Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 - Minutes May 6, 2025CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Planning Commission Minutes 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Phone: (360) 874-5533 • Fax: (360) 876-4980 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 6, 2025 Hybrid Meeting — Council Chambers/Zoom Teleconference COMMISSIONERS: Present: Tyler McKlosky (Chair), Annette Stewart (Vice Chair), Stephanie Bailey, Paul Fontenot, Joe Morrison, Tiffiny Mitchell, Wayne Wright Absent: STAFF: Community Development Director Nick Bond, Principal Planner Jim Fisk, Associate Planner Connor Dahlquist 1. CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner McKlosky called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were four members of the public present in the chamber and three attending remotely. No comment was given on items not on the agenda. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM APRIL 1, 2025: Commissioner McKlosky asked if the other commissioners reviewed the minutes from the April 1, 2025 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 Fontenot seconded. The motion passed unanimously with abstention from Commissioners McKlosky. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING: 2025 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Public Comments are summarised and not transcribed verbatim. The minutes reflect the general substance of the comments made and are not intended to be a word-for-word account. The May 6" meeting was presented with technical difficulties so recording and audio may be missing in some parts. Full comment details can be listened to from the published rideo recording. Principal Planner Fisk presented the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as a part of the 2025 update cycle. At the February meeting, staff introduced the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments docket, which were approved by City Council on March 11, 2025. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposals in April. Staff confirmed that the required public notices were issued, including SEPA notification and additionally mailed notices to property owners within 300 feet of the affected properties subject to the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment request. As of the meeting date, no public comments had been received. The 2025 amendment docket initially included six items: three city -initiated text amendments and three applicant -initiated amendments. Two items have since been removed including the city - initiated Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park Master Plan, as it is still in early phases of development, and applicant -initiated Hull Avenue Rezone as they are pursuing a site -specific rezone through a separate process. Four remaining amendments remain on the docket for the commission to consider including the first city -initiated amendment to the Capital Facilities Element to incorporate new projects and funding sources for transportation, utilities, parks, and public facilities. The second city -initiated amendment is to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to include new roadways, transit, and active transportation projects, along with additional funding sources. The third amendment and an applicant -initiated text amendment proposes a revision to the Expenditures table in the Capital Facilities Element to reflect updated cost estimates based on inflation and anticipated changes in project scope and priorities. This request is the same as the City -initiated text amendment to the Capital Facilities Element. The last amendment on the docket and second applicant -initiated item is a Comprehensive Plan Map and Legislative Zoning Map amendment for thirteen parcels located approximately 0.22 miles southwest of SW Old Clifton Road and Lloyd Parkway. The amendment would redesignate these properties in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, found in Appendix A, from Industrial to Medium -Density Residential (MDR) and rezone from Light Industrial (LI) to Residential 3 (R3), supporting residential development. Commissioner McKlosky opened the public hearing and reminded audience members to keep comments to three minutes. In -person audience member Larry Cleman of 1600 SW Durfey Lane gave public testimony. Cleman's comments were not entirely captured by the recorded Zoom but opposition for the rezone was given. Mathew Hale gave public testimony and expressed concerns over the proposed road access that would impact their property. Hale wanted additional information on the road design, including how much land would be taken for road width and sidewalks, noting it could eliminate parking areas they personally invested in. They opposed the use of eminent domain, arguing the developer should use existing access points on their own land rather than cutting through private properties. Hale also raised concerns about being forced to connect to city water, potentially losing access to their family's long-standing private well. Daniel Hale of 3507 Anderson Hill Road also provided in -person public testimony. Hale voiced strong opposition to the proposed road project that would cut through their property. They questioned how eminent domain could be granted for a single person which would impact existing land owned by others who have lived there for decades. Concerns included loss of private wells due to being forced onto city water, changes in zoning and property value, and potential environmental impacts, specifically the removal of existing orchard trees. He urged the commission to