The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/28/2006 MINUTESMinutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Special Meeting February 28, 2006 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Cockburn at 5:30 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Hoell, Commissioner Kennedy, and Commissioner Kosusko. Quorum certified. Also present: Andrea Spencer, Nicole Ward, Geoff Wentlandt and Pam Ransier (DCD staff); Roger Lubovich and Ken Bagwell, City legal staff; Kathleen Cahall and Luke Korpi (City Public Works staff). I1I. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Cockburn introduced the agenda. It was agreed by general consensus to approve the agenda as presented. IV. Public Meeting A. Public Hearin: 1. Continued Critical Areas Ordinance Update: Andrea Spencer, Planning Manager, explained the handouts that had been distributed to the Commissioners before the start of the meeting. Comments from Commissioner Streissguth and Commissioner Friedberg - Nerf were included in the handouts as well as changes to the Aquifer Recharge chapter of the Critical Areas Ordinance. Kathleen Cahall from Public Works was present to explain the changes made to that chapter. She gave an overview of the water source for the City of Bremerton and the methods used to preserve its water quality. She then reviewed the changes made to the chapter, referring to a matrix of changes that staff had distributed to the Commissioners. Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were any comments from citizens. Art Castle, Kitsap Horne Builders Association: "I'd like to thank the staff and the Planning Commission for including in this draft the use of Low Impact Development storm water techniques in the buffers of wetlands and streams. Thank you." Dick Bruskrud, 1102 Shore Drive: "First, I'd just like to just mention that the ordinance appears to me to be in line with what the other jurisdictions have been doing. PIanning Commission Meeting February 28, 2005 Page I of 4 However, I do have some concern over the increased buffers and setbacks and the impact it'll have on Growth Management and increased densities in the urban core. It appears that there is a substantial avenue for pursuing alternative setbacks through management plans and scientific reports, but I'm not certain that it goes, actually, far enough. My concern over what constitutes approval: Throughout the different sections it talks about scientific reports that are approved yet but we do not know what approval would consist of There also seems to be some areas of mapping of Critical Areas that seem to be in error. As you know, I'm highly involved with the East Park project and McDougal Creek appears to be in error from the surveys that we have currently. I also actually live in an area that is now considered a critical area. When I bought the house, I had a geotechnical engineer look at the site and assured me at the time that this was not a critical area. Although it is a very steep slope, it is a stable slope. I would like to see that the criteria be based on some sound scientific analysis versus, I'm not sure what they were actually based on. The other thing is that there are a few little technical errors: There's a reference to areas in Eastern Washington in the ordinance; I'm concerned about what concerns approval; there is a reference in one area about Eastern Washington that doesn't seem to pertain to Bremerton; and then there was one that it demonstrates that no feasible site design exists without buffer averaging in the wetland. There is always another feasible site design it's just a matter of what you're trying to do. That's it, thank you very much. And, really, staff, you've done a wonderful job. This is, like I said, quite similar to what other jurisdictions have imposed upon us." Jeff Hecker, Hecker Architects, Bremerton: "Thank you very much for holding this hearing. I've got a couple comments on the shoreline buffers within the City. It looks like our current setback from the ordinary high water mark would be a twenty -five foot setback with no current buffers, is that correct? But the proposed ordinance would have the same setback but then you'd have an additional fifteen feet as a buffer. The question I have is what's the purpose of the buffer and how does that relate to the more urbanized areas of the City of Bremerton? A similar question that Dick had, what constitutes approval? I guess, in this document it defines what a management plan would be for habitat? I'm an architect in the City of Bremerton and I've done a lot of shoreline related projects and hopefully this is a flexible ordinance where a project can be planned and not adversely affect the built environment by having this requirement on to the project. Thank you." Commissioner Cockburn asked for additional comments from the public on this item. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there was an approval process outlined in the document. Staff suggested amending the motion to include additional language to clarify the approval process. Commissioner Kosusko asked about the mapping errors mentioned by Dick Bruskrud and wanted to know where the maps came from. Andrea explained that the maps were advisory only and local site /survey information would take precedence. Map sources were listed in the General Provisions section of the CAO. Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 2005 Page 2 of 4 In reviewing the draft ordinance, Commissioner Kosusko expressed concern regarding the use of both "average" and "median" on page 10, §20.14.165, Bonds. After some discussion, it was decided to strike the words "or median" from that section. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there were stricter definitions of Best Management Practices (BMP) than what was listed on page 13 of the draft ordinance. Andrea replied that the list of definitions came from the model ordinance. Luke Korpi, Engineer for the City of Bremerton, further explained that it was a generic term and its use depends on the specific scientific discipline it is being applied to. Commissioner Kosusko moved on to §20.14.200, Definitions On page 24 under Qualified Professional, he was concerned about the use of the word "engineer" without specifying the type of engineer required. It was decided to include additional language to clarify what type of engineer. On page 48, §20.14.630(m) and page 57, §20.14.730(d)(2), Commissioner Kosusko noted that there were references to specific sections of the International Building Code. It was decided to strike the references to the IBC and replace it with "State Building Code" without specific sections listed. Commissioner Kennedy asked for additional information as to why the distance of buffers for saltwater areas were chosen if it had been stated that there was little science available. Geoff acknowledged that most of the science was based on freshwater shorelines, but explained that staff had concluded through their research of shoreline court cases with jurisdictions forced to rely on outdated Master Shoreline Programs that the buffers included in the draft Critical Areas Ordinance were necessary. A motion was made by Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the revised Critical Area Ordinance as drafted in Attachment B of the staff report with the following amendments: replace the Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas subsections 20.14.410 through 20.14.550 with the revised text presented during the meeting; amend the draft Planning Commission Findings and Determination as identified in Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf s 2/27/06 e-mail; amend the draft ordinance subsection 20.14.145 to add item "(f) Activities within the improved right -of -way. Construction of new utility facilities, improvements or upgrades to existing utility facilities that take place within existing improved right-of-way or existing impervious surfaces that do not increase the amount of impervious surface. "; direct staff to explore all sections of the CAO to ensure there is a decision making process for approval; direct staff to add qualifications to the definition of "Qualified Professional" to add additional information regarding the engineering license; direct staff to amend §20.14.165 to strike the words "or median" from the section; revise §20.14.630(m), to amend the references to the International Building Code with references to the State Building Code "; and replace references to the IBC and its specific sections with the State Building Code in §20.14.730(d)(2). . Called for a vote: Commissioner Hoeli: Yes; Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Yes; Commissioner Cockburn: Yes. The motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 2005 Page 3 of 4 V. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:26 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for March 21, 2006. Respectfully submitted by: OLA Chris Hugo, Executive Secr ary Approved by: Chairman Planning Commission Meeting February 28, 2005 Page 4 of