Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2012 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) February 21, 2012 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: January 17, 2012Regular meeting. o V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B. Workshop 1. Shoreline Master Program Update to discuss revisions relating to definitions, buffers and setbacks, vegetation conservation, and height limits. VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: Chairman Jose B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer C.Old Business: D.New Business VII.ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is February 21, 2012 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT Subject to February 21, 2012 Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING January 17, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner Hoell called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners PresentStaff Present Commissioner Jose Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Commissioner Cockburn Nicole Floyd, Current Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Hoell Commissioner Lambert Others Present Commissioner Mosiman David Sherrard, Parametrix Commissioner Tift Quorum Certified ELECTION OF OFFICERS Ms. Spencer reminded the Commission that their bylaws limit a Commissioner to two consecutive terms as Chair, and Commissioner Hoell has served two terms. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN NOMINATED COMMISSIONER JOSE AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2012. COMMISSIONER LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE NOMINATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CHAIR JOSE NOMINATED COMMISSIONER COCKBURN TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2012. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE NOMINATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER HOELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE REVISED AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR COCKBURN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER HOELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2011 AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER TIFT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Jose asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting. Workshop: Shoreline Master Program Update (Restoration Plan and Cumulative Effects Analysis) Ms. Spencer introduced David Sherrard, Parametrix, who is part of the consultant team for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. Mr. Sherrard noted that the draft Cumulative Effect Analysis and Restoration Plan are required elements of the SMP and both are available on the City’s website. He reminded the Commission that the SMP must be revised, if necessary, based on the findings in the Cumulative Effect Analysis, which evaluates the cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development on shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline functions fostered by the policy goals of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). To ensure there is no net loss of ecological functions, the City is required to fairly allocate the burden of addressing identified cumulative impacts among development opportunities. No net loss means that over time, the existing conditions of shoreline ecological functions should remain the same as when the SMP update is adopted. The Shoreline Inventory that was completed in 2010 will become the City’s official record of existing conditions. Commissioner HoellMr. Sherrard recalled that the public has repeatedly asked for a clear definition for “no net loss.” Ms. Floyd said a definition was forwarded to and reviewed by the Department of Ecology (DOE). noted that this topic st Mr. Sherrard meeting. clarified that “no net loss” does not mean would be discussed in greater detail at the February 21 no loss ever at any point on the shoreline. The system must operate at no net loss, but the City can tolerate ecological impacts in one location as long as they compensate elsewhere to keep the system functioning at the same level. Mr. Sherrard said other shoreline functions that are fostered by the policy goals of the SMA include reserving shoreline areas for water-dependent and associated water-related uses. The Cumulative Effect Analysis includes an assessment of the demand for water-dependent uses. The analysis concludes that, with the exception of the Navy shipyard, a high demand for port or industrial uses in Bremerton is unlikely. However, there is likely to be a substantial demand for recreation and moorage/boat launch facilities. Commissioner Tift Mr. Sherrard asked if boat repair and marina activities are anticipated along the City’s shoreline. said marinas are included as moorage activities. He also explained that because the size of the Puget Sound fishing fleet has diminished substantially, there appears to be a surplus of boat repair facilities in the Puget Sound. He summarized that although a ship repair business would not likely choose to locate in Bremerton, this type of activity could be accommodated within the area designated as Industrial.Commissioner Tift said he is particularly interested in opportunities for local repair facilities for pleasure boats. Mr. Sherrard Next referred to the draft Restoration Plan, which provides goals and policies for the restoration of the impaired functions. The SMA requires that the City’s Restoration Plan make use of established policies and consider the effects of other local, state and federal regulatory or non-regulatory programs, as well as restorative efforts that may flow from the SMP. He reviewed the policies contained in the draft Restoration Plan, specifically highlighting the following: Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15 to implement the Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Strategy. Use the scientific foundation and identification of opportunities and constraints in the SMP Inventory/Characterization. Use the list of projects and other actions consistent with the Salmon Habitat Protection and other programs as sources of potential site-specific projects. Coordinate land use decisions with the comprehensive list of project actions to implement the most effective restoration strategy. Encourage voluntary restoration by homeowners and other shoreline property owners. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 26 January 17, 2012 ~ Page of Provide for management of City-owned parks and other facilities to accomplish ecological restoration, along with recreation, flood control and other goals. Restoration may not be appropriate in all situations. Seek funding from a variety of resources. Mr. Sherrard summarized that the City has done remarkably well implementing restoration programs in conjunction with other agencies and obtaining funding from a wide variety of sources. He noted that a portion of the Sinclair Inlet was the subject of a restoration program within the last decade, and the City also utilized grant funding for the Gorst Watershed Plan. This type of coordination is encouraged by the SMA. He provided a graph to illustrate the difference between achieving “no net loss” and restoration. He explained that it is important to mitigate the adverse impacts of a project to achieve no net loss. Anything above that is considered restoration. Commissioner Tift asked if voluntary restoration opportunities apply primarily to people who own shoreline properties. Mr. Sherrard answered that most of the projects identified in the Restoration Plan are funded by the Salmon Recovery Board. The Navy has also been a consistent source of funding for restoration activities in Kitsap County. Individual property owners are mentioned throughout the Restoration Plan, but the only thing the SMP requires is that existing single- family residents implement a 10-foot native vegetation conservation area if they undergo expansion or substantial change. Commissioner Tift recalled earlier discussions about activities such as car washing and repair, which seem to be rather Mr. Sherrard minor compared to stormwater runoff, etc. said the Restoration Plan does address watershed-wide and localized issues, but they vary depending on the water body and the number of tributaries and proximity to Puget Sound. He emphasized the importance of coordinating the City’s Restoration Plan with the efforts of the West Sound Watershed Council, which is the lead entity for salmon recovery in East WRIA 15 and the official group through which state funding comes. He noted that the City of Bremerton is a member of this group, as well. Mr. Sherrard noted that the scale of the Restoration Plan is larger than the City limits and the Urban Growth Area because any restoration that takes place within a water body is relevant even if a portion of it is located outside of the City. He provided a map to illustrate the boundaries of the restoration planning area and reviewed the conclusions of the Cumulative Effect Analysis as follows: Only small areas of the Bremerton Shoreline are expected to redevelop over the near future. The SMP provides development standards for “no net loss” for any development that requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Ecological enhancement and/or public access will be required for any new commercial or industrial non-water dependent use. Native vegetation conservation will be required for new lots and development and a minimal buffer will be required for the expansion or alteration of existing single-family development. The native vegetation conservation requirements will have limited affect on the ecological process on an individual basis. However, over the long term, education and public awareness programs in conjunction with regulatory programs will likely lead to beneficial changes in how land owners maintain shoreline vegetation. The SMP’s preference for softer stabilization will apply to all new structures and development but will only apply to existing structures that fail or require major modification. Realistically, this requirement will not result in a substantial change to the currently armored shorelines, but it will prevent further degradation of relatively unaltered shorelines. The SMP includes new regulations for docks, piers and other in-water structures that will be implemented over time as facilities are repaired and/or replaced. There will likely be no net loss of ecological functions on Bremerton Shorelines. The SMP policies and regulations ine, and the Critical Areas Regulations address upstream conditions in apply to the areas closest to the shorel watersheds that are not within the jurisdiction of the SMP. In addition, there are numerous restoration activities taking place on shorelines and in tributary watersheds. All of these will have a beneficial effect on the shoreline, and will likely result in some improvement over time. Chair Jose asked Mr. Sherrard to share more about the methodology that was used to determine what types of uses are likely Mr. Sherrard to occur along the City’s shoreline. answered that they reviewed all of the water-dependent uses and assessed DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 36 January 17, 2012 ~ Page of the need for each type of use, where each use is currently located elsewhere in Puget Sound, and the likelihood of the City having the ability to accommodate each use based on the supply of land and competition. From this analysis, it appears that moorage and boat launching facilities will be the major demand for water-dependent uses along the Bremerton shoreline. Chair Jose recalled that the Commission has received comments from the public that there is no scientific information to Mr. Sherrard support the conclusions made in the Cumulative Effect Analysis regarding “no net loss.” pointed out that a lot of scientific information is referenced in the inventory but was not repeated in the Cumulative Effect Analysis. He summarized that they know a fair amount and are learning more all the time about what degrades both fresh and marine- water environments and there is a strong basis in science for most of the mechanisms that are identified in the SMP Update. Chair Jose summarized that part of the reason for using language such as “likely” and “probably” is because science is still developing. He asked if Mr. Sherrard is comfortable saying with a high degree of certainty that the proposed SMP would Mr. Sherrard result in no net loss. said the City can be fairly confident that the combination of all of the proposed programs will result in a positive outcome. However, he acknowledged that the SMP may not reverse the ongoing processes that have resulted from not having localized, detailed studies. Mr. Sherrard referred to Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3, which look at certain functional categories for lakes, streams and marine. The tables review and briefly summarize the existing condition of each of the approximately 40 reaches that have been identified. The tables also summarize how the provisions of the SMP and other programs will improve the existing conditions. He specifically reviewed the following: Dyes Inlet – Only a portion of Dyes Inlet is located within the City, and restoration plans will focus largely on the tributary system. A lot of restoration activity is currently taking place at Chico Creek. Ostrich Bay – The Chico Creek Restoration Program will likely affect fresh water input. Oyster Bay Creek, which currently has significant problems, provides input in the southerly portion of the bay. The majority of development that is not part of the Marine Park or Navy is single-family residential, and they do not expect a lot of change. What little change does occur should improve buffers somewhat. In-water structures will be restricted in the small Aquatic Conservancy area located in the shallowest delta portion of the bay. Oyster Bay –There is little freshwater input, and the bay is shallow, productive and very sensitive. There is a small component of public ownership, and private ownership is primarily single-family residential. There is also a small commercial area. There will be very few opportunities for public land restoration and/or single-family residential lot changes, but there will be some opportunity for enhancement if the small commercial area is redeveloped in the future. The entire bay is designated as Aquatic Conservancy, so in-water structures will be restricted. Mud Bay – There is no freshwater input except for adjacent lots.The bay is very shallow, productive and sensitive, and there is no public ownership. Private ownership is single-family. The vegetation is intact over most of the shoreline, which is unusual for an urbanized area. There will few opportunities for restoration, but in-water structures would be restricted