Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/2006 MINUTESMinutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 7, 2006 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Cockburn at 5:35 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf, Commissioner Hoell, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Kosusko, and Commissioner Streissguth. Quorum certified. Also present: Andrea Spencer, Nicole Ward, Geoff Wentlandt and Pam Ransier (DCD staff). III. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Cockburn introduced the agenda. It was agreed by general consensus to approve the agenda as presented. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on January 17, 2006 were presented for approval by Commissioner Cockburn. A motion was made by Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf and seconded by Commissioner Hoell to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2006, as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Friedberg - Nerf: Yes; Commissioner Hoell: Yes; Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes. The motion carried. V. Public Meeting A. Call To The Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda). Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. B. Public Hearing: 1. Discussion of the Critical Areas Ordinance Update: Andrea Spencer, Planning Manager, began the staff presentation on the Critical Areas Ordinance Update. She briefly reviewed changes made to the draft Critical Areas Ordinance based on Commission input from the previous meeting. She noted that all changes made to the draft were highlighted in yellow. Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2005 Page 1 of 6 Geoff Wentlandt, City Planner, started with the General Provisions and Definition sections of the Critical Areas Ordinance He gave an overview of the changes made from the first draft of the CAO and explained in more detail the definitions added due to input from the Technical Advisory Committee. Andrea continued with Wetlands she explained that the previous draft contained information that was out of date and had updated the section with new methodology and classifications. She let the Commissioners know that staff was still researching pathways within wetland buffer areas. Also, the technical reviewers asked for proof of need when averaging a wetland buffer. Changes made to the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) were presented by Nicole Ward, City Planner. Changes made to this section dealt with performance based and developmental standards. Other additions to the section were allowed uses, prohibited uses, and activities or chemicals that could be harmful to the groundwater. She used dry cleaning as an example of how a use could be categorized. Nicole also explained the implantation of Hydrogeologic Assessment in category I and category II Aquifer Recharge Areas. No changes were made to Frequently Flooded Areas The next item discussed was Geologically Hazardous Areas. Geoff reviewed the changes made to the draft document for clarity in the classification systems and seismic areas. §20.14.620(c)(ii) was added to give staff more discretion when requesting a geologic report. More detail was added to the section pertaining to tree pruning and vegetation thinning. Commissioner Streissguth asked what sources had been used for the additional information. Geoff replied that staff had used the ISA, the Department of Forestry, and information from a professor at the University of Florida. Other sections changed were Stormwater Runoff, seismic information, and toe armoring at the base of banks. Nicole continued the overview with Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas She noted that definitions for water types were added to the section, as well as §20.14.720(f)(13) & (14) establishing rules and development standards for habitats and species of local importance. A section pertaining to Anadromous Fish was added based on input from the Technical Review Committee. Buffering for saltwater shorelines was also added; the Shoreline Master Program had been used previously, but changes were made to this section because it did not contain current Best Available Science. This concluded staff's overview of the changes made to the draft Critical Areas Ordinance. Commissioner Cockburn opened public comment on this item. Richard Nerf, 1600 Madrona Point Drive, Bremerton: "This is a minor detail, but under Tree Raising [ § 20.14.630(f)(1)], it says, `After raising, the height of the pruned portion shall not exceed one -third of the total tree height.' I can imagine trees that have Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2005 Page 2 of 6 most of their canopy at the top third or so, you could take off all of the limbs at the top according to that definition. So I think that needs some clarification as to what is really the intent there." Mr. Nerf suggested pruning a fraction of the leaf - bearing limbs instead of a percentage of the overall tree height. Geoff explained that the guidelines for tree pruning were from the USDA. Commissioner Streissguth suggested comparing the standards against the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) standards. Art Castle, Home Builders Association: [audio was not clear] Mr. Castle would like to see the definition of Low Impact Development included in the CAO update. Through HBA, there is a process going on to develop Low Impact Development Standards for cities in Kitsap County, the County, tribes, etc. He wanted to know when it would be an appropriate time to have LID /Stormwater features in the buffer of wetlands and streams. Commissioner Kosusko asked for clarification of where the Low Impact Development would be and if the Low Impact Development would replace the natural filtration process. Mr. Castle explained it would be in the buffer, not in the wetland or stream, and would not be replacing the natural setting. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf thought that LID had been discussed in the Technical Advisory Committee. She remembered there had been some concern regarding negative impact through soil disturbances when LID is implemented in buffer areas. Jeff Davis, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife: "I just sent this letter today so I don't expect that any of you have read it. One of the things I know that I didn't cover in this most recent comment letter was the Aquifer Recharge. And this ordinance here is not much different than ordinances that I review throughout our region. And it's very driven more by public health than anything else so I guess my short comment is that we would like to see tacked on to the LID some acknowledgement of the impacts of imperviousness to Aquifer Recharge wannabes. We always see in these ordinances references to water quality, but the bottom line is it doesn't matter if you have good quality if you don't have any water. And so in areas - we would encourage areas of redevelopment, for instance, that you would address low impact development techniques to try to get at more of your water quantity, ground water quantity issues. And then the other important thing that I don't think I adequately covered in my letter is the fact that the City — a very large portion of the City's obviously developed and you're really talking about redevelopment and town centers. The Comp Plan is great -- it's one of the best I've seen. That being said, I would caution you that there is an undeveloped portion of the City and I guess I'd recommend to look beyond tomorrow and understand that the watershed is the watershed and you guys will probably protect that as long as you can as a drinking water source for the City. But also there's the golf course area that's in between the Old Belfair Highway and Highway 3. That area is certainly managed by the City to allow future development so when you go through this ordinance it can lead you astray to think that the City's already fully developed, whereas those areas that I just referred to, they still have real important, critical habitat for fish and wildlife resources so I just want to throw that out there." Jeff promised to stay the remainder of the meeting to answer any questions. Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2005 Page 3 of 6 Returning to the CAO update, Commissioner Streissguth suggested removing the definition for avalanche hazards. In Wetlands §20.14.330(f)(4)(v), Commissioner Streissguth asked about the most appropriate standard to use for buffer width averaging; she thought Kitsap County was using a different percentage than Bremerton. Andrea reviewed the calculation for buffer averaging. Commissioner Streissguth asked about using a standard width for passive recreation/trails instead of leaving a percentage. Staff is working on that item, looking to other jurisdictions for examples. There is a concern for trails within areas of wildlife habitats. Commissioner Kennedy questioned how reasonable it is for this concern in an urban environment. Jeff Davis, Fish & Wildlife, explained that, even in an urban area, there are many wetland areas that are used by wildlife and need protection. He suggested having a trail system with seasonal restrictions. Commissioner Streissguth reminded the Commissioners that, this ordinance would apply to newly annexed areas.Creating an inventory of critical areas in the Urban Growth Area for future annexations would cause the Commission to miss the deadline, but these areas should still be kept in mind recognizing that there is more to the City than just the urban, developed areas. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked about the feasibility of incorporating language outlining the intent of future mapping of critical areas to set the framework for creating studies and bringing more definition to the existing ordinance. Andrea reminded the Commissioners that amendments can be made to the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate any changes the Commissioners feel are necessary. In §20.14.340(g)(2), Wetland Enhancement as Mitigation, Commissioner Streissguth asked about the science behind the double acreage requirement of an enhancement project. She wanted to know if it would be acceptable to add language that referred the standard back to the increased function. There was discussion of mitigation versus enhancement. It was suggested to use the no net -loss standard instead of the 2:1 standard. There was some discussion between the Commissioners and Jeff Davis of the appropriate place in the Critical Areas Ordinance to have a reference to the LID and surface imperviousness that may affect the water quantity, preferably in the chapter Aquifer Recharge Areas Commissioner Streissguth suggested adding LID to §20.14.430(a). Jeff Davis spoke on the cumulative effects of LID; he expressed concern for the use of the words "significantly reduce" in §20.14.430(b)(6) &(7). In Frequently looded Areas Commissioner Streissguth noted that, on the advice of the Technical Advisory Committee, LID were not recommended in Frequently Flooded Areas and should be included in the building code in a Subdivision ordinance. In Geologicallv Hazardous Areas §20.14.620, there was discussion of what the definition of mailable emergent water was and if that term would be appropriate in subsection (a)(2)(ii). Staff will check on this item. Commissioner Streissguth thought that a reference to low geologically hazardous areas had been in a previous draft of the CAO Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2005 Page 4 of 6 but there was no reference to it in the current draft. Geoff explained that the moderate classification included standards into the low range. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked if there had been any new information on tsunami wave action. Geoff replied that he had conducted some research on tsunamis and had concluded that a tsunami that originated in the Pacific Ocean would not affect Bremerton. Commissioner Streissguth added that the University of Washington was working on a model of wave action and how it would impact Kitsap County. Richard Nerf explained that an earthquake in the.Puget Sound could create a "seiche" (sloppy basin sloshing). Commissioner Streissguth asked about considering the angle of repose in Geologically Hazardous Areas. Geoff explained that staff chose to use simpler buffer criteria because the angle of repose is more difficult to enforce and calculate on a case by case basis. Commissioner Kosusko asked about performance based alternatives. Andrea explained that those measures were already in place. Jeff Davis, Fish & Wildlife, asked why there was no reference to a third party review of geotechnical reports. Geoff noted that in the updated draft, a third party review requirement was listed in §20.14.660(h)(1). There was some discussion how this requirement could be considered a questioning of professionalism or the completeness of an analysis. Staff explained that requiring a third party review is a standard practice. Commissioner Streissguth noted that the language in §20.14.720(b) regarding Saltwater Shorelines seemed incomplete. Staff agreed that section needed some work. There was discussion on the thirty -five foot buffer along a saltwater shoreline with the conclusion that this does not meet Best Available Science. Staff explained that the change carne about because of current court cases in surrounding areas, but agreed to check other jurisdictions such as Port Townsend for examples based on Jeff Davis's suggestion to do so. Jeff also cautioned the Commission to have these protective measures in place now to avoid costly shoreline restorations in the future. Commissioner Streissguth noted that there was no reference to existing roads in §20.14.730(1), Utilities. Nicole explained that that section had been taken directly from CTED. Commissioner Streissguth suggested changing the language to allow utilities in existing road corridors. In §20.14.730(n), Fencing and Signs, Commissioner Streissguth asked if the sign ordinance should be referenced. It was determined that the CAO supersedes the sign ordinance and therefore does not need to be referenced. Andrea added that informational signs are exempt from the sign ordinance. Commissioner Streissguth thanked staff for their hard work on this draft of the Critical Areas Ordinance. Commissioner Cockburn closed the Public Meeting. Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2005 Page 5 of 6 VI. Business Meeting A. Chairman's Report: Discussed Puget Sound Energy's lengthy response time for power outages over the previous weekend and how as an urban environment, a more urban response time is needed. B. Director's Report None C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: None. VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. The next Special Meeting is scheduled for February 14, 2006. Respectfully submitted by: OL c I Chris Hugo, Executive Vecretary Approved by: lsG Jo Cockburn, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting February 7, 2005 Page 6 of 6