Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/2006 MINUTESMinutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 20, 2006 T. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cockburn at 5:30 p.m. H. Roll Call Those present were: Chairman Cockburn, Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf, Commissioner Kennedy, Commissioner Hoell, and Commissioner Mosiman. Quorum certified. Also present: Andrea Spencer, Geoff Wentlandt, Nicole Ward, 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 May 16, 2006 were presented for approval by Commissioner Cockburn. A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 16, 2006, as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Commissioner Hoell: Abstain; Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Abstain; Chairman Cockburn: 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. Minor Amendments to the Shoreline Master Program: Geoff Wentlandt, City Planner, began the staff presentation on the changes to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) with a summarization of the history of the amendments. The intent of the SMP amendments is to ensure the new Critical Areas buffers are consistent with the SMP, to Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2006 Page 1 of 4 address the 25% view corridor, and to correct errors and oversights. The changes were listed in a table format and had been distributed to the commissioners before the start of the meeting. Additional comments from Alison O'Sullivan, Suquamish Tribe, were included on another table with staff's response and recommendation for each comment. Geoff also presented to the commissioners an option to maintain a 15 -foot wide view corridor above 15 feet along Lower Shore Drive. There is currently a 25 -foot height limit along Lower Shore Drive per the SMP. There was concerned expressed regarding the removal of parking at Bachman Park and 9 th Avenue. Chairman Cockburn asked if there were any comments from citizens. Dick Bruskrud, 1102 Shore Drive: "First I'd just like to say that I think that the Shore Drive view corridor on upper Shore Drive is a great addition to the plan. It is a wonderful place to walk, but also, lower Shore Drive is a wonderful place to walk and living on that street I see a lot of people walking down it all the time and I am somewhat concerned about the view corridor and maintaining the existing character of Shore Drive. It states under the Urban Residential that these areas [are] to maintain existing character and be consistent with the character in terms of open space, bulk, scale, and intensity of use. And currently right now there are a lot of homes that encroach on both sideyards in that area and so they're using up a lot of the open space that we would have at street level. If we allow these buildings to go up again then that continues that bulk even though they'd have to set back to the current setbacks, it would still be, they're already encroaching and now you're going to let them take the rest of the bulk that they can have so that their bulk is actually over what the zoning code would allow. This overlay district really helps upper Shore Drive but does not do anything for the homes along the extension of Shore Drive. To the north past Bachman Park there are numerous homes on the upland side of Shore Drive and there are houses on Shore Drive, on the water side that, like I said to begin with, extend from property line to property line and so I think there should be some protection for these people to maintain their views and for the people that walk along that street. I also, last time we were here, I mentioned several different access points along Shore Drive. I noticed that two of them were added. There are two more that I know of that haven't gotten added into the map so Pm not really sure why. I understand that this is a very undaunting task in order to assess all of the access points; the records are probably hidden and, I mean, it would be really tough to find all of the street ends that do go into the water. So, I'm a little bit concerned about one statement in here where it talks about inventorying the public access points that I think a better job could be done on that. And then on the Vacation of Right of Wax policy where it actually states that `none of these identified street end right of ways shall be vacated'. I really think it should be all street end right of ways; we should not be giving away public land on the waterfront for any reason whatsoever. I mean, perhaps there's a trade that could take place with a property owner, but to lose public waterfront is certainly not a good idea in this time and age. You mentioned about the Bachman Park parking and I saw that in there so that's really good. And I think that was about all I had at this time." Chairman Cockburn asked if there were any more comments from citizens. Seeing none he closed the Public Hearing. Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2006 Page 2 of 4 In response to Mr. Bruskrud's comments, Geoff explained that the protection of the waterfront views is from the public right of ways not for private homeowners. He also explained that the purpose of listing the street ends on the waterfront is to use it as a tool for prioritizing access areas for improvements; not all of the street ends would be identified. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked if the inventory would be open for public comment and additions when a more rigorous update of the SMP occurs. Geoff said it would. Chairman Cockburn suggested using the word "all" instead of "identified" when referring to the street end inventory. Commissioner Kennedy reminded the commissioners of the financial impact of using "all" and noted that the street ends that citizens were most concerned with were listed in the inventory. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked Mr. BruskTud to elaborate on his comment regarding the giving away of public lands. Mr. Bruskrud explained that if the text reads "identified street ends" would not be vacated, then, theoretically, the City could vacate unidentified street ends and sell them to raise capital. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf suggested adding language regarding neighborhood groups working on a volunteer basis to clear and maintain street ends. Geoff agreed to include a reference to volunteer activity on street ends but cautioned that it would be used as a general guideline only. Chairman Cockburn asked about changes to be made in response to the Suquamish Tribe's comments. Geoff explained that of the seven comments made, staff will take action on the second and sixth comments. Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf asked if sections of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) would be added to an appendix of the SMP. Geoff explained that they would not be added as that section of the BMC was too broad and lengthy to include. A motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Hoell to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendments to the Shoreline Master Program as shown in Attachment I and to also include the "Shore Drive Option" for view corridors in the Shore Drive area as shown in Attachment IV, and to also incorporate suggestion by the Suquamish Tribe as per the comment table and work closely with the Suquamish Tribe at the time of the Comprehensive SMP update. An amending motion was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Hoell to remove all references to parking removal at 9 th Avenue and Bachman Park. Called for a vote: Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf: Yes; Commissioner Hoell: Yes; Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Chairman Cockburn: Yes. The motion carried. An amending motion was made by Chairman Cockburn to reword the rigbt -of -way vacation policy to read, "The Appendix establishes City policy that no street end right -of -way that would provide shoreline access be vacated ". There was discussion regarding this item. The amending motion was not seconded and therefore died. Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2006 Page 3 of 4 Called for a vote on the main motion: Commissioner Friedberg -Nerf. Yes; Commissioner Hoell: Yes; Commissioner Kennedy: Yes; Commissioner Mosiman: Yes; Chairman Cockburn: Yes. The motion carried. Chairman Cockburn closed the Public Meeting, VI. Business Meeting A. Chairman's Report: None. B. Director's Report: None. C. Old Business: None. D. New Business: Marathon Development and Rice Fergus Miller Architects gave a presentation on the West Park Redevelopment. The project will progress in phases with some phases overlapping and the final phase completed in 2010. The plan is for 759 dwelling units of different types, new roads, office space, retail, a police sub - station, and possibly a small library branch. Andrea Spencer gave a brief report on the potential Tracyton Annexation. The area of interest had been divided into four distinct groups and each group had been mailed letters specific to their neighborhood groups. Community Development will be holding neighborhood meetings for each group to inform the community and take questions. The meetings will be at Holy Trinity Church on Pine Road on Thursday, June 22 (6:00 PM and 7:30 PM), and Tuesday, June 27 (6:00 PM and 7:30 PM). VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for July 18, 2006. submitted by: Chris Hugo, Executive Approved by: J ` Cockburn, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 2006 Page 4 of 4