Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/29/2012 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Special Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) May 29, 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: April 17, 2012Regular meeting. o V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: Public comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda B. Public Hearing 1. Shoreline Master Program VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: Chairman Jose B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer thth SKIA Sub-Area Plan – Public Hearing Date: June 19 or 26? C.Old Business: D.New Business VII. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for: June 19, 2012 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT Subject to May 29, 2012 Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING April 17, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Jose called the regular meeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners PresentStaff Present Chair Jose Andrea Spencer, Director, Department of Community Development Vice Chair Cockburn Doug McIntyre, Long Range Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Albright Commissioner Lambert Others Present Commissioner Mosiman Deborah Munkberg, Consultant, Blumen Consulting Group Commissioner Tift Commissioners Absent Commissioner Hoell (excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER LAMBERT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012 AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER TIFT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH CHAIR JOSE ABSTAINING. 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: South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Subarea Plan Overview Mr. McIntyre provided a brief update of the SKIA Subarea Plan since the Commission last reviewed it on August 17, 2010. He reminded the Commission that the subarea plan is funded by an Environmental Protection Act (EPA) Climate Showcase Communities Grant that was awarded in 2010. Throughout the planning process, guidance was provided by the Technical Working Group (TWG), which is made up of stakeholders, property owners, and various members of city staff, and the Executive Committee (EC), which is made of up Kitsap’s elected officials, and policy leaders, including Chair Jose. Two public open houses have also been held. He briefly reviewed the meetings and events that have occurred to date and th announced that the Commissioners are encouraged to attend the next public open house on May 7. Mr. McIntyre reviewed that a draft subarea plan and draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was issued on June 9, 2011, and the comment period ended on July 21, 2011. A final EIS and new draft subarea plan was issued on March 29, 2012. The design team is working with TWG and the EC to address comments and suggestions, and the draft plan will likely change before it is presented to the Commission for a formal public hearing in June. A public hearing and final adoption by the City Council is tentatively scheduled for August 1, 2012 Deborah Munkberg, Consultant, Inova PCD LLC & Blumen Consulting Group, said the draft EIS looked at the following alternatives: Alternative 1 would require no action. It is a baseline that is required by State Law. Based on existing growth trends over the past 5 to 10 years, it is estimated that Alternative 1 would result in 1,400 new jobs and 800,000 square feet of development. Alternative 2 would result in approximately 6,500 new jobs and about 4 million square feet of development. It identifies a slightly reduced boundary for the Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) by removing some areas in the very southern portion next to the Mason County line. The Puget Sound Regional Council granted the MIC designation, which is one of 8 in the region intended for intense industrial development. The PSRC’s ultimate goal for this area is 10,000 jobs. Alternative 3 has the most aggressive growth scenario. It is estimated that Alternative 3 would result in 10,000 new jobs and 5.5 million square feet of new development. Ms. Munkberg said the Preferred Alternative is essentially Alternative 2, as described in the EIS. However, the boundary of the MIC was moved even further to the north to Lake Flora Road. The area to the south would be designated mixed employment (ME). The ME area would provide more development flexibility by accommodating retail, office and industrial uses. The preferred plan is an intermediate approach that recognizes future constraints and the need for additional infrastructure over the next 20 years. Ms. Munkberg advised that the EIS comment period was extended an additional 10 days. The city received 12 comment letters related to transportation mitigation, airport compatibility, planned action process, alternative preferences, critical areas protection, subarea plan comments, and site specific issues. None of the comments fundamentally altered the conclusions and/or analysis contained in the draft EIS. All of the comments were addressed in the final EIS by correcting scrivener’s errors and providing additional information and clarification about transportation, critical areas, climate change, land use and utilities. Ms. Munkberg and Mr. McIntyre reviewed each of the five sections of the draft SKIA Subarea Plan as follows: Goals and Strategies Ms. Munkberg advised that the Goals and Strategies section of the draft subarea plan was cleaned up and streamlined based on comments from the public, the TWG and the EC. Definitions of terms and a description of the public outreach process were added. Implementation Ms. Munkberg said the Implementation Section is new and contains a summary of a joint EC/TWG brainstorm meeting where the group identified impediments to the subarea plan’s success, as well as strategic directions for the plan’s success. The Implementation Section also includes a list of implementation strategies such as creating a multi-jurisdictional/multi- agency steering committee to make sure everyone works together and to clearly define the goals and benefits of marketing the area; developing a comprehensive outreach and communication strategy, building off the specific tools and methods identified