Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/2012 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) April 17, 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: March 20, 2012Regular meeting. o V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B. Workshop 1. SKIA Subarea Plan – Overview 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 May 15, 2012 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT Subject to April 17, 2012 Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING March 20, 2011 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Cockburn called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners PresentStaff Present Vice Chair Cockburn Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Nicole Floyd, Current Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Hoell Commissioner Lambert Others Present Commissioner Mosiman David Sherrard, Parametrix Commissioner Tift Commissioners Absent Chair Jose (excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER HOELL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER LAMBERT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2012 AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER HOELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT ABSTAINING. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Vice Chair Cockburn asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed this portion of the meeting. Workshop: Shoreline Master Program Update (Nonconforming Provisions and Applicability of Substitute Senate Bill 5451 Ms. Floyd provided a drawing to illustrate existing development and bulkheads along the shoreline. She pointed out that the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) really only impacts new development on properties that are located within 200 feet of the shoreline. She emphasized that property owners within 200 feet of the shoreline would be allowed to repair an existing structure or bulkhead without having to comply with the SMP provisions. Properties along the shoreline would only be impacted by the SMP if an owner is proposing an addition or a new structure. Ms. Floyd said the current SMP simply references the zoning code to address nonconformities, and all properties within the City are subject to the exact same nonconformance code regardless of their location or zoning designation. While this approach would be allowed by the Department of Ecology (DOE), it would require the City to ask their permission every time an amendment is made to the zoning code. She suggested a better approach would be to create a separate nonconforming code for inclusion in the SMP. The nonconforming code language contained in the zoning code could be transferred into the SMP, matching the language as closely as possible. However, she acknowledged there are other options and staff is asking the Planning Commission to provide direction. She explained that jurisdictions handle the topic of nonconformities differently, but they all address the following main issues: Legal Nonconformities. Ms. Floyd explained that a legal nonconforming structure is something that was in compliance when developed, but no longer complies with the code because of a change in land use requirements or some other unintentional action. The legal nonconforming code provisions are intended to protect these uses and structures by ensuring they are “grandfathered.” They are acknowledged as legal uses and are allowed to remain in their existing state even though they do not conform to new regulations. Structures can also be expanded, as long as the nonconformity is Ms. Floyd not made worse. To illustrate legal nonconforming uses, referred to a local example of a car dealership that is located in a zone where auto sales is no longer a permitted use. The current dealership or another dealership would be allowed to continue the use. However, if the existing use is discontinued for more than a year, the next use would have to comply. Illegal Nonconformities. Ms. Floyd advised that illegal nonconformities are uses or structures that were never constructed with approval from the City. As an example of an illegal nonconforming use, she provided a picture of a vacant lot where individuals are parking their vehicles with for-sale signs on them. This use is not protected (grandfathered) because it was never granted the legal right to be a car dealership. Commissioner Hoell Ms. asked if squatter’s rights would allow an illegal use to become legal after a period of time. Floyd explained that a property owner could apply for a permit; and if the City felt the use had been going on long enough, they could decide to change the code to allow the use. However, grandfather rights are not granted to a property owner just because the use has been in existence for a long time. Destruction of Legal Nonconformities. Ms. Floyd explained the concept of eventual compliance, which is the idea that at some point in the future, the regulations should become applicable. She advised that most jurisdictions establish criteria about when a “grandfathered” legal nonconformity ceases to maintain its legal nonconforming rights. While each jurisdiction is different, Bremerton’s code establishes this limit when more than 75% of a structure’s value is being voluntarily replaced. A nonconforming use must be brought into compliance if the use ceases to exist for more than one year. She provided an example of the old Maple Leaf Tavern which is both a nonconforming use and structure. In the example, the structure was built too close to the right-of-way (setback) and the non-residential use is not allowed in the residential zone. Because it is in a state of disrepair and has been vacant for nearly a year, the use will lose its nonconforming rights. Ms. Floyd explained that the City’s current