consider these impacts before approving access through their land. Barbara Shafer of 1767 SW Durfey Lane provided public comment in -person. Shafer shared concern about a proposed road being constructed through a long-established private dirt road Page 2 of 12 where families and children currently live and play. She emphasized the road's importance as a safe, quiet space for existing families. Although she is a renter, she highlighted the emotional and communal value of the area, which has been in the landowner's family for many years, and they've allowed her family to live there at affordable costs. She opposed plans for a two-lane road with sidewalks, noting it would disrupt the safety, character, and sense of sanctuary the community currently enjoys. In -person audience member William (Bill) Palmer, a Planning consultant and Mike Diaz's representative, provided public testimony. Palmer spoke in support of the land use designation change from industrial to residential. He explained that the property has remained undeveloped for nearly 18 years primarily due to environmental challenges and lack of access. The existing easement to Anderson Hill Road has been in place for a long time, and while not currently up to city standards, it is the only viable access at the time of the proposal. He noted that although alternative access options may be explored in the future, none are currently identified. Palmer argued that residential traffic would have far less impact on surrounding properties than industrial traffic, which would be permitted under the current zoning. If the rezone is approved, future subdivision proposals would include road upgrades, likely two 10 -foot driving lanes with curb and sidewalk on one side, meeting city standards. He emphasized that the property has legal access rights and cannot be landlocked under state law. He acknowledged neighborhood concerns and stated they are valid but reiterated that the proposed residential use is more compatible with the area than potential industrial development. Palmer concluded by referencing the detailed project analysis and responses already submitted by the applicant and expressed confidence that the city has sufficient information to consider the proposal for approval. He also welcomed questions from commissioners and was open to continued dialogue with neighbors. Commissioner McKlosky responded that the Commission will continue to hear public testimony to give everyone in the room and online opportunity. An audience member began asking Palmer questions and McKlosky asked to hold audience conversation. Conversations continued and Principal Planner Fisk notified the conversation - participants that conversations could continue outside of council chambers so additional public testimony could be made to the Commission. Audience member Bennett Skinner provided public comment. Their residence address was not captured due to loss in audio. Skinner objected to the proposed use of an existing easement for access, clarifying that the road in question was originally built as a private driveway through a handshake agreement decades ago and was never intended for broader development use. He emphasized that the property is not landlocked, as other access points exist, and expressed concerns about the road's proximity to private wells, septic systems, and drain fields, which they believe could violate setback and health codes. He stated they had not been contacted about the project and only learned of it when surveyors appeared on the property. While sympathetic to the applicant's investment, Skinner believes the Page 3 of 12 project would be harmful to their own property and the safety and character of the area. They argued that if the land remains zoned for commercial/industrial use, the feared residential traffic would not occur since commercial development would likely access the property elsewhere and not require heavy use of the easement. Skinner highlighted the long-standing generational presence of the property and explained they rent land to others at affordable rates to help community members stay housed. He expressed appreciation for being heard and welcomed continued dialogue as the process moves forward. Larry Durfey of 1800 SW Durfey Lane shared in -person comment. Durfey voiced strong opposition to the proposed road access through a private easement for a new residential development. He emphasized that his main concern, and that of nearby residents, is not the development itself, but the proposed use of a steep, narrow, privately maintained dirt road that runs through existing residential properties. Durfey explained that the road was originally built by his father and a neighbor's father under a private agreement, intended only to serve a few homes, not for future high -density development traffic. He pointed out that if the developer, Mike Diaz, instead accessed the property from Old Clifton Road or through nearby industrial -zoned land (where there is already infrastructure, including a gun range and water tank roads), there would be little or no objection from residents. However, using the current access would cut through residential yards, impact septic systems, and come within feet of existing homes, posing major safety risks to children, pets, and families. He described how the current informal use of the road relies on mutual courtesy, with neighbors pulling aside to let one another pass, something not feasible with increased traffic. Durfey expressed frustration that the developer has not seriously considered alternate access routes and warned that bringing in potentially hundreds of cars