in the subarea plan; developing a specific marketing plan; tracking and monitoring the new regulations and adapting them as needed; finding funds for the key infrastructure needed in the subarea; and adaptive management. Lastly, the Implementation Section provides case studies from San Diego, California; Silver Bay, Minnesota; and Kalundborg, DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 27 April 17, 2012 ~ Page of Denmark. Three major points come from the case studies: the idea that collaboration breeds success, it takes a lot of time and patience through a spontaneous and slow evolution, and being a small town does not impede growth. Zoning and Development Standards Mr. McIntyre explained that because it is important to encourage economic development in the subarea, the zoning and development standards should be flexible, easy to use, effective to implement, and work well for both the City and the development community/property owners. The goal is also for the subarea to be developed as a very progressive industrial area, consistent with the EPA grant. Headvised that there are four zones identified in the SKIA Subarea: Port Industrial Mix (PIM) Zone The is located north of State Route 3. This zone is intended to promote both light and heavy industrial uses, but still remain a business park form. General Industrial (GI) Zone The is located in the northeast and south sectors of the subarea and would be open to most types of industrial uses. Aviation Business (AB) Zone The is centered around the Bremerton National Airport and is geared towards aviation-related businesses. Although it would not prohibit other types of uses, light industrial and manufacturing uses would be encouraged. However, the light industrial uses should not have adverse impacts with outdoor industrial uses. Heavy industrial uses are not encouraged, but they would be allowed. Mixed Employment (ME) Zone The is located south of Lake Flora Road and is a more flexible zone to allow commercial, office and retail type uses. Light industrial would be allowed, but it should not have adverse outdoor industrial uses. Heavy industrial uses would not be encouraged in this zone. Mr. McIntire emphasized that all of the uses allowed in each zone must meet the intent of each zone, and all uses must be compatible with the airport and comply with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements and other applicable regulations. He noted the yellow outlines on the map, which identify the six airport compatibility overlay zones, which the city will utilize as a guidance tool as it considers appropriate use, height, and noise requirements. The staff is in discussions regarding the use of this tool with the Port of Bremerton, the EC and TWG, and changes may be made in the future. Mr. McIntire advised that site development standards do not specify a maximum height restriction per zoning district. Rather than the traditional front, rear and side yard setbacks, the proposed development standards identify external and internal setback requirements. The idea of minimum internal setbacks is currently under review and may change before the final draft is presented to the Commission for review and public hearing. Mr. McIntire said the development standards have been broken down as follows: site clearing and development; building design; transportation, parking circulation and pedestrian access; landscaping; signs; exterior lighting; noise and emissions; low-impact development; and right-of-way standards. He emphasized that by being flexible with height and setback, it is important to ensure that development occurs to a standard that protects the health, safety and welfare of the public. Mr. McIntire explained that the right-of-way standards are proposed in the plan, and two low-impact development streetscapes were provided for each standard (drawings and street types are still under review): Business Serving Streets are the lowest scale of streetscape in the SKIA Subarea. Pedestrian uses and bio- retention/landscaping is encouraged in this streetscape. Local Access Streets are larger than the Business Serving Streetscapes and include parking, bike lanes and walking pathways. Commercial Industrial Streets are larger still and include a potential 15-foot drive width. However, the City Engineer will have substantial input in how these streets are actually developed. Arterial Streets are largest streetscapes and include two lanes of traffic both ways. They also include a center lane for potential bio-retention and/or landscaping or a turn lane, as well as both bike and walking pathways. Mr. McIntyre referred to the Preferred Street Typology Map, which identifies where each of the different streetscapes would fit best. He emphasized that the map represents a preference, but is not a regulation or requirement. The City Engineer will have substantial input. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 37 April 17, 2012 ~ Page of Mr. McIntyre said the concept of a “payment in lieu of street frontage improvements” program is currently being considered, but it has not been included in the plan yet. He reviewed that the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) requires all redevelopment projects that exceed 25% of the assessed value of the property and all new development projects to provide street frontage improvements. Many property owners have expressed concern that this can be an onerous and costly requirement, which could be particularly true in industrial areas where there are large, undeveloped parcels. A “payment in lieu of street frontage improvements” program is one option for addressing the concerns of developers and property owners. This program would allow a developer to pay into a fund an amount commensurate with the cost of the required street frontage improvements. When the City determines there is enough need on a street for frontage improvements, the money in the fund would be used for the development. Sustainable Design Guidelines and Development Incentives Mr. McIntyre advised that the Sustainable Design Guidelines are an optional and voluntary, but strongly encouraged, element of the subarea plan. The goal is to achieve the vision of the subarea plan, while not discouraging development. He provided a drawing of an