The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/16/2013 PACKET(DRAFT) AGENDA Regular Meeting Bremerton Planning Commission (Subject to PC approval) April 16, 2013 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: February 19, 2013Regular meeting. Î V. PUBLIC MEETING A. Call to the Public: B. Workshop 1. 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update 1.a Overview of State requirements for Comprehensive Plan updates 1.b Comprehensive Plan Update Guest Speaker: Scott Daniels, Kitsap Public Health District, on the importance of incorporating public health in a comprehensive plan. 2. Zoning Code Amendments VI. BUSINESS MEETING A. Chair Report: B. Director Report: Andrea Spencer. C.Old Business: D.New Business VII. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is May 21, 2013 Planning Commission meeting packets are available on-line at www.ci.bremerton.wa.us DRAFT Subject to April16, 2013Approval CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULARMEETING February 19, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Josecalled theregularmeeting of the Bremerton Planning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners PresentStaff Present Chair JoseAndrea Spencer,Director,Department of Community Development Vice Chair TiftAllison Daniels, Current Planner, Department of Community Development Commissioner AlbrightBill Webb, AECOM Consulting Commissioner DinkuhnLisa Grueter, Berk Consulting Commissioner Lambert Commissioner Simpson Commissioner Strube Quorum Certified APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMISSIONER LAMBERTMOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR TIFT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER ALBRIGHTMOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2013AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER STRUBESECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETING Call to the Public (public comments on any item not on the agenda) Chair Jose asked if there were any comments from citizens. Seeing none, he closed the publicportion of the meeting. Workshop: Gorst Creek Watershed and Subarea Plan Ms. Daniels said the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to share information with the Commission, obtain direction from the Commission regarding the Gorst Creek Watershed Plan Guiding Principles and Vision, and receive Commission feedbackon the range of three land use alternativesproposed for the Gorst Subarea PlanEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS). She explained thatthe subarea plan is intended to identifythe future of the area over the next 20 years by defining the land use options. Withthe newly installed sewer infrastructure, the Gorst area is a prime candidate for redevelopment. She further explained that this is a joint planning effort with Kitsap County, as the property is not currently part of the City of Bremerton but one of our Urban Growth Areas. If and when the propertyis annexed at some point in the future, it will be important for the City to have a subarea plan in place that is somewhat consistent with the County’s subarea plan to allowfora seamless annexation process. She noted thatit will be important to protect water quality, habitat and fish and to establish areas for development, restoration and protection that are based on science.As part of developing a long-range capital improvement plan, the City will identify current deficiencies and the costs associated withimprovements. The goal is to make the Gorst Subarea a place where people want to live, shop and recreate. She advised that the planning process should result in the following products: Watershed Characterization Plan, which is already in processand can be accessed via the internet at . www.gorstwatershed.com Land Use Plan and Development Regulations Stormwater Plan Capital Improvement and Corrective Action Plan Outreach and Information Plan Ms. Daniels shared a list of the agencies and parties who have contributed funds and efforts towards the subarea planning process.She noted that additional parties, such as the Washington State Department of Transportation, will also be part of the conversation. She explained that because the project is funded with grant dollars, it must be completed by January 1, 2014. That means the schedule will be tight. She provided a graphic illustration of the proposed timeline, noting that the current focus is defining the vision of the land use plan. The next step is to develop and evaluate alternatives using an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Bill Webb, AECOM Consulting, congratulated the City of Bremerton for undertaking the project using a relatively new approach outlined by the Department of Ecology (DOE) and Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) for all watersheds in Puget Sound, which evaluates future land-use scenarios based on best available science (BAS). He advisedthat the Watershed Characterization Plan maps all of the water flow characteristics associated with the basin. This map is overlaid with habitat maps to define areas of protection, restoration, and development. Based on bothhydrologic and habitat characteristics, the study area was divided into units to identify potential land uses. He referred to a map titled, “Gorst Watershed Assessment Units,”which has been approved by the DOE and the DFW. He described the following areas: Protection: Most of the dark green area (Units 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 19 and 20) is located in the watershed area, which is currently owned by the City of Bremerton. It isone of the largest stretches of undeveloped ground in south Puget Sound. The area is relatively pristine, and there is abundant wildlife. The goal is to preserve this habitat. Restoration: The light green areas (Units 9, 10, 11 and 18) have been adversely impacted by development, impervious pavement, etc. However, they are still fairly high quality. Restoration efforts in these areas will gain the greatest increase in stopping floods and sedimentation runoff and improving overall water quality and habitat in the basin. Development: The yellow areas (Areas 3, 8, 15, 16 and 17) are good places for development to occur. While conventional wisdom says not to build by water, Area 15 has already been developed in a haphazard way and much of the habitat it gone. In addition, BAS supports developing in the lowlands rather than on the top of hills, which may cause erosion of the hillsidewhich would have downstream effects. Mr. Webb advised that rather than trying to model the flood and stormwater deficiencies, a stormwater engineer was able to visit the site during a 50-year storm event this past fall. This allowed the consulting teamto map all the areas that failed because of too much water, blockage, etc. He shared pictures to illustrate some of these situations. Lisa Grueter, Berk Consulting, briefly described the scoping process that is used for an EIS. The process included a written comment period, business outreach, tribal outreach and a public workshop. Key topics raised during the scoping process were related to traffic, stormwater, land use and trails (connectivity). She reported that the City’s Government to