HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Minutes January 13, 2025#��
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
Planning Commission Minutes
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
Phone: (360) 8'74-5533 • Fax: (360) 876-4980
0
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 13"', 2025
Hybrid Meeting — Council Chambers/Zoom Teleconference
COMMISSIONERS:
Present: Tyler McKlosky (Chair), Annette Stewart (Vice Chair), Stephanie Bailey, Paul Fontenot, Joe
Morrison, Tiffany Mitchell
Absent: Wayne Wright
STAFF:
Community Development Director Nick Bond, Principal Planner Jim Fisk, Associate Planner Shaun
Raja, Assistant Planner Connor Dahlquist
1. CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner McKlosky called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
2. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were two members of the public present in the chamber and two attending
remotely. There were no comments regarding issues not on the agenda.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 3, 2024: Commissioner McKlosky asked if the other
commissioners had reviewed the minutes from the December 3rd, 2024 meeting and if anyone had any
issues or proposed amendments. Seeing none, a motion was entertained to approve the minutes.
Commissioner Stewart moved to approve the minutes and Commissioner Morrison seconded. The
motion passed unanimously.
5. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. DISCUSSION: Critical Areas Ordinance — LU24-CODE AMENDMENT 06 (Attachment)
Principal Planner Fisk presented the Critical Areas Ordinance code amendment for 20.162 as part
of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update. The attachment includes a red lined copy of proposed
amendments and a clean copy of the amendments. The Critical Areas Ordinance amendment was
first introduced to Commissioners at the December 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Principal
Planner Fisk introduced biologist consultant Chad Wallin, PWS from Grette Associates to present
on the amendment and answer questions.
Chad Wallin provided slideshow presentation of his professional background, the Critical Areas
Ordinance amendment purpose, and analysis process.
Commissioner Mitchell thanked Wallin and asked for clarification on the process of critical areas
determination if a consultant from Grette Associates is not available or does not conduct the initial
determination. Wallin explained the City's process of an applicant's responsibility to hire a
biologist consultant or use the City's subcontracted consultant, Grette Associates, to complete the
determination process. The City does not have a biologist on staff.
Commissioner Mitchell asked about how critical areas are determined by a biologist, including the
time period and scope of site. Wallin explained that a critical areas report is valid for five years.
After five years of initial reporting, a consultant would be required to re-evaluate the critical areas.
Streams are determined by the Washington Administrative Code's definition and set by the
criteria.
Commissioner Mitchell clarified their question on what a site study process looks like for a critical
areas determination. Wallin shared their experience that the process generally takes a day to
complete. Wetland data is collected based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Habitat
identification is based on how they are defined in the code.
Commissioner Mitchell asked for clarification on whether or not the City was going to adopt the
Department of Fish and Wildlife's tool of riparian management zones as Best Available Science.
Wallin clarified that the City is using the Department's second recommendation of management by
setting larger standardized development buffer zones instead of site -specific buffer zones which
relies on the Department's database and GIS program identifying mature tree heights of specific
species. Director Bond added that the decision to go with the Department's second
recommendation of standardized buffer zones is that it is consistent with the County's
methodology. Bond also explained that within the Comprehensive Plan, the City had to
demonstrate that there was sufficient land capacity within the City and by using the first
recommendation of site -specific buffer zones, it creates uncertainty of available land as projects
begin to build and may reduce availability for housing projects. Choosing the second
recommendation allows for more certainty in land capacity as the City reaches housing targets.
Commissioner Mitchell asked whether or not the City sets a specific threshold for when mitigation
is not enough for projects involving critical aquifers. Wallin explained that when addressing
mitigation for critical aquifers, the standards are broader compared to wetlands and habitat. Wallin
explained that the intended mitigation sequencing requires proposals to prove that other design
alternatives may not work on the site due to other code restraints. The other part of mitigation
sequencing for critical aquifers is minimizing and compensating for all impacts, which is
consistent with the Department of Ecology's and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers mitigation
sequencing standards.
Director Bond provided further explanation of Category 1 and Category 2 of the critical aquifer
protection areas. Bond described the extensive analysis of feasibility, technical reports, and site
research to determine if a project is not allowed due to its proximity and expected impact on the
aquifer. Director Bond provided additional insight on how development in critical aquifer recharge
areas are categorized for use types and level of development so that there's not a total loss of
buildable land, contrary to wetland critical areas where an entire site may be encumbered. Critical
aquifer categories provide a path for possible development while still mitigating harmful
environmental impacts.
