Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/2012 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting - Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) June 19, 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: May 29, 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. SKIA Subarea Plan VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: Chairman Jose B. Director Report: Doug McIntyre (for Andrea) C.Old Business: D.New Business VII. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is July 17, 2012 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT Subject to June 19, 2012 Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING May 29, 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 Commissioner Albright Doug McIntyre, Long Range Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Hoell Nicole Floyd, Current Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner Lambert Commissioner Mosiman Others Present Commissioner Tift David Sherrard, Parametrix Commissioners Absent Vice Chair Cockburn (excused) Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER HOELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2012 AS AMENDED. CHAIR JOSE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH COMMISSIONER HOELL 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. Public Hearing: Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Ms. Floyd referred to the draft Shoreline Master Program, as well at the accompanying attachments and advised that two comment letters were received after the packet was presented to the Commission. She advised that the Department of Ecology (DOE) updated guidelines for shoreline regulations in 2003, and the State Legislature mandated that all jurisdictions update their SMPs to incorporate the extensive scientific information that is now available related to shoreline functions and protecting the shoreline. She reported that the City received funding from the State in 2009 to revise their SMP (adopted in 1978) to comply with the new State guidelines, which require “no net loss” of habitat function, prioritization of shoreline uses, and maintenance and improvement of public access. Ms. Floyd advised that to meet the criteria outlined by the DOE, the City documented existing conditions along the shoreline, predicted foreseeable development and its impact to the environment, and created development standards and a restoration plan that allows development while balancing protection of ecological functions. She explained that the SMP regulations apply to all properties located within 200 feet upland of the ordinary high water mark. Within the City of Bremerton there is about 25 miles of marine shoreline and Kitsap Lake. They also have Twin Lakes and Union Reservoir, which are in forestry management lands and will not likely be developed in the near future. While Gorst Creek is not located within the City limits, it is within the City’s urban growth area. Ms. Floyd briefly reviewed the public process that was used to develop the proposed SMP update. She specifically noted that Citizen Advisory and Technical Advisory Groups were formed and met regularly to discuss the SMP update, and the Citizen Advisory Committee identified the following goals: Maintain consistency with existing regulations, provide for flexibility in regulations where possible, and provide a user-friendly document. In addition, the Planning Commission conducted 14 workshop discussions on various elements of the document. Shesummarized that after the Planning Commission conducts their public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council, the City Council would conduct workshops and a hearing before final adoption. Once adopted, the document would be forwarded to the DOE for review and a public hearing. Ms. Floyd explained that the goals, policies and regulations are the backbone of the SMP. Goals are the broadest value statements and were developed by the Planning Commission and the Citizen Advisory Committee. Policies are the bridge between goals and regulations and are used to help interpret the intent of regulations. Regulations are the primary standards against which all development proposals are evaluated. She referred to a “ship’s wheel” diagram showing how different aspects such as conservation and restoration, economic development, public access, circulation, recreation and history, culture and education can help shape the SMPs long-term goals of restoration, environmental preservation and economic growth. Ms. Floyd explained that the DOE’s SMP Guidelines identify four specific environmental designations: Natural, Urban Conservancy, Residential, and High-Intensity. However, the City is proposing slightly different environmental designations. While some areas of the City have been identified as Urban Conservancy, the City is built out and there are no Natural environments. The City is proposing two Residential Environments: Single and Multi-Family; and instead of a single High- Intensity Environment, the City has created three categories: Downtown Waterfront, Urban Commercial, and Urban Ms. Floyd Industrial. The City is also proposing a Recreational Environment. said the draft SMP also includes the following innovative concepts: Parallel Designation where the code identifies two designations side-by-side. She provided an example of a roadway with an Urban Conservancy Environment on the shoreline side and a Residential Environment on the other. She also provided an example of a steep slope boundary, where there is high habitat function on the slope with intense development above. A line can be drawn along the ridge of the slope to allow for two designations. Isolated Designation would apply when a designation that is cut off from the shoreline. She pointed out that Highway 16 creates total isolation from upland uses and shoreline functions. Although the area highlighted in Gorst is located within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction, it is isolated from the shoreline by the highway and the railroad. Applying buffers and vegetation management requirements to the developed area would have no real impact. The isolation concept would prevent these property owners from having to comply with specific shoreline standards. It could also be applied to properties along Shore Drive, which are also heavily developed. The houses upland of the street are within 200 feet of the shoreline, but they are separated from the shoreline by a roadway and a steep slope. Aquatic Conservancy Designation could be applied to highly-functional areas that are located in the water. These areas have rare, unique and plentiful habitat functions. Over-water structures (docks) would be prohibited in these areas, DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 28 May 29, 2012 ~ Page of but mooring buoys would be allowed. She provided a map that identifies all the proposed Aquatic Conservancy areas, including Oyster Bay, Phinney Bay, Mud Bay, and Gorst. Ms. Floyd advised that as per the DOE’s guidelines, the proposed SMP identifies water-oriented uses as a priority for commercial and industrial development on the shoreline, which includes uses that are water-dependent, water-related or for water enjoyment. It makes strategic sense to reserve the limited amount of shoreline for uses that cannot be located elsewhere. However, the draft SMP also allows non-water-oriented uses when they are physically separated from the water, when navigability is severely limited, or when significant public benefit is provided by public access and ecological restoration. Ms. Floyd said that DOE establishes single-family residential development as a priority, and multi-family is not. Multi- family