Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2010 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) August 17, 2010 5:30 P.M. th 345 – 6Street Meeting Chamber – First Floor I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL (quorum present) III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA IVAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 20, 2010 Regular meeting. o V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B. Public Workshop: 1. South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Sub-Area Plan overview of process and grant. 2. Gorst Watershed Planning Grant expectations and scoping process. 3. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) educational workshop on “Grandfathering/Non-conforming”. VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: Chairman Cockburn B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer. C.Old Business: D.New Business VII.ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is September 21, 2010 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 8/17/10 Minutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 20, 2010 I. Call to Order Chairman Hoell The meeting was called to order by at 5:31 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Jose, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Streissguth, Commissioner Tift, and Chairman Hoell. Commissioner Mosiman was excused. Quorum certified. Also present: JoAnn Vidinhar, Nicole Ward, and Pam Bykonen (DCD staff) and Dave Sherrard and Jan Cassin (SMP Consultants, Parametrix). III. Approval of Agenda Chairman Hoell introduced the agenda. Staff noted an error in the agenda and proposed A motion was made by deleting item Agenda Item IV, Election of a Vice-Chairman. Commissioner Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to approve the agenda as amended . It was agreed by general consensus to approve the agenda as amended. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on May 18, 2010 were presented for approval by Chairman Hoell. It was noted that a typographical error appeared on page two, paragraph A motion was made by Commissioner Jose and seven;amendable should read amenable. seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2010 as amended. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Abstain; Commissioner Jose: Yes; Commissioner Kosusko: Abstain; Commissioner Streissguth: Yes; Commissioner Tift: Yes; 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. 1. Public Workshop – Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update: Nicole Floyd, City Planner , began the public workshop with a PowerPoint presentation and an overview of the history of shoreline management practices. The SMP came into existence in 1972; the City of Bremerton adopted their SMP in 1978 which, with the exception of some minor amendments, has remained basically the same since adoption. In 2003, Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 2010 Page 1 of 4 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 8/17/10 Washington State revised the Shoreline Management Act to emphasize ecologically appropriate development and all jurisdictions with shorelines are required to update their adopted codes to reflect that revision using funds allocated by the State for this purpose. The State has final approval on Bremerton’s updated Shoreline Master Program which will cover all of Bremerton’s salt and fresh water shorelines, including those in Bremerton’s Urban Growth Areas. The update includes documenting existing conditions, predicting foreseeable development, and creating a plan that will allow development while balancing the ecological functions. Jan Cassin, Parametrix, continued the presentation by outlining the inventory and characterization portion of the SMP update. This first step of the update process is essential to provide the science foundation for the policies and regulations that are subsequently developed. An accurate inventory of shoreline locations and conditions helps each jurisdiction meet the “no net loss” of ecological functions, encourage water dependent uses, and public access requirements set forth by the Shoreline Management Act. Public participation and input can help the team collect additional data that may not otherwise be available. Dave Sherrard, Parametrix , explained the policies and regulations of the SMP. The guidelines for the update process can be found in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 173-26 and each jurisdiction must comply with the guidelines in a way that is focused on the local community. Through this process, Bremerton will adopt regulations that are designed to be implemented through permit decisions with an eye on what the cumulative impacts may be. If there are existing non-conforming uses, they will be “grandfathered” in, but the goal is to bring these non-conforming uses into compliance. Nicole wrapped up the presentation with a list of opportunities for public participation: th ¥ Beach walk on Saturday, August 7 from 9:00am – 11:00am at Evergreen Park; th ¥ Citizen Advisory Committee meeting August 10; ¥ Shoreline website which is updated regularly with meeting and SMP data information (www.bremertonshorelines.com); ¥ Become an “interested party” and receive e-mail updates and meeting dates; ¥ Talk to staff on the phone or in person. Nicole asked members of the public for questions or comments on the presentation that are broad in nature and not site specific because site specific information is not available yet. James Anderson, The 400, Washington Avenue: [Mr. Anderson’s comments/questions are summarized as he did not use a microphone and his comments were not completely audible on the recording]. Mr. Anderson asked questions regarding shoreline setbacks, removal of vegetation, and the process for approval to remove vegetation along a shoreline. His comments were directed specifically to the Washington Avenue shoreline between the Harborside Condominiums owned by Housing Kitsap (formerly KCCHA) and property owned by Mr. Mark Goldberg at approximately 600 Washington Avenue. Nicole explained that shoreline setbacks can vary depending on the zoning of the property. Commercial property has a shoreline setback of 25’ whereas