Government meeting with the Suquamish Tribe took place early in the process and was positive. Some of the key issues raised were related to promoting restoration, evaluating cultural and historical resources, trails and fish passage. She further reported that Mr. Webb and City staff visited each business owner, handing out a letter and inviting them to attend the public DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 26 February 19, 2013 ~ Page of scoping meeting in Octoberand/or provide written input. Most comments that were received related to traffic and land use, particularly access to businesses from congested roadways. She advised that approximately 37 residents and service providers attended the public workshop, where there was an opportunity for small group discussions and a questionnaire. A th summary of the meeting is available at www.gorstwatershed.com. A similar summary will be prepared for the February 12 st public meeting, the February 21meetings of the Kitsap County andBremerton Planning Commissions. Commissioner Simpson requested clarification about the City’s discussions with the Suquamish Tribe regarding historic Ms. Grueter sites. said the waterfront and Gorst Creek, in general, are areas where they need to be careful of potential archeological resources; and the mine site is an area where tribal contests were held. The tribe wanted the City to be aware of these sites when preparing the EIS, and they agreed to share additional information. Ms. Daniels clarified that the project includes two plans: the Gorst Creek Watershed Plan and the Gorst UGA Subarea Plan. The watershed plan is nearly complete and involvedcoordination with Kitsap County and the Suquamish Tribe. It categorizes the areas for development and restorationandclearly indicates that the City should focus their planning effortson the area close to the water, which is identified as the Gorst Urban Growth Area (UGA). She provided a map to illustrate the land use designations that are currently in place. She advised that staff is seeking input from the Commission about the future role of the Gorst UGA in order to identify the appropriate land uses. Key questions include: Is it a neighborhood or a commercial center? Should it serve the neighborhood, the Bremerton community, or the region? What is the UGA’s future in 20 years? What should it be and not be? Mr. Webb explained that as part of the EIS process, the City must create a series of alternatives, with Alternative 1 being the baseline conditions, absent of any change. The other “action” alternatives suggest changesandwill be measured against the “baseline” alternative to identify the potential impacts such as noise, traffic and stormwater runoff. He emphasized that the purpose of the alternatives is to provide a broad range of options,from which a “preferred alternative” will be selected for the final EIS. He reviewed each of the proposed alternatives as follows: Alternative 1 –A relatively small highway-oriented commercial and industrial center. Mr. Webb explained that this alternative would retain the zoning currently identified in the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan. There is currently a lot of commercial zoning, including places that are developed as residential. The County’s intent was to upzone the properties to commercial to create funding opportunities for wastewater infrastructure. Since that time, grant funding has been secured and the necessarywastewater infrastructure has been developed. He noted that in addition to the significant amount of property identified as High Intensity Commercial MixedUse, Kitsap County’scurrent land use map identifies a significant amount of Mineral Resource and Industrial land uses and a small amount of Low-Density Residential. Although not shown in Alternative 1, he also noted that Kitsap County has acquired the industrial land near Ms. Daniels the Highway 16 interchange for a park. clarified that the County’s High Intensity Commercial Mixed Use classification’s equivalent designation in the City is Freeway Corridor and the Mineral Resource Classification equivalent is Industrial on the City of Bremerton’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Commissioner Simpson asked if the Gorst Subarea Plan boundaryincludesall of the 335 gross acres identified as Mr. Webb developable on the Watershed Characterization Map. explained that the City has already addressed the area known as the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Subarea, so this area was not included within the Gorst Subarea boundaries. The Gorst Subarea Plan will focus only on the properties within the Gorst UGA.Kitsap County has no interest in changing their land use designations within their rural areasoutside of the Gorst UGA. The other land owned by the City is locatedwithin the watershed property that probably should not be developed. He emphasized that development will be allowed throughout the UGA, regardless of the color a property is identified on the map. However, Commissioner Simpson the restrictions and mitigation requirements will be different. noted thatabout half of the Gorst Mr. Webb UGA’s total acresare part of the Gorst Watershed Study Area. agreed that the study area includes the entire Gorst Watershed, but most of the land use changes will be centered in the UGA only. Alternative 2 –A well-designed Regional Commercial Center. Mr. Webb explained thatas currently drafted this alternative would expand the commercial area to include the bulk of the industrial properties. The industrial area near the Highway 16 interchange would beidentified as Open Space/Recreation. Once the gravel quarry is no longer operational the property would be restored, and Alternative 2 proposes a Neighborhood Mixed Use designation to allow DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 36 February 19, 2013 ~ Page of residential and smaller commercial development to meet the needs of the excess population from the other UGAs in the City. Alternative 3 –A complete community. Mr. Webb advised that as currently drafted, this alternative would make Gorst a complete community unto itself, acknowledging it as the new southern gateway to the City. Some of the more distinct commercial areas would remain; and rather than focusing on commercial support, the mine quarry property would be medium-density residential. He noted that once the hillside isstabilized as part of the restoration project, view properties will be available. All properties that are not along the highway corridors would be zoned to allow some type of residentialuse. The goal is to avoid making existing residential uses non-conforming, but also allowproperty owners an opportunity to upgrade to commercial if appropriate. He expressed his belief that properties along the highways would most likely be commercial, but the properties off the main roads would probably never be developed as commercialeven ifzoned as such. The mixed use designation would allow flexibility for both types of uses. The low- density residential area to the southwest would be identified as Gorst Creek Residential. Mr. Webb advised that as per a recent ruling identifying Steelhead Salmon as an endangered species, properties