development is only allowed when it provides a significant public benefit or it is mixed with a water-related use. Consistent with the DOE’s goal to promote public access, the proposed SMP requires subdivisions of five lots or more to provide public access. The proposed SMP identifies a height of between 30 and 35 feet for residential development, depending upon the pitch of the roof. Based on Planning Commission discussion at earlier workshops, language was added to help make this concept clearer. Ms. Floyd provided illustrations to explain the difference between a buffer and a setback. The buffer area closest to the shoreline is intended to be very habitat oriented. The setback area is the upland buffer area, which is not as highly valued for habitat function. The setback area can be used for yards, etc., but no structures would be allowed. She noted that in the existing built environment in Bremerton, it would be difficult to create an ideal buffer area that is highly functional. The City’s solution for improving habitat function is implementation of a high quality vegetated buffer. The goal is to create better habitat function through vegetation enhancement rather than larger dimensional standards. She provided pictures to illustrate the concept. She said the proposed SMP calls for variable buffers (between 20% and 30%), depending on lot depth. Larger lots would have larger buffer requirements than smaller lots. The maximum buffer requirement would be 100 feet. She provided an illustration to demonstrate how the variable buffer concept would be applied to properties on Shore Drive. She emphasized that the new buffer requirement would not be applicable to existing development. However, any redevelopment over a certain threshold would be required to meet the new buffer requirement, which would average between 15 and 40 feet. Ms. Floyd said the DOE has cautioned the City that a 20% buffer requirement is low, but the City hopes the proposed vegetation enhancement requirement will provide an adequate balance to obtain DOE approval. She explained that the vegetation management plan would require trees and shrubs that provide a canopy cover. The plan must be prepared by a biologist, and a notice to title would also be required to ensure that the vegetation remains in place in the future. She said that grouping trees to preserve views would be allowed. Ms. Floyd advised that piers, docks and in-water structures would only be allowed for water-dependent uses, public access and single-family residential development. She explained that expanding science makes it clear that in-water structures are harmful to habitat. However, there are alternative approaches for addressing this problem, such as requiring docks that allow light to penetrate through and limiting docks to the minimum size necessary. She provided a picture to illustrate how the size and height limits proposed in the SMP would be applied. She explained that the draft SMP limits floats to 30 feet in length, but docks can be longer. The original SMP has a three-foot height limit for docks and piers, and the draft SMP limits float height to three feet above the ordinary high water mark. However, the City received a comment letter suggesting that a better approach would be to establish a three-foot height limit above the water level for dock components that do not float on the water surface. Staff agrees that this change would be appropriate. She noted that, from an ecological standpoint, the higher off the water the better because more sunlight can penetrate. Ms. Floyd said the draft SMP outlines the following priority of alternatives for stabilizing a shoreline: 1) resolve upland runoff issues, 2) plant native vegetation, 3) soft armoring, 4) soft armoring with hard elements, and 5) hard armoring. She pointed out that, as per the draft SMP, new construction must demonstrate that bulkheads are not necessary. This may require that a house be set back further than the buffer in anticipation of future erosion. A vegetation management plan would also be required whenever a new bulkhead is constructed. She provided pictures of different types of shoreline stabilization. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 38 May 29, 2012 ~ Page of Ms. Floyd explained that expansion of an existing structure is considered new development. However, small expansion projects (under 500 square feet) that occur outside the buffer area would not require any additional vegetation. A large expansion project (over 500 square feet) would require vegetation on 25% of the buffer area. Expansions that occur within the buffer area would require vegetation on 50% of the buffer area. She emphasized that this provision would only apply to existing development and not new development. Ms. Floyd advised that while total replacement of an existing structure would require full compliance with the new requirements, replacement of a structure up to 75% of its value would not. She noted that the language has been revised to clarify that value would be based on assessed or appraised value. The language was also revised to make it clear that value would be based on just the primary structure. She provided an example to illustrate how this concept has been applied to an existing remodel project on Shore Drive. She explained that although the entire structure above the foundation is being replaced, the total cost of the remodel was only 45% of the assessed value of the existing structure. This illustrates that it is not difficult to meet the requirement. She pointed out that the current SMP allows a property owner to remodel up to 75% of a structure’s value one year, and then apply for a permit to do additional remodel work at a later time. The draft SMP would limit remodels of up to 75% of a structure’s value to once every five years. Ms. Floyd noted that the value of accessory structures (i.e. decks and bulkheads) is difficult to determine because they are not typically assessed or appraised. For these structures, staff is proposing that the language be amended so that the value is based on just the structural component being replaced rather than the entire dock, pier, bulkhead, etc. That means the decking on a dock could be replaced, but it would have to meet the new requirements for light penetration, etc. The pilings could all be replaced, but they would have to be spaced as per the new requirements and be constructed of materials that do not contaminate the water. Ms. Floyd concluded her report by stating that staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing, consider testimony, deliberate and formulate a recommendation for the City Council. Chair Jose opened the meeting for public testimony. Alan Beam, Bremerton, said he lives on the end of Jacobsen Boulevard on the Manette Peninsula. He said he is a shoreline property owner and was present to represent himself and 17 other members of his neighborhood. He referred to written comments he submitted prior to the meeting. He said it is important for the Commission to understand that most people believe they are good stewards of the properties they are taking care of. He said he is happy to have restrictions placed on his property if they are necessary and effective. However, the City should provide science to support the restrictions. He commented that the City has done a poor job of identifying and defining the problems they are trying to solve, and they do nothing to measure how much progress has been made. The City does not take credit for the millions of dollars of sewer work and cleanup that has already been done. He expressed his belief that the City has made great progress in cleaning up Puget Sound. He questioned the need to place additional