Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/2011 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) October 18, 2011 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: September 20, 2011 Regular meeting. o V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B. Public Hearing 1. Amendments to Special Development Standards Chapter 20.46 in the Zoning Code regarding Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities. VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: Chairman Hoell B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer. C.Old Business: D.New Business VII.ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is November 15, 2011 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 10/18/11 Minutes for City of Bremerton Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 20, 2011 I. Call to Order Chairman Hoell The meeting was called to order by at 5:32 p.m. II. Roll Call Those present were: Commissioner Cockburn, Commissioner Jose, Commissioner Lambert, Commissioner Mosiman, Commissioner Streissguth, Commissioner Tift (arrived at 6:10), and Chairman Hoell. Quorum certified. Also present: SMP Consultant, David Sherrard, (Parametrix), Andrea Spencer, Nicole Floyd, and Pam Bykonen (DCD staff). III. Approval of Agenda Chairman HoellA motion was made by Commissioner Jose and introduced the agenda. seconded by Commissioner Mosiman 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 July 19, 2011 were presented for approval by Chairman HoellA motion was made by Commissioner Jose and seconded by Commissioner . Cockburn to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2011 as presented. Called for a vote: Commissioner Cockburn: Yes; Commissioner Jose: Yes; Commissioner Lambert: Abstain; Commissioner Mosiman: Abstain; Commissioner Streissguth: Abstain; 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. BWorkshop – Shoreline Master Program Update – Regulations and Designation . Policies:Nicole Floyd, City Planner Using a Powerpoint presentation, , reviewed the most recent updates to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Topics covered at this workshop were Authority and Purpose, Administration, and Non-conformities. A portion of the draft document included state exemptions for ease of reference. Nicole reminded the Commission and those attending the meeting that the proposed codes would only impact new developments or additions to existing homes, not existing homes undergoing general Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2011 Page 1 of 6 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 10/18/11 maintenance, and that the term “no net loss” meant no loss of habitat function from the date of code adoption. Nicole explained the code creation and review process noting that each section of the draft code undergoes scrutiny by a citizen advisory committee, a technical advisory committee, and the Planning Commission with their comments taken into consideration when amending the document for the final draft. Non-conformity is a structure or use that complied with the code when it was built or begun, but over time no longer complies because of changes in the code or changes in the surroundings such as widening a street. The non-conforming provision in the code is in place to reduce “undue hardship” on the property owner. The assumption with a non-conforming use or structure is it will eventually come to the end of its natural life and cease to exist. Up to 75% of a non-conforming structure can be replaced without losing its non-conforming status. Non-conforming structures destroyed by natural disaster can be rebuilt, providing a building permit application has been submitted within one year of the casualty. Illegal (non- approved) uses are not protected under the non-conforming code provisions. The non- conforming guidelines in the SMP mirror the zoning code guidelines with three exceptions: ¥ Language has been added regarding “no net loss”, as required by the Department of Ecology (DOE); ¥ The 75% replacement rule was revised for clarification; ¥ Provisions were added for vegetation enhancement. 75% Rule: Currently, the replacement rule for non-conforming structures is 75% of the market or assessed value of the structure; this is difficult to determine fairly and can create situations where the entire structure is replaced with the cost of the replacement less than 75% of the assessed value. The revised language would use 75% of the appraised value or 75% of the structural components. Vegetation Enhancement: Nicole reviewed several scenarios of when vegetation enhancement would be required because of an addition to a non-conforming structure on the shoreline. It was proposed to use a percentage to determine how much of the buffer would require vegetation enhancement with provisions regarding maximum addition size and buffer encroachment. Nicole summarized the Non-conformity section of the SMP: ¥ Protect property owners from undue hardship; ¥ Eventual compliance with today’s codes; ¥ Encourage maintenance and repair of existing structures; ¥ Allow expansions of existing structures; ¥ Allow replacement of structures damaged or destroyed by fire; ¥ Non-conformity does not preclude the ability to obtain a home loan. The next SMP workshop will be on November 15, 2011. Topics of that workshop will be Definitions, Public Access, and Restoration. Code revisions based on input from the public, Planning Commission, and Technical Advisory Committee will be discussed at the January 2012 meeting. An Open House/Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for February 2012. Chairman Hoell asked if there were any comments from citizens. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2011 Page 2 of 6 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 10/18/11 Alan Beam (Manette), wanted to share how the proposed buffers would affect him as two- thirds of his property is streambed which is not developable due to the buffer requirements. His home is on the shoreline on the remaining one-third of his property. He asserts that a 30% shoreline buffer requirement would place any portion of his property that could be developed within the buffer. He noted that the maximum buffer [of 100 feet] did not show up in the draft document. He questioned what is being solved [through increased buffers and vegetation enhancement] and feels that Bremerton should be given credit for the past ten years of improved Stormwater runoff and quality of the Puget Sound. Mr. Beam cannot understand why his lawn is considered equal to impervious surfaces when located on the shoreline and why the burden [of maintaining no net loss] is on the property owners when there are other, greater causes of shoreline pollution. Mike House (Bertha Avenue), has been helping his daughter build a second story on to her waterfront home. The process has taken three months to obtain a building permit. The house is located ten feet over the 50-foot buffer line and as a result, Mr. House had to hire a biologist to write a habitat management plan for approximately $2,000.00 which was not in the original remodeling budget. If the home had been outside of the buffer area, the owners would have had to hire a geologist to determine if the soils were adequate to build an addition, per the current regulations, even though the house has stood since the 1930s with no structural problems. He urged the commissioners to consider the financial impact to property owners when making decisions on shoreline regulations. He questioned the need for buffer requirements so large that it essentially cancels any benefit of owning waterfront property. He understands that planning staff can only allow what the regulations allow and asks for a way to allow other uses on the shoreline that are not so burdensome to the property owner. He used the example of a small lot having a 10-foot buffer requirement when a larger lot must use a percentage of the overall lot depth to determine the buffer size; if a 10-foot buffer is adequate, why must owners of larger lots have substantially larger buffers? He has not found the science to support this requirement. Richard Nerf (Madrona Point), asked staff to provide examples/explanations of what a property owner must do if their home is not parallel to the shoreline; how are the buffer requirements measured in that situation? Mr. Nerf also asked for clarification in the term “natural disaster”. For example, if his neighbor caused Mr. Nerf’s house to burn down, Mr. Nerf would not call that “natural” but would still expect to be able to rebuild. Kimberly Ingham (Marine Drive), referring to Nicole’s comment about non-conformities and the SMP goal of not creating undue hardship, Ms. Ingham stated that the cost of having to hire a biologist to write a habitat management plan, removing the existing ivy in the buffer, and purchasing new plants for the buffer was an undue hardship. She felt that their project of building a second story did not impact the shoreline. She asked the commission to consider individual circumstances when deciding on the codes regulating the shoreline. She supported the idea of holding an open house so shoreline property owners have a chance to understand how their property could be impacted. Jackie Rosshorn (shoreline property owner outside Bremerton city limits), urged the commission to consider Senate Bill 5451 which declares that [shoreline homes] may be considered conforming. She feels that there are potential negative financial impacts from calling a house non-conforming and wants the commission to think about that when setting shoreline regulations. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2011 Page 3 of 6 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 10/18/11 Chairman Hoell asked if there were any further comments from citizens. Seeing none, she closed this portion of the meeting and asked for questions and comments from the Commission. Referring to the SMP section dealing with Permit Administration (20.16.400), Commissioner Mosiman asked for clarification regarding the objectives and purposes of the SMP. He wondered if this section was the same as the section regarding Authority and Nicole Purpose (Attachment III, page 1), which lists seven preferred shoreline uses. explained that the language in 20.16.400 is dictated by the State code and must be included in Commissioner Mosiman the document. asked if the list of shoreline use was ranked in Nicole order of preference. said they were. Commissioner Jose asked about rules that could impose an undue burden on shoreline property owners such as the Ms. Ingham and Mr. Beam. He wanted to know to what degree the rules are mandated by state law and how much discretion Bremerton has to be flexible Nicole with the rules. said that there was not much flexibility in the Authority and Purpose section of the code, but the Planning Commission can make recommendations for the rules Commissioner Jose regarding non-conformities as long as the guidelines are met. asked about the specific buffer problems brought forward during the public comment period. Nicole said that the proposed variable buffer regulation takes into account the