HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/2011 MINUTESMinutes for
City of Bremerton Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 1.9, 201.1
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hoell at 5:35 p.m.
11. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Jose, Commissioner Tift, and
Chairman Hoell. Commissioners Lambert and Streissguth had been excused. Quorum certified.
Also present: SMP Consultant, David Sherrard, (Parametrix), Andrea Spencer, Nicole Floyd, and
Pam Bykonen (DCD staff).
111. Approval of Agenda
Chairman Hoell introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Jose and
seconded by Commissioner Cockburn 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 May 17, 2011 were presented for approval by
Chairman Hoell. A motion was made by Commissioner Tift and seconded by
Commissioner Jose to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2011 as presented.
Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Jose: Yes; Commissioner Tift:
Yes; Chairman Hoell: Yes. The motion carried.
V. 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.
B. Workshop — Shoreline Master Program Update — Regulations and
Designation Policies Using a Powerpoint presentation, Nicole Floyd, City Planner,
reviewed the most recent updates to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Topics
covered at this workshop were Mapping, the Citizen Advisory Group (CAG), and
General Standards, A mapping exercise had been planned but the map projection did not
clearly show the shoreline areas to be discussed so Nicole moved on to the next portion
of the workshop, the Citizen Advisory Group's work on code creation The shoreline
Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 2011 Page 1 of 8
codes were drafted by city staff and Parametrix, the consultant group hired to work on
Bremerton's shoreline code update. Using the Department of Ecology's (DOE)
requirements, Bremerton's shoreline inventory and characterization, the existing
shoreline code, and examples from other jurisdictions, staff and Parametrix created a
document to be reviewed by the Citizen Advisory Group for additional input. A
summary of the CAG's comments was included in the meeting packet.
Three chapters of the draft code were to be reviewed at this workshop. The first was
General Standards, specifically Bu fens and Setbacks, Vegetation Conservation, and
Public Access. Nicole used several pictures to illustrate what a buffer is, how differing
buffer measurement techniques could affect properties, and examples of preferred aquatic
vegetation management. Exemptions from the proposed buffer requirements will be
discussed in greater depth at a future workshop.
The draft document proposes that public access to the shoreline be required for all
shoreline development except single - family developments of less than five houses, or if
an unavoidable security or safety risk results from that access. Public access easements
would be required for all shoreline development except single- family homes unless the
structure is greater than twenty -five feet but not more than thirty -five feet. View
corridors would only be required in the downtown area or new multi- family or
commercial developments.
The second chapter reviewed was Use Regulations. For this workshop, Nicole focused
on Commercial, Industrial, and Residential Developments, and Marinas and Boating
Facilities. DOE has determined that any commercial or industrial development located
on the shoreline must be water dependent. If a development is not water dependent but
wants to be located within the 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction, it must prove it needs to be
located on the shoreline and either be physically separated from the shoreline, have
severely limited navigability, or provide a significant public benefit.
The proposed regulations for marinas call for upland boat storage unless no upland area is
available, provide public access, and have no net loss of habitat function.
DOE considers Single- Family Residential a priority use along the shoreline. The draft
regulations propose that Multi - Family Residential developments will be allowed if a
significant public benefit or be mixed with a water related use is provided. Subdivisions
with five or more lots must provide public access, either physical or visual, to the
shoreline.
The last chapter reviewed was Shoreline Modifications which included Docks, Piers, and
In -water Structures, and Shoreline Stabilization (bulkheads). The proposed regulations
would allow docks, piers, and in-water structures for water dependent uses and single -
family residential only after alternatives have been addressed. fight penetrating
materials must be used and no net loss achieved. Shared docks are required for
subdivisions with five or more lots; access to the shared dock must be provided. Over -
water structures would be prohibited in areas of Aquatic Conservancy, although mooring
buoys would be allowed.
Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 2011 Page 2 of 8
Proposed regulations for bulkheads would include a series of steps showing a need for a
bulkhead (hard armoring). Issues such as upland drainage, a need for additional
vegetation, use of woody debris and /or woody debris with rocks must be considered
before constructing hard armoring along a shoreline.
Chairman Hoell asked if there were any comments from citizens.