restrictions on property owners when the City does not have a method for measuring “no net loss” to determine if improvement has been made. He suggested the real pollution problem in the shoreline areas is stormwater runoff and combined sewage overflow. He noted that in the last six months, 750,000 gallons of sewage overflow has gone into the water around Bremerton. Mr. Beam said he understands the concept of replacement value as he did a major replacement on his property. He said that just the roof and insulation of his new house totaled almost 75% of the value of the previous structure. He expressed concern that the proposed SMP would make it more difficult for redevelopment to occur on the most valuable properties in the City. He noted that the majority of existing structures along the shoreline were built approximately 50 years ago, and they are small. He expressed concern that placing onerous restrictions on these properties will discourage rather than encourage people to redevelop the properties. Richard Nerf, Bremerton, said he lives on Madrona Point Drive. He congratulated all who have worked on the draft SMP update. He referred to the matrix outlining the proposed changes and said he is proud of the way the changes were integrated. He said that while has only read a portion of the document, more work is needed to edit the document before it is finalized. For example, he questioned the proposed definition of “dock,” which is currently a “fixed structure or structures floating upon the water.” DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 48 May 29, 2012 ~ Page of Brian Mandak, Bremerton, said he also lives on Jacobsen Boulevard. His property is not currently located within the City limits, but it is within the City’s urban growth area. He said he appreciates the tremendous effort put forth by numerous individuals to prepare the draft SMP. He expressed specific concern about the vegetation management plan requirement for buffer areas. He referred to a specific situation that occurred when his neighbor put up a gazebo within the 50-foot buffer area that resulted in view blockage. Because the structure did not meet county requirements, it had to be removed. In retaliation, his neighbor planted trees on the boundary to block his view. He encouraged the Commission to include a provision that vegetation management plans must consider potential view blockage from the subject property, as well as neighboring properties. Mr. Mandak asked if the county or City rules would apply to properties that are located within the Ms. Floyd urban growth area. said that county regulations would apply to properties located in the urban growth area. The City’s regulations would only apply if the properties are annexed into the City at some point in the future. No other members of the public indicated a desire to address the Commission. Ms. Spencer invited Commissioners to submit typographical and grammar errors to staff so the document can be corrected before it is forwarded to the City Council. Chair JoseMs. Floyd asked what happens if the City does not approve the SMP update. answered that if the City does not approve the SMP update, the DOE would likely take what the City has done so far and incorporate the aspects they want. Chair Jose However, the document would not likely deal with specific issues related to Bremerton. noted that the draft SMP proposes to use variable buffers and vegetation to address the small lots that exist in Bremerton. If the City does not adopt Commissioner Hoell the SMP update, the DOE may decide to impose larger buffer requirements across the board. added that the DOE’s version of an SMP would not likely address the isolated areas that are native and indigenous to Bremerton. Chair Jose summarized that this is the City’s opportunity to shape something they have to do in a way that hurts the least. While he agreed with many of Mr. Beam’s comments, he noted that the City can only do so much. He encouraged members of the public to take issues that are beyond the City’s control to their state legislators. Chair Jose Ms. Floyd questioned the need for limiting float height. said structures within the shoreline area are limited to 15 feet in height. If there is no height limitation, it would be possible to build tall structures along the shoreline that impact Commissioner Mosiman the aesthetic quality of the area. pointed out that floats rest on the water and move up and down as Ms. Floyd water levels change. said a public comment letter made this same observation. She said that while the current SMP is not clear as to what the height limit refers to, staff’s interpretation is that it would apply to all parts of the dock. Measuring the height based on the ordinary high water mark could result in docks being under water during extremely high tides. She noted that the Army Corps of Engineers, the DOE, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, etc. also have regulations that apply to docks, but they do not address aesthetics. The SMP offers an opportunity for the City to provide specific, clear regulations that address aesthetic concerns. Commissioner Albright Ms. asked how the proposed standards would be implemented in the case of a boathouse or shed. FloydCommissioner Albright answered that boathouses and sheds would be prohibited within the shoreline jurisdiction. Ms. Floyd noted that there are boathouses at the marina currently located within the urban growth area. said these boathouses would be considered existing uses that are grandfathered in. If the property is annexed into the City, the boathouses could be maintained, but they could not be replaced. Ms. Floyd The Commission discussed whether it is necessary to limit how high a pier can be located above water. reminded them that, from an ecological function, the higher the pier the better. However, in terms of aesthetics, the opposite is Commissioner Mosiman probably true. noted that none of the Commission’s previous reviews of the draft SMP included a discussion about height and aesthetic issues related to piers, floats, gangways, etc. He questioned the Commission’s ability to have a meaningful discussion without having a clear understanding of how other agencies currently regulate these structures. Chair Jose concurred. Because most overwater structures are governed by the regulations of other agencies, he questioned Mr. Sherrard why it would be necessary for the City to make the requirements more restrictive. pointed out that the regulations from other agencies do not address aesthetic concerns. From their point of view, the higher the pier or dock the better. In most cases, jurisdictions have set a level of two to five feet above mean high or high tide. He acknowledged that he has not reviewed the 30-year tide table for Bremerton lately, but he did not believe a three-foot height limit above mean high or high tide would result in docks being underwater during extremely high tides. However, it would limit the height of a pier structure. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 58 May 29, 2012 ~ Page of Commissioner Mosiman said that aesthetic and ecological concerns are both important to him. However, without having a clear understanding of why the existing ecological rules are important, he cannot trade them off for aesthetic regulations at Ms. Floyd this time. said it would be difficult to obtain this information because the requirements for each dock will be different based on individual biological evaluations. She explained that the point of the City’s regulation is to ensure the bare minimum of what they want to achieve. The real question is whether or not the Commission wants to maintain and/or clarify the current provision that establishes a height limit of three feet above the ordinary high water mark. Commissioner Hoell Ms. Floyd Ms. asked if the Citizens Advisory Group has addressed this issue, and answered no. Spencer suggested that the specific height limit could be eliminated and replaced with more flexible code language that Chair Jose requires applicants to demonstrate that proposals address both ecological function and aesthetics. observed that removing the height limit from the code would only impact aesthetic concerns. He said he would be inclined to remove the Commissioner Hoell height limit completely. expressed support for Ms. Spencer’s recommended change to allow the City Commissioner Lambert flexibility to address aesthetic concerns. agreed and noted that the number was arbitrary and the Commissioner Mosiman City is not required to establish a height limit. said he also supports Ms. Spencer’s recommended Ms. Floyd change. He asked if a public notice and comment period is provided whenever a dock is replaced. answered affirmatively. COMMISSIONER LAMBERT MOVED TO DELETE SMP 20.16.930(b)(15)(ii) TO ELIMINATE HEIGHT LIMITS FOR DOCK STRUCTURES. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Tift referred to a previous illustration provided by staff showing a dock that would meet the three-foot height Chair Jose limit and expressed his belief that a three-foot height limit would be reasonable. cautioned against extraneous Commissioner Hoell code requirements that are unnecessary. expressed concern that without a specific height limit, the Chair Jose City would have no ability to deal with aesthetic issues that come up in the future. reminded the Commission that various state agencies already have regulations and review processes in place to deal with these structures. The only concern would be aesthetics, and he is uncomfortable regulating the aesthetics of a pier, including height. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION TO CLARIFY THE MOTION, THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1, WITH COMMISSIONER TIFT VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Commissioner Tift asked if the language in the proposed SMP would allow the City to consider the view from adjacent Ms. Floyd properties when reviewing vegetation management plans. recalled previous Commission discussions that all view corridors, with the exception of those in the downtown, have been eliminated. That means that views are not protected, and property owners would not be able to file complaints if neighboring trees are too tall and block views. The vegetation management plan allows trees to be grouped in order to preserve views, but it does not require a property owner to do so. Chair Jose summarized that, as currently written, there is no provision in the SMP that requires a property owner to account Commissioner Mosiman for the view of a neighboring property owner. said that while he can sympathize with Mr. Mandak’s plight, he cautioned against adding language to address view protection at this time. He noted that the Commission has not considered this issue in earlier discussions. Commissioner Tift observed that much of the substantive parts of the SMP are dictated by the DOE. It appears that the City’s only real authority is related to aesthetics and beautification. He agreed that the document may be too far along in the process to address these issues now, but maintaining an attractive waterfront is something the City has the authority to do. Chair Jose allowed additional public testimony. Mr. Mandak pointed out that some cities address view blockage as part of their vegetation management plan requirement, but others do not. He suggested that if the issue is not addressed in the SMP, perhaps another City document, such as the Comprehensive Plan, could address view protection. While he recognized that nothing can be done to address his situation, it is important to have code language to address future problems of this type. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 68 May 29, 2012 ~ Page of Mr. Nerf pointed out that someone building a dock could eliminate the view from adjacent houses built at sea level. He said he anticipates aesthetic issues could arise if there is no height limitation for docks and piers. He said there are still problems on Madrona Point Drive related to docks that were previously built. Mr. Beam pointed out that the City can control vegetation via the vegetation management plan provision. However, as currently proposed, the provision only includes a minimum height of four feet for trees. He pointed out that, when doing a vegetation management plan, property owners are likely to place the trees as close as possible to the property line to maximize view. Ms. Floyd cautioned that significant legal problems are associated with regulating vegetation and view. The City receives numerous vegetation complaints, and enforcement is difficult. The City’s legal department has repeatedly cautioned that the Ms. Spencer City should not deal with vegetation and views. recalled that when the City initially started the SMP update, one of the key principles was to eliminate the view corridors therefore staff has not done any work on researching what code provisions could be included to protect view corridors. Mr. Sherrard said he has experience with other jurisdictions that considered vegetation and view regulations extensively. He cautioned that it could be considered a misuse of police power for a public agency to protect the rights of one property owner over another. Regulating vegetation on one person’s property in order to benefit another property could present certain legal challenges. He referred to a specific case involving the City of Medina, regarding a provision that limited the maximum height of fences and hedges. The provision was struck down in court as being outside of normal police powers. He summarized that legal experts advise cities to avoid these types of provisions. Commissioner Tift asked if formatting and grammatical corrections would be made before the document is presented to the Ms. Floyd City Council. answered affirmatively. Commissioner Mosiman referred to Ms. Spencer’s earlier recommendation that SMP 20.16.930(b)(15)(ii) should be replaced with more flexible language that requires applicants to demonstrate that proposals address both ecological function and aesthetics. Ms. Spencer said the Commission could direct staff to prepare additional language to deal with aesthetics and dock height. This new language could be proposed as a separate item for discussion when the draft SMP is presented to the Ms. Floyd City Council for review and approval. said another option would be to add flexible language that says “docks Commissioner Mosiman should not exceed three feet.” said he would support either approach, but he cautioned against striking SMP 2.16.930(b)(15)(ii) without adding replacement language that gives the City the ability to weigh in on issues related to height and aesthetics. COMMISSIONER TIFT MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN OPTION TO DEAL WITH AESTHETICS AND DOCK HEIGHT FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Spencer invited the Commissioners to provide feedback regarding the proposed provision that would limit remodels of Chair Jose up to 75% of a structures’ value to once every five years. agreed that this provision is necessary to avoid abuse Commissioner Albright of the process. asked what would happen if a property is sold and the new owners want to do Ms. Floyd improvements. answered that, as currently proposed, they would have to wait out the time period. However, the Commissioner Commission could add language that would allow the City