code offers a lot of leniency for non-intentional destruction, and the above mentioned rule would not apply in the case of a natural disaster or a casualty not intentionally caused by the property owner or tenant. This leniency is not offered by all jurisdictions in the State. Without the leniency, it would be difficult for property owners to obtain loans for nonconforming properties. If there was no ability to rebuild in the case of natural disaster, etc. there would be no security for the loan. Staff is not proposing to eliminate this provision. Subject to April 17, 2012 Approval Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 29 March 20, 2012 ~ Page of Ms. Floyd advised that Substitute Senate Bill 5451 was drafted to provide direction to the DOE regarding how they supervise the Statewide SMP update process. Because the DOE has the final review authority for what is adopted into all local SMPs throughout the State, they set the parameters for what can and cannot be done. There has been some uncertainty about impacts associated with SMPs, particularly to existing residential structures. She explained that Substitute Senate Bill 5451 gives local jurisdictions the ability to be creative, so long as No Net Loss is achieved. Ms. Floyd said shoreline property owners across the State have expressed concern about the implications of having their homes designated as legal nonconforming structures. They have raised questions about how the designation would impact their ability to sell their homes, get a loan for improvements, do necessary maintenance or replace homes that are damaged. Substitute Senate Bill 5451 allows the DOE to approve local SMP’s that designate legal nonconforming residential structures as conforming. However, the bill only allows for the name change to be applied to single-family residences within the shoreline jurisdiction. All other types of structures within the shoreline jurisdiction, including commercial, multi-family, bulkheads, docks, boathouses, etc. are excluded and must keep the title of legal nonconforming. Because the entire code section cannot simply be changed, a new subsection within the nonconforming chapter would need to be added for residential. Staff is concerned that confusion might arise if the upland zoning code calls it legal nonconforming, and the SMP calls it conforming. She said staff believes that using the word “conforming” would be misleading because it implies conformance when, in fact, a structure does not conform. Ms. Floyd provided pictures of a residential structure currently located on Shore Drive and explained how changing the name would result in some homes being called legal nonconforming per the zoning code and existing conforming per the SMP. She questioned whether the name change is really necessary given that it would be difficult to explain to a property owner and would not likely resolve the concerns. She said she has researched and found that: Bainbridge Island studied this question, looking at all the residential properties that were sold between July 2010 and July 2011; half were conforming and half were nonconforming. Their study found that the average assessed value for the nonconforming properties was a little lower than the conforming properties, but the average sell price was actually higher. This implies that designating a property as legal nonconforming would not negatively impact salability or property values. One person made the assumption that the reason nonconforming homes sold for more is that they are usually closer to the water, making the property more desirable. She was unable to find information to substantiate the concern that the nonconforming designation would impact a property owner’s ability to obtain a home loan. She read through the Freddie Mac and Fannie May lending guidelines and learned that both can purchase mortgages that are secured by properties that do not conform to applicable zoning and use restrictions if the properties are legal, nonconforming uses (grandfathered). Fannie May even allows lending on an illegal, nonconformity, as long as the structure can be rebuilt. However, she acknowledged that just because the lending guidelines allow it, does not mean that banks will lend to owners of legal, nonconforming properties. Proponents of the alternate name have pointed out that loans are harder to secure due to the economy, and Banks are being more careful in choosing loans. She contacted every appraisal company in the phonebook and repeatedly heard that they are making loans on nonconforming structures and uses, as long as they can be rebuilt in the case of unintentional destruction. In general, they said loans for legal, nonconforming property are not prohibited, but they raise a red flag and specific attention must be paid by the appraisers to ensure the nonconformity can be rebuilt in the case of fire, etc. Most appraisers use the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report Form (Attachment III), which specifically asks about the zoning compliance of the property to ensure the appraiser has reviewed the property in terms of its ability to rebuild. Checking any box besides “legal” would require the appraiser to provide assurance that the structure can be rebuilt, such as a letter or code citation from the local jurisdiction. If a structure has the title “conforming,” appraisers will likely check the “legal” box, which would expedite the appraisal process. However, this would only be a temporary gain because it circumvents the lenders’ primary goal of ensuring that an asset can be rebuilt. Staff predicts it will only be a matter of time before lenders realize that the letter of assurance requirement is being circumvented and that the form needs to be updated. Lenders use the term “nonconforming” to refer to people