ideal industrial development, which includes a vegetative buffer, pedestrian connections throughout the site, office and retail uses along the street front, shared parking, shared loading zones, limited access to break up pathways, etc. Heexplained that the design guidelines are meant to provide specific guidance and examples of how sustainable industrial and commercial development could be achieved. The guidelines are broken into two categories: site planning and building design and landscape design. He encouraged the Commissioners to read the design guidelines and forward their comments to him. Mr. McIntyre said the incentives program outlined in the draft subarea plan offers a voluntary approach to get property owners and developers to achieve the vision. He briefly explained how the proposed incentive program would offer a three- tier approach to sustainable development using six point categories: site development and building design, sustainable transportation, environmental stewardship and habitat, low-impact development, water conservation, and energy efficiency and alternative energy. The Tiers would be set up as follows: Tier I would require 70 points and would offer a 10% increase in both hard surface and impervious surface coverage. It would also provide relief from Code Section C.4.020(a). Tier II would require 105 points and would offer a 15% increase in both hard surface and impervious surface coverage. It would also provide relief from Code Section C.4.020(a). SKIA Evergreen would require 140 points in addition to LEED Silver or higher and a construction waste management plan for redevelopment projects. This category offers a 20% increase in both hard surface and impervious surface coverage. It would also provide relief from Code Section C.4.020(a). It would qualify a developer for a building permit fee rebate and the City’s best effort to provide a priority permit review. There would also be a press release, and the developer would receive the Mayor’s Sustainable Development Award. Mr. McIntyre said the Building Permit Fee Rebate Program is a new “pilot” program that would only apply to SKIA. Citywide expansion, if warranted, would be addressed at a later time. He explained that, as currently proposed, all development projects that achieve SKIA Evergreen would qualify for a 30% building permit fee rebate. All building permit fees would be paid up front, and the rebate would be issued once the City has insured the public has received the commensurate benefit. Capital Facilities Plan Mr. McIntyre pointed out that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is a particularly important element of the subarea plan because the SKIA Subarea is largely undeveloped at this time. He clarified that not only does the SKIA CFP address transportation, water, sewer and stormwater projects, it also adheres to RCW 36.70A, which requires an inventory of existing capital facilities, identification of future needs based on development assumptions, identification of projects to meet the future needs, and a financial plan. The CFP must also be coordinated with the land use element in the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the proposed SKIA CFP is more conceptual and less specific than traditional CFPs because they do know where development will occur in the future. It identifies general capacities and locations for future capital facilities. It also identifies potential funding, but not commitments of specific funding. The SKIA Subarea is very large (approximately 3,700 acres) and is mostly undeveloped. It is also located in an MIC, which emphasizes manufacturing and industrial uses. Because the subarea plan is funded by an EPA grant, it is appropriate to consider opportunities for sustainable features. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 47 April 17, 2012 ~ Page of Mr. McIntyre said capital projects can be funded through traditional sources such as government and developer/property owner funding. The City has agreed to put forth their best effort to obtain government grant funding for infrastructure development. However, it is important to keep in mind that it could be a disaster if infrastructure development is done to early and no development occurs for a while. On the other hand, if it is done too late, it would be difficult to attract developers. He said the plan includes the concept of creating a Community Facilities District (CFD) which is a relatively new tool created by the State, which is similar to a combination of a Local Improvement District and Tax Increment Financing. The CFD program requires the support of 100% of the property owners. Because there are relatively few property owners in the SKIA Subarea, this program is a particularly interesting option. The property owners could come together to leverage future assessment value to get a loan to pay for infrastructure improvements. Mr. McIntyre provided a table that identifies the infrastructure that is needed in the SKIA Subarea including 25 road projects, 4 water projects, and 5 sewer projects. No stormwater projects have been listed because the plan encourages low- impact development features to be tied in with road improvements. In addition, the soils in the subarea are well suited for water infiltration. He said the total cost of the identified projects is estimated to be $73,698,000. th Mr. McIntyre Once again, advised that the next public open house is scheduled for May 7, and Commissioners are encouraged to attend. The Commission would review an updated draft of the subarea plan and conduct a public hearing in , June. Two City Council study sessions are scheduled in July, with a public hearing and final action scheduled for August 1 2012. Commissioner Mosiman Mr. McIntyre asked about the possibility of bringing a rail line to the subarea. answered that rail Ms. lines exist in the area, and the design team has considered rail as a potential for importing and distributing goods. Munkberg said they looked at land use in the vicinity to encourage uses that locate next to the rail line to be those that could be benefit from access to the freight line. Commissioner Tift asked if the Department of Corrections Westside Reception Facility that is currently being studied would Mr. McIntyre fit into the subarea