property zoned Urban Conservancy can have a shoreline setback of up to 200’ to create a buffer. Currently there is very little enforcement regarding removal of vegetation and any rules Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 2010 Page 2 of 4 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 8/17/10 pertaining to vegetation removal comes from the Critical Areas Ordinance and not the Shoreline Master Program. The setbacks along the Washington Avenue shoreline are measured from the ordinary high water mark. Nicole encouraged Mr. Anderson to speak to her about the more site specific questions during regular office hours. Jordy Andrews, 1328 Hayward Avenue : “I have a question: I had some preliminary information that I received in April from the City and in that information the last revision of the SMP was in 2006. Is that correct?” Nicole said it was, but the revisions submitted to the Department of Ecology were not adopted because DOE wanted Bremerton to complete the process of a full Shoreline Master Program Update in 2009-2011 and the 2006 revisions were submitted too close to the start of the update process. Jordy Andrews : “Does the City have an approved Shoreline Master Plan?” Nicole replied that there was an approved SMP and it was last amended in 1992. Roger Coyle, Cascade Trail: “We own some waterfront on Jacobsen Boulevard and, in the preliminary draft, is there a proposed setback for new residential construction?” Nicole answered that the update had not reached that stage yet and an inventory of existing conditions would need to be completed before site specific setbacks could be determined. She reminded Mr. Coyle of the State’s requirement of “no net loss”. Roger Coyle: “Right now they’re 50 feet, is that correct?” Nicole said it was correct. ChairmanHoell asked for any other comments from the public. Seeing none, she closed the Public Comment portion of the workshop and asked the Commissioner for their comments or questions. Commissioner Cockburn asked if the northern Urban Growth Areas like Rocky Point will be included in the shoreline inventory. Nicole said all Urban Growth Areas associated to Bremerton would be included in the inventory and update. Commissioner Jose asked for details regarding the funding for the SMP update, specifically, were there any City funds attached to this project? Nicole explained that the Washington State Department of Ecology awarded Bremerton a $200,000 grant to complete the update in order to prevent this required update from being an unfunded mandate. The City is not required to have matching funds. Commissioner Streissguth thanked the citizens attending and asked for their continued participation throughout the SMP update process. Chairman Hoell closed the Public Workshop. Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 2010 Page 3 of 4 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 8/17/10 VI. Business Meeting None. A.Chairman’s Report: B.Director’s Report: JoAnn Vidinhar, Assistant Director of Community Development, reviewed the proposed agenda schedule for the remainder of the year. C.Old Business:Commissioner Streissguth asked about including rising sea levels in Dave Sherrard the SMP workshops. responded that rising sea levels will be included in the shoreline inventory and will be addressed at future workshops. Commissioner Tift requested a matrix outlining who the stakeholders are and how they “vote” on the final SMP document. D.New Business: None . VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:17 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for August 17, 2010. Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________________ Andrea Spencer, Executive Secretary Approved by: _______________________________________ Lois Hoell, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 2010 Page 4 of 4 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 2010 TO: Bremerton Staff, Planning Commission and Public FROM: David Sherrard, Parametrix SUBJECT: Bremerton Shoreline Master Program – Policy Options Provisions for existing development/Nonconforming uses/ This is one of several Technical Memoranda to be presented to the Planning Commission and public that address the framework of decisions needed to be made to update the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and implement the 2003 Shoreline Guidelines WAC 173-26. This memorandum addresses Non-Conforming Development and outlines the following 1.SMP Guidelines found in WAC 173-26 and other Department of Ecology guidance; 2.The existing Bremerton SMP provisions; 3.Options for consideration of the Planning Commission and public 4.The consultants recommendation 1. SMA Guidelines The SMP must include provisions to address situations where uses and properties become nonconforming (WAC 173-26-191(2)(a)(iii)(A). Provisions for nonconforming uses are contained in a separate WAC 173-27 that addresses the shoreline permit process and was not updated in 2003. The provisions for nonconforming uses apply only if the local jurisdiction has not adopted provisions. In the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Handbook Ecology has provided the following as a general recommendations to how local jurisdictions may approach this issue.[available at Nonconforming_development_g http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/handbook/ uidance.pdf]: Ecology does not expect, nor is it asking, local governments to eliminate all nonconforming development from shorelines. Some nonconforming uses and structure within shoreline jurisdiction have existed for many years. The basic general “sideboards” for nonconforming development regulations suggested by Ecology include: “Grandfathered” (nonconforming) existing legal uses and structures may continue. Bremerton SMP – Regulatory Approach 1 of 4 Code Overview October 23, 2008 Owners of grandfathered structures that wish to expand the structure may be able to do so if they do not increase the nonconformity. For example, a house partially within the buffer could be expanded outside the buffer. Regulations must be applied fairly to new development and existing development. Local governments cannot excuse existing neighborhoods from meeting new standards while