by the Aquatic Conservancy designation. Port Washington Narrows/Phinney Bay – Fresh water input comes largely from adjacent single-family residential lots, but there is a small tributary in the southern portion. The southern portion of the bay is shallow and protected, with no public ownership and one marina. There is little opportunity for preservation and/or restoration. If the marina is redeveloped, more light penetration would likely be required. In-water structures would be restricted in the area designated as Aquatic Conservancy. rt Washington Narrows/West Side – While there is a large watershed area, it mostly discharges into the Po stormwater system. There are two public parks, one marina, a small industrial area, and multi-family development. Chair Jose There is currently no water-related industrial activity, and it is not likely this will change in the future. Mr. recalled there has been some discussion in recent years about a marine industrial sector at Anderson Cove. Sherrard agreed there is potential, but it is a very small area. Sinclair Inlet/Gorst Creek – Freshwater input comes largely from Gorst Creek. The north shore is almost entirely in public ownership, and there are areas of public ownership on the south side. In addition, the City owns large portions of the watershed. Not a lot of ecological value is anticipated from the shipyard, and there will not likely be significant change along the waterfront. However, there is potential for enhancement of the commercial area along the Gorst Estuary, which has a split designation of Aquatic Conservancy and Commercial. A portion of the land is a publicly-owned wildlife area. A major watershed plan is underway for Gorst Creek, which can be depended on for both preservation and restoration activities. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 46 January 17, 2012 ~ Page of Port Washington Narrows/East Side – Freshwater input includes several streams. The land is currently developed with two public parks and variety of private uses. It is likely that Bremerton Gardens will redevelop in the near future, as well as the commercial area along Campbell and Wheaton Way. While it is not likely that the commercial development would be water dependent, enhancement would be required. The low-density areas in the north will likely redevelop when annexed, and improved vegetation buffers would be required. There may also be restoration opportunities as the existing multi-family residential areas are redeveloped over time. Point Herron/Port Orchard Bay – There is some freshwater input from several streams. There is high-intensity development along Shore Drive and some commercial area south of the Manett Bridge that offers very limited enhancement potential. Preservation and/or enhancement will likely occur when the large lots are redeveloped in a more urban fashion once annexation occurs. The multi-family residential area will likely redevelop with more effective buffers, and redevelopment of the commercial areas will likely be non-water oriented with enhancement requirements. Kitsap Lake – Except for the wetland area, the lake area is fully developed. There may be some enhancement opportunities at Kitsap Lake Park and the Navy Park. Some watershed restoration could take place as part of the salmon recovery effort, but the main portion of the Chico Creek Watershed is likely a better candidate. Union River and Reservoir/Twin Lakes – These areas are owned and managed by the City as a watershed and are in pretty good shape. Significant changes are unlikely. Both areas have been designated as Urban Conservancy. Mr. Sherrard Again,stated that the Cumulative Effect Analysis indicates that additional net loss of ecological functions on Bremerton shorelines is unlikely. It is likely that improvement will occur over time as a result of the SMP, Critical Areas Regulations, and restoration activities. He expressed his belief that salmon recovery and other efforts will result in a lot more information that can be used when reviewing the SMP again in eight years. He concluded that no changes are needed to the proposed draft SMP based on the Cumulative Effect Analysis. The proposed SMP will effectively meet the “no net loss” criteria. Chair Jose recognized that the analysis and restoration plans are in draft form, but the language needs a fair amount of work Mr. Sherrard to correct typographical errors. agreed. Commissioner Lambert said she understands that the information contained in the Cumulative Effect Analysis and Restoration Plan was used to assess the SMP Update. She asked if the City would continue to consult the two documents as Mr. Sherrard land use decisions come up. answered that the Cumulative Effect Analysis is intended to be a check-in process to indicate whether or not the SMP Update is on the right track. The document will not be updated in future years. The Restoration Plan is a compendium of programs that are currently underway. Restoration activities will be ongoing and primarily coordinated by the West Sound Watershed Council, of which the City is a participant. It is probable that the Restoration Plan will not be an active plan, but other restoration planning programs will continue in the future. Chair Jose asked if it would be possible for the Restoration Plan to include the concept of “mitigation banks,” which has been a successful strategy in other locations throughout the State. This concept offers a way to employ the private sector in restoration projects and provides an easy source of mitigation for people moving forward with projects. He summarized that Mr. Sherrard this approach is a viable option for bringing the public and the private sectors together. agreed it would be appropriate to mention the concept in the Restoration Plan. He said they did consider the potential for “mitigation banking sites” within the Urban Growth Area, but no good candidates were identified. However, he acknowledged there may be opportunities at Gorst Creek and Dyes Inlet. Vice Chair Cockburn Mr. Sherrard pointed out some discrepancies in the numbers found in Tables, 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3. agreed to review and update the tables accordingly. Jackie Rossworn, Executive Director, Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners, asked for clarification about the consultant’s Mr. Sherrard approach of applying river and stream information to salt water. clarified that an entirely different set of criteria was used to evaluate marine environments. The processes outlined in Table 3-3 are different than the processes outlined for streams. Chair Jose closed the public portion of the meeting. He thanked Mr. Sherrard for his insightful and detailed work. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 56 January 17, 2012 ~ Page of BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Commissioner Hoell thanked the Commissioners for letting her serve as their chair. She said she has enjoyed it. Director Report Ms. Spencer announced that the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the Commission’s recommended zoning code th amendments related to opiate substitution facilities on January 18, weather permitting. She recalled the Commission recommended that opiate substitution treatment facilities could be established anywhere the zoning code allows medical facilities. They also recommended additional criterion regarding location. While the ordinance was drafted as recommended by the Commission, the City Council expressed concern about allowing the use in every zone. She said she anticipates an amending motion by the City Council to prohibit the facilities in neighborhood centers. She noted that a map analysis eliminated most neighborhood centers as potential sites based on the proposed location criterion. Ms. Spencer reviewed the Commission’s upcoming work program. She said it is anticipated the Commission will conduct a public hearing on the Shoreline Master Program Update and forward a recommendation to the City Council in April. The Commission will then start working on the SKIA Subarea Plan, and staff is working with a consultant to create draft code language. Ms. Spencer said staff has received a few applications for the vacant Planning Commission position, and interviews will be conducted within the next few weeks.It is anticipated a new member will be appointed by the next meeting. Commissioner Hoell pointed out that the December meeting minutes indicated there would be no Commission meeting in February. The Commission and staff agreed that there would be a meeting in February. Old Business Chair Jose Ms. recalled that several citizens have raised concerns about Senate Bill 5451 related to non-conformance. Spencer advised that the Commission is scheduled to discuss this issue at their March meeting. New Business No new business was scheduled on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea L Spencer Greg Jose AICP, Executive Secretary Chair, Planning Commission DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 66 January 17, 2012 ~ Page of Commission Meeting Date: February 21, 2012 Agenda Item: V.B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Workshop to discuss revisions to the Draft SMP DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Nicole Floyd, City Planner SUMMARY: This workshop is part of a series of workshops to discuss the Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. Each workshop focuses on a different set of topics and or sections of the code. This workshop will focus on fine tuning code sections previously discussed as follows: Definitions: Revisions and Additions (Attachment I) Buffers: wetland buffers, low impact development, buffer averaging, and fences (Attachment (II) Vegetation Management Plan Requirements (Attachment (III) Residential Building Height Limits (Attachment (IV) Applicable Comment Letters (Attachment V) While reviewing these attachments please consider the following questions: 1) Does the proposed change make the code clearer? 2) Are these amendments in line with previous guidance given by the Planning Commission? 3) Are there additional points of view related to these topics that need to be addressed? 4) Are you in support of the proposed change(s)? 5) Are there areas where the language should be further modified? UPCOMING MEETINGS: March 20, 2012 – Workshop to discuss nonconformities and House Bill 5451. April 17, 2012 – Public Hearing to review of the entire document. RECOMMENDATION: Review the materials, consider testimony, and provide direction to staff so the SMP text in the attachments can be finalized for public review and a hearing. 1 Attachment I DEFINITIONS Staff Commentary on Definitions: In previous meetings the Planning Commission recommended adding a few definitions and making minor revisions for clarity. Revisions such as correcting a typo are not represented in this document as they are not substantive changes. Substantive changes include the revision of the term photic zone, and the addition of the terms “Setback”, “Will”, and “No Net Loss”. The term No Net Loss is an integral theme throughout the SMP but has not been officially defined by the Department of Ecology or any other City thus far in the state- wide SMP update process. In order to define it, Staff reviewed recent court cases dealing with No Net Loss and used language from those cases. The definition is somewhat lengthy (3 paragraphs). It is lengthy because the code uses the term in a global sense, referring to the overall goal of the City to achieve No Net Loss, and also in a specific sense, referring to each property owner’s responsibility to ensure No Net Loss when developing. The Department of Ecology has reviewed the proposed definition and is supportive of the addition to our code. Proposed Code Language: No Net Loss: No Net Loss of ecological functions is the maintenance of existing shoreline ecological processes and functions at the level that existed at the time of approval of the major update to the Shoreline Master Program in 2012 and reflected in the shoreline inventory and characterization, or for a development project, the conditions that existed prior to initiation of use or alterations of the shoreline that result in adverse impacts on ecological processes and functions. On a Citywide basis No Net Loss means that the ecological processes and functions are maintained. Regulations may result in localized cumulative impacts or loss of some localized ecological processes and functions, as long as the ecological processes and functions of the system are maintained. Maintenance of ecological processes and functions may require compensating measures that offset localized degradation. On a project basis, no net loss means that a permitted use or alteration of a shoreline will not result in deterioration of the existing condition of shoreline ecological functions. No net loss is achieved both through avoidance and minimization of adverse impacts as well as compensation for impacts that cannot be avoided. Compensation may include on-site or off-site restoration of ecological functions to compensate for localized degradation. Photic Zone: The upper layer of a body of water delineated by the depth to which enough sunlight can penetrate to permit photosynthesis. area between the OHWM and approximately -30 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Setback : For the purposes of this chapter, the setback is the horizontal distance required between the finished exterior wall of a structure and the buffer line. Will: Used to express a command and or an inevitability. Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 1 Attachment II BUFFERS AND SETBACKS Staff Commentary on Wetland Buffer Language: Although a rarity for Bremerton, sometimes wetlands are located within the shoreline jurisdiction and, for this reason they must be addressed in all Shoreline Master Programs. Typically wetlands are associated with streams, of which Bremerton has very few. An example of such a wetland is at the south end of Kitsap Lake adjacent to the Kitsap Lake Park. The Department of Ecology reviewed our proposed wetland buffers and commented that they were not in line with their wetland guidance documents and did not address all types of wetlands that may exist in the shoreline environment. They suggested we revise our document to match theirs. Staff has revised the code language to match Ecology’s guidance documents. Interestingly, in many cases Ecology’s preferred buffers are actually a reduction in width from the initial staff draft. The buffers preferred by Ecology place more focus on the existing function of the wetland with very large buffers associated with highly functioning wetlands and smaller buffers associated with impaired wetlands. In addition to buffer widths, there are mitigation ratios that the Department of Ecology recommended revising. A