plan. said the only prohibited uses in the subarea would be junk yards and residential as a primary use. All other uses would be permitted outright except for adult entertainment businesses and class II group residential facilities (residential facility for seven or more persons who cannot care for themselves). He said the current development would be considered an essential public facility that would be allowed in the subarea as a conditional use. Commissioner Tift Mr. McIntyre asked if the race track is located within the subarea. answered affirmatively, and added that the project is currently going through the development permitting process. Commissioner Mosiman commented that the case studies in the Implementation Section seemed to be very focused on Mr. McIntyre green industries. said that at the recent Developer’s Forum it was discussed that sustainability sounds good, but it is often difficult to implement. It is difficult to balance this concern with the City’s desire for more sustainable development, but the design team believes that sustainable development is achievable in the subarea. For example, low- Ms. Munkberg impact development stormwater treatment facilities can significantly improve water quality in the subarea. added that the plan is oriented towards “green” development standards and not necessarily eco-industrial development. The examples were cited as other potential possibilities. The intent is to encourage all types of industrial development, including traditional development, which can be developed in a way that is more green and sustainable. Chair Jose said there has been some discussion amongst the EC and TWG that previous attempts at development in the subarea were a little too focused. It has been suggested that they need to broaden the types of developers they are trying to Ms. Spencer reach.added that at the Developer’s Forum, it was discussed that it is good to get the regulations in place now. However, the implementation strategies make it clear that the City cannot achieve any of the goals in the subarea plan without further work to facilitate implementation. Commissioner Lambert asked if the grant requires the City to incorporate sustainable design guidelines into the subarea Mr. McIntyre plan. said the grant does not specifically require sustainable design guidelines, but it emphasizes reducing Ms. Munkberg greenhouse gases. said the City’s goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% over traditional development. The EIS identifies a number of measures for accomplishing this goal, and the measures were carried over to the subarea plan. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 57 April 17, 2012 ~ Page of Vice Chair Cockburn Ms. Munkberg said the plan does not address lead pollution from aviation fuel. agreed that the plan Vice Chair does not address options for reducing lead pollution, but it does address carbon emissions from the airport. Cockburn Ms. Munkberg suggested that lead pollution could impact stormwater runoff. agreed butsaid this is an issue that is beyond the City’s ability to regulate. Commissioner Tift recalled that the Kitsap Aerospace Alliance previously indicated there are 5,500 acres of undeveloped Ms. Munkberg land in the subarea. He asked if this calculation includes the airport.said the subarea is actually 3,700 acres, and the roughly 1,100 of that is the airport. Chair Jose Ms. Munkberg asked for more information about the Planned Action EIS, and why the City chose that strategy. explained that a Planned Action EIS is a State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) provision that allows jurisdictions to do the SEPA review upfront. After the SEPA review has been completed, the City will adopt an ordinance that includes the mitigation identified in the EIS. If future development is consistent with the development type and amount evaluated in the EIS, no further SEPA review would be required by a developer. Chair Jose Ms. Munkberg asked how the plan achieves the concept of “more carrots and fewer sticks.” said they have struggled to find the right balance throughout the plan. They have landed firmly on the side of some minimal requirements and standards that get them in the right direction, and then emphasizing incentives such as regulatory relief and building permit rebates to encourage and support development to head in that direction. Chair Jose Mr. requested more information about the types of ideas that are being discussed for the “in lieu of” program. McIntyre said the design team had hoped for feedback from the TWG and EC groups regarding this concept, but none was received. They will work on a proposed program for inclusion in the next draft. Commissioner Lambert Mr. McIntyre asked if developers would pay a portion of the capital facilities costs. said it could be a combination of government and private investment. As per the proposed plan, more of the burden would be placed on Ms. Spencer developers. They will also search for federal and state grants to fund the infrastructure improvements. said that having an adopted subarea plan will allow the City to demonstrate that they have done the necessary analysis to show where Chair Jose the infrastructure would go. This will make the City more competitive for grant funding. commented that by completing the SEPA process and adopting a subarea plan, the City will have done what they can to make the subarea attractive to developers. Developers desire certainty of permit review and are more likely to invest in infrastructure if some of the other aspects of development entitilements have been taken care of. There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to provide comments during this portion of the meeting. The workshop was declared closed. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Jose thanked Vice Chair Cockburn for chairing last month’s meeting. He also reported that he has been very involved in the SKIA Subarea Plan process and has attended nearly all the meetings. He also participated on the selection committee that approved the consultant team. He observed that the staff and consultant team has done a great job of following the guidelines and recommendations of the TWG and EC groups. Director Report th Ms. Spencer reviewed that a public workshop on the SKIA Subarea Plan is scheduled for May 7 at 4:00 p.m. The agenda th for the Commission’s May 15 meeting will include a public hearing for the Shoreline Master Program. Staff anticipates a th lot of public testimony. The June 19 agenda will include a public hearing for the SKIA Subarea Plan. Ms. Spencer reported that she has been without an Assistant Director since February. They are conducting interviews this week, and she is hopeful they will find a replacement soon. It is important to make the right decision, since the position has a big impact on her organization and the City’s operation. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 67 April 17, 2012 ~ Page of Old Business There was no old business to discuss. New Business There was no new business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:29 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea L Spencer, AICP Greg Jose Executive Secretary Chair, Planning Commission DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 77 April 17, 2012 ~ Page of Commission Meeting Date: May 29, 2012 Agenda Item: V.B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing on the Shoreline Master Program Update DEPARTMENT: Department of Community Development PRESENTED BY: Nicole Floyd, City Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) has been a 3 year public planning process which was mandated by the State in order to utilize extensive scientific information that was unavailable 30 years ago when the SMP was first adopted. Staff has spent the last 3 years diligently working on researching, documenting, and drafting revisions that meet the State guidelines and address Bremerton’s unique environment. Through this process the Planning Commission has held 14 community workshops to discuss, deliberate, and receive public comment regarding a wide array of topics within the Shoreline Master Program. The Technical Advisory Committee (Applicable State, Tribal, and Local agencies) have held monthly coordination meetings, and the Citizen Advisory Group has spent almost 2 years reviewing and recommending revisions to the code language to help make it a user friendly, clear, and concise document that is consistent with other City regulations. Due to the complexity and size of the document up to this point it has been reviewed by the Planning Commission in segments. Now, the document before you is complete and includes all previous recommended changes. All changes are identified in the document through the use of Legislative Markup and are written in red ink to ensure they stand out. Attachment I is a matrix that identifies the location of all changes, why the change is proposed, and how the change is intended to improve the document. This matrix is intended to be used as a “readers guide”. Attachment II provides a brief summary of all written comments received over the 3 year process in addition to the actual written comments. These comments are from a variety of sources including citizens, developers, neighboring jurisdictions, State agencies, and interest groups. Additionally, these comments are addressed in the “Users Guide Matrix” (Attachment I) identifying how the request has been responded to. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the proposed SMP update, consider public testimony, deliberate, and forward a recommendation to the City Council for adoption. MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Motion: Move to recommend that the City Council adopt the Shoreline Master Program Update as shown in Attachment IV of this report based on the Findings and Conclusions presented in Attachment III. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I – Revision Matrix Attachment II – Public Comments Attachment III – Findings and Conclusions Attachment IV – Draft Shoreline Master Program Planning Commission Public Hearing Attachment I Revisions Matrix Topic / Code RequestorRequest/DiscussionProposed Amendment Location GeneralCity Staff, Minor modifications such Corrections have been Planningas corrections of typo’s, made throughout the Commission, spelling, capitalization, re-document. The majority and Citizen wording, or and of corrections are shown in Advisoryclarifications are necessary. underline and Committee strikethrough, however some very minor corrections such as spelling, capitalization, and typo’s were simply changed without tracking. GeneralCity Staff Formatting and Some sections have been organization is needed so re-numbered and that all sections are formatted. These changes numbered and are in a are not shown as tracked logical order. changes. 20.16.200 Goals PlanningMinor modifications to Modifications have been Commission language for clearer made and are shown in Pages 6-7 (5.17.2011messaging were requested red. Workshop)at the May 2011 meeting. 20.16.230(b)(7)PlanningThe code should address A policy statement has ConservationCommission Sea Level Rise been added to ensure Sea and Restoration (5.17.2011Level Rise is addressed in Workshop)the next SMP Update. Page 9 Currently there is not enough scientific information to create specific regulations regarding the topic. 20.16.300PlanningThe addition of No Net The code has been revised DefinitionsCommission Loss, Will, and Setback to include these definitions (11.15.2011were requested as well as and minor corrections. Pages 19-21, 22, Workshop)minor clarification of the & 24 term photic zone. 20.16.400Suquamish Tribe Special consideration These areas are designated Aquatic(Letter dated should be given to shallow as aquatic conservancy Conservancy2.23.2010)closed embayment’s such which recognizes their as Mud Bay, Ostrich Bay unique and fragile and Oyster Bay. ecosystems and prohibits overwater structures such as docks. 1 Planning Commission Public Hearing Attachment I Revisions Matrix 20.16.430Suquamish Tribe Designating Gorst Creek as No change proposed. Designation of (Letter dated commercial does not Most properties are Gorst Creek.2.23.2010)adequately address the currently commercially functions and values of the developed. Lots are creek. Due to the high shallow and do not offer habitat functions the creek enough space for large should be re-designated as buffers and development. conservancy.The Commercial Designation has a buffer of 50’ while Conservancy’s buffer is 175’. In most cases lots are not even 175’ deep. Such a buffer would eliminate most redevelopment opportunities. 