Karen Danis (Jacobsen Boulevard), expressed concern regarding the limitations placed
upon owners of property that will be designated Aquatic Conservancy although she is
pleased that mooring buoys will be acceptable and wondered if floats would be
acceptable as well in shallow waters where swimmers would be. Ms. Danis has tried to
increase public awareness through Neighborhood Block Watch groups and the Kitsap
Sun, although the Kitsap Sun was not as responsive as she would have liked. She felt
that if the reporter waited until the Public Hearing for final approval by City Council to
report on the update, it will have been too late. She suggested informing council
members with constituents on shorelines regarding the SMP update. She stressed the
point that Bremerton residents don't like surprises regarding property rights.
AIan Beam (Manette), said he hadn't seen any science presented regarding what the
natural vegetation is and the ecological functions the natural vegetation is going to
protect. He wondered why his lawn was not "good enough" vegetation. He stated that
bulkheads were needed in his neighborhood because of the Washington State Ferries and
that bulkheads are benign instruments that reflect energy. He takes a different view from
DOE because he thinks erosion and beach feeding from his property is a net loss of his
yard and worries about the ability to protect his yard. He feels that existing development
needs to be considered and it has been "bypassed entirely ". He questioned what was to
be done with the existing development that has already occurred along Bremerton's
shorelines. He wanted to know how [the SMP update] was going to affect him and other
citizens.
Karen Danis (Jacobsen Boulevard), shared Mr. Beam's concern regarding the science
used for making decisions [about the shoreline management update]. She believes that
[decision makers] need to be reasonably certain of the resulting impacts of those
decisions before making changes in shoreline uses and it should be science based. She
also feels that the proposed dock requirements are too strong and it is not possible to
prove that no net loss of ecological function would occur and it is an unachievable
standard. Ms. Danis understands the dock regulations are a DOE requirement and
suggested listing alternatives that would meet the requirements. She referred to other
jurisdictions such as Kirkland or Renton who have used the term "no significant impact"
rather than no net loss to make the goal more achievable. Ms. Danis appreciated the
work Nicole has done regarding variable buffers because it showed a more practical
approach.
Chairman Hoell asked if there were any further comments from citizens. Seeing none,
she closed this portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Tiff asked staff where the term "no net loss" came from. Nicole
explained that it was a term used by the Department of Ecology because other statements
Planning Cora nission Meeting July 19, 2011 Page 3 of 8
such as "no significant impact" implies the use of differing standards of measurement
each time a project is analyzed. DOE's requires that new shoreline development prove
no net loss of ecological functions. Commissioner Hoell asked how no net loss can be
proven. David Sherrard, Parametrix, explained that the "no net loss" provision came
from a long history of Growth Management hearing board decisions about critical areas
and those decisions became the standards by which jurisdictions were required to meet
when adopting critical area regulations. When new shoreline regulations were being
negotiated, the deciding committee included the standards that had been developed over
the previous decade. Regulations have to be applied to individual development and be
able to demonstrate that the regulations that Bremerton will be adopting will
cumulatively meet the standard of no net loss. Mr. Sherrard did not feel that using the
standard "no significant impact" was appropriate because "significant impact" is the
commonly used level at which an environmental impact statement is required and is a
much higher requirement level than "no net loss ". He felt the use of "no net loss"
encouraged the use of new information and techniques, such as grating and limiting the
size of docks, without the need to amend the code. Although the additional aspect of
performance standards increased the difficulty of achieving "no net loss ", Mr. Sherrard
felt it was "doable ".
Commissioner Jose asked for a clear description of the process a property owner would
have go through to demonstrate "no net loss" and examples of how it would be met. Mr.
Sherrard said it would be an administrative procedure the City would have to work out
but assumed it would be similar to a SEPA (State Environmental Protection Act) review
or an environmental checklist. He spoke at length about the necessity for protecting areas
of high ecological function such as the Gorst Estuary. Commissioner Jose asked for
further clarification on how a property owner can prove that there will be "no net loss ".
Nicole explained that the property owner will have to hire a biologist to review the
project and submit a report that will contain details of how the project will achieve "no
net loss "; this is similar to current requirements for shoreline development.
Nicole asked the Commission for comments on buffers and vegetation conservation,
specifically the increase in vegetation conservation requirements to justify a reduction in
buffers.
Commissioner Cockburn asked where a retaining wall /bulkhead would be located in a
designated buffer area and how was its location measured. Nicole said that buffers are
measured from the ordinary high water mark. if there is a bulkhead on the shoreline, the
bulkhead becomes the ordinary high water mark.