who do not meet the loan criteria for reasons such as a recent foreclosure, low credit score, or the loan request is too high. To lenders, it seems to be more about the person Subject to April 17, 2012 Approval Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 39 March 20, 2012 ~ Page of applying for the loan than about the land use designation of the property. They will not lend to a nonconforming person and require additional paperwork to lend to a nonconforming property. Ms. Floyd said Substitute Senate Bill 5451 also allows the DOE to approve local SMPs that allow for full replacement of legal nonconforming residential structures provided No Net Loss of habitat function is achieved. She said it has been suggested that existing structures should be exempt from the requirement because they were built in the past, and No Net Loss would be measured from today forward. The DOE has said existing structures should be included because they continue to impact habitat function long after they are built as a result of driveway runoff, pesticides and fertilizers from the lawns, etc. However, because the impact has very little to do with the structure, the DOE will allow 100% rebuild provided the City can clearly demonstrate No Net Loss. Ms. Floyd explained that to meet the DOE’s requirement for No Net Loss, the City is currently proposing to require vegetation enhancement when a property owner voluntarily expands or rebuilds a structure. As proposed, no vegetation enhancement would be required for small expansions of less than 500 square feet. However, larger repair and/or expansion projects (up to 75% of a structure’s value) would require partial vegetation enhancement, and 100% replacement would require full vegetation enhancement. She cautioned that exempting the voluntary replacement of existing residences from providing vegetation would significantly reduce the overall impact the vegetation requirements are intended to provide over time. It would also require an increase in regulation elsewhere in the code in order to achieve No Net Loss. Ms. Floyd advised that a provision for 100% rebuild would allow a property owner to tear down and replace a structure in the exact same footprint over and over again, which would eliminate the concept of eventual compliance. Calling a structure conforming and allowing for 100% rebuild would add complexity for zoning and shoreline compliance. It would allow a property owner to rebuild in terms of the setbacks for the shoreline, but the structure would not comply with the zoning code. Once a replacement extends beyond the 75% limitation in the zoning code, a property owner would have to comply with all of the zoning code requirements and this would likely result in a smaller structure. She suggested this would be difficult to explain to a property owner. She cautioned that a provision for 100% rebuild would also allow existing shoreline properties to construct a brand new home far closer to the shoreline than would be allowed on a vacant lot. Development on the vacant property would require full compliance with the shoreline regulations, and redevelopment of an existing structure would not. She suggested it would be difficult to explain and rationalize this discrepancy. Ms. Floyd said property owners have expressed concern that the 75% rule is too restrictive and impacts their ability to maintain and repair their existing homes. She referred to the pictures provided in the staff report to illustrate how the 75% rule was applied to property at 505 Shore Drive. The property owner has applied for several permit revisions and additional permits to cover the ever increasing scope of work. Although the house has been almost completely removed, the project has not exceeded the 75% rule because the value is based on the structure’s value. Even though very little of the original structure is remaining, the work will consist of only 45% of the structure’s value. Based on this example, it is easy to assume that maintenance and repair of an existing structure could easily be achieved without exceeding the 75% rule. Ms. Floyd advised that jurisdictions in Kitsap County are all on a similar timeline for adopting their SMP updates, and all have addressed the provisions of Substitute Senate Bill 5451 with their planning commissions. She reported that Port Orchard and Kitsap County are both proposing to allow existing residences to be called conforming. Port Orchard is proposing to allow for 100% replacement provided the nonconformity is not expanded. Kitsap County is proposing to allow for 100% rebuild outright, but expansions would require mitigation such as vegetation enhancement. However, it is important to note that Port Orchard only has 18 shoreline residences, and there is a vast number in Kitsap County. Poulsbo and Bainbridge Island are more similar to the City of Bremerton. Poulsbo is proposing to maintain the title of nonconforming, but allow residential property owners to apply for a permit that establishes the status of conforming. They will only allow voluntary rebuild and expansion through a variance, in which vegetation would be required. Bainbridge Island would continue to use the term nonconforming and would not add a new section for existing shoreline residences. They are proposing to allow for 100% replacement, but vegetation requirements would apply. Commissioner Hoell requested background information on the current SMP provision that allows a property owner to rebuild in the case of a natural disaster. She also asked about the rationale for establishing the 75% rule rather than allowing Ms. Floyd for 100% voluntary replacement. explained that when an owner of nonconforming property approaches the City for a voluntary permit to tear down and replace an existing home, staff makes it clear that