lot size to create buffers that are smaller that what are required today. The maximum buffer would be 100 feet for large lots, with smaller lots having buffers based on a percentage of the lot depth. Nicole Because Mr. Beam’s property has both a shoreline and a stream, said he could apply for a variance to the code to allow development of his property. A variance must be approved by the City and DOE. Commissioner Mosiman asked for more information regarding Mr. Nerf’s question of what to do if a house is not sited parallel to the shoreline and part of the foundation juts into the buffer. He also asked if Shoreline Substantial Development Permits and Conditional Use Permits (20.16.440 (a) & (b)) were similar to a variance in providing property owners Nicole flexibility when developing their property. said homes that encroach upon the buffer can be expanded as long as they don’t increase the encroachment. Regarding the differences in permits, Nicole explained that a Shoreline Substantial Development permit is very specific about what it can allow; a Conditional Use Permit is flexible as staff can impose rules or “conditions” on a use that is not permitted outright; and a variance allows the most flexibility when determining how a property can be developed. Proof of hardship, such as physical attributes of the lot that are beyond the property owner’s control, must be shown before a variance can be considered. Commissioner Jose asked for more information regarding why the Ingham’s had to plant native vegetation in their buffer when they were not increasing the footprint of their home. Nicole explained that, while the Ingham’s were not increasing the footprint of the home, the home was 10 feet inside the shoreline setback so the addition was also 10 feet inside the setback. If the homeowner’s had built the addition on the back side of the house, a habitat management plan and planting of native vegetation would not have been required. This requirement for an existing home along a shoreline is not included in the updated SMP and would instead use a percentage formula to determine the size of the buffer and amount of vegetation. Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2011 Page 4 of 6 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 10/18/11 Commissioners Cockburn asked if the current code had provisions for noxious weeds Nicole [English Ivy]. said that currently there is no reference to noxious weeds in the SMP but it can be found in other chapters of the Bremerton Municipal Code that require removal of noxious plants and weeds. The updated SMP will include a reference to the removal of noxious plants and weeds. Chairman HoellAndrea Spencer, Director of asked what constitutes an “undue hardship”. Community Development, said a better term might be “reasonable use of property”; the regulations attempt to ensure that property owners can have a reasonable use of their Commissioner Mosiman property. noted that section 20.16.440 (c) lists several criteria for determining “unnecessary hardship”. He asked if that would be the section staff would refer Nicole to when making that determination. noted his comment. Commissioner Streissguth suggested adding a paragraph to section 20.16.420 that defines the process for exemptions. Commissioner Jose Regarding the “75% Rule”,asked how the quantity of materials used [in Nicole replacing or remodeling a structure] is determined. said that the City’s Building Official would determine what percentage of a structure was being replaced. Nicole acknowledged that the wording of the rule was awkward and welcomed suggestions to improve that section. Commissioner Jose noted that the concern of Mr. Nerf’s regarding the scenario of a neighbor destroying his home was addressed in section 20.16.560(e). Commissioner Lambert asked about reducing a non-conformity (20.16.560(b)(2)(iii)) and Nicole who makes the determination. said the Planning Department would make that determination; this language is in the current code. It was noted that numbering, grammatical and formatting issues within the document needed correcting. Workshop Questions: 1. Should the State exemptions be included in the Bremerton SMP for readers’ ease? Yes, the exemptions should be included to alleviate the need to refer to a different set o of codes (Hoell, Lambert, Mosiman). 2.Do you think that the non-conforming regulations within the shoreline should be as similar as possible to the citywide non-conforming regulations? The more similar the zoning codes and shoreline codes are, the easier it is to o understand and apply; more consistent. The zoning code will be updated to reflect changes to non-conformities (Streissguth, Jose, Hoell). 3.Do you think the language relating to the 75% rule is clear? No. The language is awkward and there are no provisions regarding if the rule is o cumulative although maintenance is encouraged (Hoell, Jose, Mosiman). 4.Should minor expansions of non-conforming structures (500 sf or less) be exempt from new vegetation requirements? Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2011 Page 5 of 6 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL ON 10/18/11 An expansion of 500 sf or less is a size that DOE regards as reasonable; package is o reasonable and addresses flexibility; you can’t make everyone happy (Hoell, Streissguth, Mosiman). Minor expansions should be exempt from the vegetation requirement but not large o expansions (Jose). VI. Business Meeting A.Chairman’s Report:None . B.Director’s Report: Andrea reported that the City Council had enacted six-month moratoriums on Medical Marijuana Collective Gardens and Methadone Clinics within the city limits to give staff time to research the issues and develop a plan. Additional information regarding medical marijuana dispensaries and gardens in other jurisdictions can be found in articles provided to the commissioners. It is hoped that staff will be able bring forward a presentation on methadone clinics at the October meeting. The Planner II/Long Range Planner position has been filled by Doug McIntyre who is currently working in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) division of the department. None C. Old Business:. D. New Business: None . VII. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for October 18, 2011. Respectfully submitted by: _______________________________________ Andrea L. Spencer, AICP, Executive Secretary Approved by: _______________________________________ Lois Hoell, Chairman Planning Commission Meeting September 20, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Commission Meeting Date: October 18, 2011 Agenda Item: V. B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing on Amendments to the Special Development Standards Chapter 20.46 in the Zoning Code regarding Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities. DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Allison Daniels, City Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Bremerton has currently placed a moratorium for all building and land use approvals for methadone treatment facilities until it is determine that the City’s code can properly address issues relating to such facilities, Ordinance No. 5155 (July 22, 2011). The moratorium shall not exceed a period of greater then 6 months. At this time the Code is silent about methadone treatment facilities thus staff is required to review it as a “Medical Office and Clinic” use which City Council deemed as unsuitable. City Council has asked staff to research and amend the Code. To establish a methadone treatment facility as a separate use with increased public involvement opportunities, staff has researched this topic and recommends the attached code Attachment 1 amendments ()to address City Council concerns. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the amendments to the Special Development Standards, BMC 20.46.170, add a definition for opiate substitution treatment facilities, consider public testimony, and formulate a recommendation for the City Council’s consideration. All legislative actions, such as this, must be reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Proposed language for BMC 20.42.040 Definition and BMC 20.46.170 Special Development Standards for opiate substitution treatment facilities; and 2) BMC 20.58.020 Conditional Use Permits; and 3) Findings and Conclusions of the City of Bremerton Planning Commission STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION Move to recommend that Planning Commission adopt the citation for the Special Development Attachment 1 Standards and definition for Opiate Substitution Treatment Facility as detailed in Attachment 3 based on the Findings and Conclusionsin. 1 WHAT IS A METHADONE TREATMENT FACILITY OR AN OPIATE SUBSTITUTION TREATMENT FACILITY? A methadone treatment facility is an organization regulated by the State for a form of opiate replacement therapy which reduces and/or eliminates the use of illicit opiates and potentially allows patients to improve their health and social productivity, also known as an opiate substitution treatment facility. For the sake of consistency, the remainder of this discussion staff will refer to this as an opiate substitution treatment facility to cover this topic. BACKGROUND Today, Kitsap County has approximately 400 users of methadone, most of which receive prescriptions on a monthly basis which are filled by local pharmacies. This means that local pharmacies are currently supplying citizens with large quantities of methadone at one time. Health officials warn that this method of distribution is dangerous to the community as drug abusers tend to use more than is prescribed each day, leading to a large number of deaths by overdosing. An opiate substitution treatment facility distribution is daily rather than weekly or monthly. Health Officials have said that this simple change to daily distribution has significantly decreased deaths in other communities. LOCAL JURISDICTIONS CODES ON OPIATE SUBSTUTITION TREATMENT FACILITIES In order to determine the best course of action staff reviewed codes from other jurisdictions that have recently permitted such facilities. The following chart identifies six of these jurisdictions and outlines the processes they use. Included in the Chart is the City of Bremerton existing Code if opiate substitution treatment facilities were considered “Medical Office and Clinic”. The chart addresses common concerns such as number of patients, parking, and public outreach. JurisdictionLand Use ClassificationParkingPermit Process Bremerton ~Medical Office and Clinics ~1:150~Administrative decision (Existing Code) with no public comment ~ No limit of patients period Clark County ~Outpatient Clinic ~1:200 ~Administrative decision with 14 day public comment ~No limit of patients period Edmonds ~Halfway House ~Medical Office: 1:200 ~Administrative decision with no public comment ~Counseling Center ~Hospital: 3 spaces/bed period ~Residential Treatment ~No limit of patients ~Residential Treatment Facility (Facilities may require a only for current alcoholics and drug abusers and Conditional Use Permit with only allowed in non-residential a public