Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/2011 MINUTESMinutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 20, 2011 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hoell at 5:32 p.m. 11. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner .lose, Commissioner Lambert, Commissioner Mosirnan, Commissioner Streissguth, Commissioner Tift (arrived at 6:10), and Chairman Hoell. Quorum certified. Also present: SMP Consultant, David Sherrard, (Parametrix), Andrea Spencer, Nicole Floyd, and Pam Bykonen (DCD staff). III. Approval of Agenda Chairman Hoell introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Jose and seconded by Commissioner Mosiman 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 July 19, 2011 were presented for approval by Chairman Hoell. A motion was made by Commissioner .lose and seconded by Commissioner Cockburn to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of July 1.9, 2011 as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Jose: Yes; Commissioner Lambert: Abstain; Commissioner Mosiman: Abstain; Commissioner Streissguth: Abstain; 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 U )date — Re ulations 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 Authority and Purpose, Administration, and Non - conformities. A portion of the draft document included state exemptions for ease of reference. Nicole reminded the Commission and those attending the meeting that the proposed codes would only impact new developments or additions to existing homes, not existing homes undergoing general Planning; Commission Meeting September 20, 2011 Page I of 6 maintenance, and that the term "no net loss" meant no loss of habitat function from the date of code adoption. Nicole explained the code creation and review process noting that each section of the draft code undergoes scrutiny by a citizen advisory committee, a technical advisory committee, and the Planning Commission with their comments taken into consideration when amending the document for the final draft. Non - conformity is a structure or use that complied with the code when it was built or begun, but over time no longer complies because of changes in the code or changes in the surroundings such as widening a street. The non - conforming provision in the code is in place to reduce "undue hardship" on the property owner. The assumption with a non- conforming use or structure is it will eventually come to the end of its natural life and cease to exist. Up to 75% of a non - conforming structure can be replaced without losing its non - conforming status. Non - conforming structures destroyed by natural disaster can be rebuilt, providing a building permit application has been submitted within one year of the casualty. Illegal (non - approved) uses are not protected under the non - conforming code provisions. The non- conforming guidelines in the SMP mirror the zoning code guidelines with three exceptions: • Language has been added regarding "no net loss ", as required by the Department of Ecology (DOE); • The 75% replacement rule was revised for clarification; • Provisions were added for vegetation enhancement. 75% Rile: Currently, the replacement rule for non - conforming structures is 75% of the market or assessed value of the structure; this is difficult to determine fairly and can create situations where the entire structure is replaced with the cost of the replacement less than 75% of the assessed value. The revised language would use 75% of the appraised value or 75% of the structural components. Vegetation Enhancement: Nicole reviewed several scenarios of when vegetation enhancement would be required because of an addition to a non- conforming structure on the shoreline. It was proposed to use a percentage to determine how much of the buffer would require vegetation enhancement with provisions regarding maximum addition size and buffer encroachment. Nicole summarized the Non - conformity section of the SMP: • Protect property owners from undue hardship; • Eventual compliance with today's codes; • Encourage maintenance and repair of existing structures; • Allow expansions of existing structures; • Allow replacement of structures damaged or destroyed by fire; • Non - conformity does not preclude the ability to obtain a home loan. The next SMP workshop will be on November 15, 2011. Topics of that workshop will be Definitions, Public Access, and Restoration. Code revisions based on input from the public, Planning Commission, and Technical Advisory Committee will be discussed at the January 2012 meeting. An Open House /Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for February 2012. Chairman H.oell asked if there were any comments from citizens. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2011 Page 2 of Alan Beam (Manette), wanted to share how the proposed buffers would affect him as two - thirds of his property is streambed which is not developable due to the buffer requirements. His horne is oil the shoreline on the remaining one -third of his property. Ile asserts that a 30% shoreline buffer requirement would place any portion of his property that could be developed within the buffer. He noted that the maximum buffer [of 100 feet] did not show up in the draft document. He questioned what is being solved [through increased buffers and vegetation enhancement] and feels that Bremerton should be given credit for the past ten years of improved Stormwater runoff and quality of the Puget Sound. Mr. Beam cannot understand wh his lawn is considered equal to impervious surfaces when located oil the shoreline and why the burden [of maintaining no net loss] is on the property owners when there are other, greater causes of shoreline pollution. Mire House (Bertha Avenue), has been helping his daughter build a second story on to her - waterfront home. The process has taken three months to obtain a building permit. The house is located ten feet over the 50 -foot buffer line and as a result, Mr. House had to hire a biologist to write a habitat management plan for approximately $2,000.00 which was not in the original remodeling budget. If the home had been outside of the buffer area, the owners would have had to hire a geologist to determine if the soils were adequate to build an addition, per the current regulations, even though the house has stood since the 1930s with no structural problems. He urged the commissioners to consider the financial impact to property owners when making decisions on shoreline regulations. He questioned the need for buffer requirements so large that it essentially cancels any benefit of owning waterfront property. He understands that planning staff can only allow what the regulations allow and asks for a way to allow other uses on the shoreline that are not so burdensome to the property owner. He used the example of a small lot having a 10 -foot buffer requirement when a larger lot must use a percentage of the overall lot depth to determine the buffer sire; if a 10 -foot buffer is adequate, why must owners of larger lots have substantially larger buffers? He has not found the science to support this requirement. Richard Nerf (Madrona Point), asked staff to provide examples /explanations of what a property owner must do if their home is not parallel to the shoreline; how are the buffer requirements measured in that situation? Mr. Nerf also asked for clarification in the term "natural disaster ". For example, if his neighbor caused Mr. Nerf s house to burn down, Mr. Nerf would not call that "natural" but would still expect to be able to rebuild. Kimberly Ingham {Marine Drive), referring to Nicole's comment about non- conformities and the SNIP goal of not creating undue hardship, Ms. Ingham stated that the cost of having to hire a biologist to write a habitat management plan, removing the existing ivy in the buffer, and purchasing new plants for the buffer was an undue hardship. She felt that their project of building a second story did not impact the shoreline. She asked the commission to consider individual circumstances when deciding on the codes regulating the shoreline. She supported the idea of holding an open house so shoreline property owners have a chance to understand how their property could be impacted. Jackie Rosshorn (shoreline property owner outside Bremerton city limits), urged the commission to consider Senate Bill 5451 which declares that [shoreline homes] may be considered conforming. She feels that there are potential negative financial impacts from calling a house non - conforming and wants the commission to think about that when setting shoreline regulations. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Chairman Hoell asked if there were any further comments from citizens. Seeing none, she closed this portion of the meeting and asked for questions and comments from the Commission. Referring to the SMP section dealing with Permit Administration (20.16.400), Commissioner Mosiman asked for clarification regarding the objectives and purposes of the SMP. He wondered if this section was the same as the section regarding Authority and Purpose (Attachment 111, page 1), which lists seven preferred shoreline uses. Nicole explained that the language in 20.16.400 is dictated by the State code and must be included in the document. Commissioner Mosiman asked if the list of shoreline use was ranked in order of preference. Nicole said they were. Commissioner Jose asked about rules that could impose an undue burden on shoreline property owners such as the Ms. Ingham and Mr. Beam. He wanted to know to what degree the rules are mandated by state law and how much discretion Bremerton has to be flexible with the rules. Nicole said that there was not much flexibility in the Authority and Purpose section of the code, but the Planning Commission can make recommendations for the rules regarding non - conformities as long as the guidelines are met. Commissioner Jose asked about the specific buffer problems brought forward during the public comment period. Nicole said that the proposed variable buffer regulation takes into account the lot size to create buffers that are smaller that what are required today. The maximum buffer would be 100 feet for large lots, with smaller lots having buffers based on a percentage of the lot depth. Because Mr. Beam's property has both a shoreline and a stream, Nicole said he could apply for a variance to the code to allow development of his property. A variance must be approved by the City and DOE. Commissioner Mosiman asked for more information regarding Mr. Nerf's question of what to do if a house is not sited parallel to the shoreline and part of the foundation juts into the buffer. He also asked if Shoreline Substantial Development Permits and Conditional Use Permits (20.16.440 (a) & (b)) were similar to a variance in providing property owners flexibility when developing their property. Nicole said homes that encroach upon the buffer can be expanded as long