Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023 11 10 Staff Report - SMP Options 1 Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Staff Report | November 10, 2023 By: BERK Consulting, Inc., Shannon & Wilson, and Jefferson County Department of Community Development Meeting Date ▪ Location: Tri-Area Community Center, 10 W Valley Rd Chimacum, WA 98325 ▪ Hybrid Meeting Zoom Option: Zoom Meeting: Meeting ID: 886 7104 7253 Passcode: 894561 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88671047253?pwd=OU8vTWZGWTVRRGNRVEQ1c2k0WDVadz09 ▪ Date and Time: Wednesday, November 15, 2023, 5:30 PM Key Topics and Options Staff and consultants prepared a compete Shoreline Master Program (SMP) proposal (posted October 27, 2023) based on Planning Commission deliberation at its October 18, 2023 meeting. The October 27, 2023 material was discussed at the November 1, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, but the Planning Commission could not complete a recommendation. Links to those materials appear below: ▪ 2023 11 01 Track Changes Draft SMP - PC Recommendation ▪ 2023 11 01 Clean Draft SMP - PC Recommendation The County Administrator, in consultation with the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners with respect to the Board’s calendar, requested that the Planning Commission use its November 15, 2023 meeting to reach a recommendation. The topics that have generated discussion – geoduck aquaculture and marine shoreline buffer/setback provisions – are addressed in the table below (as well as errata noticed during Planning Commission review). The context of the comments and potential options are provided. The final column is blank and would be filled in per actions taken by the Planning Commission at its November 15 meeting. November 10, 2023 2 Exhibit 1. Potential Options to Amend the 11/1/2023 Draft SMP with Planning Commission Recommendations Topic Context: State Rules, Comments Options Commission Recommendation 11/15/23 Conditional Use Permit – Geoduck Operations WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(iv) – CUP required for new geoduck operations. Optional for conversions. Silent on expansions. Shine Residents: Make all geoduck standard CUP. Expansions are like new proposals. Producers: Do not use standard CUP. Upland environment designations should not direct form of permitting for tidelands. Historic or ongoing farms should not require permits. Maintain approach in 11/1/23 draft with a mix of standard and discretionary CUPs for new, conversion, or expansions depending on shoreline environment designation. Maintain approach in 11/1/23 draft EXCEPT treat expansions like new geoduck operations. Treat all geoduck aquaculture with standard CUP. Geoduck – Aesthetics Standard WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(C) says: “Aquacultural facilities should be designed and located so as not to spread disease to native aquatic life, establish new nonnative species which cause significant ecological impacts, or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. (emphasis added) Producers: Remove visual analysis requirements. Priority is on water-dependent uses over aesthetics analysis when there is a conflict according to WAC 173-26-221(4)(d)(iv), which says: “Where there is an irreconcilable conflict between water-dependent shoreline uses or physical public access and maintenance of views from adjacent properties, the water-dependent uses and physical public access shall have priority, unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.” Maintain approach in 11/1/23 draft with aesthetics analysis as a submittal requirement with the allowance that: Applicants may omit information from Table 18.22.400 that is demonstrably not applicable to a specific aquaculture proposal. An aesthetics analysis would be an important tool to determine first if there are conflicts, and second if and how they could be reconciled. Remove submittal requirement for aesthetics analysis, but retain a performance standard that the geoduck aquaculture not significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.1 1 Remove Row (d) Visual Analysis in Table 18.25.440. Amend 18.25.440(6)(a) with the addition of another CUP criteria of approval (vi): The county shall review the considerations listed in WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(i)(C) regarding ecological functions, design and location impacting ecology or aesthetic qualities of the shoreline, and requirements for mitigation of impacts to ecological functions. November 10, 2023 3 Topic Context: State Rules, Comments Options Commission Recommendation 11/15/23 Common Line Provisions Ecology – clarify use and avoid overlap of modest home and common line provisions. See Initial Determination. WDFW – concerned with buffer width and code