the criteriacan be vague and difficult to make informed decisions with. The proposed amendmentcontains similar criteria overall for review in a Conditional Use Permit, but there will alsobe criteria that are specific to individual uses. For example, the criteria for a Bed andBreakfast are not the same as those set forth for a Group Residential Facility because theyhave different impacts and different needs. Chris added that the intent of making theconditions specific enough was so that they can be managed administratively by staff inmost cases. Robert further explained that staff was looking to do AdministrativeConditional Permits versus the Hearing Examiner version which will continue to be usedif the application is too controversial and needs to be sent to a public hearing. Chris useda Group Residence Facility as an example of what might go before a Hearing Examinerand a bed and breakfast with a potential mixed use character as an example of what mightbe handled administratively by staff. Robert added that another benefit of being specificwith the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit is it makes neighborhood objectives veryclear such as containing higher traffic producing services like Group ResidentialFacilities Class 1 to collector (or higher) streets; this and other criteria for GroupResidential Facilities Class 1 come directly from the current code.Commissioner Kosusko asked about the employment requirements for Bed & Breakfastfacilities [§22.20.060, Conditional Uses, 1(b)] and the reference of having more than oneemployee that is not a full-time resident in the Bed & Breakfast. Commissioner Kosuskofelt the wording should be changed to read “… the equivalent of one full-timeemployee…” as there are often two or more part-time employees working at anestablishment. Being familiar with the business side of B&Bs, Commissioner Kosuskoalso felt the four bedroom restriction [§22.20.060, Conditional Uses, 1(c)] was notworkable and suggested the limit be raised to six bedrooms. Robert noted the requestedchanges. Commissioner Kosusko then inquired about the facility not being allowed toserve meals to non-residents guests or to hold commercial receptions, parties, etc. Robertexplained that there was concern of increased traffic if those uses were allowed.Commissioner Kennedy asked for clarification on the number of parking spacesrequired for the B&B. Robert explained that it would be two off-street parking spaces forthe permanent resident which is a requirement for a residential zone, plus an additionalspace for each room rented. Commissioner Kosusko thought that might be too manyspaces and offered a suggestion of one-half off-street parking space for each room rentedusing the fact that there are many regular residents who currently park on the street as thebasis for his reasoning. Robert replied that staff cannot regulate through zoning whatoccurs on a public street as that is Public Works & Utilities’ area, but the parkingstandards can be reduced. After some discussion, it was decided it would carry the sameprovision as in the Group Residential Facility Class 1 where “The Director may reducethe number of required off-street parking spaces provided the applicant can demonstratethat parking will not spill over into the neighborhood.”Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 4 of 15
Robert briefly commented on the section governing Manufactured Home Parks[§22.20.060 (7)]. He stated that all of the information in that section was new to thecode, adding that with this addition it will be easier to regulate new or expandingmanufactured home parks because of the design standards and specifications listed.Commissioner Kosusko questioned the appropriateness of having aNursing/Convalescent Home in the R-10 zone because the typical setting of a seniorhousing complex has a high number of units with a density more likely to be found in acenter; a regular apartment building would not be allowed in the R-10 zone so whywould a senior apartment building be allowed? Robert explained that a senior housingcomplex could only be established in the R-10 zone by obtaining a Conditional UsePermit whereas a center would not require one. Robert also believed that many of theestablished senior housing complexes were located in areas designated to be outside ofcenters so there is the issue of possibly creating nonconforming properties.Robert moved on to §22.20.060 (10), Schools, Parks and Associated Facilities. Thissection refers to public schools, private schools with enrollment of thirteen or morestudents, parks and playgrounds larger than ½ acre, and other associated facilities.Commissioner Nelson asked for a clarification of Maintenance and Service Yards.Robert explained that that item relates to areas used primarily by the Parks Departmentfor vehicle and landscaping material storage; he believed that under the current code thistype of use is allowed in residential areas with a Special Use Permit while most of theexisting facilities listed in this section are in the Parks & Schools zone. It is proposedthat properties currently zoned Parks and Schools be changed to the R-10 designation.Chris added that Maintenance and Service Yards are a sub-category to the Schools,Parks, and Associated Facilities. In response to a Council member’s concern, this sectionin the Conditional Use Permits better regulates the siting of parks, schools, and associatedfacilities and brings those uses into the fabric of the community but that staff should beprepared to draft two versions of this section in the event Council does not agree.Discussion was ended with the suggestion by Commissioner Nelson to add the word“associated” to the opening description of this item so it will read “The followingschools, parks and associated facilities . . .”.Commissioner Kosusko asked about the Golf Course subsection under Conditional UsePermits, specifically why a golf course would be allowed in a residential zone. Robertexplained that that is the way the current code reads and was included in the amendedversion. Chris made a suggestion of showing the parks, schools, and associated facilitiesas different colors showing their own zone classification on the zoning map but beinggoverned by the same standards that regulate the R-10 zone; unfortunately, that wouldcomplicate the issue rather than simplify it. Chris said that this will be presented twodifferent ways, but did not elaborate on them.There was some discussion regarding modifying the maximum height of fences and wallson school property to enhance the safety and security of the students and what the frontyard setbacks should be. To meet the fence permit requirements, the setbacks should bethirty feet for the six foot high chain-link fence. Robert used a Special Use Permitissued for a daycare as an example to have a fence taller than what was normally allowedfor the safety of children.Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 2004 Page 5 of 15
Page 1 and 2: Minutes forPlanning Commission Meet
Page 6 and 7: The next item covered was Developme
Page 8 and 9: Before continuing the briefing with
Page 10 and 11: allowed. With the inclusion of thos
Page 12 and 13: Commissioner Kennedy asked about ga
Page 14 and 15: The section regarding parking is al

Minutes for Planning Commission Meeting - City of Bremerton

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?