within 200 feet of the shoreline have been identified as critical area habitat. That means that development along rivers and shorelines will be very difficult. While existing development would be allowed to remain, there would be significant restrictions on future development. Existing commercial properties in this area are already suffering flooding problems Ms. as a result of stormwater runoff, so buildingmore impervious surface would be a bad idea under any circumstance. Grueter clarified that this property couldactually bepart of the planned action, but significant restrictions and best Mr. Webb management practices would apply. advised that the team would provide more guidance on how to address this issue at a later time. Commissioner Simpson asked if the City is required to place onerous restrictions on any future development onthe Subaru Mr. Webb property. answered that the Federal Government, under the Endangered Species Act, will likely require significant restrictions on any development that occurs within 200 feet of the shoreline. However, only about one quarter of Commissioner Simpson the Subaru property and none of the Mattress Ranch property is within 200 feet of the shoreline. Mr. Webb asked if it would be possible to place a wall close to the shoreline to address flooding issues. said a wall would not stop stormwater from flowing both under and over the parking area pavement. Hesummarized that there are ways to fix the flooding problems that currently exist on the site, and it is not the City’s intent to drive out the existing businesses. Chair Jose Mr. Webb asked what requirements the property owners would have to deal with based on today’s code. answered that external to 200 feet from the shoreline, property owners would be allowed to utilize various methods to address stormwater problems. However, a newstormwater discharge pipe would require an NPDES permit, which has strict requirements for stormwater discharge. The property owner would not likely be allowed to discharge runoff from Commissioner Simpson developmentwithout having a significant treatment systemin place.voiced concern that the new Mr. Webb requirements would force the existing businesses out. clarified that is not the City’s intent, but that might be the reality of the new Federal requirement. He referred to the map that identifies stormwater deficiencies and noted that most of the problems are in this location and are likely theresult of tree removal and an increase of impervious surfaces on upland properties. The City’s goal is to identify a capital improvement plan to solve the stormwater problems over the next few years. Vice Chair Tift Mr. Webb asked if there is any chance of solving the underlying issues related to traffic. answered that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has identified three solutions to address traffic in this area: install a light at the intersection, widen the road significantly, or building a bridge from Highway 3 to Highway 16. He pointed out that widening the roadway would essentially eliminate half of the commercial properties. Based on cost, the likelihood of the latter two options is very low. He said he could propose some better alternatives, but they have not been tested or costedout at this point. He noted that one of the primary goals of all three alternatives is to not make the traffic and stormwater issues any worse. While the plan may include some recommendations to address the traffic issues, he acknowledged that is not something the County or City will have control over. They can advise WSDOT to look at other options, but they must recognize that cost will be a factor in decidingwhether or not the improvements are done. Commissioner Lambert asked which alternative would be better suited if the City is unable to fix the transportation Ms. GrueterMr. problems. answered that the teamwillconsider the combination and proximity of uses as part of the EIS. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 46 February 19, 2013 ~ Page of Webb added that the goal of the “complete community” (Alternative 3)scenario is to provide housing opportunities for people to live close to where they work. Commissioner AlbrightMr. Webb asked if WSDOT was part of the public outreach process. said the list of stakeholders was intended to identify those groups who actually contributed to the project with in-kind hours or money. Additional stakeholders have provided or will provide inputduring the process, including WSDOT, the Navy, and businessowners. Commissioner Albright cautioned against planning a community around a major highway without thinking it through very Mr. Webb carefully. concurred. He noted that access will bea major issue if redevelopment occurs on the mining property at some point in the future. Ms. Grueter reported that an Advisory Committee was formed to help move the process along. The committee included representatives from the City, the Suquamish Tribe, and Kitsap County. They met in January to provide direction on alternatives so staff could meet with the public and then the Planning Commission. She referred to the matrix in the Staff Report, which provides images of the different types of land uses that could be allowed in each of the designations. It also identifies a proposed height and scale for each of the designations. She briefly reviewed matrixand invited the Commissioners to share their comments regarding potential uses, scale and height. Ms. Grueter briefly described the “planned action” concept. She explained that the EIS will cover the entire planning area, but most of its attention will be focused on the UGA where land use changes and capital improvements have been proposed. APlanned Action EISis a way to facilitate the environmental review process and do the analysis in more detail up front. Future development proposals would not need additional SEPA review when consistent with the Planned Action EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. At this time, the City is proposing that both Alternatives 2 and 3 would have an associated Planned Action EIS. Sheinvited the Commissioners to share their thoughts on whether or not the three alternativespresented tonightprovide the right range to study in the EIS. Commissioner Lambert Ms. Grueter asked if the Kitsap County Planning Commission is going through a similar process. answered that the team met with the Kitsap County Planning Commission earlier in the day. In addition, representatives nd from the City and County will meet with the consulting team on February 22to finalize the three alternatives before moving Mr. Webb into the EIS process. reminded the Commission that the grant expireson January 1, 2014, so the project must be completed by the end of 2013. The consultant team will work on a parallel track with both the City and County, but the City is their client. While the City has plans to annex the Gorst UGA, they may not own the property by the end of 2013 when the subarea plan is adopted. The objective is to come up with development regulations in the code that are acceptable to both the County and the City regardless of when the annexation happens. Commissioner Lambert Mr. Webb asked if it would be possible to obtain an extension of the grant. reviewed that the City obtained the grant in 2010, but changes in City staff caused a long delay in the process. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) representative has done everything she can to help the City, andit may be possible to obtain a short extension as long as the project is substantially completed by the end of December. Vice Chair Tift Mr. Webb noted annexation of the Gorst UGA would connect the islands together. agreed but pointed out that the County has requested that the small sliver of land between the Gorst UGA and the West Bremerton UGA be Commissioner Albright Ms. excluded from the subarea plan. askedhow the West Bremerton UGA is currently zoned. Grueter answered that it is primarilyzoned single family residential, but there is also some medium density residential and commercial zoning. Ms. Spencer explained that State Law offers a number of methods for annexation. In this particular case, the most logical would be the InterlocalMethod, which is an agreement exercised between the County, City and Fire District. The agreement wouldbe largely based on the capital facilities work that ispart of the planning process. They must allow this work to proceed so they have the information needed as a basis for the Interlocal Agreement. She suspects the annexation process will follow closely behind adoption of the watershed and subarea plans, provided that the City can afford the associated Mr. Webb infrastructure costs. pointed out that once a plan is in place, it will be easier for the City to obtain grant funding for infrastructure. DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 56 February 19, 2013 ~ Page of Commissioner Albright said she foresees a blending of Alternatives 2 and 3. For example, the Gorst Commercial designation could follow the highway more closely, similar to Alternative 2. On the other hand, she likes the shoreline Ms. Grueter management aspect of Alternative 3. advised that following the EIS, the Commission can consider options for blending elements from the various alternatives to create a preferred alternative. Vice Chair Tift agreed that there are incredible view opportunities within the proposed residential land use area, particularly Mr. Webb at the top of the existing quarry. said that a Kitsap County Commissioner commented that units developed in this Vice Chair Tift area could become the most valuable in the County because of the view. said this could be particularly true if the properties canbe accessed from Sherman Heights versus Highway 3. Mr. Webb explained that the Gorst UGA could become a gateway into Bremerton. He shared some of his thoughts for how this area could be designed. He noted that more information would be provided later in the process. BUSINESS MEETING Chair Report Chair Jose reported that he is serving as the Commission’s representative to the Gorst Subarea Plan Advisory Committee. He invited the Commissioners to share their additional thoughts with him, and he would relay them to the committee as appropriate. Director Report Ms. Spencer commented that as a result of staff vacancies, the Commission’s March agenda has not been finalized. Old Business There was no old business to come before the Commission. New Business There was no new business scheduled on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:43p.m. Respectively Submitted by: ____________________________________________________________ Andrea L Spencer, AICPGreg Jose Executive SecretaryChair, Planning Commission DRAFT Bremerton Planning Commission Minutes 66 February 19, 2013 ~ Page of Commission Meeting Date: April 16, 2013Agenda Item: V.B.2 CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Workshop to Discuss ZoningCode amendments. DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTED BY: Nicole Floyd, City Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Planning Commission Workshop will focus on three different potential Zoning Code Amendments: SEPA Exemptions, Drive-Through Lanes and Commercial Front-Yard Setbacks. SEPAChanges The Planning Commission held a Zoning Code amendmentworkshop on January 15, 2013, and directed Staffto focus on amendments that directly impact permit processing efficiency. The Commission also requested additional background data related to how the city currently Attachment I processes SEPA reviews, this research iscontained in . At this workshop Staffis requesting the Commission to provide direction as to the appropriate SEPA exemption levels, and we will then prepare the amended code language for public hearing. Drive-Through Lane Restrictions and Commercial Front-Yard Setbacks The City Council held a goal-setting retreat on March 23, 2013. During this retreat the Council set goals for this year to develop policies and regulations that protect our neighborhoods, ensure quality housing stock, and theywere brainstorming ways to ensure the economic viability and competitiveness of the City’s commercial areas. The Council is concerned about vacancy within our commercial districts and believes that the Planning Commission can help by reviewing the city’sComprehensive Plan and zoning regulations and is requesting that the Commission and Staffprepare code amendments for the Council’s consideration. The Council has requested that the Planning Commission study and make a recommendation on: Changes related to drive-through lanes along the Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way Corridors (this use is currently prohibited in many commercial districts) and Changes to commercial zoning districts front-yard setbacks (currently the code lists a maximum setback of 5’ to 10’). These two code provisions are both based in planning principles rooted in the Comprehensive Plan’s “Centers” growth approach, which seeks to limit auto oriented development and has key goals to create a long-term enhanced pedestrian environment with an urban form that requires buildings to be oriented towards the street (rather than set far back on a site with parking in front). Staffhas prepared background information about what the goals and policies of the Attachment II Comprehensive Plan say about the Centers growth plan (see ). The Council has asked for a determination if the Zoning Code can be amended to allow more development flexibility, while still meeting the original intention of the Comprehensive Plan goals. Staffhas done some preliminary work and determined that there is potential to make code modifications Attachment IIIAttachment IV for drive-throughs (see ) and setback requirements (see ). Staffis requesting that the Commission provide feedback and give direction as to what additional research is necessary before a public hearing can be conducted on these code amendments. Attachment I STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT SUMMARY: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was created in the late 1970’s as a way to allow local governments to evaluate and regulate foreseeable impacts of a project that are outside the local jurisdictions code requirements. In a time when environmental protection was just beginning, SEPA was a very useful and powerful tool. Over the years local regulations have become