enacting new standards for new development. Local governments have the right to terminate nonconforming development. (On occasion, an existing use may have a high potential for use conflicts, such as a fuel storage facility within a city’s wellhead protection zone. In these cases, a specific time may be set for the use to be amortized and removed.) As reflected in case law, local governments may adopt regulations to phase out nonconforming development over time. More commonly, phasing out is accomplished by adopting disincentives such as strict limits on change of use or expansion. For updated SMPs, the “no net loss” policy objective should guide review of proposed expansions or other changes to grandfathered uses and new development on substandard vacant lots. Consider whether nonconforming developments are “benign” or “detrimental” The cumulative impact of numerous minor or lesser impacting “benign” developments should be considered. SMPs need to cover the breadth of the nonconforming provisions that are in WAC 173-27-080, including: Definitions. Structures – maintenance and repair, expansion, moving the structure. Uses – expansion, change in use, Reconstruction after damage, including timelines for permitting and reconstruction. Ecology suggests that SMPs include criteria to avoid reconstruction in hazard areas. Abandonment. Undeveloped lots. 2. Existing Bremerton Code: The existing SMP does not have provisions for “non-conforming uses.” It contains the following provisions: Nonconforming development may be continued provided it conforms to requirements in Bremerton Zoning Ordinance Chapter IX: Nonconformities. That code section has been re-codified as Chapter 20.54 with the following headings 20.54.010 Intent 20.54.020 Establishment of a Legal Nonconformity and Applicability 20.54.030 Annexation 20.54.040 Definitions Bremerton SMP Update – Policy Options 2 of Nonconforming Uses August, 2010 4 20.54.050 Nonconforming Lots 20.54.060 Nonconforming Uses 20.54.070 Nonconforming Structures 20.54.080 Nonconforming Landscaping 20.54.090 Conditional Nonconforming Uses 20.54.100 Nonconforming Signs. 20.54.110 Unlawful Uses and Structures These provisions generally meet the “sideboards” established by Ecology, with the following exceptions: 20.54.060(b) allows a change to another non-conforming use by CUP. The criteria, however, do not consider some of the important provisions of the SMA including the preference for “water oriented” uses and “no net loss” The Ecology guidelines would likely require the “no net loss” policy objective to be added as a criteria 20.54.070(b) allows expansion of enlargement of a structure if it meets site development standards or if the expansion is not more than 20% The Ecology guidelines likely would require the “no net loss” policy objective to be added as a criteria a criteria that expansion would not increase the nonconformity. For example, a house partially within the buffer could be expanded outside the buffer only 20.54.070(c) requires a structure damaged beyond 75 percent of its replacement value to be reconstructed in accordance with the zoning requirements. The Ecology guidelines likely would support this provision as bringing uses into compliance. However, if more stringent buffers and setbacks were implemented on some shorelines, existing lots sizes may constrain rebuilding in compliance with those standards. 20.54.080 addresses landscaping and requires additional landscaping related to the extent of the expansion The Ecology guidelines likely would support this provision as it applies to buffers and vegetation conservation. It also may be desirable to set a threshold of expansion at which any new requirements for buffer vegetation would be implemented. For example, the b) allows expansion of enlargement of a structure if it meets site development standards or if the expansion is not more than 20% 3 Options: a) Keep the existing provisions in Chapter 20.54 for Non Conforming uses and apply to the shoreline, as is presently the case. The major advantage of this is that it treats all property in the city the same. The disadvantage is that it doesn’t address specific shoreline criteria such as no net loss. Bremerton SMP Update – Policy Options 3 of Nonconforming Uses August, 2010 4 b) Keep the existing provisions in Chapter 20.54 for Non Conforming uses but add additional provisions specific to the shoreline, such as consideration of no-net loss. This maintains the existing code structure, but adds specific provisions unique to shorelines. One disadvantage of options (a) and (b) is that future revisions to city-wide regulations – if they apply in the shoreline – require Department of Ecology review and approval. This provides an extra layer of review for revisions the city may make that are primarily oriented to non-shoreline issues. c) Adopt separate Nonconforming provisions in a separate code section applicable only to shorelines. This would address unique shoreline conditions, but may be more complicated to apply, especially for sites that span shoreline and non-shoreline jurisdiction. d) Monitor the policies and regulations that are developed as part of the SMP update and determine whether they involve additional issues not currently foreseen in the city’s non-conforming provisions. Issues that may arise include: Desirable vegetation buffer standards may present problems for compliance for some existing lots that are limited in area and depth; There may be areas of the shoreline where existing conditions present continuing negative impacts on important ecological processes. In those areas it may be desirable to provide more incentives to discontinuing those features that present problems. The existing nonconforming provisions don’t address issues like non-conforming shoreline protection structures or moorage structures. It may be desirable to have specific provisions that address these unique shoreline structures. 3 Recommendation: Given the early stage of the process of updating the SMP, it appears prudent to pursue alternative (d) above and revisit these issues when the specific provisions under consideration in the updated SMP are better known. Bremerton SMP Update – Policy Options 4 of Nonconforming Uses August, 2010 4