mitigation ratio is applied in the case where a developer builds over a portion of a wetland and therefore must enhance or replace it elsewhere. In these situations the replacement ratio is very high. This is partially to discourage people from building in a wetland but it is also because newly planted areas often are not as diverse and do not function as well as the original wetland, therefore additional area is required to achieve no net loss. The mitigation ratios suggested by Ecology are larger than those originally proposed. Please see page 14 of Attachment I to review the proposed changes. Staff Commentary on Low Impact Development Language: The Department of Ecology recommends removing the exception listed in the code that allows for Low Impact Development projects within the required buffer. Ecology expressed concern because as currently drafted the language could be interpreted to allow a wide variety of uses that are inappropriate in a buffer. Staff has removed this item from the code. Staff Commentary on Buffer Averaging Language: The Planning Commission requested language for buffer averaging to be added to the code so that a new residence would not be required to be built significantly further back than nearby properties. Staff reviewed the existing language in BMC 20.44.020 “Traditional Front Yard” where averaging is allowed to determine the appropriate front yard setback. Staff also reviewed other SMP codes that allow for buffer averaging. By combining existing Bremerton code language with provisions from other jurisdictions SMP’s Staff has created language that allows for averaging when the following conditions can be met: 60% or more of like structures within 500’ along the shoreline are setback less than the requirement. A minimum of 10’ buffer is required and must be vegetated per the vegetation management plan requirements. A 5’ setback is required from the buffer. The requirement for 60% comes directly from the existing Bremerton code and essentially means that more than half of the surrounding structures exhibit reduced Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 1 Attachment II setbacks. The establishment of 500’ measured from the property line in both directions is intended to establish a boundary that includes at least both adjacent properties if not a few others, but it limited to those in the near vicinity of the proposal. The existing Bremerton code uses the numbered block, however shoreline properties are often not situated on easily numbered blocks, thus 500’ is used instead. This provision will often result in a reduced buffer. In some cases, such as on Shore Drive, it could result in essentially no buffer at all due to the proximity of existing residences to the shoreline. In order to ensure No Net Loss a minimum buffer must be established. A 10’ minimum was chosen because it is consistent with the minimum buffer established throughout the code. It is possible that a larger minimum will be requested by Ecology in their review process, as they commented that our buffers seemed small. In addition to the 10’ minimum buffer a 5’ minimum setback is required in order to ensure a property owner will have access around their house without encroaching into the buffer. Staff Commentary on Fence Language: One of the most common questions about shorelines is whether a homeowner is allowed to construct a fence in their shoreline “yard”. It was brought to Staff’s attention that the proposed SMP does not address this issue. Staff suggests adding a section that allows 6’ tall fences along the side property lines and within the setback area, but does not allow fences within the buffer (except along the side property lines). Proposed Code Language: (a) Regulations: (1) Critical areas shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of BMC Chapter 20.14, the Critical Area Ordinance, with the modifications and exceptions as follows: (i) The provisions of BMC 20.14.145, Exemptions, Subsection (d) Forest Practices, shall comply with all policies and standards of this Chapter and RCW 90.58.150. (ii) The provisions of BMC 20.14.155, Reasonable Use Exception, shall not apply within shoreline jurisdiction. (iii) The provisions of BMC 20.14.330(f)(1) relating to standard wetland buffers shall be governed by the following standards within Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction: WetlandStandardModerateModerate-High Category BufferWildlifeHigh Wildlife Function WidthFunctionFunction(30-36 (210-258(26-29 or wildlife Points)morepoints) points) Category I: 125 75’ 150 105’ 225 165’ 225’ Based on Score Category I: 150’ N/A 165’ 225’ Coastal Lagoons Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 2 Attachment II Category I: 75’ 105’ 165’ 225’ Forested Category I: N/A N/A N/A 150’ Estuarine Category II: All 100 75’ 150 105’ 225 165’ 225’ Category III: All 75 60’ 125 105’ 150 165’ N/A Category IV: All 50 40’ 5050 N/A N/A N/A (iv) The provisions of BMC 20.14.330(g) and 20.14.340(f) relating to wetland mitigation shall not apply within the shoreline jurisdiction. The following standards shall apply: Wetland Mitigation Type and Replacement Ratio* WetlandCreationRe-establishmentRehabilitationEnhancement Category Only Category I 6:1 6:18 12:1 Not allowed Category II 3:1 3.14 6:1 6 12:1 Category III 2:1 2.13 4:14 8:1 Category IV 1.5:1 1.5:1 2 3:1 3 6:1 * Ratio is the replacement area: impact area. (v) Within the shoreline jurisdiction, compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall include enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species, removing structures and impervious surfaces within buffers. (vi) The provisions of BMC 20.14.630(c) relating to reduction of geologic hazard buffers/setbacks shall be processed in accordance with the Conditional Use permit provisions of BMC 20.16.520. Report(s) must be submitted by a qualified professional(s) establishing the following: (a) The modification will not result in foreseeable risk from geological hazards to people or improvements during the life of the development; and (b) For marine bluffs, demonstrate that the proposed development will be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary in the future; and (c) Clear evidence that there is no alternative to modifying the buffer to accommodate allowed development, including reduction in the size or area of the development, or relocation on the contiguous site; and (d) Establish that there is no loss of the ecological functions provided by buffer vegetation including habitat; and (e) Document that no net loss of ecological functions will result. Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 3 Attachment II (vii) The provisions of BMC 20.14.730(d) Buffers and Associated Building Setback Areas relating to fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall be governed by the following standards within shoreline jurisdiction: Minimum BuildingBuffer Width DESIGNATION SetbackStandard URBAN CONSERVANCY 15 feet175 feet beyond buffer SINGLE FAMILY & MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Lot depth less than 125’ 5 feet beyond 20% of lot bufferdepth Lot depth 125’ to 199’’ 10 feet 20% of lot beyonddepth buffer Lot depth greater than 200’ 30% of lot 15 feet depth beyond (Maximum of buffer 100’) RECREATIONAL 15 feet 100 feet beyond buffer COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL / DOWNTOWN 15 feet 50 feet WATERFRONTbeyond buffer ISOLATED None None Please note: For all designations, setbacks and buffers listed above the following shall apply: (1) Where lot depth is less than 150 feet on Commercial or Recreational lots, the buffers listed above may be reduced to 20% of the lot depth. (2) In no case shall a buffer be less than 10’ or greater than 100’. (3) As noted in the BMC 20.14.700, buffers are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark. (viii) The provisions of BMC 20.14.730(d)(1) Buffers and BMC 20.14.730(d)(5) Buffer Reduction shall not apply within the shoreline jurisdiction. (ix) The provisions of BMC 20.14.730(d)(6) Stormwater Management shall apply within shoreline jurisdiction only to buffers of 100 feet or greater width. (x)The provisions of BMC 20.14.730(d)(7) Low-Impact Development (LID) Facilities shall apply within the shoreline jurisdiction only to LID facilities involving minimal grading and removal of vegetation and shall be applied only to the outer fifty (50) percent of buffers of 100 feet or greater width. (xi)(x) The provisions of BMC 20.14.730(d)(8) Habitat Conservation Area Buffers shall not apply within the shoreline jurisdiction. (xi) The provisions of BMC 20.14.740 relating to Habitat Management (xii) Plans may reduce the width of a shoreline buffer to no less than ten twenty five (1025) feet provided enhancement features are installed that will provide a greater habitat function than the prescribed buffer would. Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 4 Attachment II (xii) Setback and Buffer Averaging: The Director may grant modifications to the buffer and setbacks required for existing single family lots under separate ownership provided: (a) Sixty (60%) percent or more of like structures along the shoreline within 500’ on both sides of the subject property are setback less than the required buffer/setback required by the SMP. The average of the current setback of said structures may be implemented as a modified buffer for the proposal, provided that; (i) No new or substantially modified structure may have a buffer of less than ten feet (10’); and (ii) The buffer shall be restored with native vegetation as provided in 20.16.620; and (iii) In addition to the buffer, a minimum of a five foot (5)’ setback shall be required for the structure. (xiii) Fences are prohibited in buffers with the exception that they may be constructed on side property lines. General development standards for fences BMC 20.44.020 apply. (2) Exemptions: The following development activities are not subject to buffers and setbacks, provided they are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions, and further provided that they comply with all the applicable regulations in BMC Title 20: Those portions of approved water-oriented development that require a (i) location waterward of the ordinary high water mark, and/or within their associated buffers and setbacks. (ii)(i) Underground utilities. (ii) Modifications to existing development that are necessary to (iii) comply with environmental requirements of any agency when otherwise consistent with this Program, provided that the City determines that: (a) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and accomplish the purpose for which it is intended; and (b) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet specified dimensional standards to the maximum extent feasible; and (c) The modification is in conformance with the provisions for non-conforming development and uses. (iv)(iii)Roads, railways, and other essential public facilities that must cross shorelines and are necessary to access approved water-dependent development uses are subject to development standards in BMC 20.16.890. (v)(iv) Stairs, ADA ramps, and walkways not greater than 5 feet in width or 18 inches in height above grade, not including railings. (v) Shared moorages shall not be subject to side yard setbacks when located on or adjacent to a property line shared in common by the project proponents and where appropriate easements or other legal instruments have been executed providing for ingress and egress to the facility. Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 5 Attachment III VEGETATION CONSERVATION Staff Commentary on Vegetation Management Plan Language: The vegetation management plan requirements are a new section for Bremerton. The goal is to minimize the overall size of buffers with the intent that the increased vegetation within the buffers will provide better overall habitat function than large buffers would. Ecology has reviewed our proposed buffer widths and vegetation management plan requirements and has cautioned Staff that substantial rationale is necessary to allow for the proposed buffers as they are relatively small. Staff has made revisions that emphasize the achievement of No Net Loss through the vegetation management plan criteria and in the process has improved flexibility for property owners. The primary proposed change to this section of the SMP is to combine the commercial and residential requirements into one section, as they are almost identical. Previously they were broken into two sections in order to provide more flexibility for residential structures, however after reviewing other jurisdictions codes, greater flexibility may be provided without dividing the section into two and it allows us to keep the code more simple. The initial draft of the residential section did not specifically require a set number of trees as is required in the commercial section. Staff intentionally made this distinction due to the public concern that trees would likely block residential views of the shoreline. In reviewing other jurisdictions requirements and due to Ecology’s comments Staff suggests that combining the sections would allow for a more flexibility even though trees would be required because each plan could be specifically developed on a case by case basis. The following elements are proposed to improve flexibility: Eliminate the specific number of trees or shrubs required; and Allow for natural grouping of trees and shrubs in order to protect existing views. By adding these two provisions Staff is hopeful that the concerns about views will be mitigated. Although trees will be required, this will enable professionals to prepare plans that are more specifically tailored to each site. This also puts more responsibility onto the person preparing the planting plan to ensure that adequate plantings are installed. The specific inclusion of trees in the residential area will help emphasize that vegetation enhancement will offset smaller buffers because trees have been shown to directly improve habitat function as they provide shade, leaf litter, nutritional sustinance, and shelter for habitat. The residential section currently is silent about who must prepare the vegetation management plan; however the commercial section requires a biologist or other qualified professional to prepare it. Staff had originally envisioned allowing a single family residential property owner to draw up their own, but due to the technical nature of the document and the necessary expertise required it is unlikely the average citizen would be able to adequately prepare such a plan. Additionally, ensuring a biologist or qualified professional prepares the report will aid in creating a solid rationale that site specific ecological conditions are being carefully considered and that the vegetation will in fact provide better habitat function than