substantially more comprehensive, and the value added by the SEPA process has diminished. Criticism has been mounting statewide by developers and property owners because a SEPA application adds both costs and additional processing time for projects. SEPA rules allow local jurisdictions to establish their own exemption levels within a range identified in state law. In Bremerton, we have adopted exemption levels at the lowest end of the current range. In response to growing criticism of SEPA,the State Legislature acted in 2012 to allow jurisdictions to process permits at the highest exemption levels automatically, without having to make any legislative changes at the local level. This change is only temporary while the Department of Ecology is in the rule making process, which includesconsideration of new exemption levels.For the past year Bremerton has been exempting development projects at the highest available level. In order to continue to use this exemption level,or to utilize the newest (higher) exemptions, the City will need to adopt an ordinance prior to the end of 2013. OPTIONS: The City has the opportunity to adopt an ordinance to establish exemption levels anywhere within the parameters of the following chart. The Planning Staff believe an increaseis appropriate, but are looking to the Planning Commission to make a recommendation as to what levels are appropriate.The following chart establishes the ranges available: ðíå÷éè÷ä÷ïìèóíîé ôóõô÷éèî÷å ôóõô÷éè ûæûóðûúð÷÷ä÷ïìèóíîéûæûóðûúð÷÷ä÷ïìèóíîéûæûóðûúð÷ ø×ÖÛÇÐÈð×Æ×ÐÉ 100 Cubic Yards of Grading400 CubicYards of Grading1,000 Cubic Yards of Grading 20 Parking Stalls40 Parking Stalls90 Parking Stalls 4,000 Square Foot Building10,000 Square Foot Building30,000 Square Foot Building 4Lot Subdivision20 Lot Subdivision30 Lot Subdivision and 60Units Multi-Family 1 Attachment I THE PROCESS: Unless a project is exempt, it will be required to undergothe SEPA Process which at a minimum includes a $320 dollarfee, filling out a17 page questionnaire, and added processing time of between two and six months. The outcome is one of three determinations: Determination of Non-Significance (DNS): The vast majority of SEPA projects are given a DNS, which means that impacts from the project will be adequately addressed by the city’s existing code requirements. Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance(MDNS):A small fraction of SEPA projects are given an MDNS. Due to the complexity and or size of these projects the City finds that the existing code language does not adequately address a specific impact and therefore the applicant is required to exceed the code requirements to reduce the project impacts. Typically mitigation includes the requirement to pay impact fees to schools for projectsthat will increase demand,pay fees for roadway wideningat intersections,or to install fire sprinkler systems to reduce the potential impacts to the fire department. Determination of Significance (DS): This action isextremely rare and means that a project’sscope is impactful to the community and environment, andthat a full evaluation of the probable adverse impacts must be comprehensively studied through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This process can take years, requires extensive reports, and evaluates several different project alternatives including not proceeding with the project.This process is typically done in conjunction with Citywide Legislative Actions such as the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan, Sub-Area Plan, or Planned Actions, but is extremely rare for a single project. PERMIT DATA: The chart on the following page is intended to provide the Commission with some contextual examples of project scope so that it will be easier to evaluate exemption level options in a more tangible way.Please note that not all of the projects that were given a DNS are listed, as a significant number are issued every year. 2 Attachment I ã÷ûêøîéïøîéøé îÍûØØÓÈÓÍÎÛÐê×ËÇÓÊ×Ï×ÎÈÉïÓÈÓÕÛÈÓÍÎê×ËÇÓÊ×ØóÏÌÛÙÈ éÈÛÈ×Ï×ÎÈ ê×ËÇÓÊ×Ø Gravel mine 165k grading101 Unit Subdivision on 41 Bay Vista acres:82 acre Hotel -7 stories 140 units ïÓÈÓÕÛÈÓÍÎÖÍÊÖÓÊ× Approx. Sub Area ÉÌÊÓÎÑÐ×ÊÉÃÉÈ×ÏÉ Subdivision –6 lots on 2 acres. 25SEPA Plan. Four 5 story condos with 215 units. app’s. Washington Youth Academy 18k building, 2k grading. Evergreen Pointe –103 units, 10k NoneNone grading. Approx. Industrial Park –60ktotal buildings and 30SEPA 2kof grading. app’s. Kitsap Bank 14k building and 20k grading. Towers –Three 17 story towers. 472 NoneNone units, 40k grading. Approx. Boat Storage –6kbuilding, 1kgrading 10SEPA Lyons Park Restoration –1,500cy app’s. grading Manette BridgeReplacement Gravel Mine on 60 acres –3,500,000cy grading. Bremerton Parking Garage, Theater & NoneNone Apartments –250 stalls, 10 screens, & Approx. 100units with 22k grading. 10SEPA Bulkhead repair/replacements app’s. Sewer maintenance. Sewer maintenance Bremerton Motor Sports –None 230-acresite 400k grading: Salvation Army Remodel –9k addition, Approx. 5 1k grading. ïÓÈÓÕÛÈÓÍÎÖÍÊÎÍÓÉ×ÚÛÊÊÓ×ÊÉ SEPA . ÛÎØÅ×ÈÐÛÎØ×ÎÔÛÎÙ×Ï×ÎÈ Bulkhead repair. app’s. Port Washington Park –8 acre Evergreen Pointe-109 SKIA – Approx. subdivision for 38 lots with 10k grading.units, 10k grading:Planned 10SEPA MAction Youth Wellness Campus –14 acre site ÓÈÓÕÛÈÓÍÎÖÍÊéÙÔÍÍÐ app’s. EIS. with several buildings and 22k grading. óÏÌÛÙÈö××É 3 Attachment I POTENTIAL IMPACTS: Increasing SEPA exemption levels would generally expedite and streamline the permit process for many applicants, but the time saved would come almost directly from the reduction in public noticing requirements. The SEPA Process is particularly time consuming because of the required public comment and appeal periods.Increasing the exemption levels would directly decrease the number of projects that would require noticing in the newspaper, posting on the site, and mailings to other jurisdictions. SEPA is not the only permit process that requires noticing; in fact it is one of a handful of project types that require it such as: Conditional Use Permits, Shoreline Permits, Re- Zones etc. Nevertheless, for those projects that are outrightly permitted and SEPA Exempt public comments are not solicited. The reason no public input is sought is that the impacts and requirements for outrightly permitted useshave been established within the code and are very specific. Since the criterion wasvetted through the public process, the opportunity for public comment would have been at the point of code creation. Alternately, projects such as Conditional Uses or non SEPA Exempt applications are likely to have conditions or mitigation outside the code added based on public comment. Mitigation is typically based on public comments sent not only by residents of the City, but more often, by neighboring public entities such as the Bremerton, South Kitsap, and Central Kitsap School Districts, Kitsap Transit, and Suquamish Tribe. Increasing the exemption levels would reduce the number of projects easily reviewed by these outside agencies. For this reason Staff suggests reviewing the types of projects that have received mitigation in the past as an indicator of the scope of projects that require it. JURISDICTIONAL COMPARISON: Although each jurisdiction is different, Staff often looks to other local jurisdictions to determine how similar or dis-similar our regulations are in comparison. The following chart identifies several local jurisdictions and the exemption levels established for each. Please keep in mind that the 2013 increases have just been adopted and therefore this data set is likely to be outdated as every jurisdiction in Washington State is being faced with this same issue and decision-making process. JurisdictionGradingParkingBuilding Subdivisions Kitsap County500cy40 stalls8,000sf9 lots 150cy (Shore) Poulsbo100cy20 stalls4,000sf4 lots Bainbridge Island100cy20 stalls4,000sf4 lots Port Orchard500cy20 stalls12,000sf4 lots Renton500cy20 stalls4,000sf9 lots Kirkland500cy40 stalls12,000sf20 lots Millwood500cy40 stalls12,000sf20 lots Tacoma500cy40 stalls12,000sf20 lots 4 Attachment I CONCLUSION : Until the end of 2013 all Cities are allowed to use increased exemptions(middle of the chart on page 1). It is unclear if new modifications to the SEPA rules will be adopted by the State Legislature that would further modify the options available to the City. While it is important that theCity determine how to proceed by establishing new exemption levels it is possible that additional revision may be necessary once the Legislative rule making process ends. Please review the exemption level options available and be prepared to provide direction to Staff as to the appropriate levels that we should adopt for Bremerton. 5 Attachment II THE CENTERS CONCEPT: HISTORY: The City’sComprehensive Planwas adopted in 2004, andthe plan was intended to revitalize Bremerton by encouraging quality mixed use development in focused core areas called Centers. The planning process took over four years and included extensive public input. There was overwhelming support to create a 20 year growth strategydesigned to tailor the expected growth into several dense, mixed use, mini- Cities or Centers identified throughout the larger umbrella of the Bremerton City limits. At the heart of the Centers concept is the idea that Centers should be places where residents can live, shop, and talk. To achieve this,the Comprehensive Plan focuses on the following: Identifying and categorize different Centers Neighborhood Centers, such as Manette o District Centers, such as Downtown o Employment Centers, such as Harrison Hospital o Within Centers, promote infillof both commercial residential uses.Encourage high density residential on top of ground floorretailuses. Improve transportation choices. Enhance bike lanes, walkability, plan for mass transit etc. The Centers theme is woven into the fabric of both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning code. Both codes have language that intends to move beyond the automobile and examinethe transportation needs for a healthy vibrant community that includes pedestrians, bicycles, and linking walkable centers with appealing streetscapes.The Zoning Code is aprimary tool used to achieve the goals and vision established in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore has several specific development standards aimed at achieving the Centers concept. While the focus of this Workshop is on two specific development standards (drive throughs and setbacks) it is important to remember the purpose of these standards and the goals they are intended to achieve. EVALUATING SUCCESS: Now, nearly nine years of after adoption of the Centers Concept, we can see where the Centers concept is workingwell:The Downtown Regional Center, Charleston District Center, and Manette Neighborhood Center. These areas are each “cities within” the City, they have good block structure and streetscapes, and were essentially built in a time that society was not as auto-centric as we are today.Interestingly these centers essentially complied with the Comprehensive Plan vision ofhaving anattractive pedestrian oriented development pattern prior to the Comprehensive Planadoption. Where we have challenges implementing the fullvisionof the Centers Conceptis where the centers concept was applied over the top of existing development that was designed with a focus around the automobile. In these areas the Centers concept is at odds with the existing development pattern.Shopping centers like Wheaton and Riddell (old Lowes and Kmart siteand Goodwill) and QFC Center on Kitsap Way are designated as growth centers, and areexpected to transition as they grow during the 20-year planning horizon.Contrary to the visions of the Comprehensive Plan, what we have seen in the 1 Attachment II nine years since plan adoptionis that they are becoming increasingly vacant and dilapidated rather than growing into thriving community centers. In these areas the Zoning Code has requirements that prohibitautomobile-centricuses (written into the code as a prohibition of drive-throughs) and buildings are supposed to be built very close to the street edge(this is written into the code as “maximum front yard setbacks”).Retrofitting existing development in these areas to look like a traditional downtown streetscape is a challenge, and the development regulations in these areas arenearly mandating it.The result is that development is going elsewhere, where the code restrictions are not as cumbersome. These designated centers are at a disadvantage, theyare competing against properties within the Citylimits(often right next door)and in the county that do not have the same code requirements. Developers are choosing to invest in properties that are less encumbered with regulations and therefore easierand cheaperto develop. The CityCouncil is increasingly concerned about the vacant and underutilized status of thecommercial areas that are adjacent to Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way, and has asked the Commissionto consider ways to amend the Zoning Code that allows development opportunity but doesn’t prohibit implementation of the centers concept of the Comprehensive Plan. Like Council, Staffis concerned that the current regulations are ensuring the vacant condition of these centers. Staffthinksthat the Zoning Code could be revised to better reflect the desire for transitioning the non-conforming development pattern of our growth centers along Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way to the vision the community had when the Centers concept was created. Staffbelieves that the Comprehensive Plancenters concept can be implemented within our development regulations along Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way corridorsby: 1.Developing regulations to gently transition betweenthe automobilefocused environment to thepedestrian focused environment. 2.Creating more flexibility relating to unique site-specific constraints. 3.Calling for enhanced design features and landscaping could accommodate both automotiveandpedestrian environments. ZONING DISTRICTS: The web of zoning districts that surround Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way are somewhat complex. In fact,there aremore than nine commercial zones.Prior to making recommendations about how to provide better transitions within these zones, Staff recommendsreviewing the intended future of these areas. Below are summaries of both the Comprehensive Planand Zoning Code intent for areas of particular interest. 