Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 7, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting PacketCITY 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 June 2, 2026 Hybrid Meeting — Council Chambers/Zoom Teleconference COMMISSIONERS: Present: Tyler McKlosky (Chair), Joe Morrison, Tiffiny Mitchell, Paul Fontenot, Annette Stewart Absent: Stephanie Bailey, Wayne Wright (Vice Chair) STAFF: Director Nick Bond, Principal Planner Jim Fisk, Associate Planner Connor Dahlquist, Assistant Planner Ethan Walker 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA FOR JUNE 2, 2026: Unanimous approval. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no members of the public present in the chamber or attending remotely. No public comment was given. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 5, 2026: Commissioner McKlosky asked if the other commissioners reviewed the minutes from the May 5, 2026 meeting and if anyone had any concerns or proposed amendments. Seeing none, a motion was entertained to approve the minutes. The minutes were approved unanimously with one abstention from Commissioner Stewart. 6. BUSINESS ITEMS A. DISCUSSION: Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park Associate Planner Dahlquist gave a presentation on the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park project and provided an update on the May 28th community workshop. He explained that the park site is located at the end of Sherman Avenue, west of SE Sedgwick Road, on a 30 -acre property acquired by the City in 2022 for stormwater facilities. Associate Planner Dahlquist reviewed the site's topography and provided a timeline of the community engagement activities completed to date. At the most recent workshop, attendees evaluated three conceptual park options and provided feedback on preferred uses and design elements. Associate Planner Dahlquist noted that a public survey is available on the City's website through July 12 for additional input. He outlined the three conceptual categories under consideration: Trails and Conservation, Family Nature Park, and Community Garden and Recreation Park, and described the distinguishing elements of each concept in detail. Commissioner Mitchell asked about the Planning Commission's role in the process and whether the Commission makes the final decision. Principal Planner Fisk clarified that the Commission would provide a recommendation to the City Council. He also encouraged Commissioners to complete the survey. Commissioner Stewart asked whether the proposed park plan would include fencing or be designed to remain more open. Associate Planner Dahlquist stated that staff are continuing to coordinate with Public Works on whether fencing or an open stormwater tract would be most appropriate for the site. Principal Planner Fisk added that the project is in a conceptual phase. Commissioner Stewart suggested that staff review examples of similar parks in the Bremerton area for potential inspiration. Commissioner Fontenot expressed appreciation for the thoughtful approach to the conceptual plans and noted that all three options appeared preferable to conventional development. He commented that the park location is somewhat hidden from residents who do not live in adjacent neighborhoods but noted that this may benefit the site by creating a space primarily used by nearby residents. He added that active recreation and community garden uses may already be served by nearby parks and that a conservation -focused concept could be the most productive for the site. He further observed that, as a stormwater facility, the site may be prone to flooding, and designing with less infrastructure could reduce potential risk to City assets. Commissioner Fontenot also asked whether staff planned to attend a farmers' market to gather additional feedback; Associate Planner Dahlquist confirmed that an outreach event is scheduled for June 27. Commissioner Stewart asked how the park would be accessed. Principal Planner Fisk responded that access would likely occur from the Sherman Avenue right-of-way. Chair McKlosky noted for the record that Commissioner Morrison had joined the meeting. Commissioner Morrison stated that he was pleased to see the park planning process advancing. B. DISCUSSION: 2026 Legislative Session Principal Planner Fisk introduced three recent state legislative updates requiring amendments to the Port Orchard Municipal Code. He provided an overview of each bill and outlined the order in which staff will prioritize the necessary code updates to meet statutory adoption deadlines. Principal Planner Fisk began with House Bill 1859, which pertains to permitting affordable housing on properties owned by religious organizations. He then discussed House Bill 2418, which establishes new procedural requirements for permit review timelines, followed by House Bill 2266, which encourages the development of permanent supportive housing. Commissioner Mitchell focused her questions on the provisions of House Bill 2418, expressing concern that the required 28 -day permit review deadline may create undue pressure on staff. Principal Planner Fisk explained that the 28 -day threshold pertains to determining application completeness rather than issuing an approval. He clarified that meeting the deadline ensures that an application cannot be deemed complete without review and does not shorten or compromise SEPA Page 2 of 4 review or technical analyses. Commissioner Mitchell stated that she was relieved to learn that the new timeline would not necessitate