larger buffers would. Additionally Staff proposes modification of the height requirement for trees. The Department of Ecology points out that younger, smaller trees have a better survival rate Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 1 Attachment III than older trees do and suggest requiring only 25% of the trees to meet a dimensional standard. Staff has revised the plan accordingly. Finally, Staff has added clarification as to what projects are exempt from the vegetation management plan requirements, such as minor additions to nonconforming structures etc. Proposed Code Language: (a) Policies: (1) The City should protect, conserve and establish native vegetation nears shorelines in order to protect and restore the ecological functions and ecosystem wide processes performed within riparian and near shore areas which include but are not limited to: Protecting plant and animal species and their habitats; Providing food sources for aquatic and terrestrial species in the form of various insects and benthic macro invertebrates; Providing shade necessary to maintain water temperatures for salmonids, forage fish, and other aquatic biota; Protecting and increasing stability of banks and bluffs; Reducing the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion; Reducing the need for structural shoreline stabilization measures; Improving the visual and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline; Protecting and improving water quality through filtration and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants; Providing habitat corridors parallel and perpendicular to the water body. (b) Regulations: (1) A Vegetation Management Plan shall be submitted for all new development andor redevelopment within the shoreline jurisdiction with the exception of water-dependent uses and single family residential use (for single family, see (2) below). The plan shall provide for substantial enhancement of shoreline ecological functions and must provide the maximum ecological functions feasible, in accordance with the following: (i) The plan shall preserve, enhance or establish native vegetation within the entire specified Critical Area buffer. Vegetation management plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall describe actions that will be implemented to ensure that buffer areas provide ecological functions equivalent to a dense native vegetation community to the maximum extent feasible. (ii) The Plan must provide for planting of trees, not less than one (1) per one hundred (100) square feet, shrubs not less than ten (10) per one hundred (100) square feet, and ground cover to a sufficient density of ground cover to provide effective coverage for canopy cover and erosion control purposes throughout the buffer. The Director may allow for a portion of the trees Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 2 Attachment III and shrubs to be placed in natural groups to allow for view preservation and a shoreline access trail. (iii) The Plan shall specify the predevelopment quantity, species type, distribution, approximate height of native vegetation, tree diameter at four (4) feet in height, succesional stage of overall vegetative cover, potential native vegetation types, soil type / characteristics, and any existing hazard trees on the entire site. Said information shall be indicated and represented on a site plan drawn to scale and shall be reflected on an accompanying species and count matrix. (iv) Identification of native vegetation to be removed and protected as a result of the proposal must be shown on the site plan, as well as any noxious vegetation onsite. (v) At least 25% of Aall new trees shall be a minimum height of four (4) feet. Shrubs shall be of at least four different varieties. (vi) Methodology for removal of noxious vegetation and long term maintenance is required. (vii) A financial surety (an assignment of funds or surety bond with no expiration date) that accounts for 150% of the cost of a five year maintenance and monitoring plan that ensures a survival rate of 100% for trees and 85% for all other vegetation is required. The five year maintenance and monitoring period and shall begin at the time the required native vegetation has been installed, and verified by a representative from the Department of Community Development. Monitoring shall consist of photographs taken by the applicant yearly to indicate the continued survival of the plants. Said photos shall be submitted at the end of the 5 years to the Department of Community Development for release of the financial surety. (viii) Required vegetation shall be maintained over the life of the use and/or development. In order to ensure such maintenance a recorded conservation easement or a Notice to Title shall be placed on the deed of the property identifying the buffer area and required plantings so that a record of the plan is available to all future property owners. The Notice to Title shall be recorded prior to issuance of the permit. (ix) Repair, maintenance, and Minor projects minor expansions of existing development may not be required to provide a vegetation management plan dependent upon the scope of the project. Please review BMC 20.16.660 to review the requirements for expanding a nonconforming structure.are exempt .as defined in BMC 20.16.XXX and RCW 90.58. (2)Single Family Vegetation Management Plan: Expansion or alteration of existing single family residents within the shoreline jurisdiction shall provide a vegetation management plan outlining the native vegetation community to be planted within the critical area buffer.The native vegetation shall include the following: Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 3 Attachment III (i)The plan shall preserve, enhance or establish native vegetation within the entire specified Critical Area buffer. Vegetation management plans shall describe actions that shall be implemented to ensure that buffer areas provide ecological functions equivalent to a dense native vegetation community to the maximum extent feasible. (ii)The Plan must provide for planting of shrubs (1 gallon in size) not less than ten (10) per one hundred (100) square feet, and a sufficient density of ground cover to provide effective coverage for erosion control purposes throughout the buffer. The Director may allow for a portion of the shrubs to be placed in natural groups to allow for a shoreline access trail. (iii)The Plan shall specify the predevelopment quantity, species type, distribution, approximate height of native vegetation, tree diameter at breast height (4 feet), succesional stage of overall vegetative cover, potential native vegetation types, soil type / characteristics, and any existing hazard trees on the entire site. Said information shall be indicated and represented on a site plan drawn to scale and shall be reflected on an accompanying species and count matrix. (iv)Identification of native vegetation to be removed and protected as a result of the proposal must be shown on the site plan, as well as any noxious vegetation onsite. (v)Shrubs shall be of at least four different varieties. (vi)Methodology for removal of any noxious vegetation and long term maintenance is required. (vii)Required vegetation shall be maintained over the life of the use and/or development. In order to ensure such maintenance, a recorded Notice to Title shall be placed on the deed of the property identifying the buffer area and