Page 2 of 6
e is being considered in critical areas rep
orts as
requiring a new report. Fontenot asked if these reports
Commission Fontenot asked five beforewhether treq change ►e the time a report is made and its
these reports are valid for years es that may happen from take account of environmental Chang parallel
expiration.
Program which manages shoreline
ex lanation that there are two °tMaster Prog a code that work ressing
Director Bond provided p Shoreline
with the critical areas code;
the 2021 adopted uentl flooded areas code a
development Bond further explained that the City has adopted
climate but
d ment and considers sea level rise, as well as the req theCi for climate guidance
development in mapped flood plains. provides a foundation by 2029.
Comprehensive Plan update which
element in the Comp ordinance
from the state level has not been released for what will be required
additional direction ortunity to discuss the critical areas
a public hearing will be held at the March
Director Bond shared ng that
Commission meeting and a deadline to provide written comments.
at the February Planning
Planning Commission meeting. Notices will be sent for a
Title 20 Updates
B. DI SCUSSION: the amendments of the Port
Orchard these mendments are
adopted Comprehensive Plan update. Fisk shared Units
Principal Planner Fisk introduced proposed rehensive plan and new state mandates
Title 20 as part of the Dwelling policies outlined in the Comprehensive
on Accessory two ADUs
necessary to align with the p h recent legislation. Fisk p
focused on housing passed throng regulations. As part of the new mandate, rnent
(ADUs) and their purpose, standards, and reg with additional reduction in develop
er lot in urban growth areas along w project types. Fisk shared that the planning
must be allowed p hopes to encourage these p J but additional
barriers and standards in rked to align with these new standards in recent years,
Commission has already liance.
work is needed to come into full comp 2023), which requires
Fisk next presented le middle housing,
as address by House Bill 1100 ( cts. Middle housing reduces
housing in all predominantly residential distaevelo developments. Port Orchardared
dwellings and multifamily housing p
cities to allow middle ho g requirements. Director Bond populations
City
the gap between single dirfaection
1 with the Tier 2 city q largest with p p
council gave city staff direction to comply es mean. Tier 1 cities are the
and
on what the different tier types Orchard is experiencing
an explanation is 25,000 to 75.000 residents, ands as Port 25'000 residents en
with Tier 2 city requirement current
Tier
over 75,000 residents, opted to align Fisk shared a graphic showing
under. City Council currently.
fastgrowth and near the level of a Tier 2 city ck and cottages ao and
units ermined. Current residential density is based on a minimum
g and current permitted. t for b Y
residential zoning types and type of access. Except The proposed residential
lot size for specific building e is ermined per lot in current zoning.
one structure p units per lot. R and R2 will allow
apartments, only the number of dwelling artments), and R4 and R5 have
districts will be based on establishing with the exception of ap ment in R4
for four units, R3 will allow for six units
factor of proposed develop an alley,
will dictate minimum lot size, i.e. if
sa lot
tiro►ruin d by size le
no max. The form -based code standards will be the limiting
ft. if the lot is served by a primary
and R5. Like current code, access ro osed residential zones include
is
the minimum lot size is 3,0000 sq.ft. types being introduced in the proposed requires include
mes
5,000 sq.ft. The new buildingsixplex. Language will need to be removed that
x fourplex. fiveplex and sixp ached houses will not be allowed in the R4 and R5 districts.
tr►ple . simple unit per lot. Detached to have one fee
Page3of6
Fisk shared an overview of the proposed middle housing amendments:
• Accessory Dwelling Units
O Update for consistency with State Law
• Administration and Enforcement
o Add references to unit -lot subdivisions
' Apartment — NMU
o Clarify multifamily as permitted in NMU
• Building Elements , aligning with POMC 20.32.010(9)
o Review for consistenc
• Building Types Y with Middle Housing standards
o Update for Middle Housing
o Remove housing type definitions
o Move standards to Subtitle VI
• Commercial and
Mixed -use Districts
o Update for consistency with revisions to 20.32
• Definitions
o Add Middle Housing model ordinance definitions
o Incorporate additional building t
• Design Standards YPe definitions from 20.32
o Develop standards for fences in front of setbacks
o Remove Middle Housing a
• Development Standards ppl'cability from this chapter
O Add reference to unit -lot subdivisions.
o Review parking and circulation standards for consistency with Middle Housing.
