HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 1, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda PacketT_�84
Meeting Location: Contact us:
���ARD A City Hall, Council Chambers Phone lanai360) 874-5533
216 Prospect Street Email planning@portorchardwa.gov
Port Orchard, WA 98366 www.portorchardwa.gov
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 1, 2026
6:00 PM
Attendees and Planning Commission members may attend in person at City Hall or via Zoom.
Pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW, the City Council is conducting its public
meeting in a hybrid format with options for in -person attendance in the Council Chambers at City Hall or
remote viewing and participation via Zoom (link below). The meeting is streamed live on the City's
YouTube channel, click here.
Remote Access
Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86180242823
Zoom Call -In: 1 253 215 8782
Webinar ID: 861 8024 2823
1. Call to Order: 6:00 p.m.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Welcome and Introduction
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Public Hearing
Topics not listed for public hearing on tonight's agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes.
4. Audience Comments
5. Approval of Minutes
July 7, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting
A. July 7, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
6. Business Items
A. Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park Presentation
7. Director's Report
Update to the Planning Commission on recent related to past and upcoming Planning Commission activity.
8. Good of the Order
9. Adjournment
Page 1 of 34
10. Next Planning Commission Meeting
October 6, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting
ADA Requirements
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need accommodations to participate in this meeting,
please contact the City Clerk's office at (360) 876-4407. Notification at least 48 hours in advance of meeting will
enable the City to make arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.
Reminder: Please silence all electronic devices while Planning Commission is in session.
To subscribe to our general news & public notices click the link: http://portorchardwa.gov/subscribe.
For current City Council member and contact information, please
visit https://portorchardwa.gov/departments/city-council/.
For Committee Membership please visit https://portorchardwa.gov/city-council-advisory-committees/.
Page 2 of 34
CITY 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
July 7, 2026
Hybrid Meeting — Council Chambers/Zoom Teleconference
COMMISSIONERS:
Present: Tyler McKlosky (Chair), Wayne Wright (Vice Chair), Tiffiny Mitchell, Annette Stewart
Absent: Stephanie Bailey, Paul Fontenot, Joe Morrison,
STAFF:
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 JULY 7, 2026: Unanimous approval.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Tyler Danielson provided comments in the chambers regarding agenda item A
and supported the City regulating the orientation of Drive -through facilities in order to benefit pedestrian
access and pursue more attractive destinations. There were no members of the public attending remotely
and no additional public comment was given.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 2, 2026: Commissioner McKlosky asked if the other
commissioners reviewed the minutes from the June 2, 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 Wright.
6. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. DISCUSSION: Drive -through Facilities
Principal Planner Fisk introduced the item by explaining that the City is seeing an increase in
drive -through facility proposals, prompting a more comprehensive review of the Municipal Code
related to this type of development. Principal Planner Fisk noted that drive-throughs are currently
considered an accessory use, with applicable standards distributed across several chapters, making
them difficult for applicants to navigate. Principal Planner Fisk acknowledged public comment
expressing concern that certain drive -through development patterns may conflict with
Comprehensive Plan goals related to pedestrian -oriented development and walkability. Principal
Planner Fisk emphasized the need for thoughtful design to ensure cohesion with these goals. The
topic was brought forward for Commission discussion regarding potential code improvements for
Page 3 of 34
clarity and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Wright asked what types of drive -through facilities most commonly apply for
permits.
Principal Planner Fisk responded that a wide variety of uses apply but coffee stands represent one
of the more frequent applicants.
Commissioner Wright noted that small lots create challenges for drive -through development and
asked whether the City might consider establishing a minimum lot size to prevent the purchase of
parcels unsuitable for drive -through use. Commissioner Wright also asked where drive -through
facilities are typically located.
Principal Planner Fisk stated that drive-throughs are located almost exclusively within commercial
zones.
Commissioner Mitchell asked for additional clarification regarding which zones permit
drive -through facilities and referenced a coffee shop located near an apartment complex.