for a multifamily development would dramatically change traffic on Old Clifton Road, which he said is already dangerous and congested. He likened the steepness of the proposed access to Berry Lake Road and questioned whether it could be safely improved. He asked the Commission to prioritize the safety, peace, and well-being of long-time community members over developer convenience. He reiterated that there are other feasible access routes through industrial land that would not disturb the residential character of the area and urged the commission to let the land stay as it has historically been, emphasizing that residents simply want to preserve their way of life and the generational homes they've maintained for decades. Tiffany Hale gave the final in -person testimony. Hale sought clarification from the Commission where the easement location was and how it would impact the Hale property and Skinner properties. McKlosky shared that the question had been documented, and the public hearing will continue with online testimony. Erin Durfey at 1900 SW Durfey Lane provided public comment online. As the daughter of Larry Durfey and a third -generation resident on the road in question, she expressed deep concern over Page 4 of 12 the proposed development's impact on her family, neighbors, and way of life. She lives at the bottom of the road with her two young children and maintains a small homestead with chickens and other animals. Erin described the close-knit nature of their community, where neighbors support one another and maintain a peaceful, safe environment. She emphasized that expanding the current dirt road into a two-lane road with sidewalks to accommodate new residential traffic would be highly disruptive and detrimental to every household on the road. The increase in traffic and foot activity would fundamentally alter the character of their neighborhood, and she described the idea as frightening and overwhelming. Erin also voiced frustration with the lack of direct communication from the city or developer, noting that she only learned about the situation through her father's efforts to inform the neighborhood. She stressed that while official notifications may have been sent, they did not reach the community in a meaningful or accessible way. Tavia Vice of 1740 SW Durfey Lane provided the next online public testimony. Vice shared her opposition to the proposed road expansion and residential development. She began by emphasizing that the Old Clifton and Anderson Hill Road intersection is already hazardous and cannot safely support an increase in traffic volume, especially from potentially hundreds of new residents. She warned that the added congestion could worsen an already problematic intersection, raising serious safety concerns. She also criticized the proposal to construct additional apartment buildings, pointing out that Port Orchard has seen hundreds of new units constructed in recent years. In her view, the city does not need more high -density housing, particularly in a rural, residential neighborhood like hers. Tavia further warned of significant impacts on local wildlife, including bears, deer, and rabbits that currently inhabit the area. She stressed that continued development would eliminate natural habitat and push wildlife into urban areas, increasing human -wildlife conflicts and disrupting the environment. Tavia also raised concern about school overcrowding, specifically noting that the local high school is already over capacity. Adding more residents would exacerbate this issue and strain public services. Tavia described her neighborhood as a tight -knit, quiet, and family -oriented community where children currently play safely along a low -traffic, private road. She explained that turning the small rural road into a standard two-lane street with sidewalks would not only dramatically alter the neighborhood's character but would also bring cars dangerously close to existing homes. Many homes were built with setbacks appropriate for a quiet road, not for the higher traffic volumes associated with urban development. She concluded by urging the Planning Commission to consider the strong opposition from residents and the long-term consequences of pushing forward with a project that she believes is incompatible with the existing community, environment, and infrastructure. Page 5 of 12 John Medlock of 1740 SW Durfey Lane provided an objection to the road improvements and being able to use the existing easement. He shared his personal experience building his home in 2020, highlighting the difficulty of accessing utilities, noting he had to drill over 150 feet for well water, and that there is no sufficient aquifer for large-scale development. He emphasized that any new construction would require extensive utility work, likely needing to run lines over 1,200 feet up a private driveway, which he views as logistically infeasible and disruptive. Medlock pointed out the physical challenges of the road itself, which is steep and winding, making it difficult to upgrade to a two-lane road with sidewalks without encroaching on neighboring properties. He also stressed that the Old Clifton/Anderson Hill intersection is already overwhelmed and could not safely accommodate 100-200 additional vehicles that a large apartment development would bring. He argued that the existing easement originated as a personal handshake agreement between property owners, was not something meant to support a subdivision or commercial development. He argued that no one beyond his property has legal access, and that the applicant would likely have to compensate multiple residents