Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2010 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) November 16, 2010 5:30 P.M. th 345 – 6Street Meeting Chambers – First Floor I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL (quorum present) III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA IVAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 19, 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. Shoreline Master Program (SMP) educational workshop - “No Net Loss, Restoration, and Mitigation of Cumulative Impacts Analysis” (Parametrix & N. Floyd). VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: Chairman Hoell B. Director Report: JoAnn Vidinhar. C.Old Business: D.New Business VII.ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is December 21, 2010 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT FOR REVIEW ON 12/21/10 Minutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 19, 2010 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hoell at 5:30 p.m. II. Roll Call Thosepresent were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Jose, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner Streissguth, Commissioner Tift, and Chairman Hoell. Commissioner Mosiman was excused. Quorum certified. Also present: David Sherrard (Parametrix), Nicole Floyd and Pam Bykonen (DCD staff). III. Approval of Agenda Chairman Hoell introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Jose and seconded by Commissioner Kosusko to approve the agenda as presented. It was agreed by general consensus to approve the agenda as presented. IV. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Regular Meeting held on September 21, 2010 were presented for approval by Chairman Hoell. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by Commissioner Jose to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2010 as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; 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. Workshop –Shoreline Master Program – “Regulatory Approach Options 2”:David Sherrard, SMP Consultant, Parametrix, began the educational workshop with an update of the process. The shoreline inventory is in the draft stage, policy and procedures are being developed through 2011, and staff and consultants are continuing public outreach and educational workshops. During the Shoreline Master Program update, a shoreline environmental designation system will be created which must contain guidelines such as classification criteria, management policies, types of permitted shoreline uses, etc. The current system of Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 2010 Page 1 of 3 DRAFT FOR REVIEW ON 12/21/10 shoreline classification is generally consistent with the Department of Ecology’s guidelines with the suggestion of having single-family residential and multi-family residential each in its own classification. There are also options of utilizing map overlays or creating additional zones. A draft map of the shoreline designations will be presented to the Commission at the January 2011 meeting. Commissioner Streissguth urged the consultant group and staff to create policy that is easy for staff to administer and property owners to understand. Commissioner Kosusko wondered if there could be policy written to address properties that are mostly outside of the shoreline area but must adhere to shoreline requirements because a small portion of the property is inside the shoreline area. Mr. Sherrard moved on to Critical Areas. Critical Areas are described as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, geological hazards, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and frequently flooded areas. Washington State Critical Area rules changed in the 2010 legislature and now must assure no net-loss of shoreline ecological functions as defined by the Department of Ecology guidelines. Sunny Wheeler asked who determines if there has been “no net loss” during development. Mr. Sherrard said that the Shoreline Master Program is charged with including regulations assuring no net loss through bulk standards (size, height, etc.) or performance standards. Sunny Wheeler asked if the City or the County would be responsible for the cost of ensuring compliance. Mr. Sherrard said the property owner is responsible for fulfilling the terms of a permit that is issued which is why it is important to design approvals in a way that are readily enforceable and trackable. Commissioner Jose further clarified by noting that the baseline for ecological functions will be recorded in the shoreline inventory. Buffers are required in Critical Areas and can range from 25 feet to 200 feet, depending on the type of Critical Area and the land use designation. The options for managing Critical Areas in the Shoreline Master Program are to leave the existing regulations based on the shoreline jurisdiction and environment, add a reach-based buffer and performance standard, or move the Critical Area regulations for shorelines to the shoreline section and integrate it with the other sections. The staff recommendation is to adopt by reference Critical Area regulations in the Land Use Code for aquifer recharge areas, geologic hazards, and wetlands; add additional “reach-based” provisions for buffers and setbacks based on the shoreline inventory; and include additional provisions to recognize hardship caused by existing development where lot dimensions would not allow standard buffers to be implemented such as near Kitsap Lake. Karen Danis asked for an example of changing a buffer from 175 feet to 75 feet and how that would result in no net loss. Mr. Sherrard used the scenario of a property that is 100 feet deep with a house set back 35 feet from the shoreline (which establishes the existing level of ecological function), adding that a buffer of 175 feet would not fit on a lot that is only 100 feet deep. One way to promote no net loss is to replace lawn with native vegetation to reduce the amount of chemicals in rainwater runoff, and provides food and habitat for wildlife. Vegetation conservation is part of the Shoreline Master Program and will be included in the Critical Areas regulations. Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 2010 Page 2 of 3 DRAFT FOR REVIEW ON 12/21/10 Building height within a shoreline area is currently limited by the building code to 25 feet in residential areas and 35 feet in commercial areas but the height can be increased if the structure meets other requirements such as not obstructing views, positive public interest, and allowances through the Shoreline Master Program. Technical memos, inventory maps and workshop slide presentations will be available on the City’s Shoreline Master Program web page. Historical or anecdotal information will be taken into consideration but cannot be used unless the information can be verified. Mr. Sherrard encouraged citizens to contact staff if the maps are incomplete or are not accessible. Nicole Floyd, City Planner, urged the commission members to review the City of Kirkland’s Shoreline Master Program which is similar to the document Bremerton will produce. Chairman Hoell closed the Public Meeting. VI. Business Meeting A.Chairman’s Report:None. B.Director’s Report: None. None. C.Old Business: D.New Business: Pam Bykonen, Commission Clerk, reminded the commissioners of the City of Bremerton Wellness Committee wellness walk for city employees and commission members on Thursday, October 21, 2010 at Gold Mountain Golf Course. VII. Adjournment Meetingwas adjourned at 6:24 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for November 16, 2010. Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________________ Andrea Spencer, Executive Secretary Approved by: _______________________________________ Lois Hoell, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 2010 Page 3 of 3