Commissioner Jose was in favor of the flexibility the variable buffer option provided in
the code. He felt that the more flexibility that can be offered to citizens, the better, as
long as the goals can be achieved as it relates to the prescriptive standard versus
performance standards.
Nicole asked for input regarding the proposed percentages used in the variable buffers.
Chairman Hoell commented that using percentages to determine buffers seemed logical.
She asked if the proposed code change would be applied retroactively to existing
development. Nicole said it would not; it would only apply to new development or
Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 2011 Page 4 of 8
substantial remodels, not general maintenance or minor additions. Commissioner Tift
asked if that rule applied to bulkheads as well. Nicole said it would, unless more than
one year had passed before a demolished bulkhead is replaced.
Commissioner Tift asked how much of Bremerton's shoreline was undeveloped. Nicole
said more than 20% but less than 50% of the shoreline did not have bulkheads or houses,
but she did not have exact numbers.
Commissioner Tift wondered about Ms. Danis' suggestion about notifying council
members who have shorelines within their district. Andrea Spencer, Director of
Community Development, explained that four council members (Maupin, Wofford,
Robinson, and Wheeler) sit on the Planning Committee where they are apprised of
upcoming items originating in Community Development, including the Shoreline Master
Program update. The committee members report back to the full council the information
they receive at the committee meetings. Staff is available to participate in district
meetings but have not yet received a request to do so. Chairman Hoell suggested
reporting back to the Planning Committee the public comments regarding lack of
communication to shoreline property owners.
Regarding the proposed percentage option for determining buffer size, Commissioner
Jose reiterated his approval of the flexibility, but was concerned about the maximum size
for buffers on large lots resulting in overly large buffers. Chairman Hoell also approved
of the percentage option's flexibility but was concerned about remaining fair and
equitable. Commissioner Jose urged staff to avoid being inflexible unless DOE's
requirements forces the City to do so. Nicole said that the DOE has not been clear
regarding vegetation requirements within a buffer but samples of other jurisdictions'
SMP updates consistently show that smaller buffers have denser vegetation.
Commissioner Tift expressed concern for property owners that have deep lots with a
requirement for a 100 -foot buffer, specifically that a buffer that deep would defeat the
purpose of owning waterfront property. Nicole and Mr. Sherrard both stated that a
maximum buffer size of 100 -foot was the standard in jurisdictions throughout the state.
Commissioner Tift asked if the location of a shoreline property owner's neighbors'
homes would be taken into consideration when determining the depth of a new buffer
area. For example, if the neighbors' homes were immediately adjacent to the shoreline,
would a new home be required to have a significantly larger buffer? Mr. Sherrard said
that it made sense to look at adjacent buffers and would look into having a provision in
the code for anomalies, perhaps with a reference to averaging the buffer size. Nicole
added that a similar provision is currently in the zoning code.
Nicole moved on to height limits, public access to shorelines in residential areas, and
view corridors. Commissioner Jose asked what was the percentage of shorelines
properties already had public access /easements. Nicole said most likely there were none,
but there may be easements depending on when the lots were platted. Mr. Sherrard
added that the State of Washington sold tidelands up until the 1950s. The proposal of
requiring public access was in response of homeowners desiring structure heights of more
than 25 -feet but less than 35 -feet, especially in areas where there are normally views of
the water.
Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 2011 Page 5 of 8
Reflecting on his years with the Planning Commission and the controversy view
corridor requirements created, Commissioner Cockburn felt the best solution would be
to focus on lot coverage and a 25 -foot building height limit for shoreline properties. He
questioned the perceived benefit of the public access requirement if the lot that is
required to provide public access is surrounded by lots that are not.
Chairman Hoe]] agreed with Commissioner Cockburn's assessment. She asked Nicole
if the cote issue was actually access to the shore or the loss of shoreline views; if it was
because of the loss of views then Chairman Hoell would support a height limit of 25 -feet.
Nicole explained that most people with a 25-foot height limit prefer a greater height for
architectural reasons such as roof pitch. Also, there are areas in the city where the
buildable land projecting into the water is so narrow that there is only room for one road
with a single row of houses on either side; no views would be blocked if there were
greater building heights. Nicole asked the Commission to considered greater building
heights under those conditions. Chairman Hoell added that the code would continue its
basis of flexibility if surrounding properties were considered when making a height
determination for shoreline development. Nicole noted that the current code makes
similar provisions for height limits along the shoreline but felt the language could be
clarified.