required plantings so that a record of the plan is available to all future property owners. The Notice to Title shall be recorded prior to issuance of the permit. (viii)Minor projects are exempt as defined in BMC 20.16.XXX or RCW 90.58. (3)(2)Removal of or alteration of native vegetation within the shoreline jurisdiction is strictly prohibited unless such activity is required for a permitted use or is determined to be hazardous by a qualified professional. Removal of trees greater than 6 inches in diameter at four (4) feet in height shall be replaced at a ratio of 3:1 with native species and shall be re-established within any required buffer on the project site. (3) In the absence of a development proposal requiring a permit, existing landscaping and gardens within the buffer may be maintained in their existing condition including but not limited to, mowing lawns, weeding, removal of noxious and invasive species, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning and replacement planting of ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the condition and appearance of such areas as they existed prior to adoption of this code. Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 4 Attachment IV HEIGHT Staff Commentary on Commercial and Multi-Family Residential Height Language: The Multi-family Residential Designation currently has a height limit of 40’ however there are two areas in town with this designation, one of which does not allow heights over 35’ in the upland zoning. This area is generally north of Manette along Wheaton Way. The SMP sets a 35’ height limit for commercial and industrial designations that are not in the Downtown area and allows for taller structures Downtown. For this reason Staff proposes to create two height limits for the Multi-Family designation which would allow 40’ Downtown and 35’ elsewhere. Staff Commentary on Single Family Residential Height Language: Single Family Residential development along the shoreline currently has a height limit of 25’ with the caveat that the height can be increased to 35’ provided there is an increase in view corridor width. Since the updated SMP proposal is to eliminate the view corridor requirement there has been significant debate about the appropriate height limit and if any offsetting features should be required. At the October workshop, Planning Commission directed Staff to look at other jurisdictions, evaluate options, and provide a proposal. Staff reviewed 15 other jurisdictions and found the vast majority simply set a 35’ height limit for residential structures along the shoreline. Kitsap County and Poulsbo are included in the list of jurisdictions allowing 35’. Port Orchard sets the limit at 33’ and Bainbridge Island sets it at 30’. In fact, the only other jurisdiction Staff could find with a height limit of 25’ was Edmonds, which did so not because of shoreline concerns, but to match the upland zoning height limit. Based only on other jurisdictions, it appears that 30’ – 35’ is appropriate. The primary concern regarding height is the blockage of views from upland properties. View blockage is increased by the manner in which Bremerton measures height because it encourages flat roofs that tend to more fully block views. Pitched roofs, on the other hand, allow for views on both sides of the peak. Since height is measured to the peak of the structure, rather than to the midpoint of the roof, a flat roof can provide more interior square footage within the same building footprint. Many developers have commented in the past that 25’ is very restrictive and simply adding a few additional feet in height would allow for substantially more flexibility for them to construct attractive and marketable home designs. In order to provide better flexibility and maintain views, Staff suggests setting a height limit of 30’ with provisions that allow heights up to 35’ with a pitched roof. This way Bremerton’s code would be within the same range as other jurisdictions and it would encourage a construction type that would allow better upland views than are offered in other similar jurisdictions. The following pictures help to illustrate the view blocking potential of three different homes that are all approximately 25’ tall but have varying roof pitches. Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 1 Attachment IV Pitched roof is parallel to the Shallow pitched roof, Steep pitched roof, allows shoreline, providing similar view providing some for views, but limits the size blockage as a flat roof.additional views. of the second floor. The proposed language states that a pitched roof must be perpendicular to the shoreline and must have a pitch of at least 6:12. The following diagram helps illustrate the variety of roof pitch (the proposed pitch is represented as 12/6 in this chart): Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 2 Attachment IV As noted in the chart, a 6:12 pitch is not the steepest possible, rather it is just steep enough to allow for views on both sides of the roof while maintaining maximum flexibility and choice. Typically the steeper the pitch of the roof, the more expensive the roof is. Additionally, on wider structures the increased roof pitch may decrease the overall area of the top story. An applicant would need to evaluate the costs and benefits associated to building over 30’ tall and determine that the potential increase in cost and potential impacts to interior space would be worth the additional height. Proposed Code Language: This table establishes the allowable height in each designation based on the type of use. All the applicable City standards still apply. In the event the provisions of this Program conflict with provisions of other regulations, the more restrictive shall prevail. Height measurement is defined in BMC 20.16.300. Table 20.16.790(b) ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION HEIGHT Commercial 35 feet 45 -175 Downtown Waterfront feet Downtown Multi Family Residential 40 feet Industrial 35 feet Multi Family Residential 35 feet Over-Water Structures (All Designations) 15 feet Recreation 35 feet 30 feet 1 Single Family Residential Urban Conservancy 25 feet 1 Single Family Residential height may be increased to 35’ with the employment of a pitched roof when: (a) The pitch of the roof is not less than 6:12 (b) The pitched roof is oriented perpendicular to the shoreline (Gables or other roof features parallel to the shoreline are permitted) (c) The pitched roof covers the entire structure Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012 3 Attachment V APPLICABLE PUBLIC COMMENTS The following comment letters are applicable to the topics to be discussed at this workshop and are therefore included in your packet. This is not an exhaustive list of all comments received over the last several years relating to the SMP; rather it includes only those letters that are applicable to specific topics addressed in this workshop: 1.Department of Ecology – Please be advised that this comment letter is comprehensive and addresses a wide variety of topics, of which several are directly related to the topics of this workshop. Some topics however are outside the purview of this workshop. Staff has only addressed those portions of the letter that are directly applicable. 2.Dana Hamar – This comment generally relates to the height limits. Specific questions asked in the letter have been answered. Planning Commission Draft Review 2/21/2012