as they don't increase the encroachment. Regarding the differences in permits, Nicole explained that a Shoreline Substantial Development permit is very specific about what it can allow; a Conditional Use Permit is flexible as staff can impose rules or "conditions" on a use that is not permitted outright; and a variance allows the most flexibility when determining how a property can be developed. Proof of hardship, such as physical attributes of the lot that are beyond the property owner's control, must be shown before a variance can be considered. Commissioner Jose asked for more information regarding why the Ingham's had to plant native vegetation in their buffer when they were not increasing the footprint of their home. Nicole explained that, while the Ingham's were not increasing the footprint of the home, the home was 10 feet inside the shoreline setback so the addition was also 10 feet inside the setback. If the homeowner's had built the addition on the back side of the house, a habitat management plan and planting of native vegetation would not have been required. This requirement for an existing home along a shoreline is not included in the updated SMP and would instead use a percentage formula to determine the size of the buffer and amount of vegetation. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2011 Page 4 of 6 P p.. Commissioners Cockburn asked if the current code had provisions for noxious weeds [English Ivy]. Nicole said that currently there is no reference to noxious weeds in the SMP but it can be found in other chapters of the Bremerton Municipal Code that require removal of noxious plants and weeds. The updated SMP will include a reference to the removal of noxious plants and weeds. Chairman Hoell asked what constitutes an "undue hardship ". Andrea Spencer, Director of Community Development, said a better term might be "reasonable use of property "; the regulations attempt to ensure that property owners can have a reasonable use of their property. Commissioner Mosiman noted that section 20.16.440 (c) Iists several criteria for determining "unnecessary hardship ". He asked if that would be the section staff would refer to when making that determination. Nicole noted his comment. Commissioner Streissguth suggested adding a paragraph to section 20.16.420 that defines the process for exemptions. Regarding the "75% Rule ", Commissioner Jose asked how the quantity of materials used [in replacing or remodeling a structure] is determined. Nicole said that the City's Building Official would determine what percentage of a structure was being replaced. Nicole acknowledged that the wording of the rule was awkward and welcomed suggestions to improve that section. Commissioner Jose noted that the concern of Mr. Nerf s regarding the scenario of a neighbor destroying his home was addressed in section 20.16.560(e). Commissioner Lambert asked about reducing a non - conformity (20.16.560(b)(2)(iii)) and who makes the determination. Nicole said the Planning Department would make that determination; this language is in the current code. It was noted that numbering, grammatical and formatting issues within the document needed correcting. Workshop Questions: 1. Should the State exemptions be included in the Bremerton SMP for readers ' ease? o Yes, the exemptions should be included to alleviate the need to refer to a different set of codes ( Hoell, Lambert, Mosiman). 2. Do you think that the non - conforming regulations within the shoreline should be as similar as possible to the citywide non - conforming regulations? o The more similar the zoning codes and shoreline codes are, the easier it is to understand and apply; more consistent. The zoning code will be updated to reflect changes to non- conformities (Streissguth, .lose, Hoe]]). 3. Do you think the language relating to the 75% rule is clear? o No. The language is awkward and there are no provisions regarding if the rule is cumulative although maintenance is encouraged ( Hoell, Jose, Mosiman). 4. Should minor expansions of non - conforming structures (500 sf or less) he exempt from new vegetation requirements? Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2011 Page 5 of 6 • An expansion of 500 sf or less is a size that DOE regards as reasonable; package is reasonable and addresses flexibility; you can't make everyone happy (Hoell, Streissguth, Mosiman). • Minor expansions should be exempt from the vegetation requirement but not large expansions (Jose). VI. Business Meeting A. Cl airman's_Reyort: None. B. Director's Report: Andrea reported that the City Council had enacted six -month moratoriums on Medical Marijuana Collective Gardens and Methadone Clinics within the city limits to give staff time to resear the issues and develop a plan. Additional information regarding medical marijuana dispensaries and gardens in other jurisdictions can be found in articles provided to the commissioners. It is hoped that staff will be able bring forward a presentation on methadone clinics at the October meeting. The Planner H /Long Range Planner position has been fi lled by Doug McIntyre who is currently working in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) division of the department. C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: None. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for October 18, 2011. ly submi,�ted by: , AICP, Executive Secretary Approved by: /V, Lois HoeIl, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2011 Page 6 of 6