Commissioner Nose suggested using the 25 -foot height requirement/35 -foot with public
access as an example to DOE of protecting the social "no net loss" of public access to the
shoreline. He supports provisions that encourage public access easements. Mr.
Sherrard noted that DOE does not have a requirement for no net loss of public access or
views. Commissioner Tift commented that he was fine with how the draft document
was worded regarding a 35-foot height restriction combined with requiring public access.
Nicole asked for the commissioners' opinion of a view corridor requirement.
Commissioner Jose said that if view corridors were a continuing problem, he would
support removing that requirement.
The next item for discussion was new standards and prohibitions for docks. Nicole noted
that most of the language is mandated by the Department of Ecology but she wanted to
give the Commission an opportunity to discuss the proposed requirements.
Chairman Hoell asked for additional information on the requirement for shared docks in
new subdivisions of five or more lots. Nicole explained that the new proposal is meant to
reduce the number of private docks in higher density areas which will reduce water
shading and improve fish habitat. Mr. Sherrard added that the requirement has been a
part of the DOE rules since 1975 and is a requirement for any subdivision regardless of
the size of the subdivision with the assumption that any dock constructed will be shared
among the residents of the subdivision and built to the minimum requirement to reduce
over -water shading and ecological impact. A biological study would determine how
large a dock could be. Commissioner Jose asked how much a typical biological study
would cost. Nicole said it depends on the size and extent of the project but can range
from $500 to $3,000 and is currently required for shoreline development.
Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 2011 Page 6 of 8
The final item for discussion was bulkheads. Referring to Mr. Beam's comments at the
start of the meeting regarding wakes created by ferries, Commissioner Jose asked to
what degree wakes were accounted for in the SMP. Mr. Sherrard spoke about wave
action and how it can affect shoreline property. Waves, wakes, and land orientation
relative to the water are all conditions that are considered by a consultant /biologist when
determining if a bulkhead is needed and to what degree (soft armoring versus hard
armoring). Bulkheads are subject to public comments from local tribes, scientists,
Department of Natural Resources, etc. and must be approved by DOE.
Commissioner Cockburn asked if marinas in residential areas are subject to a
Conditional Use permit in the current code. Nicole said they are.
There were no further questions for staff regarding this portion of the SMP document.
Andrea summarized the Commission's comments:
Buffers
• The Commission liked the flexibility of using a percentage of the lot size to
determine the buffer size;
• Smaller buffers of higher quality were encouraged;
• Requested staff to further explore how to implement setback averaging.
Public Access:
• More research is needed regarding a 25 -feet height limit versus a 35 -foot height
limit because of roof pitch and higher quality architecture.
• Requested staff to further explore how to implement preservation of upland
views.
• Approved removing the view corridor requirement for single- family residential.
Docks:
• No comments.
Bulkheads:
• No comments.
Commissioner Jose expressed appreciation on behalf of the entire Commission for the
SMP Citizen Advisory Group's time and hard work on the draft document.
VI. Business Meeting
A. Chairman's Report: None.
B. Director's Report: Andrea also thanked Nicole and the members of the Citizens
Advisory Group for their hard work on this project.
Beginning July 24, 2011, the Manette Bridge will close to pedestrian traffic for two
weeks and vehicular traffic until mid - November, when the new Manette Bridge is
scheduled to open.
The cinema project that will be built on the parking garage located at 0' Street and Park
Avenue is scheduled for its second presentation before the Design Review Board on July
28, 2011. Construction is anticipated to begin in August.
Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 2011 Page 7 of 8
A grading permit has been issued for the new WinCo store that will be located in Bay
Vista (formerly Westpark) on Kitsap Way.
The SKIA Sub -Area Plan and draft EIS is in its comment period which had been
extended to July 21, 2011. A preferred alternative will be selected once the comment
period has closed.
The Planner II /Long Range Planner position is still open. Andrea suggested cancelling
the August meeting because of lack of staff to provide items for the agenda.
C. Old Business:
D. New Business: None.
VII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 7:11 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for September 20,
2011.
submi
L. q r, AICP, Executive Secretary
A�prdved by:
A
Lois Hoell, Chairman
Planning Co►ninission Meeting July 19, 2011 Page 8 of 8