to waive the provision for new property owners. Albright Chair Jose pointed out that the provision could reduce the value of a property that is being sold. said he can see the positive aspect of waiving the provision for new property owners, but he expressed concern that some may use this Ms. Floyd waiver to get around the requirement. said that, as currently proposed, all maintenance work conducted within a five-year period on the structure shall be included in the calculation. That means that if one property did maintenance work that equaled 35% of its value, a new property owner would be allowed to do maintenance work up to 40% of its value. Presumably, a remodel that approaches 75% of a structure’s value is quite substantial, and it would not be necessary to do another substantial remodel in that short time period. The Commission did not propose any changes to the proposed time limitation. BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT III, COMMISSIONER MOSIMAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE SHORELINE MASTER DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 78 May 29, 2012 ~ Page of PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT IV OF THE STAFF REPORT AND AS AMENDED, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF WOULD CORRECT TOPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. COMMISSIONER HOELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0, WITH COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHT ABSTAINING BASED ON THE LENGTH OF TIME SHE HAS SERVED ON THE COMMISSION. The public hearing was declared closed. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Jose did not have any items to report during this portion of the meeting. Director Report Ms. Spencer extended her thanks and gratitude to Ms. Floyd for all her hard work in preparing and presenting the SMP update. She has done a fabulous job. th Ms. Spencer announced that a public hearing for the SKIA Subarea Plan was originally scheduled for June 19. However, th because of staffing conflicts, she asked the Commissioners to consider moving the hearing to June 26. The Commissioners indicated their availability for both dates, and staff agreed to coordinate the schedule and notify the Commissioners once the hearing has been scheduled. Ms. Spencer advised that the Planning Commissioners have been invited to attend the Puget Sound Regional Council’s th (PSRC) general assembly on June 7. She invited interested Commissioners to take a packet of information. Ms. Spencer announced that she extended an offer for the assistant director position today, and the offer was verbally accepted. Final confirmation is required by the City Council due to salary request. 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 7:11 p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea L Spencer Greg Jose AICP, Executive Secretary Chair, Planning Commission DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 88 May 29, 2012 ~ Page of Commission Meeting Date: June 19, 2012 Agenda Item: V.B.1 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing on the SKIA Subarea Plan DEPARTMENT: Department of Community Development PRESENTED BY: Doug McIntyre, Long-Range Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Enclosed for Planning Commission review is a draft of the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Subarea Plan. The Commission conducted a workshop including public comment during the April 17, 2012 meeting. The Commission will be conducting a public hearing and developing a recommendation to the City Council as part of the adoption process on June 19, 2012. SKIA, located in southwest Bremerton, comprises approximately 3,700 acres planned for industrial development and use. A draft Subarea Plan has been prepared to guide the expected development in SKIA for the next twenty years, emphasizing 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. Adoption of the Sub Area Plan includes two primary components: 1) Amendment to the 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and to the Zoning Code, BMC Title 20, adding the SKIA Subarea Plan to both; and 2) Development regulations for SKIA that will become effective upon Plan adoption. The purpose of the Subarea Plan is to establish a development plan for the project area and create regulations to guide development, consistent with the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. The following pages of this Staff Report go into more detail of the public process and Subarea Plan document. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the proposed SKIA Subarea Plan, consider public testimony, deliberate, and forward a recommendation to the City Council for adoption. MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION Move to recommend that the City Council adopt the SKIA Subarea Plan as shown in Attachment I based on the findings and conclusions in Attachment II. DOCUMENT OVERVIEW AND CHANGES The SKIA Subarea Plan (Attachment I) is a detailed planning document that fits within the framework of the Comprehensive Plan. The draft Subarea Plan contains five sections in addition to the Appendix: 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, not overly burdensome, ensures flexibility, and provides development incentives for sustainability. The underlying theme of encouraging sustainable development patterns and building design elements is woven throughout the document and is particularly emphasized in Section D. Section A: Goals and Policies The extensive public outreach process, vision, goals, and strategies that have guided the development of the Subarea Plan are detailed in Section A. These elements have informed the planning process to create a solid foundation of what SKIA should look like in the future and the strategies necessary to achieve the long-term vision. Section B: Implementation The Implementation piece of the Subarea Plan is critical to the short-term success of SKIA. It clearly identifies the immediate next steps to promote a quick start toward progress in SKIA. The Section contains a discussion of priority implementation measures and case studies that demonstrate the potential opportunities associated with green eco-industrial development. Section C: Zoning and Development Standards The requirements for development in SKIA are concisely outlined in this section, which focuses on zoning, site development, and right-of-way standards. This section is intended to implement the goals, strategies, and vision for SKIA in a flexible manner that will not impede development and investment. Promotion of sustainable, compact industrial development is also a theme of this section. Section D: Sustainable Design Guidelines and Development Incentives This section is encouraged, but entirely optional. The central theme of the SKIA Subarea Plan is to promote high quality, well-designed, sustainable industrial development. To achieve these goals, the City has provided suggested measures and commensurate incentives for developers. Section E: Capital Facilities Plan Capital facilities are necessary to support future growth in SKIA. The CFP identifies projects needed, based on development assumptions, and a financing plan to build such facilities. Appendix The appendix includes public meeting resources, including all presentations and materials used in public meetings, as well as summaries of the meetings. Public Process: The Sustainable SKIA website, http://www.sustainableskia.com, is the main information access point between Staff and the public. The site provides information on project status, meeting dates, published documents and analysis, contact information and other key information. 