20.16.430(1)(2)Suquamish Tribe Increased stormwater Isolated designation is Standards for (Letter dated controls and tree required to comply with Isolated2.23.2010)preservation criteria should Citywide stormwater and Designations.be added to the Isolated Critical Area regulations. Designation. While not No change proposed. Page 42 physically touching the shoreline, these issues may still impact habitat function. 20.16.420Roger Duryea Only one developable The designation has been Urban(Letter Dated property in Oyster Bay was changed to reflect this Conservancy3.23.2011)given a designation of request and is identified Designation in Urban Conservancy. Mr. thusly on the maps. Oyster Bay Duryea has requested this be changed to residential as Map Bit is zoned residential and is developable. 20.16.430City Staff The isolated designation The map of shore drive Page 42 andneeds to be reworded, has been modified and the clarified, and expanded to code section has been Map D include properties beyond clarified. To indicate when Shore Drive that are within the section shall apply and 200’ of the shoreline.that all local, state, and federal requirements are applicable in these areas. 2 Planning Commission Public Hearing Attachment I Revisions Matrix 20.16.400Citizen Advisory Elandan Gardens should be The maps have been Elandan Gardens Committee designated as Conservancy changed to designate Designationnot Recreational because Elandan Gardens as the property is used by a Conservancy. Map G “for profit” commercial entity and does not provide free public access. Additionally the site is currently designated as conservancy, and there are high habitat functions surrounding the site. 20.16.510(c) & PlanningNeed to add language Language has been added (e)Commission about shoreline exemption that indicates that a citizen (9.20.2011permit requirements. must apply for an Page 49, and 55 Workshop)exemption from the City in order to do work that is exempt from a shoreline substantial development permit. 20.16.510(d)City Staff Language about permit A new subsection (e) has revisions should be added been added that identifies Page 48 so that an applicant will when a permit revisions know if they need a new would be permitted. permit or if they can simply Language is taken from revise their existing permit. the WAC about permit revision requirements. While already covered by the WAC it is convenient to have such language in the local code. 20.16.530Suquamish Tribe Requests to review all Staff added “tribal” to the Noticing(Letter dated shoreline applications and noticing requirement Requirements 2.23.2010)all work waterward of the section so that it states: OHWM. Notice to all state, federal, Page 57 tribal, and local agencies with jurisdiction. 20.16.600Alan Beam Name of nonconforming No change is proposed. Nonconformities 9.21.2011should be changed due to Significant deliberation the term’s potential impacts took place at the 3.15.2012 Page 65 Kim Ingham for lending and loan Planning Commission 11.15.2012 applications. Workshop, determining no change should be made to Jackie Rossworn the name. 11.29.2011 3 Planning Commission Public Hearing Attachment I Revisions Matrix 20.16.640PlanningClarify the 75% rule. 75% Revised language to use NonconformingCommission of the assessed value seems the value only for primary (9.20.2011straight forward, but 75% structures – removing DefiningWorkshop)of the building’s structural language about physical Substantialcomponents is unclear. components. Destruction Added language to address Page 66 accessory structures such as decks or bulkheads that are typically not assessed. For these structures replacement of 75% or more of the structure would equal substantial destruction. 20.16.640(d)(3)City Staff There should be some A sentence establishing Nonconforming timelines for the that all work conducted in Time limit for calculation to minimize a 5 year period shall be Substantialabuse of the provision included has been added to Destructionthrough phasing. address this concern. Page 66 20.16.670(d)Suquamish Tribe Repair and maintenance of Added language sets verbal comment in-water structures should specific standards for in- Repair and be specifically addressed as water structures maintenance of they often present unique establishing that the nonconforming circumstances not replacement of more than structuresaddressed elsewhere. Look 75% of each component to Bainbridge Island for (decking, piling, or Page 70 language.structural member) is measured against the 75% rule separately because typically they are replaced at different times. 20.16.700EcologyUse the Ecology guidance Revised language reflects Wetland (Letter dated document for mitigation the suggested change. Mitigation 11.3.2011)ratios and wetland buffers.Generally this represents a Ratiosdecrease in buffer size for low functioning wetlands Page 74 and an increase for high functioning wetlands. 4 Planning Commission Public Hearing Attachment I Revisions Matrix 20.16.710EcologyWarns that using a 20% No change is proposed. Buffers and (Letter dated buffer may not be With the existing Setbacks11.3.2011)adequate and 30% is more developed and degraded widely accepted.nature of most buffers Page 75 Substantial rationale will within the City it is be necessary to utilize believed that better overall 20%.function will be gained through vegetation enhancement required for all new and re- development rather than a larger dimensional standard. 20.16.710EcologyA minimum buffer size A minimum of 10’ has Buffers and (Letter dated should be added been added. Setbacks(Letter dated 11.3.2011) Page 75 20.16.710Alan Beam A maximum buffer size Staff has added a 100’ Buffers and (Letter dated should be established.max. Setbacks9.20.2011) Page 75 20.16.710(1)PlanningAdd language to allow Revised language allows (xii) Buffer and Commission buffer averaging for new for buffer averaging when Setback(7.19.2011residential development so 60% of the houses in a AveragingWorkshops)that a new home may be numbered block on the located closer to the water waterward side are setback Page 76 than the standard buffer less than the code requires. would allow provided it is It also requires a minimum in line with the other 10’ buffer and 5’ setback. existing buffers on adjacent properties. 