if they pursued access through Durfey Lane, making it impractical and contentious. Medlock concluded by stating that the land in question is effectively landlocked, unless access is obtained another way, and that any attempt to push through the current plan would be a major burden on current residents. He thanked the commission for listening and urged them to reject the proposed access route and development. Testimony for the May Planning Commission meeting concluded and Director Bond reminded the Commission the meaning of the rezone item presented to them, which is whether or not the property should be rezoned form industrial to residential. Project -specific details are not being voted upon, which considers legal access, water availability, environmental review, and more. Bond reminded the Commission that they or the City Council have no obligation to grant a Comprehensive Plan amendment and in order to approve it, it has to meet the criteria set forth in Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.04.040. These include consistency with the comprehensive plan, the Growth Management Act, and consideration of cumulative impacts. Bond noted that one key criterion is alignment with growth targets. Port Orchard currently has a large surplus of residential land and only a small surplus of employment (industrial) land. While the proposed amendment would slightly reduce the city's employment capacity, it would not drop below the required threshold based on countywide growth targets. Therefore, from a capacity standpoint, it is technically supportable. He also highlighted that compatibility with neighboring land uses is a required consideration. While many neighbors voiced concerns about the impacts of potential residential development, the city is not yet reviewing a specific development proposal, only the land use change. Any future subdivision proposal, or development activity, would be reviewed in detail by the hearing examiner or other designated decision -maker, for compliance with zoning and environmental regulations, including possible mitigation or even denial based on specific impacts. Page 6 of 12 Principal Planner Fisk shared clarifying input on the comment of eminent domain in that the City has no desire to acquire any property on behalf of the development for this purpose. Director Bond reiterated that cities in Washington have no right to acquire an easement through eminent domain for a developer if they don't already have it. McKlosky asked Commissioner Wright online if he had any comments before the Zoom audio connection was disrupted once more. Commissioner Wright shared that he had not thoroughly reviewed the development proposal yet but highlighted concerns about the location of existing wells near the proposed access road and how expanding the road could be problematic due to well protection zones, potentially making the current easement unusable. He stressed that if wells are that close, an alternative access route might be necessary. Wright noted that the planning commission's role so far has been limited to evaluating whether residential zoning might be better than industrial, not the full development details. He emphasized that access to the property is a major challenge, especially given the need to cross a creek, which would be complex and costly. Based on his professional experience, he warned that these factors make the property difficult to develop. He encouraged all parties to carefully consider these issues going forward. Finally, he pointed out that the Planning Commission has not been presented with new information about the wells or related development challenges and questioned whether a decision should be made without that data. Commissioner Morrison expressed sympathy for the property owners present but also acknowledged Mr. Diaz's property rights. He emphasized that the current discussion is limited to recommending a comprehensive plan amendment for a rezoning request, not decisions about access, easements, or subdivision permits, which are still far off. Morrison noted that the core question before the commission is whether to support the property owner's rezoning request. He mentioned his own interest in industrial land and broad analysis of the property and also found that it would be difficult to utilize such land effectively. Morrison asked Director Bond if a residential rezoning only allows for residential use, or if a industrial/residential mix existed. Director Bond responded that there is an Industrial Flex zone which allows for a mix but that is not what is being proposed. Principal Planner Fisk shared that the applicant requested an R3 designation which does allow for apartments and that R2 does not allow for apartments. The Industrial Flex zone is a commercial designation which does not allow for detached houses. Director Bond shared that the Commission may recommend an R2 rezone instead of R3 which would eliminate the possibility of apartments. Page 7 of 12 Commissioner Morrison responded that he is not sure if the Commission should recommend a different rezone than as originally proposed as it is important for Port Orchard to build a range of housing types to allow all income -levels to have access to housing. Commissioner Mitchell thanked all the attendees in -person and remotely for engaging in the public hearing process. She expressed empathy for the residents' concerns, sharing her own experience living in McCormick Woods and witnessing unsafe driving on Old Clifton Road. She acknowledged the dangers of increased traffic in the fast-growing area. Mitchell highlighted the many points raised during