HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/18/2011 MINUTESMinutes for
City of Bremerton Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
January 18, 2011
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Hoell at 5:31 p.m.
I1. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Hoell, Commissioner Streissguth,
and Commissioner Tift. Commissioner Kosusko had resigned prior to this meeting. Quorum
certified.
Also present: Andrea Spencer, Nicole Ward, and Pam Bykonen (DCD staff), Dave Sherrard
(Parametrix), and Barbara Nightingale (Washington State Department of Ecology).
III. E.1ections
Commissioner Streissguth nominated Commissioner Hoell for the position of Chairman.
Commissioner Tift seconded the nomination. The vote was unanimous in favor of
Commissioner Hoell as Chairman of the Bremerton Planning Commission for 2011.
Commissioner Hoell nominated Commissioner Cockburn for the position of Vice - Chairman.
Commissioner Streissguth seconded the nomination. The vote was unanimous in favor of
Commissioner Cockburn as Vice - Chairman of the Bremerton Planning Commission for 2011.
IV. Approval of Agenda
Chairman Hoell introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Cockburn
and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to approve the agenda as presented. It was
agreed by general consensus to approve the agenda as presented.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on November 16, 2010 were presented for approval by
Chairman Hoell. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by
Commissioner Tift to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2010 as
presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Abstain; Commissioner Streissguth:
Yes; Commissioner Tift: Yes; Chairman Hoell: Yes. The motion carried.
VI. Public Meeting
A. Call To The Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda).
Chairman Hoell asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, she
closed this portion of the meeting.
Plannijig Commission Meeting January 18, 2011 Page] of 3
1. Workshop — Shoreline Master Program Update: Nicole Ward, City Planner,
introduced Barbara Nightingale from the Washington State Department of Ecology
(DOE). Ms. Nightingale gave a PowerPoint presentation on the DOE's requirements for
a successful Shoreline Master Program update. The guidelines for a Shoreline Master
Program are in the 2003 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173.26. These
guidelines are applicable to all Washington state jurisdictions. Bremerton is within the
guidelines set for due dates of each step in the update process. As Bremerton completes
each step, documentation is sent to the DOE for review and comment; Bremerton then
incorporates those comments into a revised document.
The first step of a SMP update is the shoreline inventory and characterization; future
regulations and designations are based on what is in the inventory and characterization.
The goal of the Shoreline Master Program is "no net- loss" of shoreline use and function
based on what level of functionality the shorelines are at present time. Once the
inventory is complete, Bremerton can move forward to creating future planning, policies
and regulations, and a restoration plan by using the inventory as well as technical memos
created by Parametrix (SMP consultant). The final SMP document cannot be adopted
until it is approved by DOE. The Bremerton SMP regulates not only shorelines within
the city limits, but also in Bremerton's Urban Growth Areas (UGA) that will eventually
be annexed into the city.
Ms. Nightingale showed several samples of shoreline within Bremerton, highlighting
"difficult to classify" areas and offered examples of what methods other jurisdictions
have utilized. She also reviewed items such as shoreline restoration incentives and
alternatives, and new federal regulations for docks. It is anticipated that it will take at
least ten years of monitoring, planning, and documenting to achieve the goal of no net-
loss.
Larry Taylor asked where someone could get the federal standards for docks and piers.
Ms. Nightingale said they were available through the Army Corps of Engineers and she
will provide the information to Nicole Floyd to post on the Bremerton shoreline website.
Commissioner Tift asked for examples of incentives to remove bulkheads. Ms.
Nightingale gave an example of reducing a buffer requirement to expand a home in
exchange for removing a bulkhead. She added that incentives are site specific.
A member of the audience asked of neighbors could "trade" incentives. For example,
one neighbor removes a bulkhead so the other could reduce a buffer. Ms. Nightingale
said that if that was something that would work for those neighbors they could use it.
Commissioner Tift asked if there were ever a monetary incentive to remove a bulkhead.
Ms. Nightingale said there was no money available from the state, but there are other
agencies like a land trust that might have that type of resource, especially if the bulkhead
removal benefits the habitat for native species. It is also possible for local jurisdictions to
create a conservation fund that landowners who don't have the ability to mitigate their
shorelines can pay into for use on sites that can be restored.
Sunny Wheeler asked about the requirement of a 100 -foot buffer when a lot depth may
be far less than 100 feet. Ms. Nightingale explained that during the SMP update process,
each jurisdiction has the ability to develop alternatives for property that would not meet
Planning Commission Meeting January 18, 2011 Page 2 of 3
4
MlLi
A , --