20.16.710(2)EcologyClarify what is meant by Revised language to only Buffer(Letter dated the exemption for water exempt the portion of the Exemptions 11.3.2011)oriented development from development that cannot buffers. State does not be located outside the Page 76 recognize them as exempt buffer. from all buffer requirements. 5 Planning Commission Public Hearing Attachment I Revisions Matrix 20.16.710(b)(x)EcologyRemove language allowing Language has been Buffers(Letter dated Low Impact Development removed. 11.3.2011)in the buffer. Language is Page 76 generally unclear without proper rationale. 20.16.710(b)CodeThe code should address Language has been added (xiii)Enforcement fences in the buffer as it is to clarify when and where Fences in buffers Officeran issue that will come up a fence would be allowed. regularly. Page 76 20.16.720(b)Ecology~Do not exempt water ~Removed the exemption Vegetation(Letter dated dependent uses. for water dependent uses. Management 11.3.2011) ~Revise tree standards ~Removed size Pages 77- 80 because 4’ tall trees may requirement for trees. not be likely to survive as younger, smaller trees. 20.16.720(b)City Staff and Commercial and residential Combined commercial and VegetationPlanningstandards seem almost the residential into one single Management Commission same and should be section. combined for readers ease. Pages 77-80 20.16.720(b)CommunityVegetation is likely to ~Added language to VegetationMembers block views and that ensure view preservation Management (Generalplanting densities seem too as a reason to group trees. comments to high. Page 78 staff) ~Remove the numerical standards for the number of trees and shrubs. 20.16.720(b)EcologyClarify when a project is The section has been Exemptions (Letter dated “minor” and is exempt clarified to indicate that 11.3.2011)from providing a minor expansion of an Page 79 vegetation management existing nonconforming plan.structure may be exempt. 20.16.670(b)PlanningMore clarity is needed to Language has been revised (vii)Commission determine what features are to indicate the costs of the Vegetation(7.19.2012)to be included in the bond plantings are to be Enhancement – requirements. included. Bond requirements Page 78 6 Planning Commission Public Hearing Attachment I Revisions Matrix 20.16.740Ecology ~ Modify language ~ The requirement for a Public Access(Letter dated requiring a Conditional Use Conditional Use Permit 11.3.2011)Permit for reduced hours of has been removed. The Page 83 public access as it is not a installation of the access requirement of Ecology. will be a part of the larger permit application, thus it ~Remove language that and a potential reduction allows cost as a rationale in hours can be reviewed for reduced access. all together as a whole project. ~Cost has been removed from the list of reason for reduced access. 20.16.760Suquamish Tribe Recommends several All wording changes Archaeologically (Letter Dated minor wording changes to suggested are incorporated sensitive Areas 2.23.2011)better address cultural in the document. resources and to identify Pages 85-86 the Suquamish Tribe as an authority in such matters. 20.16.790 (a) City Staff Use table is difficult to read After discussing with Use Table and requires Conditional Ecology, Use Table has Use Permits (CUP) in areas been revised to read easier Page 88 - 91 that seem unnecessary and and reduces the number of not required by the State. uses that require CUP’s. 20.16.790(b)Dana Hamar Suggests increasing Residential heights have Height Table 9.27.2011residential heights to 28’.been increased to 35 with Page 91 a pitched roof, 30 without. 20.16.790(b)PlanningLanguage should be Language has been added Heights Table Commission clarified regarding gables stating that gables etc. are 2.21.2012so as to ensure they are not permitted provided such Page 91 permitted to block views in features do not extend past locations where pitched the pitched roof where roofs are intended to views are intended to be preserve views.preserved. 20.16.790 (b) Bill Broughton Heights should be No change is proposed. Height Table 4.10.2012increased from 35’ to 80’ Increased height above 35’ for commercial and 60’ for would require substantial Page 91 residential in the area study to ensure No Net zoned Employment Center Loss. While downtown to better match the zoning has heights above 35’ code.these heights are existing in the current code. 7 Planning Commission Public Hearing Attachment I Revisions Matrix 20.16.880(b)(3)EcologyMatch the WAC which The section has been Residential - (Letter dated only allows for a live-edited to remove floating Floating Homes 11.3.2011)aboard vessel, not floating homes. homes. Page 106 20.16.890Puget Sound Underground utilities Code has been revised to Utilities Energyshould not be a say that undergrounding of (Discussion with requirement as it is often utilities is encouraged but Page 110 Lindacost prohibitive and can be not required. Streissguth)more environmentally damaging than above ground measures. 20.16.930Washington~Light penetration by way ~The code has been (b)(14) State Ferries of grating is an unworkable revised by adding Docks(Letter dated solution for the Ferries. language exempting 8.30.2011)Grating would allow grating when it would pose Page 116 grease, oil, and other a public safety or contaminants to fall into environmental risk. the water and would not meet the ADA requirements for loading and unloading ramps. 20.16.930(b)(11)Karen Danis – Clarify that mooring buoys Language has been added. DocksCitizen Advisory are prohibited in the Committee aquatic conservancy zone. Page 116 20.16.930EcologyLanguage should be Language has been revised (b)(14) (Letter dated consistent with the new to require grating over at Docks11.3.2011)Army Corp of Engineers least 40% of dock surfaces permit requirements. where at least 60% of the Pages 116-117 dock has such light penetration as is required by the Army Corp of Engineers permit. 