allowances for encroachment. SMP 9/20/23 hearing draft included Option A removing common line and Option B to amend common line to be distinct and apply to conforming lots only. See 7/28/23 memo by Shannon & Wilson for more information on the Common Line Provision, included in the 8/2/23 meeting packet. Maintain approach in 11/1/23 draft (Option A). Maintain approach in 11/1/23 draft but amend modest home criteria 18.25.270(5)(a)(viii) to address common line as a factor in setting the allowed buffer reduction provided other enhancement requirements apply.2 Implement Option B like in hearing draft, which allows common line with conforming lots whereas modest home is for non- conforming lots. 2 MODEST HOME – Criteria 18.25.270(5)(a)(viii): The standard shoreline buffer is reduced by the minimum necessary to ensure that all structures are as far landward as possible and not closer than the greater of either the average of the nearest abutting residential structures per subsection 18.25.270(5)(b) common line, or 30 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The standard building setback of JCC 18.25.300 still applies to the reduced buffer; and *** Retain portions of: 18.25.270 (5)(b) NONCONFORMING LOTS – COMMON LINE BUFFER to set the buffer distance on MODEST HOME lots per Criteria 18.25.270(5)(a)(viii): For the purpose of accommodating shoreline views on properties subject to modest home provisions in subsection (5)(a)(viii) to be adequate and comparable to adjacent residences, but not necessarily equivalent, the administrator may reduce the standard buf fer for a new single-family residence on nonconforming lots consistent with the following criteria: (i) The proposed residence must be located within 300 150 feet of an adjacent legally established single-family residential primary structure constructed prior to adoption of this program that encroaches on the standard buffer. The mere presence of nearby shacks, sheds or dilapidated buildings do es not constitute the existence of a residence, nor can such structures be used to determine a common line buffer. The nearest corners of the adjacent residences are those closest to the side -yard property line of the proposed residence. (ii) Existing Homes on Both Sides. Where there are existing residences adjacent on both sides of the proposed residence, the modest home provisions common line buffer shall be determined as the greater of either (A) a common line drawn between the nearest corners of each adjacent residence (see Figure 18.25.270(1)), or (B) a common line calculated by the average of both adjacent residences’ existing setbacks (i.e ., (y+z)/2=x buffer; see Figure 18.25.270(2)). (iii) Existing Home on One Side. Where there is only one existing residence adjacent to the proposed residence, the modest home provisions common line buffer shall be determined as the greater of either (A) a common line drawn between nearest corner of the foundation for the adjacent residen ce and the nearest point of the standard buffer on the adjacent vacant lot (see Figure 18.25.270(3)), or (B) a common line calculated by the average of the adjacent residence’s setback and the standard buffer for the adjacent vacant lot (i.e., (y+z)/2=x buffer; see Figure 18.25.270(4)). (iv) Figures 18.25.270(1) through (4) illustrate examples of the common line buffer allowance. When discrepancy between the t ext and the graphic exists, the text shall govern. Graphics are for illustration only; buffer shall be measured perpendicularly from the ordinary high water mark as per this section. Figures 18.25.270(1) – (4) *** November 10, 2023 4 Topic Context: State Rules, Comments Options Commission Recommendation 11/15/23 Clarify standard buffer reduction Add 50% threshold maximum percent reduction as a result of special report to support no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function. Otherwise, a variance applies. Maintain approach in 11/1/23 draft. Clarify that a 25% reduction of the standard buffer is the standard per the critical area regulations and 50% is a maximum if preparing a special report. 3 Errata Clean up errata. 11/1/23 clean copy: Lines 399 to 419 appear to not be in alphabetical order. 11/1/23 clean copy: On line 6037 the symbol for European currency “€” is used instead of “th” to make the word “that”. 3 (ji) Buffer Reduction or Averaging. Proposals that request a decrease in the standard shoreline buffer of this program shall not require a shoreline variance if all of the shoreline critical area approval criteria in JCC 18.22.640(1) and (2) are met., with the addition of a 50% maximum buffer reduction in JCC 18.22.640(1)(b) when a special report is prepared by a qualified professional. All other shoreline buffer reduction or shoreline buffer averaging proposals shall require a shoreline variance.