doing so would require them to Subject to April 17, 2012 Approval Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 49 March 20, 2012 ~ Page of bring the property into full compliance with the current code. Property owners can then decide to scale back their projects so they do not exceed the 75% threshold. Property owners may not have this choice in the case of a natural disaster. Because the situation was not planned, it would seem unfair to require a property owner to relocate the structure to be compliant with Commissioner Hoell the current code.questioned why the City decided that 100% replacement is okay under one set of Ms. Floyd circumstances but not the other. said this was a choice the City made to obtain their goal of eventual compliance. A property owner who approaches the City with a voluntary request to tear down and replace a home is a different situation than a property owner who is required to rebuild because of an unanticipated natural disaster. She summarized that because 75% of the City is already developed, the City’s code would not be very effective if developed properties were exempt from compliance. It is important to find the right balance, and Bremerton’s current 75% rule is on the more lenient side. Vice Chair Cockburn observed that while Bainbridge Island would allow for 100% rebuild on the same footprint, the buffer Ms. Floyd requirements would not be changed and some vegetation would be required. agreed that plantings would be Commissioner Hoell required in the buffer wherever the house is not located. summarized that the natural assumption is that, regardless of whether it is a disaster or a choice, property owners would always rebuild in the same footprint of the Ms. Floyd original residence. agreed that would be the preferred choice. Commissioner Lambert Ms. asked if most homes in the shoreline area would be nonconforming per the zoning code. Floyd said she does not have an exact number, but the majority do not conform to the current zoning code. Bremerton is an old City, which means most of the structures were developed prior to 1950. The older a structure, the more likely it does not conform to the current code. Commissioner Hoell clarified that Substitute Senate Bill 5451 is one option the City could implement, but it is not required. Ms. Floyd concurred. Commissioner Mosiman clarified that regardless of what they do with the SMP, the City’s zoning code would still apply to Ms. Floyd Commissioner Mosiman properties along the shoreline. concurred. asked if the more restrictive code would apply if the SMP allows for 100% rebuild but the zoning code only allows for revisions up to 75% of a structure’s assessed Ms. Floyd value. answered that if a house complies with all zoning regulations and is only noncompliant with the shoreline code, the shoreline code would be the only thing to restrict 100% rebuild. However, if a house is noncompliant with both codes, both requirements would be applicable. Chair Cockburn reviewed the rules and procedures for the public comment period and then invited interested members of the audience to come forward. Ellen Meyer, Bremerton, said she has been a lender for many years and can guarantee that the term “nonconforming” will create a problem not only for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans, but for Federal Housing Authority and Veterans Administration loans, as well. She explained that each lender has an appraisal review department and an underwriter, and they will specifically call out the “nonconforming” term and most likely require certification from the City that the structure meets code requirements and can be rebuilt 100%. Ms. Meyer pointed out that if a house can only be rebuilt to a maximum of 75% of its assessed value, the value of the house might go down. This would also be something the lender would not like to see. Karen Danis, Bremerton, said she was part of the City’s research team that was charged with reviewing the challenges of the nonconforming language. She pointed out that a star mortgage banker who worked for Chase Bank has verified that during the 2009 – 2010 timeframe it was particularly difficult to sell loans to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the nonconforming status was a huge red flag. However, she expressed concern about adopting the term “conforming” when it is not one of the options on the Urban Residential Appraisal Report Form, which is used by most appraisers. Ms. Danis also questioned the options she might have if her nonconforming house were to burn down or be leveled in an earthquake since the City tends to apply No Net Loss on a lot-by-lot basis. She said hopes she would not have to conform to the vegetation requirements in order to rebuild in the same footprint because that would significantly change the usability of the tiny strip of land between her house and the water. Using the same building materials and features would result in No Net Loss from what currently exists, so she does not see a need for an increased vegetation requirement if a home has to be rebuilt due to fire or earthquake. Subject to April 17, 2012 Approval Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 59 March 20, 2012 ~ Page of Alan Beem, Bremerton, said it is important for the Commission to recognize that, for most homeowners, the concept of eventual compliance is not necessarily a good thing. It says that something they have will be taken away. He commented that purchasing a home involves a process of negotiation, and a designation of noncompliance would automatically raise a red flag. When they see the box checked on the appraisal form, the buyer will have three choices: go through with the purchase at the asking price, lower the price, or ask for other concessions. He noted that Form 17, which is the owner’s