2 Attachment II Kitsap Lake Neighborhood (Setbacks for LC & NB are 10’ Drive throughs are prohibited in NB) This small commercial area is located at the Citylimits boundary adjacent to Kitsap Lake. There are three zoning districts in this area.This area is predominately developed and includes drive through lanes in all zones, howeverthe Neighborhood Business Zone prohibits new drive through lanes. Comprehensive Plan:Small scale commercial nodes with uses such as groceries in converted residential structures or purpose built structures that are sensitive to the residential context. Neighborhood BusinessZone: The intent is to provide for small-scale business districts outside of centers and corridors that reflect the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. These NB locations support neighborhoods which generally lack walkable access to a designated center. (Drive throughs prohibited) Neighborhood CenterCore (Drive throughs prohibited-10’ max setback): This designation is found along Kitsap Way between Oyster Bay Drive and Arsenal Way. Key components of this designation are identified as follows: Comprehensive PlanGuidance: To create a mixed use walkable environment with urban amenities serving the center and surrounding neighborhood. Centers provide living environments attractive to a growing segment of society that desires a more active, stimulating setting, offering an ability to access key amenities and conveniences without driving. Zoning Regulations: The intent is to establish base threshold standards for the central core of neighborhood centers that preserve future opportunity for full realization of the centers concept. 3 Attachment II District Center Core: (Drive throughs prohibited–10’max setback) This designation stretches along a significant portion of Wheaton Way and includes landmarks such as the old Bremerton High Schooland Albertsons. The Wheaton Riddell Sub-Area Plan also references this zoning chapter for allowed uses. Comprehensive Plan: The character isintended to be a mixed use walkable environment with urban amenities serving the center residents and several surrounding neighborhoods. The pedestrian design emphasis in District Centers is balanced with recognition that the wider market area that is served by the commercial uses will bring traffic and parking issues. Design standards are applied to assure quality development that meets the mixed-use nature of District Centers while accommodating somewhat larger scale commercial, office, and community uses than those found in a Neighborhood Center. Zoning: The intent is to establish base threshold standards for district centers that preserve future opportunity for full realization of the centers concept. Wheaton Riddell Sub-Area Plan (Drive throughs prohibited–35’ to 55’ setback): Land marks in this area include the abandoned Lowe’s andRite-Aidbuildings, Goodwill, and Petsmart. This area has its own site specific plan that combines the Comprehensive and Zoning elements together, but uses the DCC Zoning for the allowed use list. Comprehensive and Zoning: The intent is to enhance the visual character and sense of place by focusing development to a neighborhood scale, including pedestrian scale lighting, minimizing curb cuts, enhanced vegetation andlandscape buffering so that infill development will create a sense of pedestrian safety. 4 Attachment III DRIVE THROUGH LANES SUMMARY: Drivethrough lanes are prohibitedin many, but not all commercial zones along Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way. While appropriate in many parts of the City,like Charleston, Downtown, or the core of Manette,this prohibition has been difficult to justifyalong both Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way which are major arterials for the City and are both designated State Highways. For the most part, applicants are surprised to learn that drive throughs are prohibited in these areasbecause there are so many existing drive through lanes alongboth of these highways. Additional confusion is caused by the inconsistency of the prohibition. Commonly there are neighboring properties with different standards. For exampleat the intersection of Kitsap Way and Arsenal Way there are two seemingly similar businesses:Rite Aid and Walgreens. Both have drive throughs, but they are in different zones and only one of the zones allows drive throughs(the Walgreens/Starbucks are permittedto have drive throughs).The Rite Aid was permitted under the old development regulations and if it were proposed today a drive through pharmacy window would not be permitted. Zoning Drive Through Allowed? Commercial CorridorYes Wheaton Way Yes Redevelopment Corridor Neighborhood CenterNo District Center No Neighborhood BusinessNo Limited CommercialNo DRIVE THROUGH DESIGN STANDARDS: Not all drive throughs are the same; in fact there is amazing diversity when it comes to their design and layout. As shown in Attachment II, the Comprehensive Plan calls for a transitioning between the current automotive focus to a more pedestrian oriented focus. However, the development regulations have taken a hard-line approach, and as shown in the box above drive throughs are prohibited in much of the city. Staff believes that a transition from auto-oriented uses to pedestrianization could be achieved through good site design. However, what exactly makes good site design? The pictureson the following pageattempt to capture the difference site design can make. Staff believes that codes can be written to capture the good elements of the drive through featured on the next page,into the code to provide flexibility in terms of uses, without detracting from the essence of the Comprehensive Plan. 1 Attachment III As part of the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting Staff will be providing several images of drive through facilities to discuss what elements seem essential to creating a site design that enhances the pedestrian environment without prohibiting drive through lanes altogether. QUESTIONSFOR COMMISSION: 1.Are there locations along Kitsap Way or Wheaton Way that drive through lanes seem inappropriate? 2.Should all the zoning districts have the same requirements for drive throughs, or should some have more relaxedrequirements than others? 3.Are there features that you think would be essential prior to allowing drive through lanes? 4.Should drive through lanes be outrightly permitted or conditionally permitted? 