cutting corners. Commissioner Fontenot commented that the City has made significant progress in improving permit processing efficiency in recent years. C. DISCUSSION: Survey Results Code Efficiency Principal Planner Fisk gave a presentation on the recent survey results related to code efficiency. He explained that Commissioners were asked to rank potential code amendments and noted that, even with a survey pool of seven participants, several clear trends emerged. Principal Planner Fisk reported that the highest -priority amendment was establishing objective design standards and providing accompanying graphics. This was followed by consolidating redundant review steps and creating a pre -approved landscaping plant list. He further noted that consolidating redundant review steps was also identified as the amendment expected to have the greatest long-term impact on predictability and consistency. Principal Planner Fisk then presented the remaining amendments in order of their ranked priority. Principal Planner Fisk summarized that the common theme among the top -ranked items was an emphasis on reducing processing time while improving clarity and predictability within the development review process. He clarified that no action was required from the Commission at this meeting and opened the floor for discussion. Commissioner Mitchell emphasized the need to reduce subjectivity in the design review process. She suggested that establishing a defined character within the design code could help strengthen the City's identity and cited Park City, Utah as an example of a community with a strong design character. Commissioners Bailey and Fontenot indicated they had no additional questions or comments. Commissioner Morrison asked where reducing the number of conditional use permits fell within the survey results. Principal Planner Fisk then returned to his slides to display the ranking. D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Bond provided an update on Amazon's planned expansion of drone delivery services in Port Orchard. He explained that while the operation and flight of drones fall under Federal Aviation Administration regulations and are not governed by local land use codes, the City may consider zoning regulations for drone landing pads and takeoff areas. He noted that the current delivery models include drones capable of carrying three -pound and five -pound payloads. Planning staff is evaluating how accessory drone -delivery uses may be permitted within various zoning districts, and this topic will return to the Planning Commission for future discussion. Principal Planner Fisk reported that the City Council has approved the ordinance revising the plat review process. He stated that the City will be transitioning packet, agenda, and minutes management to CivicPlus, which will move these materials to an online platform. He added that the City Clerk is working to schedule training for staff and Commissioners on the new system. Page 3 of 4 Principal Planner Fisk also reminded Commissioners to complete the required land use training and noted that email reminders have been distributed. Lastly, Principal Planner Fisk announced the City's new Downtown Building Facade Grant Program. He stated that the City's website includes the grant application, policy information, and eligibility criteria. To qualify, buildings must have frontage on Bay Street and be located between Frederick Avenue and Harrison Avenue. ADJOURN: Commissioner McKlosky adjourned the meeting at 6:36 pm. Tyler McKlosky, Chair Nick Bond, AICP, Community Development Director Page 4 of 4 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Ph.: (360) 874-5533 • FAX: (360) 876-4980 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No: 6(a) Meeting Date: July 7, 2026 Prepared by: Nick Bond, AICP, Development Subject: Drive -through Facilities Director Issue: The purpose of this report is to provide the Planning Commission with an overview of the issues surrounding the permitting and regulation of drive -through facilities in Port Orchard and to request direction on potential amendments to the Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC). As drive -through facilities continue to be a common feature of commercial development, the City faces the ongoing challenge of ensuring that these uses are accommodated in a predictable and functional way while still supporting the community's long-term vision for walkable, pedestrian -oriented neighborhoods. Drive -through facilities are currently permitted as accessory uses under POMC 20.39, and in some zoning districts they require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Additional development standards appear in several different chapters of the code. POMC 20.39.610 provides specific standards for drive -through facilities, while stacking requirements are found in POMC 20.124.070, landscaping requirements in POMC 20.128, and building design standards in POMC 20.127. Because these regulations are spread across multiple sections, applicants often find the process difficult to navigate, and staff must interpret and apply standards that are not always cohesive. This fragmentation can lead to inconsistent outcomes and a less predictable permitting process. In addition to the challenge of dispersed regulations, the existing standards themselves can be difficult to apply on certain sites. Requirements for stacking, lane placement, and separation from pedestrian areas may be appropriate in principle but can be difficult to achieve on smaller or uniquely shaped