notice of what they have done to the house, also contains a place to mark whether the structure is in compliance with all current code requirements. When a purchase proposal for a noncompliant property gets to the bank, the bank may decide it cannot automatically process the loan, it may require review by their loan committee, and they will have to make a decision about whether to send it on to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The bank may decide to move forward with the loan, but hold it in house (portfolio loan) and charge the buyer extra interest. He encouraged the Commissioners to consider whether the regulations improve the process or increase hassles to the owners. Klaus Golombek, Bremerton, commented that the term “nonconforming” can and will be devastating and of great economic impact to homeowners when applying for needed loans and permits. He asked what constitutes a natural disaster and if the provision would apply any time a natural disaster occurs, even if a home is not affected? He expressed his doubt that eventual compliance would ever occur because it means that the homes within the 200-foot buffer would have to go away. He commented that the provisions related to vegetation appear to address only the area of vegetation and not the density of vegetation. He questioned how he would comply with this requirement when half of his property is located underwater. Vice Chair Cockburn closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Vice Chair Cockburn pointed out that a large number of properties were made nonconforming when the City expanded the R1 zone and moved towards the “centers” concept. He observed that it would be unfair to other nonconforming properties Ms. Floyd throughout the City to allow these few residential properties along the shoreline to be identified as “conforming.” agreed that there is a large number of nonconformities in the City, and appraisers are constantly contacting the City for assurance that a property can be rebuilt in the case of a natural disaster. The City replies with a form letter. If the SMP is changed as allowed by Substitute Senate Bill 5451, property owners within 200 feet of the shoreline would have a less restrictive code than upland property owners. Commissioner Mosiman commented that although the concerns raised by citizens about the 75% versus 100% rule may be valid, he is opposed to creating a separate system for shoreline property owners and another for upland property owners. He suggested that whatever decision is made should be applied equally throughout the City. Commissioner Tift agreed with Commissioner Mosiman. Creating a new name for a nonconforming residence just because it is on the shoreline seems to create a ruse. The property would still be nonconforming because it does not meet code requirements. Calling it something else for the purpose of not having to check a block on the appraisal or mortgage application is inappropriate. Vice Chair Cockburn said it is anticipated that sea levels will rise one to two feet by 2100. He asked if allowing a structure to rebuild multiple times would put the City at risk if flooding occurs in the future as a result of rising sea levels. Commissioner Tift said he does not necessarily like the idea of changing the name to “conforming,” but supports the idea of allowing for 100% voluntary replacement using the same footprint. Numerous properties in Bremerton were developed years ago in compliance with existing code requirements. It seems reasonable to allow these structures to be rebuilt. He pointed out that, oftentimes, waterfront property is more valuable than the structures that are located on the properties. Commissioner Hoell expressed her belief that the City would not achieve the goals of the SMP, if they allow property owners to rebuild multiple times. Commissioner Albright pointed out that meeting all the code requirements would add substantial cost to a replacement Ms. Floyd project. She questioned if it would be possible to offer credits or financial aid to property owners. reminded the Commission that a nonconforming structure could be rebuilt in the same footprint in the case of a natural disaster. However, when a property owner chooses to replace a structure, they can decide whether they would rather move their house to meet Subject to April 17, 2012 Approval Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 69 March 20, 2012 ~ Page of the buffer requirement or scale back the project and stay under the 75% rule. She said she does not know of any financial Commissioner Albright programs that would aid property owners in these situations. summarized that the 75% rule would Ms. Floyd devalue a shoreline property if a person were purchasing it for the purpose of redevelopment. agreed that moving Commissioner Hoell the house away from the setback would add to the cost of redevelopment. expressed her belief that remodeling up to75% of a home would definitely improve its value. Commissioner Mosiman said that while the Bainbridge Island study failed to establish a cause and effect relationship between nonconformity and the apparent increase in property values, his personal house hunting experience is that nonconformities increase the value of some properties. For example, he determined that purchasing a developed property on Shore Drive would certainly give some benefit over developing a vacant lot as per code requirements. He expressed his belief that the issue is complex enough that it should be dealt with on a citywide basis. If they were to create a separate nonconforming code for the shoreline properties, upland property owners would likely be unhappy and the City would have to address the issue at some point. Ms. Spencer reminded the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan contains a policy that, over time, the City wants to see conformance with their vision for the future. She noted that the 75% rule has been carried forward since the first nonconforming rules were established in the 1970’s. She agreed with Commissioner Mosiman’s concern about having two dueling systems. If the Commission believes that 100% replacement is appropriate for shoreline properties, they could discuss whether the same provision should be applied to upland properties. Staff is seeking specific direction about whether it is appropriate to give special consideration to shoreline property owners that is not provided to the rest of the City. She emphasized that the City is required to adopt the SMP update by the end of 2012, which does not allow sufficient time for a lengthy discussion about creating new citywide nonconforming provisions. She also reminded the Commission that adopting a provision that allows for 100% voluntary replacement without requiring any additional buffer would impact the City’s ability to achieve No Net Loss. The DOE will not likely approve the SMP update because the buffers would be too small based on the City’s idea to have small but efficient, quality buffers. One option would be adopt a 100% replacement provision, but still require property owners to provide additional vegetation. She agreed with Vice Chair Cockburn that there are numerous apartment complexes in the City that are nonconforming as a result of recent code changes, and staff issues letters every week assuring that the properties can be rebuilt in the case of fire or other natural disaster. She suggested the Commission utilize Mr. Sherrard’s expertise as they discuss how the City can best achieve No Net Loss. Commissioner Hoell asked staff to describe the potential impact of Poulsbo’s proposal to add a section stating that owners Ms. Floyd of primary residential structures can apply for a permit that establishes the status of their structure as conforming. said this provision would address the community’s concerns about the name. Rather than allowing property owners to randomly apply the “conforming” status, a property owner could apply for a permit that would allow the City to legitimately recognize the property as conforming with the SMP that was in place at the time of development, but not the zoning code. Commissioner Lambert said enough information has been provided to make her feel secure that property owners would be able to obtain loans for nonconforming properties, but additional information may be required. She expressed her belief that Ms. Floyd Poulsbo’s permit requirement would not really change a property’s status. agreed that the permit would not alter the code requirements. The permit would result in a zoning verification letter stating that the property complies with the definition of “conforming” for the SMP. Vice Chair Cockburn pointed out that many of the properties along the lower shore are totally covered with deck, etc. He Ms. Floyd asked how much vegetation the SMP would require to achieve No Net Loss. Rather than reinventing the wheel, suggested they retain the charts that were based on how much construction was being done in the buffer and required a Vice Chair Cockburn commensurate amount of vegetation enhancement. asked how this issue would be addressed for Ms. Floyd 100% replacement within the existing footprint. answered that, in most cases, the entire structure is not located within the buffer. Property owners will need to decide if they want to rebuild in the buffer and then identify the amount of vegetation that would be required. Commissioner Hoell reminded the Commission of the City’s goal to make the regulations simple and easy to understand. Ms. Floyd She asked staff to share their thoughts on what would be the simplest solution to the nonconforming provisions. said staff recommends that the term “nonconforming” should be used consistently throughout all City code documents. Subject to April 17, 2012 Approval Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 79 March 20, 2012 ~ Page of Commissioner Hoell said she supports using the same terms throughout all City codes so they are simple to understand and ambiguities are removed. Commissioner Mosiman Ms. asked if staff is simply asking for a verbal consensus from the Commission at this time. Spencer clarified that unless there is a clear consensus, it would be helpful for the Commission to take specific action on each item so that staff has direction to develop code language for a future public hearing. Commissioner Mosiman said his preference is not to create another name and to continue using “legal nonconforming” as the descriptive name for the subject properties. Commissioner Lambert said that since the name change would not substantially change the situation and having two names could create confusion, she does not support changing the name for shoreline properties that are nonconforming. COMMISSIONER HOELL MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP A SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT THAT MAINTAINS THE LANGAUGE “LEGAL NONCONFORMANCE.” COMMISSIONER LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Tift suggested the Commission consider a provision similar to Bainbridge Island, which would allow for Commissioner Lambert 100% rebuild, but would require native vegetative planting, as well. suggested the City retain the Ms. Floyd 75% rule, but also provide a process for homeowners who want to rebuild 100%. said the City could maintain the 75% rule, and then require property owners to apply for variances to go beyond that. This would be similar to Poulsbo’s proposed SMP, which includes criteria for determining when a variance would be appropriate. Commissioner Mosiman questioned why the City would offer this