2 Attachment IV MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACKS SUMMARY: The Zoning Code is written to encourage new buildings to be built right along the street frontage. This is written as “maximum” setback, i.e. the building cannot be any farther away from the street then 10 feet. The intention of this standard is to create a nice streetscape and urban environment where pedestrians can walk along the street and interact with the building, and large parking areas are unseen. The codes were written to encourage the development pattern you see in the image below on the right, and discourage the kind of development you see in the left photograph. Most zoning districtsalong Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way have maximum setbacks in order to implement this change over time. Elements in the Comprehensive Plan that address these requirements include the following: CCE3: Mitigate the effect of parking lots in centers and other pedestrian oriented environments. Non-associated surface parking lots within centers should be planned no larger than 25 spaces. Surface parking more than 100 spaces should be prohibited between the building and street. Surface parking for commercial uses should generally not be placed between thebuilding façade and street curb. CC4E: ensure that buildings in designated centers are built to the property line to the greatest extent possible. Buildings in designated centers will enclose the street, creating an intimate urban character. Building facades that are parallel to the street create a type of building wall that can contribute to a room like feeling. The primary issue with the maximum front yard setback is the need for more flexibility for site specific circumstances such as: utility easements, future road expansions, topography, intersection traffic visibility,etc. that prohibit the 1 Attachment IV maximum setback from being met. For these specific issues Staff recommends requirements that allow for alternative features that would achieve the desired pedestrian enhancements, while allowing for larger setback. Features such as larger sidewalks, trellis installation, landscaping, etc. could enhance the pedestrian environment while maintaining that no parking is allowed in the front of the building. The secondary issue relates to the concept of a transition in terms of parking in the front. Developers argue that consumers desire to park directly in front of businesses. Over the last several years several projects have struggled with this requirement. Clearly a sea of parking is too much, but what about a single row of parking? Even the “desirable” photograph on the right on the previous page includes vehicles as part of the urban form. Studies have shown that pedestrians avoid sidewalks with vehicular dominance on both sides, such as what is found on large expanses of both Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way with large parking lots on one side and the highway on the other. Some flexibility must be established to encourage new development, but careful consideration ofthe pedestrian environment must be included. ZoningMaximum Setback The chart to the right identifies the Commercial Corridor5’ Max setbacks for the primary zones along Wheaton Way 5’ Max both Wheaton Way and Kitsap Way. Redevelopment Corridor Please note that the zoning districts not Neighborhood Center10’ Max designated as a “Center” have more District Center 10’ Max restrictive setbacks than the “Centers”. Neighborhood Business10’ Max Limited Commercial10’ Max SETBACK QUESTIONS: 1.Are there any circumstances when parking in the front of the building should be allowed? 2.Are there design standards that seem essential to allowing parking in the front? 3.Should additional permit process berequired for the allowance of parking in the front? 2 ÓÛÓÑÎßÒÜËÓ Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚ ÞÎÛÓÛÎÌÑÒô ÜÛÐßÎÌÓÛÒÌ ÑÚ ÝÑÓÓËÒ×ÌÇ ÜÛÊÛÔÑÐÓÛÒÌ TO:Planning Commission FROM:Andrea L. Spencer, AICP SUBJECT:Comprehensive Plan Major Update DATE:April 16, 2013 The city is required to have a Comprehensive Plan that is consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA). The city’s current comprehensive plan was adopted in 2004, and has been amended in the years since to incorporate sub-area plans and other minor modifications. State law (RCW36.70A.130(5)(b)) requires that the City of Bremerton to take action to review and, if needed, revise our comprehensive plan to ensure thatitis consistent with the GMA by no later than June 30, 2016. Since all of the Commissioners are new since the last major update of the Comprehensive Plan, I thought that this would be a good time to share with you some background of what the Growth Management Act is. Attached is a brochure that is an excellent overview of the GMA and its essential goals. As we embark on the Comprehensive Plan update process, I thought that this would be a good time to bring in guest speakers so that you can receive relevant information that will give you context that will that will help you to guide the development of updated plan policies. The first speaker is Scott Daniels, Deputy Director of the Kitsap Health District. He will give us his perspective on the importance of incorporating public health policies in a comprehensive plan. Throughout the next year I will be inviting various presenters to share information that will aid the Commission in understanding issues so that you can give us good policy direction. If you have ideas for future speakers or topics please call me at 360.473.5283 or email andrea.spencer@ci.bremerton.wa.us Ò¿³»æ Í½±¬¬ Ü¿²·»´ô ÓòÍòô ÎòÍò Þ·±¹®¿°¸§æ Ó®ò Ü¿²·»´ · ½«®®»²¬´§ ¬¸» Ü»°«¬§ Ü·®»½¬±® ±º ¬¸» Õ·¬¿° Ð«¾´·½ Ø»¿´¬¸ Ü·¬®·½¬ ·² Þ®»³»®¬±²ô É¿¸·²¹¬±²ò Ó®ò Ü¿²·»´ ¸¿ íðõ §»¿® ±º °«¾´·½ ¿²¼ °®·ª¿¬» »½¬±® »¨°»®·»²½» ³¿²¿¹·²¹ °«¾´·½ ¸»¿´¬¸ ¿²¼ »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ »®ª·½» °®±¹®¿³ ¿²¼ ¬»½¸²·½¿´ ¬«¼·»ò ß îîó§»¿® ª»¬»®¿² ±º ¬¸» Ø»¿´¬¸ Ü·¬®·½¬ô ¸» ½«®®»²¬´§ ±ª»®»» ¬¸» ¿¹»²½§ù ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·ª» Í»®ª·½» Ü·ª··±² ø¸«³¿² ®»±«®½»ô º·²¿²½»ô ·²º±®³¿¬·±² ¬»½¸²±´±¹§ô ½±²¬®¿½¬ ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ô ¿²¼ «°°±®¬ »®ª·½»÷ô ¿²¼ ¿´± »®ª» ¿ ¬¸» ¿¹»²½§ ¾«¼¹»¬ ¼·®»½¬±®ô ´»¹·´¿¬·ª» ´·¿·±²ô ¿²¼ «²·±² ®»´¿¬·±² ²»¹±¬·¿¬±®ò ß¬ ¬¸» Ü·¬®·½¬ô ¸» °®»ª·±«´§ »®ª»¼ ¿ ß·¬¿²¬ Ü·®»½¬±® ±º Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ø»¿´¬¸ ³¿²¿¹·²¹ ®»¹«´¿¬±®§ ¿²¼ »¼«½¿¬·±² ¿½¬·ª·¬·» º±® ¬¸» Í±´·¼ ¿²¼ Ø¿¦¿®¼±« É¿¬»ô É¿¬»® Ï«¿´·¬§ô ¿²¼ Ú±±¼ ¿²¼ Ô·ª·²¹ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬ Ð®±¹®¿³ò Ó®ò Ü¿²·»´ · ½«®®»²¬´§ ¸»´°·²¹ ¬¸» Ü·¬®·½¬ »¨°¿²¼ °±´·½§ ·²·¬·¿¬·ª» ¬± ®»¼«½» ½¸®±²·½ ø²±²ó½±³³«²·½¿¾´»÷ ¼·»¿» ®¿¬» ¿²¼ ¿¼¼®» ¸»¿´¬¸ ¼·°¿®·¬·» ·² ¬¸» Ý±«²¬§ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ©±®µ ±² ´¿²¼ «» ¿²¼ ¬®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±²ô °¸§·½¿´ ¿½¬·ª·¬§ô ¿²¼ º±±¼ °±´·½§ ·«»ò ×² ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ¸· ©±®µ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ü·¬®·½¬ô Ó®ò Ü¿²·»´ · ¿´± ¿ ³»³¾»® ±º ¬¸» É¿¸·²¹¬±² Í¬¿¬» Ð«¾´·½ Ø»¿´¬¸ Û¨»½«¬·ª» Ô»¿¼»®¸·° Ú±®«³ ¿²¼ · ¬¸» Ø»¿´¬¸ Î»°®»»²¬¿¬·ª» ±² ¬¸» Ð«¹»¬ Í±«²¼ Î»¹·±²¿´ Ý±«²½·´ Ú±±¼ Ð±´·½§ Ý±«²½·´ò Ø» ®»½»²¬´§ »®ª»¼ ¿ Ý¸¿·® ±º ¬¸» Ù´±¾¿´ Ý´·³¿¬» Ý¸¿²¹» É±®µ¹®±«° º±® ¬¸» Ò¿¬·±²¿´ ß±½·¿¬·±² ±º Ý±«²¬§ ¿²¼ Ý·¬§ Ø»¿´¬¸ Ñºº·½·¿´ô ¿²¼ ¿ ¬¸» Ø»¿´¬¸ Î»°®»»²¬¿¬·ª» º±® ¬¸» Ð«¹»¬ Í±«²¼ Ý´»¿² ß·® ß¹»²½§ Ì»½¸²·½¿´ ß¼ª·±®§ Ý±³³·¬¬»»ò Ø» ®»½»·ª»¼ ¾±¬¸ ¸· Ó¿¬»® ±º Í½·»²½» ¼»¹®»» ·² Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Í½·»²½» ·² ïçèð ¿²¼ ¸· Þ¿½¸»´±® ±º ß®¬ ¼»¹®»» ·² Ù»±´±¹§ ·² ïçéé º®±³ ×²¼·¿²¿ Ë²·ª»®·¬§ ·² Þ´±±³·²¹¬±²ô ×²¼·¿²¿ ø¸· ¸±³» ¬¿¬»÷ô ¿²¼ ¸¿ ®»½»·ª»¼ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¹®¿¼«¿¬»ó´»ª»´ »¼«½¿¬·±² ·² Ð«¾´·½ ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·±² º®±³ ¬¸» Ë²·ª»®·¬§ ±º Ý±´±®¿¼±óÜ»²ª»®ò Ó®ò Ü¿²·»´ · ¿´± ¿ îððê ¹®¿¼«¿¬» ±º Ô»¿¼»®¸·° Õ·¬¿°ò