Volume 2: Draft Gorst Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement

GORST PLANNED ACTION EIS | SUMMARYGorst UGAThe Gorst Subarea Plan projects growth for the UGA that differ for each alternative. These growth projectionswould affect aesthetics within the UGA as a result of differences in the extent of development expected within theUGA, the mix of development types expected (e.g., residential versus commercial), and the density ofdevelopment expected (e.g., medium density residential versus low density residential). The primary means ofimplementation would be zoning and development regulations that determine allowed and prohibited uses andestablish minimum and maximum densities.Applicable Regulations and CommitmentsCurrent regulations and policies that may affect the aesthetic characteristics of the watershed and UGA includeKitsap County and City of Bremerton comprehensive plans, shoreline master programs, critical area regulations,and zoning and development regulations, including those addressing landscaping, lighting, signage, and projectreview procedures. Following is a list of some of the applicable regulations and policies.Kitsap County• 2012 Comprehensive Plan• KCC Title 16 Land Division and Development• KCC Title 17 Zoning• KCC Title 19 CAO• KCC Title 21 Land Use Development and Procedures• Shoreline Master Program (2013 updated draft adopted by Kitsap County, currently in review by Ecology) –also codified as KCC Title 22City of Bremerton• 2004 Comprehensive Plan• BMC Title 20 Land Use Shoreline Master Program (update adopted by City of Bremerton, currently in reviewby Ecology) – part of BMC Title 20 Land Use, Chapter 16Other Potential Mitigation MeasuresOnce a Preferred Alternative is selected development and design regulations would be prepared and areanticipated to address:• Allowed and prohibited uses/development types• Minimum and maximum density• Building height• Building setbacks• Maximum lot coverage• Maximum impervious area• Critical area buffersIn addition other City or County regulations such as those governing signage, lighting, and landscaping wouldapply.Future design guidelines developed with the Preferred Alternative would likely establish discretionary review offuture development proposals focusing on the design of the public realm and those portions of privateDraft | June 2013 1-32