benefit to just one small group of properties. He said he is opposed to creating a two-tiered system that would allow residential properties within the shoreline jurisdiction to redevelop up to 100%. He reminded the Commission that the 75% rule dates back to the 1970’s. He questioned how allowing 100% voluntary replacement would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which talks about eventual Commissioner compliance. Again he expressed his belief that the concept should be applied equally throughout the City. Hoell agreed that allowing voluntary 100% replacement would not be a tenable option for achieving the goals outlined in the SMP and Comprehensive Plan. CHAIR HOELL MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP A SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT THAT MAINTAINS THE LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS FOR VOLUNTARY REPLACEMENT UP TO 75% OF A STRUCTURE’S ASSESSED VALUE. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Tift Ms. asked if the current SMP allows a property owner to apply for a waiver to exceed the 75% rule. Floyd answered that a property owner can always apply for a variance, but they are somewhat difficult to obtain because a Commissioner Tift property owner must have a reason, other than something that is self created. said he understands the 75% concept, but he questioned the harm of allowing a waterfront property to be built within the same footprint. Replacement would increase the property’s value. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Spencer summarized that the draft brought forward for public hearing will maintain the provisions as they were Ms. Floyd originally presented to the Planning Commission. reported that she is still working on the draft SMP, but it will not be quite ready for a public hearing in April. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Vice Chair Cockburn did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting. Subject to April 17, 2012 Approval Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 89 March 20, 2012 ~ Page of Director Report Ms. Spencer welcomed Commissioner Albright to the Commission. She also announced that because the draft SMP will not th be available for a public hearing on April 17 meeting, the Commission will conduct a workshop on the SKIA Subarea Plan. They hope to release the next draft of the subarea plan and planned action environmental impact statement (EIS) by the end th of March. Staff expects the Commission will conduct a public hearing for the draft SMP on May 15. Old Business No old business was scheduled on the agenda. New Business No new business was scheduled on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:54 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea L Spencer, AICP Greg Jose Executive Secretary Chair, Planning Commission Subject to April 17, 2012 Approval Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 99 March 20, 2012 ~ Page of Commission Meeting Date: April 17, 2012 Agenda Item: V.B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: SKIA Subarea Plan—Overview DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Doug McIntyre, Long-Range Planner SUMMARY The South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA), located in southwest Bremerton, contains approximately 3,700 acres planned for industrial development and use. Tonight’s presentation will provide an overview of the draft SKIA Subarea Plan, which was released on March 29, 2012 along with the Final Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The draft is a result of a planning effort that began in 2010 when the City obtained a Climate Showcase Communities Grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency to complete a Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS for SKIA. Key objectives of the Subarea Plan include economic development, job creation, protection of natural systems, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, more sustainable development patterns and buildings, and development of innovative and sustainable infrastructure. To achieve the vision for SKIA, input and guidance were solicited from the SKIA Technical Working Group (TWG) and the SKIA Executive Committee (EC) as well as the general public through open forums and general correspondence. The resulting draft Subarea Plan (Attachment I) contains five sections: Goals and Strategies, Implementation, Zoning and Development Standards, Sustainable Design Guidelines and Development Incentives, and the Capital Facilities Plan. The intent of the Subarea Plan is to provide guidance for development in a manner that is easily implemented and not overly burdensome by ensuring flexibility and providing incentives. The underlying theme of encouraging sustainable development patterns and building design elements is woven throughout the document and is emphasized in Section D. Planning Commission feedback will inform City Staff as we move toward adoption of the Subarea Plan. Scheduled meetings include an additional “Open House” on May 7, a Planning Commission public hearing on June 19, and a City Council public hearing on August 1. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I: SKIA Draft Subarea Plan (Planning Commission receiving hard copy): http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/skia/doc/mar12/Full_BremertonSKIA_DraftSubareaPlan.pdf Attachment II: SKIA Final Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS): http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/skia/doc/mar12/BremertonSKIA_FEIS.pdf Attachment III: SKIA Draft Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/skia/#deis_dsp STAFF RECOMMENDATION This information is presented for Planning Commission consideration and discussion. No further action is required at this time.