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 TWG and EC were instrumental in guiding the planning process. The TWG is an advisory group comprising senior technical staff from each of the regional jurisdictions, as well as the Port of Bremerton, SKIA property owners, and other agencies with stakes in the SKIA Subarea Plan. The TWG met six times over the course of preparation of the Subarea Plan and to review alternatives and provide technical input on aspects of plan development. The EC comprises elected and appointed officials representing the various decision-making boards, commissions, and councils in the region. The EC met seven times over the course of preparation of the Subarea Plan and EIS to review alternatives and overall plan direction. Several TWG and EC meetings were conducted jointly. This had the benefits of an expanded discussion of key issues and sharing of different perspectives. Three public open house style meetings were also held throughout the process in order to keep the public informed of the progress, but also to solicit comments and address any concerns. Public Comments: After the overview presentation to Planning Commission on April 17, 2012, Staff edited the document to address comments and issues that were raised. These edits, outlined below, were completed in addition to document organization and other non-substantive edits not noted herein. Most changes were the result of discussions between Staff and members of the TWG and/or the EC and therefore cannot be attributed to individual comments. The table below outlines the general commentary raised and how Staff responded. Issue/Comment Staff Response Document-wide Sustainability language Staff made changes to language regarding sustainable development to better reflect market conditions. Section A Goals and Strategies equally weighted Staff clarified that the goals and strategies in importanceSection A do not represent a prioritized order and that all goals and strategies shall be equally weighted in importance. Section B None None Section C Inclusion of Essential Public Facilities as a Staff added language to clarify that Essential conditional use Public Facilities are allowed as a conditional use in SKIA. Airport Compatibility revision Language was changed to clarify that City retains land use control. Internal Setback requirement Internal setback requirement was removed upon further review to allow more flexible development standards for adjacent industrial developments. Note that external setbacks to residential uses remain. Payment in lieu of street frontage Staff developed a Deferred Construction of improvements program Frontage Improvements section to allow deferment of frontage improvements under certain circumstances. Right-of-way standards are too burdensome, Staff revised the right-of-way standards and revise streetscape diagrams streetscape diagrams to better reflect market conditions in SKIA. Additionally, language was added to provide “structured flexibility” as well as to clarify the use of Neighborhood Electric Vehicles(NEV) on sidewalks and multi-use paths. Street Typologies map revisions Staff revised the Street Typologies map as appropriate to simplify and better represent the intent. Conceptual Trails map Staff removed the Conceptual Trails map in all instances to avoid confusion regarding the intent of the trail system in SKIA. Removal of the map further clarified that the location of the trail system will occur as development occurs and that the concept of a loop system is the most relevant piece of information regarding trails. Section D Building Permit Fee Rebate program Staff increased the percentage of rebate on building permit fees from a maximum of 30% to a maximum of 100%. Upon further analysis it was shown that an incentive with a maximum rebate of 30% was inadequate and that a maximum rebate of 100% was commensurate with the expected public benefit. Section E Intersections with state roads Staff clarified that intersections with state roads may be signalized to reflect the WSDOT policy to consider the use of roundabouts as well as traditional intersection controls on state routes, particularly at unsignalized intersections. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEPA: Adoption of development regulations and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan require evaluation of environment impacts through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. The City issued a SEPA Determination of Significance (DS) on the Plan. The action does have a significant impact on the environment due to the threshold of development expected to occur. The DS on the non-project action requires statutory notice, review and appeal periods which the City completed. The determination that this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment resulted in the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) as outlined below. Planned Action EIS: The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SKIA Subarea Plan evaluates the probable significant environmental impacts that could occur as a result of development activities within SKIA under a range of EIS Alternatives. Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the range of alternatives were assessed. Impacts associated with the alternatives were analyzed and appropriate mitigation measures to address significant adverse impacts were identified. The EIS provides decision-makers with relevant information to evaluate the Proposed Action. The EIS addresses the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of two action alternatives and one no-action alternative identified in the Subarea planning process. The EIS is also intended to fulfill SEPA requirements for Planned Action environmental review. According to SEPA, a "Planned Action" is a designation for a project or elements of a project that shifts environmental review from the time a permit application is made to an earlier phase in the process (WAC 197-11-164). The planned action analysis applies to the entire study area and addresses potential impacts and mitigating measures for each of the identified alternatives. Because future site-specific proposals that qualify under the planned action ordinance would not be subject to future SEPA threshold determinations or public comment on environmental impacts, interested individuals and agencies were given the opportunity to provide comment during the public comment periods during the planned action EIS process. OPTIONS 1. Formulate a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the SKIA Subarea Plan. 2. Continue the public hearing on the SKIA Subarea Plan to a future date for additional review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the proposed SKIA Subarea Plan, consider public testimony, deliberate, and forward a recommendation to the City Council for adoption, including a text amendment to Chapter 20.80 of the proposed Title 20 Zoning Code to activate the development standards of the SKIA Subarea Plan. ATTACHMENTS Attachment I: SKIA Planning Commission Review Draft Subarea Plan (Planning Commission receiving hard copy): www.sustainableskia.com Attachment II: Findings and Conclusions ûèèûùôï÷îèóó FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary – Proposal to include the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Subarea Plan in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code by amendment. The Zoning Code will add reference in BMC 20.80.080 to activate the SKIA Subarea Plan as development regulations for the South Kitsap Industrial Area. I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1.0 Project Description The SKIA Subarea covers an approximately 3,700 acre area in the southwestern portion of the City of