the hearing, particularly around alternative access options that may not have been fully considered. She noted that although the commission is only deciding on a rezoning tonight, not access or subdivision plans, she understands residents' worries about the broader implications. Mitchell suggested postponing a decision on the rezoning amendment to allow for more community discussion and input. She emphasized the value in openly weighing whether residential or industrial use is preferable for the site and the importance of continued public involvement, especially now that awareness has increased. Commissioner Stewart provided comments and commended the audience on the community they've been in their part of Port Orchard and for being engaged in the process. She acknowledged that what she heard from many speakers was not total opposition to development, but rather a desire to preserve the character and peace of their specific road and neighborhood. Stewart noted that growth and development in Port Orchard are likely inevitable, even if not on this particular property. Given the complexity and strong community concern, she expressed a desire for more time before making a decision and thanked everyone for attending, emphasizing that their participation had a meaningful impact. Commissioner Bailey followed and agreed with Commissioner Stewart's comments. Audio was not captured so the full extent of Bailey's feedback was not recorded. Commissioner Fontenot shared both a professional perspective and personal connection to the issue. Professionally, he emphasized his broader goal on the Planning Commission, which is to guide smarter, more holistically considered development in Port Orchard. He explained that he has long been focused on avoiding sprawling, car -dependent growth and instead wants to see the city grow inward, building a city that is better connected by public transit for more efficient growth. Fontenot acknowledged that growth in Port Orchard is inevitable but argued it should be directed in ways that minimize disruption and prioritize sustainability. Fontenot noted that the area in question around Old Clifton, Anderson Hill, and McCormick Woods are already a disconnected, car -reliant part of the city. He pointed out that continued development there, especially residential, would worsen traffic and safety problems without solving underlying infrastructure challenges. He was especially concerned about how that area is integrated with the city's transit system. Page 8 of 12 Fontenot also addressed environmental concerns, stating that while industrial development might seem less intrusive in some ways, its potential impacts on the nearby creek and critical areas were serious. He shared that this environmental risk is what initially led him to lean toward favoring residential zoning over industrial, although he was clear that this doesn't mean automatic support for any specific project. Fontenot expressed deep empathy with residents who testified. He described growing up in a similarly rural, tight -knit neighborhood, and said that if a road expansion or major development had been proposed there without direct communication or consultation, he too would have been outraged. He reiterated that the Commission's decision at this stage is only about whether to recommend changing the zoning and not about approving a development project or subdivision. Commissioner McKlosky recapped the item of discussion which included updates to the capital facilities element, the transportation improvement program, and the amendments involving the rezone. McKlosky entertained a motion to either recommend adopting all the amendments or none of the amendments. Commissioner Mitchell wished to recommend adoption of the transportation improvement program and capital facilities element but wanted to hold off the rezone amendment to allow for further public comment. Director Bond gave feedback that amending the Comprehensive Plan is allowed once a year so bifurcating the amendments is not possible. The Commission may continue to keep the discussion open until the June Planning Commissioner meeting, but Bond reminded Commissioners that a public hearing for the middle housing code update will also be happening. The middle housing code has a June 30th deadline. Bond shared that Commissioners may reach out to staff from now until next month with any questions that they might have. Any additional public engagement beyond the hearing would cause timeline conflicts for other items that need to happen on following agendas. He emphasized that it would be important to have a decision on the amendments by the end of May. Commissioner Mitchell recommended to table the amendments to the June meeting to allow for additional public feedback and that they may email her to continue the conversation. Director Bond recommended keeping the record of tonight's hearing open until the June meeting so that people may submit written testimony. He shared that the Planning Commission has a shared email which may be found on the city's website. Commissioner Mitchell asked staff if conditions of additional community engagement on the easement access may be included in the passing of the motion. Director Bond shared that there is not a way to conditionally grant a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Bond reminded Commissioners that public noticing for additional public comment would occur if the project happened to be over nine units which would trigger SEPA review. Page 9 of 12 Commissioner Mitchell reiterated keeping the record open until the next Planning Commission meeting and to reach