parcels. As a result, applicants frequently request flexibility or exceptions, which can further complicate the review process and reduce predictability for both applicants and staff. Another important consideration is the relationship between drive -through facilities and the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Plan places strong emphasis on walkability, pedestrian -oriented design, and the creation of vibrant, mixed -use neighborhoods. Drive -through facilities, by their nature, introduce auto -oriented circulation patterns, curb cuts, and building orientations that can conflict with these goals. At the same time, drive-throughs remain a significant part of the commercial landscape and are likely to continue to be proposed. The City must therefore strike a balance between accommodating these uses and ensuring that new development supports the community's long-term vision. To address these challenges, staff has identified several potential approaches for updating the code. One option is to create a new building type within POMC 20.32 specifically for buildings that include drive -through facilities. This approach would treat drive-throughs as an integrated building form rather than an accessory use, allowing the City to establish clear expectations for placement, massing, frontage, and architectural integration. Standards could include requirements for full -width overhead covers for drive -through windows and order boxes, architectural compatibility with the principal building, and partial enclosure of the drive -through lane to reduce visual and noise impacts. This approach would also allow the City to specify where drive -through lanes may be located on a site, such as requiring them to be placed to the side or rear of buildings rather than between the building and the street. A second option is to regulate drive -through facilities as a building feature within POMC 20.122. This would allow drive-throughs to be incorporated into a variety of building types, including mixed -use or multi -tenant buildings, while still establishing clear standards for design, placement, and functionality. Under this approach, the City could regulate the number of lanes, the architectural treatment of canopies and enclosures, the placement of order boxes, and the design of pedestrian crossings. Noise mitigation, lighting, and screening requirements could also be consolidated into this section. A third option, and least desirable, is to consolidate all drive -through -related standards into a new stand-alone chapter of the POMC. This would gather requirements currently found in multiple chapters into a single, user-friendly location, improving clarity and predictability for applicants and staff. Such a chapter could address stacking, landscaping, architectural integration, pedestrian circulation, and site design in a comprehensive manner. Regardless of the regulatory structure selected, certain development standards will be important to ensure compatibility with surrounding development and consistency with Comprehensive Plan goals. These may include requirements for architectural integration, such as full -width covers over drive -through windows and order boxes that match the materials and design of the principal building. Enclosing the drive -through lane on two sides (one being the principal building and the other a structural or landscaped screen) could help reduce visual clutter and noise. Site design standards may require drive -through lanes to be located away from primary street frontages and may specify how pedestrian routes must cross or avoid drive -through lanes. Landscaping and screening requirements could be enhanced to soften the appearance of drive -through lanes and provide buffers from adjacent uses. To help illustrate the types of drive -through facilities that may be desirable, staff has identified two examples. The Walgreens drive -through on Borgen Boulevard in Gig Harbor demonstrates how a drive -through lane can be placed at the side of a building with a canopy that is architecturally integrated and minimally visible from the street. The recently completed Chick-fil-A facility in Fircrest shows how a high -functioning drive -through can incorporate extensive stacking capacity, covered lanes, clear pedestrian circulation, and effective screening. These examples show that drive -through facilities can be designed in a way that is both functional and compatible with surrounding development. Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide direction on the preferred regulatory approach, including whether drive -through facilities should be addressed through a new building type, a new building feature, or a consolidated stand-alone chapter. Staff also seeks guidance on the desired level of design regulation and how best to ensure consistency with Comprehensive Plan goals related to walkability and pedestrian -oriented development. Once the Commission provides direction, staff will prepare draft code amendments for further review and discussion before proceeding to public hearing and City Council consideration. Attachments: Photos - Walgreens drive -through on Borgen Boulevard in Gig Harbor, and Chick-fil-A facility in Fircrest 2 Via['` as ii •..... .•*.•.• V..... 4 y r 1!/ _ _ •� LJlick�t2� ? s •:a.' ;_ice NEW R J gor9en'Divd qe B - B e §y W1 qe vd '► ' � r y_ � � '1F loan : ,�� _ �� �*.. �'"f ��'`Y,1. �ry,'� �r_� _ i f: f•lrO1}Iti - �} : .''.S -� -i I _ _ ly' V. a1 ns .j. .