Bremerton. The Subarea Plan includes two primary components: 1) an amendment to the 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and to the Zoning Code, BMC Title 20, adding the SKIA Subarea Plan to both and, 2) development regulations for SKIA that will function as zoning upon Plan adoption. The SKIA Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC) was designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan in the 2008 amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, per Ordinance 5062. SKIA is also designated as one of eight Manufacturing/Industrial Centers in the PSRC Vision 2040 regional growth strategy.SKIA will retain a different urban form than Bremerton’s current regional or district centers, particularly due to the expected industrial development to occur in the next 20 years. Following SKIA annexations, the Industrial Zoning requirements were applied to the entire area as an interim ‘stopgap’ zoning scenario. In 2010 the City obtained a grant from the EPA under its “Climate Showcase Communities” program, which funded work on a SKIA Subarea Plan to ensure that future development of the subarea is coordinated, well-designed, and meets sustainable development goals, while still meeting the goals of the MIC to accommodate intensive manufacturing and industrial development. The SKIA Subarea Plan is a detailed planning document that fits within the framework of the Comprehensive Plan. The Subarea Plan fits within the growth projections of the Comprehensive Plan and implements its “Centers” concept. 2.0 Procedural History A public participation process for the SKIA Subarea Plan has been ongoing since the Fall of 2010. The Subarea Plan includes documentation of the public participation process (parts of Section A and Section B). T hree public open houses and a wide range of stakeholder meetings were held over the course of the planning process. Additionally the Plan was presented and discussed at a Planning Commission Workshop on April 17, 2012. Extensive community input is integrated throughout the plan, meeting and exceeding requirements. 1 of 7 A summary of meetings, workshops, and open houses held is listed below. Technical Working Group (TWG) Meetings The TWG is an advisory group comprising senior technical staff from each of the regional jurisdictions, Port of Bremerton, SKIA property owners, Suquamish Tribe, Port Gamble/S’Klallam Tribe, South Kitsap Economic Development Alliance, Sustainable Bremerton, Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, Hood Canal Coordinating Council, and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard/Naval Base Kitsap. 2.1 November 9, 2010 2.2 April 28, 2011 Executive Committee (EC) Meetings The EC comprises elected and appointed officials from the following organizations: Bremerton City Council, Bremerton Planning Commission, Port of Bremerton Port Commission, Kitsap County, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Suquamish Tribal Council, Port Orchard City Council, and Naval Base Kitsap. 2.3 December 9, 2010 2.4 May 5, 2011 Joint TWG and EC Meetings 2.5 June 16, 2011 2.6 July 25, 2011 2.7 March 28, 2012 2.8 April 10, 2012 (Developer’s Forum) Public Open Houses 2.9 October 10, 2010 2.10 June 16, 2011 2.11 May 7, 2012 Planning Commission 2.12 Public Workshop—August 17, 2010 (Overview of grant and process) 2.13 Public Workshop—April 17, 2012 (Overview of Draft Subarea Plan) 2.14 Planning Commission Public Hearing—June 19, 2012 Notice Notice for all open houses, workshops and hearings was publicized widely in a range of outlets including advertisement in the Kitsap Sun, City of Bremerton website and direct mailings. Direct mailing to persons with property in proximity to or within the SKIA Subarea was the primary method for notification of public meetings. A record of contacts for all persons participating in any of the meetings was maintained. 2 of 7 3.0 Public Comment at Public Hearing Numerous individuals, groups, and agencies provided comments at public workshops, community meetings, and via comment cards and letters. Comments received were considered and used to develop the draft plan that is prepared for Planning Commission Review.A general summary of public participation is found in Section A of the SKIA Subarea Plan. Individuals providing verbal testimony at the Planning Commission Public Hearing are listed below: 3.1 Name and Address: ______________________________________________ 3.2 Name and Address: ______________________________________________ 3.3 Name and Address: ______________________________________________ 3.4 Name and Address: ______________________________________________ 4.0 SEPA Determination, Environmental Review, and Agency Notification 4.1 SEPA Adoption of development regulations and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan require evaluation of environment impacts through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. The City issued a SEPA Determination of Significance (DS) on the Plan on September 29, 2010. The Subarea Plan is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment due to the threshold of development expected to occur. The DS requires statutory notice, review and appeal periods, which the City completed. The determination that this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment resulted in the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) as outlined below. 4.2 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SKIA Subarea Plan evaluates the probable significant environmental impacts that could occur as a result of development activities within SKIA under a range of EIS Alternatives. Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the range of alternatives were assessed. Impacts associated with the alternatives were analyzed and appropriate mitigation measures to address significant adverse impacts were identified. The EIS provides decision-makers with relevant information to evaluate the Proposed Action. The EIS addresses the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of two action alternatives and one no-action alternative identified in the Subarea planning process. The EIS is also intended to fulfill SEPA requirements for Planned Action environmental review. According to SEPA, a "Planned Action" is a designation for a project or elements of a project that shifts environmental review from the time a permit application is made to an earlier phase in the process (WAC 197-11-164). The planned action analysis applies to the entire study area and addresses potential impacts and mitigating measures for each of the identified alternatives. 3 of 7 Because future site-specific proposals that qualify under the planned action ordinance would not be subject to future SEPA threshold determinations or public comment on environmental impacts, interested individuals and agencies were given the opportunity to provide comment during the public comment periods during the planned action EIS process. The Draft EIS was issued on June 9, 2011 and the Final EIS was issued on March 29, 2012. The Draft EIS and the Final EIS are intended to be used in conjunction with one another. 4.3 60-day State Agency Review Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations also require a 60 day State Agency Review and Comment Period. The document was forwarded to State agencies, commencing the review period, on March 29, 2012. There were no comments received from State agencies during the review period, which closed on May 29, 2012. 5.0 Comprehensive Plan Consistency Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.10. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to the comprehensive plan if the criteria outlined below are met. The proposal is to add the SKIA Subarea Plan to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plans as an amendment, providing more specific and detailed planning for the area. 5.1 BMC 20.10.080(a) allows amendments to the Comprehensive Plan if there is an obvious technical error. Not applicable to this project. 5.2 BMC 20.10.080(b) allows amendments to the Comprehensive Plan if the following criteria have been met. 5.2 (1) The amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA): This amendment is consistent with the GMA by meeting the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan which was created to achieve the goals of the GMA. Specifically, the Subarea Plan meets the Economic Development goal by supporting existing industries, recruiting new industrial sectors, and emphasizing the development of a “clean-tech” sector. Through the various Low-Impact Development (LID) measures and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reducing measures outlined in the standards (Section C), guidelines (Section D), and the EIS, the Subarea Plan meets the Environment goal by striving to enhance the quality of the local environment. Furthermore, through an aggressive public outreach component, which focused on both public involvement as well as involvement of staff at regional jurisdictions and 4 of 7 agencies, the Subarea Plan meets the Citizen Participation and Regional Coordination goal of the GMA. The GMA encourages the adoption of subarea plans, recognizing that this may occur outside of the annual amendment timeframe, as is the case with the SKIA Subarea Plan. 5.2 (2) The amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan or other goals or policies of the City: The SKIA Subarea Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of the SKIA Subarea as a Manufacturing/Industrial Center. The Manufacturing/Industrial Center designation calls for intensive, concentrated manufacturing and industrial land uses that cannot be easily mixed with other activities. Furthermore, Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are intended to accommodate a significant amount of regional employment, and will have a different urban form and purpose than the rest of the City’s centers. The Subarea Plan achieves this vision through the Goals and Strategies (Section A), the Zoning and Development Standards (Section C), and the Design Guidelines (Section D) which promote compact industrial and commercial development and job creation that support long-term economic vitality. The Subarea Plan also includes specific goals and strategies that meet the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Subarea Plan encourages environmentally responsible development and economic development, which are goals also found in the Comprehensive Plan. 5.2 (3) If the amendment was reviewed but not adopted as a part of a previous proposal, circumstances related to the proposed amendment have significantly changed, or the needs of the City have changed, which support an amendment; This amendment supplements and implements the Comprehensive Plan. It is based on the direction of the Comprehensive Plan to develop specific area plans for the SKIA Manufacturing/Industrial Center. 5.2 (4) The amendment is compatible with existing or planned land uses and the surrounding development pattern; The SKIA Subarea Plan is compatible with the adopted Manufacturing/Industrial Center land use and the surrounding development pattern. Industrial uses currently are predominant in the Subarea and through the Subarea Plan, industrial uses are intended to remain the predominating use in the long term. 5.2 (5) The amendment will not adversely affect the City’s ability to provide urban services at the planned level of service and bears a reasonable relationship to benefiting the public health, safety and welfare. 5 of 7 The SKIA Subarea Plan will not adversely affect the City’s ability to provide urban services at the planned level of service. The Environmental Impact Statement addresses the City’s ability to provide urban services at the planned level of service. Additionally, the GMA compliant Capital Facilities Plan (Section E) outlines the provision of urban services, including transportation, water, sewer, and stormwater facilities. The purpose of the CFP for SKIA is to provide adequate public facilities consistent with the development plan of the SKIA Subarea Plan. Careful planning and sound fiscal policies will provide the needed facilities that achieve and maintain the City of Bremerton’s standards for level of service concurrent with, or prior to, the impacts of development. The amendment will benefit the public health, safety and welfare by achieving numerous City goals and policies related to environmental stewardship, while ensuring that intense industrial development occurs where it is most suited. 6.0 Amendment to the Zoning Code An amendment to the Zoning Code, BMC 20.80.080 Master Development, is proposed to accompany adoption of the SKIA Subarea Plan. This amendment adds a reference to the Ordinance adopting the Subarea Plan, thereby activating the development standards contained in the Plan as the zoning for the SKIA Subarea. Zoning code text amendments shall meet the decision criteria outlined in BMC 20.18.020 (d). The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may adopt or adopt with modifications, an amendment to the zoning code text if the criteria outlined below are met. 6.1 (1) 20.18.020(d)(2) allows amendments to the Zoning Code if it is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. See discussion in 5.2 above for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and Section A of the Subarea Plan. The SKIA Subarea Plan is fully consistent with the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows the SKIA Subarea as a Manufacturing/Industrial Center, which is described on page LU-23a of the amended Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as: …areas with existing or expected intensive, concentrated manufacturing and industrial land uses that cannot be easily mixed with other activities. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are intended to accommodate a significant amount of regional employment, and will have a different urban form and purpose than the rest of the City’s centers. They can be characterized as areas of large contiguous blocks of land served by the region’s major transportation infrastructure, including such items as roads, rail, and port facilities. Protecting these centers from incompatible uses, as well as providing them with adequate public facilities and services will require deliberate and careful planning. 6 of 7 The SKIA Subarea Plan is consistent with this vision for the Manufacturing/Industrial Center and achieves it through the Goals and Strategies (Section A) and the Zoning and Development Standards (Section C). 6.2 (2) 20.18.020(d)(2) allows amendments to the Zoning Code if it does not conflict with other City, state and federal codes, regulations and ordinances. The SKIA Subarea plan does not conflict with any other regulations. II. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission concludes that the SKIA Subarea Plan has met the requirements for 1) amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and 2) text amendments to the zoning code as detailed in BMC 20.80. Therefore the Commission recommends the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the SKIA Subarea Plan and an amendment to the zoning code text in BMC 20.80 to include the Ordinance number of the SKIA Subarea Plan. Respectfully submitted by: Approved by: __________________________ __________________________ Andrea L Spencer, AICP Greg Jose, Chair Executive Secretary Planning Commission 7 of 7