Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023 08 02 BERK SMP slides - PC mtgSMP Periodic Review Planning Commission August 2, 2023 Agenda 2 Review Project Timeline & Purpose Key Issues Next Steps http://shorefriendly.org/ Condensed Project Timeline (to date) 3 September 2022 Ecology Initial Determination of Consistency Consultant Team drafts changes to SMP in response to Ecology comments PC Meeting June 7, 2023 PC Meeting & Open House June 29, 2023 Consultant Team identifies key topics for PC discussion August 2, 2023 Purpose Per State Rules, Grant, and Local Needs: Review amendments to Chapter 90.58 RCW and Ecology rules (WAC) that have occurred since the Jefferson County’s SMP was adopted in 2014. Identify potential areas of review to address changing local circumstances, new information or improved data. Consider potential changes to eliminate redundancies and improve clarity as well as address revisions consistent with regulatory reform (Resolution 17-19). Consider various constraints such as the requirements of State Law, staffing capacity, and resource. 4 SMP Periodic Review Components Revised Shoreline Master Program Address Required & Recommended Changes Cumulative Impacts Analysis Addendum Modest Home & Common Line Provisions Non-conforming Residential, Minor Expansions Beach Access Structures Updated Periodic Checklist Draft State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist 5 Related Initiatives: Shoreline User Guide Purpose Contents Frequently Asked Questions How to Review the SMP Topic Pages 6 Proposed Pathways on Single Family Homes 7 Standard •Conforming Lot •Meet Standard Buffer Marine & River:150 feet Lake: 100 feet •Process for reducing/averaging buffer to 50-75% of standard Nonconforming Lot –new or replaced SF Home (Modest Home Provision) •Non-conforming Lot Depth is less than sum •150 feet standard buffer + •10-foot building setback + •40-foot house + •20-foot street setback (50-foot if abutting a highway) •Buffer reduced to min. necessary and not less than 30 feet •Building area max. 2,500 sq ft •Driveway area max. 1,100 sq ft•Not subject to geologic hazards •Enhance 80% of shoreline frontage Common Line •Conforming Lot•Accommodate Shoreline Views •House within 150 feet 300 feet on either or both sides •No less than 30 feet Modest Home Provisions Purpose Allow home on lot that is nonconforming in depth to allow reasonable sized home while protecting buffer functions Progress Draft Revisions Clarified that Modest Home is for non-conforming lot and defined dimensions in non-conforming lot definition It could be used by new home or replacement The criteria to minimize intrusion and enhance 80% of shoreline frontage continues Added criteria as recommended by Ecology (e.g. no bank) Provide option for applicant to submit a geotechnical report to prove the site is not subject to geologic hazards 8 Two Pathways on Common Line Provisions Purpose Accommodate Shoreline Views Recognize existing development patterns Continue to achieve no- net-loss of shoreline ecological function Continued Amendments Clarify to be for conforming lots with 1 or 2 homes on either side Shorten distance between proposed and adjacent homes to 150’ Require applicant to demonstrate buffer averaging/reduction would not provide adequate views and that proposed reduction is minimum necessary Require applicant to provide 80% of remaining buffer with native vegetation Add a maximum buffer reduction of 50% Remove Common Line Analysis performed by consultant team suggests common line provisions may not be necessary for either conforming or non- conforming lots Modest Home likely place homes in a position on shallow, nonconforming lots that would provide adequate and comparable views Incremental shift waterward not expected to add significant views 9 Buffer Reduction Options (Conforming Lot) Simplified illustration to show possible progression between different buffer options on a conforming lot: Standard Buffer (150’) Maximum Reduced Buffer (75’) Common Line Buffer 10 Viewshed Implications (300’) Assumes nearest homes are 300’ and close to OHWM; proposed new residence would no longer be able to use common line Buffer reduction (up to 50%) would be an option Viewsheds from standard buffer and maximum reduced buffer are very wide and nearly identical 11 Viewshed Implications (150’) Assumes nearest homes are 150’ away and closer to OHWM; proposed new residence could potentially use common line (applicant must demonstrate maximum buffer reduction does not provide sufficient view benefits) Viewsheds from standard buffer and maximum reduced buffer are very wide and nearly identical 12 Aquaculture History •Task Force stage (2020): changes required to address State laws/rules •Planning Commission stage (2021): o Received many comments (letters and testimony) o Considered approaches from other counties o Require standard CUP and incorporate Kitsap County regulations •Planning Commission stage (2023): address Ecology comments and continue evaluation per ongoing public comment 13 Aquaculture Regulations Comparison •Key differences between the May 2021 and current draft SMPs 1.Shift from CU(d) (hearing discretionary) to standard CU (hearing required). 2.Clarification regarding how the 25% expansion allowance (for non-geoduck aquaculture) is calculated. All geoduck expansions and conversions require a permit. 3.Additional limits added to height allowances to minimize visual impacts. 4.Provisions added regarding predator control/exclusion measures. 14 Aquaculture Regulations Comparison (cont’d) 5.Provisions added regarding predator control/exclusion measures. 6.Provisions added regarding maintenance/management/ marking of equipment/structures. 7.Amended application requirements to accomplish the following: •Consolidate application requirements in one place •Clarify that requirements can be adjusted based on what is applicable to specific project •Add details expanding on what should be contained in site plan, baseline ecological survey, and operation plan 15 Aquaculture –Recent Input Supporting aquaculture as a water dependent industry in the county while applying appropriate standards for no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function Ensure regulations are focused on geoduck and not unintentionally affecting other aquaculture Additional tribal comments on aquaculture supports both commercial aquaculture for local food production and restoration projects involving aquaculture activities Next Steps 17 •Review: June-August 2023 •Hearing (TBD) and Recommendations: September-October 2023 Jefferson County Planning Commission Review & Recommendations •November-December 2023 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Consideration & Approval •Standard Process (WAC173-26-100) •Ecology review process will start with a state comment period •Following the Ecology comment period, Ecology determines whether to accept the county proposal or require changes Washington Department of Ecology