�. imp i1'!! •r_ t iii 4 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Ph.: (360) 874-5533 • FAX: (360) 876-4980 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No: 6(b) Meeting Date: July 7, 2026 Prepared by: Nick Bond, AICP, Development Subject: Drone -delivery Director Issue: The purpose of this report is to introduce the Planning Commission to ongoing work related to potential amendments to the Port Orchard Municipal Code addressing drone -delivery activities as a land use. Although no draft regulations have been prepared at this time, the City Council has begun discussing policy direction that may guide future code development. Staff previously provided the Commission with a brief overview by email following the June meeting; however, this report brings the topic into a public setting, encourages early discussion, and prepares the Commission for the possibility of reviewing draft amendments as soon as August. No action is requested at the July meeting. Staff simply welcomes the opportunity to hear the Commission's initial thoughts on how the City might regulate ground -based drone -delivery activities. At the City Council Work Study session on May 19, 2026, representatives from Walmart and their drone -delivery partner, Wing, presented a proposal to introduce commercial drone delivery from the Port Orchard Walmart site. Their presentation described how the delivery system functions, the equipment that would be installed on the property, and how deliveries would be carried out within surrounding neighborhoods. The team also explained the technology behind the system, including safety protocols and detect -and -avoid capabilities, and outlined the anticipated delivery range. Councilmembers asked questions about operations, neighborhood impacts, and the City's regulatory authority. The full discussion is available on the City's YouTube channel, and additional information about Wing is available at wing.com. Although the Council was not asked to act at that meeting, the presentation prompted broader consideration of whether the City should develop local regulations to address the land -use aspects of drone -delivery operations. Commercial drone delivery operates within a regulatory framework that divides authority between the federal government and local jurisdictions. Once drones are airborne, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has exclusive authority over their operation. Delivery services must be authorized under 14 CFR Part 135, the same regulatory structure used for on -demand air carriers. Under these approvals, drones typically fly up to approximately 400 feet above ground level and may operate beyond visual line of sight when equipped with FAA -approved detect -and -avoid systems. The FAA is also preparing a nationwide Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with drone -delivery operations. The draft PEA examines issues such as noise, wildlife impacts, air quality, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Although still under development, the PEA is intended to guide future FAA decisions and promote consistent environmental review across the country. While the FAA regulates flight operations, local governments retain authority over land -based activities. This means the City may regulate the installation and operation of launch and landing infrastructure, the design and placement of drone -related facilities, and the on -site activities that support drone delivery. Local regulations cannot extend into airspace management, but they can address how drone -delivery facilities interact with surrounding land uses. Port Orchard Municipal Code Title 20 does not currently identify drone delivery as a specific land use. Drone -delivery activities associated with an existing retail establishment could potentially be interpreted as an accessory use under current code, but this interpretation may not fully address the potential impacts or community expectations associated with this emerging technology. If the City chooses to develop local regulations, several themes are likely to be relevant. These may include where launch and landing areas are located on a site, how those areas are screened or buffered from adjacent properties, whether hours of operation should be limited, and how local public safety agencies might be involved in reviewing or responding to drone -related activities. The City may also consider whether performance standards or conditional use requirements are appropriate for drone -delivery facilities, particularly in areas close to residential neighborhoods or other sensitive uses. These topics are not yet drafted into code language. They represent potential areas of focus for future policy discussions and are offered here to help frame the Commission's initial conversation. Staff will continue researching regulatory approaches used in other jurisdictions and will monitor ongoing federal work, including the FAA's environmental assessment. Based on direction from the City Council and feedback from the Planning Commission, staff may prepare draft code amendments for discussion as early as the August 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Public outreach and stakeholder engagement should be incorporated into the development of any proposed regulations. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission use this meeting to discuss potential impacts and regulatory considerations related to drone -delivery land uses, identify any areas where additional information would be helpful, and provide preliminary feedback to guide the development of draft code amendments. Attachments: None 2