8 Planning Commission Public Hearing Attachment I Revisions Matrix 20.16.930(b)(15)Ecology~ Need to add a statement ~ A statement has been Residential(Letter dated noting that docks shall be added stating that the dock Docks11.3.2011)the minimum length will be the minimum necessary.length necessary. Page 117 ~ Dock depth should ~ The code has been achieve 10’ to 13’ deep to revised to require 10’ reduce the risk of scouring depth. or bottoming out of many boats. 20.16.930(b)(15)EcologyRevisions are needed to This section has been (iii)(Letter dated comply with the new State significantly revised to Residential11.3.2011)standards for dock. represent the new State Dock size ~ “T” shape is not allowed requirements. ~ Pier max width is 4’ ~ Float max width is 8’ ~ Landing should be north south. 20.16.930(b)(15)EcologyJoint use docks need Joint Use Dock standards (iv)(Letter dated specific requirements have been added to the Joint Use Docks 11.3.2011)separate from community residential dock standards. docks.Community docks are Page 117 separate. 20.16.940(a)(1)EcologyReplace language with Language has been & (2) (Letter dated alternate language that revised. Dredging11.3.2011)more clearly explains the intent. Page 118 20.16.960(b)(1)EcologyAdd the word “approved” Language has been (vi)(Letter dated for referencing restoration revised. Landfills 11.3.2011)or enhancement projects allowed under this section. Page 121 20.16.980EcologyRemove first sentence to Sentence removed. Shoreline(Letter dated reduce confusion. Stabilization 11.3.2011) Page 124 20.16.980(b)(2)EcologyRevise, message is unclear. Suggested language was Shore(Letter dated Suggested language was used, additional modifications11.3.2011)provided in letter.clarification was drafted by Staff to help section Page 125 read more clearly. 9 Planning Commission Public Hearing Attachment I Revisions Matrix 20.16.980(b)(9)Judy Friedberg – Clarify language relating to Language has been added BulkheadsNerfbulkheads tying into noting the goal of another for clarity. eliminating a gap between Page 126 two structures. 20.16.980(b)(12)EcologyClarification regarding Added recommended (iii)(b)(Letter dated when such projects would language clarifying that Groins11.3.2011)be appropriate is needed. Federal and State approved projects are Page 128 appropriate. 20.16.990City Staff Remove statement 3 Statement 3 has been Stormwater because it is unclear and removed. unnecessary. Page 131 Inventory and Richard NerfInformation presented on Typos and maps have been Characterization(Letter Dated maps should be clearly corrected. 8.10.2010)labeled, typos corrected, and colors should be clearly differentiated. Inventory and Alan Beam Grass is listed as having the Language has been Characterization9.20.2011same ecological value as clarified. Grass provides pavement. This is very little stormwater inaccurate and should be filtration and concrete has corrected.none. Restoration Plan Richard Nerf Numerous inaccuracies, Significant editing has and Cumulative (Letter dated typos, grammatical errors, taken place – documents Impact Analysis 1.17.2012)and details need to be are substantially revised to corrected.reflect these comments. Judy Friedberg NerfThe reports appear to be (Letter dated boiler plates and do not 1.19.2012)represent Bremerton specifically. 10 Planning Commission Public Hearing Attachment II Shoreline Master Program Update Public Comment List ITEM /PERSON/AGENCY/AFFILIATION DATE RECEIVED TAB NO. 1Richard Nerf – Citizen Advisory Committee/ Shoreline August 10, 2010 Property Owner Comments on Inventory and Characterization Maps February 23, 2010 2Allison O’Sullivan – Suquamish Tribe General recommendations about what subjects the tribe will be focusing on in their review March 23, 2011 3Roger Duryea – Shoreline Property Owner Request for Shoreline Designation change April 15, 2011 4Theresa Nation – Department of Fish and Wildlife Encouraging coordination and environmental protection July 12, 2011 5Larry Matel – Bremerton Engineering Department No concerns about proposed language for utilities July 18, 2011 6Judith Friedberg-Nerf – Citizen Advisory Committee/ Shoreline Property Owner Comments about clarification, typos and formatting. Encouraging the City to take a proactive stance for education and restoration. August 25, 2011 7Kojo Fordjour – Washington State Ferries Request for revised language relating to ferry docks. August 30, 2011 8Stephanie Trudel – Suquamish Tribe Requests alternate language relating to areas with cultural resources. September 20, 2011 9Alan Beam – Shoreline Property Owner Requests a maximum buffer width, clarification of Science, and encourages utilization of SHB 5451 by changing the name of nonconforming structures to conforming. September 27, 2011 10Dana Hamar – Shoreline Property Owner General questions and a request for heights of at least 28’. November 3, 2012 11Barbara Nightingale – Department of Ecology Several comments and suggested changes for the SMP November 15, 2011 12Kim Ingham – Shoreline Property Owner Provided information about how her bank processes loans ITEMPERSON/AGENCY/AFFILIATION DATE RECEIVED / TAB NO. on non-conformities and what the County has proposed. November 29, 2011 13Jackie Rossworn – Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners Bremerton should utilize Substitution Senate Bill 5451 in relationship to nonconformities. January 17, 2012 14Richard Nerf – Citizen Advisory Committee/Shoreline Property Owner Recommends correction of many typos and formatting of the Restoration Plan and Cumulative Impact Assessment. January 19, 2012 15Judy Friedberg-Nerf Citizen Advisory Committee/Shoreline Property Owner Recommends correction of many typos and formatting of the Restoration Plan and Cumulative Impact Assessment. April 10, 2012 16Bill Broughton – Shoreline property owner Heights should be increased in commercial areas outside of Downtown, specifically in the Employment District Zone where height limits are 80’. 80’ for commercial and 60’ for residential seems appropriate rather than the 35’ proposed in the Shoreline Master Program. Record as of May 8, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Attachment IV Draft Shoreline Master Program: Due to the size of the Draft Shoreline Master Program document, it is not easily printed nor can it be emailed. The document is available at Bremertonshorelines.com, or upon request Staff will provide you with a CD with the document on it.