Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2006 MINUTESMinutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 17, 2006 I. 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 Friedberg -Nerf, Commissioner Hoell, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Kosusko, and Commissioner Streissguth. Quorum certified. Also present: Andrea Spencer, Nicole Ward, Geoff Wentlandt and Pam Wilson (DCD staff). ITT. 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 December 20, 2005 were presented for approval by Commissioner Cockburn. A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2005, as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Commissioner Hoell: Abstain; 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: I. Discussion of the Critical Areas Ordinance Update: Andrea Spencer, Planning Manager, began the staff presentation on the Critical Areas Ordinance Update. She explained how Washington State Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) had already produced a book outlining rules for Critical Areas and how staff used that book as a guide when writing the directive for the City of Bremerton. To illustrate the Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 2005 Page 1 of 6 areas where City staff diverged from CTED, a matrix was created and distributed to the Commissioners showing the sections that are unique to Bremerton's Critical Areas Ordinance. 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 current CAO and explained in more detail items such as the Hold Harmless section and the Extraordinary Hardship Test. Andrea continued with Wetlands she explained the sections that had been changed, what the source material was, and what motivated the changes. Nicole Ward, City Planner, moved on to the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARAT She explained how the citizen groups urged staff to discontinue the use of Kitsap County's Groundwater Management Plan, which had been replaced by the Critical Areas Ordinance in 1998. The citizens group felt that the Kitsap County Critical Areas Ordinance was a better resource for the CARA. Nicole then gave an overview of the types of aquifers and their allowed uses and potential threats. She noted the additional aquifer risks that the citizens group added to the existing list of potential threats to aquifers, located at the end of the chapter. Commissioner Streissguth recalled that the citizens group had been discussing the option of businesses using environmentally friendly practices to allow the business to operate in an aquifer recharge area that they may otherwise be prohibited from. There was discussion regarding ordinances that were performance based, but it was generally acknowledged that those types of ordinances are more difficult to enforce and required greater amounts of staff time. Nicole moved on to Frequently Flooded Areas. The only change made from the current code is the addition of "... 1 foot above the base flood elevation... ", per CTED's recommendation. The next item discussed was Geologically Hazardous Areas Geoff reviewed the changes made to the current code, specifically the classification systems, the development standards, and the requirements for geotechnical reports. Commissioner Streissguth asked how Kitsap County's model compared to CTED. Geoff stated that the criteria that staff was suggesting, and which is in the Kitsap model, has more detail than that used by CTED, but staff would like to make a closer comparison before making a definite statement to that effect. Nicole continued the overview with Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas She noted that streams, which had once been a part of the Wetlands section, was now listed under Fish & Wildlife to emphasize the importance of streams to both fish and terrestrial wildlife species. Nicole also reviewed the changes in classification, explaining how the new classifications were more descriptive of the streams and stream types. Minor changes were made to buffers and to requirements for impact analysis. Commissioner Kennedy asked how many properties would this affect and if there was a map or other visual aids to illustrate the stream locations. Staff responded that the map currently available is produced by the Department of Fish & Wildlife. When a permit is applied Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 2005 Page 2 of 6 for on a property that has a stream, it will need to be determined if the stream has or does not have fish, whether the stream appears on the Fish & Wildlife map or not. This concluded staff's overview of the changes to the Critical Areas Ordinance. Commissioner Cockburn opened public comment on this item. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the public meeting. Andrea reminded the Commissioners that a Public Hearing would need to be set up for February 7, 2006, for the Critical Areas Ordinance to stay on schedule with the City Council's agenda. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will be meeting on January 24, 2006. Members of the citizens group had been notified of the TAC meeting. It was agreed to have additional meetings: February 7, 2006 — workshop on the CAO; February 14, 2006 — Public Hearing for the CAO; the regular meeting on February 21, 2006, will be cancelled for lack of a quorum; and hold February 28, 2006 as a tentative meeting date in the event more time is needed to reach a decision. Another meeting may need to be added on March 7, 2006, to hold a Public Hearing on design guidelines for the Pleasant Avenue/Highland Avenue area. Returning to the Critical Areas Ordinance, Commissioner Kosusko asked about §20.14.120(a)(1) and whether it should include cutting trees. Geoff agreed that clearing trees and vegetation of any kind should be included. Commissioner Kosusko asked about the Notice to Title in §20.14.130(h), wanting to know if there was a way to ease the burden of the landowner to provide this documentation. Geoff showed the standard form used and explained that the Notice to Title and Hold Harmless was recommended by the City's legal department and would also place a permanent record of a Critical Area on the property. Kitsap County and other jurisdictions have been using this form for approximately five years. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked about the footnotes that appear in the definitions, §21.14.200. Andrea explained that the footnotes are discussion from the CTED model ordinance and were left in the draft copy to give the Commissioners additional information; the footnotes will not appear in the final document. Commissioner Kosusko asked if there were any major changes to the definitions in the CAO. Andrea replied that the current CAO did not have any definitions and the definitions in the updated CAO were taken directly from the CTED model ordinance, making sure that there are no conflicts between the definitions and the City's land use code. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked about the cross - reference in the definition for impervious surface. Staff explained that was a direction to refer to the Land Use code, §20.42. It was agreed to add the words in the Land Use code or similar language to clarify what was being referenced. When RCWs are referenced, no further explanation will be added. Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 2005 Page 3 of 6 In §20.14.310, Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked if there were maps or inventories showing the locations of wetlands within the city limits. Andrea explained that the maps that are available are from Kitsap County, but staff would provide them at the next meeting. In the same section, Commissioner Kosusko asked for additional language in sub- sections (c) and (d) to ensure that it is existing wetlands that are to be preserved. Commissioner Cockburn added that the level of wetland to be preserved needed to be clarified. Staff will work on the wording of that section. Commissioner Streissguth commented that, although the language in the description seemed one - dimensional, there is much more detail further into the chapter that explains the different levels of wetland and the corresponding replacement ratios. Commissioner Kosusko expressed concern for the restrictiveness of §20.14.330(f)(7)(ii)a, which limits passive recreation (paths, trails, etc.) to the outer 25% of the wetland buffer. Andrea reminded the Commissioners that changes could be made to the ordinance through their discussion and deliberations. Commissioner Streissguth thought input from the Technical Advisory Committee regarding wetlands and shorelines would be helpful. She stressed that, because the model document had come from CTED, there was science behind it supporting the requirements set forth and if a change is recommended then there needs to be the science to support that change. It was suggested to look at other jurisdictions and how they dealt with wetland issues. Commissioner Kosusko moved on to §20.14.330 {g }(1) and (2) and the use of the phrase "wetland or buffer ", commenting that it was confusing. It was explained that it depended upon the project's proximity to the wetland or buffer that would determine where the signs or temporary markers would be placed. In reference to §20.14.350, Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked if an ordinance pertaining to subdivisions would be coming. Andrea indicated there would be, but it would not address wetlands. Commissioner Kosusko suggested additional language in §20.14.350(b) to ensure that lots created within a wetland or its buffer would be buildable. Commissioner Kosusko asked if the document cited in §20.14.420(a)(1), the Washington State Source Water Assessment Program, was a dated item or an ongoing program. Staff believes it is ongoing but will confirm. The Commissioners requested information on the location of the City golf course to determine if it is within an Aquifer Recharge Area or a watershed. Staff will provide that information at the next meeting. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked if the proposed East Park development would be on or near the Manette Aquifer Recharge Area. Nicole said it would not; the Manette Aquifer Recharge Area is barely inside the City's northern boundary. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf expressed concern for potential residential contamination in Aquifer Recharge Areas. The Commissioners requested information on the number of residences Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 2005 Page 4 of 6 that are on septic instead of sewer. Staff replied that Public Works was working on that item. Commissioner Kosusko suggested adding the words "most current" to the reference in §20.14.520 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Flood Insurance Program. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked how the thinning of no more than 30% of tree crowns was determined. Staff explained that the number had been used in the Kitsap County document. Commissioner Streissguth added that certified arborists have determined that removing more than 30% of a tree would more likely result in the tree dying. It was suggested to reference where the standard comes from. In 20.14.630(f), Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf suggested the wording, "clearing and /or grading ". The Commissioners also suggested adding definitions for clearing and grading as well as thresholds for each. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked about §20.14.760(c); the direction was similar to the Notice of Title and therefore not needed. It was decided to strike this section. 2. Discussion of the amendments to the Shoreline Master Program: Geoff Wentlandt, City Planner, began the overview of changes to the Shoreline Master Program by stressing that there were no policy changes, just corrections and clarifications. There was discussion of how the SMP height limitation would affect development along Highland Avenue and Pleasant Avenue which has a proposed building height of 60 feet. Geoff explained that the SMP supersedes the zoning code. He reminded the Commissioners that even if the revised Shoreline Master Program is adopted by City Council, the Department of Ecology will have to complete its review where the revisions may be approved or rejected. Commissioner Streissguth suggested adding language to make calculating the tiering of buildings along a waterfront slope clearer. There was discussion of the purpose of view corridors; view corridors are to preserve the views for public spaces, not for private residences. Commissioner Cockburn asked if a deliberation was expected on this item. Andrea said staff was waiting to hear back from CTED on the proposed revisions and then, if there was room on the agenda, a decision could be made on the revisions. The entire Shoreline Master Program will need to be updated in 2011, so the current revisions may get deferred to that time. Commissioner Cockburn closed the Public Meeting. Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 2005 Page 5 of 6 VI. Business Meeting A. Chairman's Report: None. B. Director's Report: None C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: None. VIT. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. The next Special Meeting is scheduled for February 7, 2006, submitted by: Chris Hugo, Executive Approved by: Jo,4 Cockburn, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 2005 Page 6 of 6