comment period. ) zone Everett~Opiate Substitution ~1:200~Administrative decision Treatment Facility with no public comment (A sub-class of Medical Office)~No limit of patients period Shoreline~Medical Office/Outpatient ~1:300~Administrative decision Clinicwith no public comment ~No limit of patients period Tacoma ~Detoxification Center ~Mixed-Use: 2.5:1000~Commercial, Downtown, (Mixed-Use and Industrial Applies to treatment of all drugs) 2 Tacoma ~Downtown: None zones: Administrative (continued) decision with no public ~Residential: Parking comment period analysis required ~Residential Zone: ~No limit of patients Conditional Use Permit with a public comment period Yakima ~Treatment Center for Drug ~1:200~Administrative decision and Alcohol Rehabilitation with no public comment ~No limit of patients period PARKING Parking has been noted as a primary concern for permitting opiate substitution treatment facilities within Bremerton. Staff contacted several jurisdictions with such facilities asking if there was adequate parking for their existing facilities. Officials stated that there have been very few complaints about parking for these facilities. The parking requirements in other jurisdictions varied, but were on average one off-street parking space required per 200 square feet (1:200) of the building area. This means that a 4,000 square foot building would require 20 parking spaces. Bremerton’s parking requirements for a similar use and building size are slightly higher at 1:150 requiring 27 parking stalls. PUBLIC INPUT AND SITING CRITERIA As with the City of Bremerton’s existing code, the majority of jurisdiction’s processed such facilities as an administrative decision with no public comment period. Staff has looked to Clark County’s recently adopted ordinances to assist in establishing increased siting criteria and increased opportunity for public input, as follows: 1. Opiate substitution treatment facilities shall be a Type III Hearing Examiner conditional use permit (CUP). A CUP will allow for a quasi-judicial body to make a third party decision in a public hearing. During the permitting process, a CUP requires a minimum 14-comment period and notification of the proposal and actions to all properties within 300’ of the proposed site, along with posting of the site and publications in the Kitsap Sun. There are no recommended changes to Bremerton’s existing CUP code language Attachment 2 and can be seen as for reference. 2. No Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities shall be sited within 1,000 (one-thousand) feet of a public and private schools and their associated grounds, public parks, or other opiate substitution treatment facilities. 3. The site is located on a collector or higher street. Attachment 1 As mentioned above, staff has prepared to add Special Development Standards (BMC 20.46.170) for opiate substitution treatment facilities and add a definition for an opiate substitution treatment facility (BMC 20.42.040 Definitions). STATE REGULATIONS These facilities are highly regulated by the State for operation of these facilities. Of the many requirements, two that are greatly applicable to our discussion include public outreach and limiting the patients to 350 individuals. The State requirement, WAC 388-805-030, requires public outreach prior to the operation of the facility and includes an ongoing community relations 3 plan to address concerns expressed by the community. These processes are required for the facility to obtain and maintain proper program certification. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Proposed language for BMC 20.42.040 Definition and BMC 20.46.170 Special Development Standards for opiate substitution treatment facilities; and 2) BMC 20.58.020 Conditional Use Permits; and 3) Findings and Conclusions of the City of Bremerton Planning Commission STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the amendments to the Special Development Standards, BMC 20.46.170, add a definition for Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities, consider public testimony, and formulate a recommendation for the City Council’s consideration. 4 Attachment1 20.42.040 DEFINTIONS Opiate substitution treatment facility “” means an organization that administers or dispenses an approved drug as specified in 212 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 291 for treatment of detoxification of opiate substitution. The agency is: 1. Approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration; 2. Registered with the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration; 3. Registered with the State Board of Pharmacy; 4. Licensed by the county in which it operates; and 5. Certified as an opiate substitution treatment agency by the State Department of Social and Health Services. 20.46.170 OPIATE SUBSTITUTION TREATMENT FACILIITES The purpose of this section is to establish regulations describing the siting criteria for Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities. (a) Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities shall be Type III conditional use permit per requirements of 20.58.020, Hearing Examiner decision, which are permitted in zones that allow “Medical Office and Clinic” and shall be subject to the requirements contained in subsection (b) through (f) of this section. (b) No Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities shall be sited within 1,000 (one- thousand) feet of the following: (1) Public and private schools and their associated grounds; (2) Public parks; (3) Other Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities. (c) The site is located on a collector or higher street. (d) Minimum setback, height and lot coverage of the underlying zone shall apply. (e) Off-street parking shall be provided one (1) parking space per 150 square feet of gross floor area. (f) Landscaping is provided meeting the minimum requirements for nonresidential uses prescribed in Chapter 20.50 BMC. Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities Planning Commission Hearing Attachment2 20.58.020 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. (a) Authority. Uses listed as a conditional use may be permitted if a conditional use permit (CUP) is approved. (b) Applicant. The City, federal, state or local agencies, property owner(s), or their designated agents may initiate a request for a CUP. (c) Procedure. A CUP application may be processed as an administrative Type II Director decision or as a nonadministrative Type III Hearing Examiner decision pursuant to the provisions set forth in Chapter 20.02 BMC. (1) The Director may require a nonadministrative CUP whenever the use has a significant impact beyond the immediate site, is of a neighborhood or community-wide interest, or is of a controversial nature. (2) The Director may convert a Type II administrative CUP to a Type III nonadministrative CUP any time prior to the issuance of a decision on the application. (3) In addition to the notification requirements prescribed in BMC 20.02.100, the notice of application shall be mailed to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the property. (d) Criteria for Approval. The City shall approve a CUP only if it is found that: (1) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies; (2) The use complies with all applicable zoning and development standards and requirements; (3) The use satisfies all of the conditional use approval criteria specified in the zone in which the use is located; (4) The design of the proposal and conditions of approval has mitigated all identifiable adverse impacts; (5) The use is compatible with nearby land uses and the surrounding neighborhood in terms of the level of light and glare, noise and parking demand, hours of operation and air quality; and (6) Stipulations are made for the availability of adequate water, sewer, storm water, utilities and urban governmental services. (e) Conditions of Approval. Conditions such as site orientation, fencing, buffering, parking location, lighting, access, hours of operation, and others may be imposed as a condition of approval if it is found they are necessary to mitigate identifiable adverse impacts and ensure compatibility with nearby uses. (f) Lapse of Approval. If the CUP is not acted on within one (1) year from the date the decision became final, it shall expire. Expiration is automatic and notice is not required. The Director may grant a single six (6) month extension if the applicant makes such a request in writing prior to the expiration date and can show good cause for granting the extension. (Ord. 4950 §8 (Exh. A) (part), 2005) Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities Planning Commission Hearing Attachment3 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary: Proposed amendments relate to the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.46 Special Development Standards for Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities. Additional amendments are to provide a definition to BMC 20.42.040. I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Project Description: Proposed amendments to the Zoning Code include the following: Add BMC 20.46.170 Special Development Standard for Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities, and Add BMC 20.42.040 definition for Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities 2. Procedural History 2.1 October 8, 2011 – Notice of Public Hearing 2.2 October 10, 2011 – SEPA DNS 2.3 October 18, 2011 – Planning Commission Public Hearing 3. Public Comment Individuals providing verbal testimony at Planning Commission public hearing: a. 4. SEPA Determination A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on October 10, 2011, with a comment deadline of October 24, 2011, and an appeal deadline of November 7, 2011. No comments or appeals have been filed to date. 5. Consistency Zoning Code text amendments shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020 (d). The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to the Zoning Code text if the criteria outlined below are met. BMC 20.18.020(d)(1) allows text amendments if they are consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendments are minor and continue to uphold the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. These amendments do not change the intent or purpose of the Zoning Code. BMC 20.18.202(d)(2) allows text amendments if they are consistent with other City, State, and Federal codes, regulations and ordinances. Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities Planning Commission Hearing Attachment3 Analysis: The proposed amendments to the Zoning Code do not conflict with any other regulations. II. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, Planning Commission concludes that the Zoning Code amendments meet the requirements in BMC 20.18.020, text amendments to the Zoning Code, and therefore recommends the adoption of the amendments to the Zoning Code. Respectfully submitted by: __________________________ Andrea L. Spencer, Executive Secretary Approved by: __________________________ Lois Hoell, Chair Opiate Substitution Treatment Facilities Planning Commission Hearing