Title
Agenda Item:
Continuing Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Discussions on Setbacks, Building Heights, Vegetative Buffers and other Shoreline Regulations.
Body
Issue:
What changes or additions does Council wish to include in the final public hearing draft SMP document?
City Manager's Recommendation:
Discuss issues and provide guidance.
Staff Contact:
Keith Stahley, Director, Community Planning and Development Department, 360.753.8227
Presenter(s):
Keith Stahley, Director, Community Planning and Development Department
Cari Hornbein, Senior Planner
Chrissy Bailey, Department of Ecology
And other City staff as necessary to respond to council questions
Background and Analysis:
On October 16th City Council started its initial discussions on the draft SMP. Council reviewed Shoreline Environmental Designations and provided staff with preliminary direction for modifying proposed designations and crafting new designations. Council also provided staff with preliminary direction on how to approach non-conforming uses and how to address covered moorage. This feedback will be used by City Staff to modify the draft SMP and prepare a final draft for a future public hearing.
City Council has now held a joint meeting with the Olympia Planning Commission and conducted four workshop meetings to develop an understanding of the record, the vision and the issues that that various interests in the community have for the shoreline, and the Planning Commission's recommendations. These meetings have allowed community members, Department of Ecology, non-governmental interest groups and governmental interests to communicate directly with City Council.
The Department of Ecology has provided specific feedback on the Planning Commission draft by way of a checklist and an annotated draft SMP.
On October 9, 2012 City Council provided staff with a list of questions that they had pertaining to the draft SMP and the information that has been received to date. A response to these questions is included as (Attachment 1) as well as a response to questions raised by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, which are included as Attachment 2.
City Council also has access to the voluminous record generated by the Planning Commission through its public hearings and deliberations.
City staff has provided City Council with additional information about the shoreline upland characteristics and impacts of the staff and Planning Commission SMP Updates in the form of PowerPoint Presentations, a spread sheet that details property characteristics along the shoreline and how it is impacted by the proposed regulatory approaches as well as a map of all shoreline ownership interests and a matrix of issues and regulatory tools.
All of these materials form a rich source of information for City Council from to use in its deliberative process.
Neighborhood/Community Interests (if known):
See record.
Options:
Consider information and feedback provided through the Planning Commission record, workshop meetings, Department of Ecology guidance and staff information. Provide feedback and preliminary direction to staff to aid them in refining the draft SMP for ultimate consideration by the public at a future public hearing. Provide staff with guidance on possible next steps.
Financial Impact:
Using budgeted resources.