• Fourplex
o Address misleading naming to clarify triplex b
• Greenbelt and Industrial Districts
o Review and ensure consistency,
• Introductions to Zoning,
o Ensure consistecy width otheand
code Buildings T
McCormick Village Overlay District Types
• amendments.
o Amend building type requires consistent mentwith HB 11
access. 10, including alley
• Middle Housing Design Standards
o Adopt uniform standards referencing 20.32 and model ordinance
dur
• Minimum Parking Standards
o Align with RCW 70.128.140 and RCW 36 7 ance.
• Overlay Districts0a.620
o Add Bethel Subarea Plan Overlays
o Review VPOD for Middle Housing consistency
• Public and Community Space
tricts
O Ensure consistency withh other standards
• Residential Design Standards
Page 4 of 6
o Remove applicability for Middle Housing
Residential Districts to four units with
o Update for Middle Housing
o Allow a minimum of two residential units per lot; alw oxim'rty to transit, consisten with RCW 36.70A.635 and
affordability criteria or p
HB1110
• Site and Lot Dimensions
o Remove site area requirements
o Update lot definitions and add unit -lot references
o Eliminate Build to Zone
o Adjust ground floor elevation standards
o Eliminate 20sng
ta da d0tooallow only twor Middle adjacentflag lots
o Develop a
Use Provisions and Use Table
, transitional,
o Align with State as hRCW elter.35A.21.430 for permanent supportive
emergency housing,and
crest lot
explained the unit lot subdivision process which allows division of a sinstandards;
Fisk further parent lot must meet zoning n lexes and
process is applicable to duplexes, townhome , fo 'pses s
into individual unit lots for separate ownership. The
individual unit lots are exempt. This dwelling units. This will not permit
r
all other middle housing types including accessory
densities beyond those allowed in zoning districts. which include the introduction of the
Planning Commission meeting
Director Bond provided paermit processing chapter at the February Bond also hopes to
subdivision chapter and p Commission meeting. and also
followed by additional discussion at the March Planning
parking and building elements chapter to the Commission at the February g•
get the pa S roe in the
Stewart asked for clarification if the property owner must live on the e owner
Commissioner resent on one lot. Fisk shared that the p p Y
situation where there arequirement two DU was removed in 2023.
living on the property
not asked if there are any restrictions on combination of different
the permitted
Commissioner Fonte types is allowed up
types on one lot. Fisk shared that any combination of building
number of units.
U is
Commissioner a Mitchell asked for clarification in the situation of landownership whenace is n ADed in
common ownership. Overall maintenance responsibility
e ability falls on
built and sold as a condominiu n•iFisk explained that with a condominium,fee sim
ownership and the land it sits o
all space owners. In a unit lot subdivision, the land is divided and sells as
p
ot.
roved Accessory Dwelling Units units program. The City
C. Director oN: Pre -app re -a raved accessory dwelling p g Du sor which pre- approved ADU
n wctas Bond shared an update on t hares the p program's
o ram s p rp provides Tonal Coordinating
now has freea of chae resource thaCounty thetThe program was led by the Kitsap g
plans charge for Kitsap Y removing cost barriers that the
Council (KRCC) and aims to encourage ADU construction by
page 5of6
design phase presents. The City's page links to KRCC's website which
provides additional
information on the available plans.
D. DISCUSSION: DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Bond asked the Commission if they'd like to create an agenda item for the next meeting
in electing a new Planning Commission Chair, or keep consistent with the current chair.
Commissioners chose to keep Commissioner McKlosky as the Chair and Commissioner Stewa
Vice Chair. City staff and the Commission will revisit the chair elections
rt as
in January 2026.
nee more.
at
Commissioners welcomed Planning Commissioner Mitchell Once
ADJOURN: Commissioner McKlosky adjourned the meeting 7:06 pm.
TyI ' j 1cKlosky, Chair
Nick Bond, Community Development Director
Page 6 of 6