out to Commissioners through their email to provide further written comment. Commissioner Mitchell made a motion to table all the amendments and keep the record open. Commissioners Wright and Morrison shared that the applicant should consider the change of residential zoning type from R3 to R2 during the extended timeline of public feedback and to come back with a revised proposal if that meets their needs. Commissioner Fontenot seconded Mitchell's motion to table. Commissioner Stewart shared her personal connection to Larry Durfey and asked if she should recuse herself from the motion. Director Bond shared that voting on a motion to table did not present any conflicts The motion passed unanimously. Director Bond reminded members of the public that written comment may also be provided to planning(rt.portorchardwa.gov as well as mailing comments to the Department of Community Development at 216 Prospect St. Port Orchard, WA 98366 or call the department to talk to staff. Commissioner Morrison emphasized that it is important for the applicant to have a dialogue with property owners as so many questions about project -specifics were raised tonight that Commissioners don't have the answers for. He hopes that there is a better understanding of proposal intent by the June meeting. B. Discussion: Middle Housing Model Ordinance Development Regulations Principal Planner Fisk presented the presented proposed amendments to the Port Orchard Municipal Code to implement recent state housing legislation. These changes aim to support middle housing, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and reduced off-street parking requirements, in compliance with a state -mandated deadline of June 30, 2025. The amendments also align with the city's 2024 Comprehensive Plan. Fisk explained that the draft ordinance had been submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce for the required 60 -day review, and a SEPA Determination of Non -Significance was issued on April 29. The city is following the state's model middle housing ordinance for Tier 3 compliance, with plans to create more tailored Tier 2 regulations in the future. Elements of the proposal include adopting unit -based density limits and allowing multiple building types on one lot so long as they meet district density caps. For reference, in the RI zone, a lot could include two units, such as a house and two ADUs. The R2 zone would allow up to four units, and R3 up to six, with no cap for apartment buildings. Page 10 of 12 A new unit lot subdivision process is proposed which would allow for multi -unit developments to be divided into smaller fee -simple lots, provided the parent lot meets certain dimensional standards. ADU regulations would be further become more flexible, including expanded size allowances and previously approved removal of owner -occupancy rules. Parking requirements would be reduced or eliminated in accordance with Senate Bill 5184. To improve clarity and reduce complexity, the code's residential design standards have been consolidated and streamlined. Discretionary design criteria has been eliminated, garage and facade standards reorganized into a flexible option, and middle housing is now held to the same standards as detached homes. Overlay districts have also been simplified. The McCormick Village overlay has been revised to reflect new housing types, and the downtown height overlay has been renamed and expanded to apply citywide, consolidating height rules across zones, except in view protection areas. Fisk concluded by requesting that the Planning Commission schedule a public hearing to formally review the ordinance and prepare a recommendation for the City Council. Once the ordinance is adopted, staff will begin developing permanent Tier 2 regulations. Commissioner Wright shared that the redlined document is a bit difficult to read and the next version should reduce that for better comprehension. Wright also shared that there were some inconsistencies with the way ADUs were discussed. Wright shared that he will provide written feedback to Fisk. Principal Planner Fisk shared that Associate Planner Dahlquist is working on updated graphics for middle housing building types and standards which will be represented in the next draft version. Commissioner Fontenot shared a positive reaction to the ordinance update and is looking forward to the update. Commissioner McKlosky reminded Commissioners that the topic will be revisited at the June meeting for a public hearing. C. DISCUSSION: Planning Commission Schedule for July 2025 Director Bond and staff wanted to ask whether all Commissioners will be present for the July commission meeting as it falls on a holiday week. If a quorum was not met, they would consider rescheduling. All Commissioners confirmed that they will be present for the July 1St meeting. D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Page 11 of 12 Director Bond announced that the Puget Sound Regional Council officially certified Port Orchard's comprehensive plan about a month ago. He noted that only about 25% of jurisdictions had received certification at that time, and Port Orchard's early approval reflects the team's strong efforts and proactive approach, especially regarding housing issues. He emphasized that the city faced fewer challenges and less community pushbacks than others, in part because they had addressed key issues earlier than many peer jurisdictions. He concluded by congratulating everyone on ajob well done. ADJOURN: Commissioner McKlosky adjourned the meeting at 7:57 pm. Tyler 6losky, Chair Nick Bond, Community Development Director Page 12 of 12