Principal Planner Fisk clarified that the business in question was permitted as a live -work unit
rather than solely an apartment, and the drive -through was allowable because the site is located
within the Commercial Corridor zone. Principal Planner Fisk explained that current standards
restrict drive -through facilities relative to residential zoned properties, not residential uses.
Commissioner Mitchell summarized the options presented in the staff packet, noting that Option 1
is tailored more toward fast-food restaurant formats, Option 2 is more flexible for smaller coffee
shop -type uses, and Option 3 appears least desirable. Commissioner Mitchell asked why Option 3
ranks lowest.
Principal Planner Fisk explained that Option 3 is the least preferred because it would establish yet
another standalone chapter, contributing to a more cluttered and difficult -to -navigate Municipal
Code.
Commissioner Mitchell discussed blending Options 1 and 2 to provide both drive -through building
types and optional drive -through building elements.
Principal Planner Fisk stated that combining Options 1 and 2 would effectively replicate Option 3.
Principal Planner Fisk further described the comparative strengths of the options: Option 1 would
establish a unique building type, whereas Option 2 would introduce a building element applicable
to multiple building types.
Commissioner Mitchell reiterated support for blending Options 1 and 2, but noted that if blending
is not feasible, Option 2 is preferred. Commissioner Mitchell then asked about Chick-fil-A and
why it was included as a good design example.
Principal Planner Fisk explained that Chick-fil-A demonstrates effective drive -through design
practices, including substantial landscaping, a stacking area separated from parking stalls, and
Page 2 of 5
Page 4 of 34
placement of the order -box away from the street, helping separate auto -oriented elements from
pedestrian -oriented elements.
Chair McCloskey agreed with previous comments and expressed support for Option 2.
Commissioner Bailey also supported Option 2 and expressed interest in drive -through facilities
that are not dependent on vehicular circulation across multiple properties. Commissioner Bailey
suggested reviewing In -N -Out Burger as a potential design example.
Commissioner Wright asked whether the anticipated code amendments would include design
requirements focusing on driveway entrances to reduce curb cuts, and how the code would handle
businesses with one versus multiple drive -through lanes.
Principal Planner Fisk responded that the discussion at this stage is intended to establish the vision
for the amendment rather than specific design requirements.
Commissioner Wright stated that his priorities include reducing interruptions to pedestrian traffic,
improving auto circulation efficiency, and enhancing screening and appearance while maintaining
flexibility for developer creativity.
Commissioner Mitchell suggested exploring requirements for covered drive -through windows and
ordering stations to provide weather protection. Commissioner Mitchell also asked whether
landscaping code updates should be considered to further enhance design. Commissioner Mitchell
inquired when businesses are required to update existing on -site conditions under current
standards.
Principal Planner Fisk explained that new standards apply only to new development.
Commissioner Wright asked about the process of retrofitting existing buildings.
Principal Planner Fisk stated that any drive -through application submitted after adoption of new
standards would be required to comply with the updated code.
Commissioner Mitchell then asked for clarification regarding standards regulating distinctive
rooflines associated with specific corporate architecture.
Principal Planner Fisk responded that in certain zones, corporate architecture is allowed and
exempted from roofline standards. Principal Planner Fisk further explained the applicability
requirements of POMC 20.127 and noted that the chapter contains redevelopment thresholds that
determine which standards apply based on the level of renovation proposed.
Commissioner Bailey asked for clarification regarding current drive -through standards in the
Tremont area.
Principal Planner Fisk responded that zoning standards in the area have been updated since the last
drive -through development occurred there.
Page 3 of 5
Page 5 of 34
B. DISCUSSION: Drone Delivery
Principal Planner Fisk introduced the topic to begin gathering Planning Commission feedback on
potential Walmart drone deliveries within the City of Port Orchard. He provided a brief recap of
the presentation delivered to the City Council by Walmart and its drone partner, Wing, including
related Council discussion that prompted the need for the Commission's input. Principal Planner
Fisk explained that drone technology is not currently a defined land use within the Municipal
Code, creating the necessity for discussion regarding potential land -use impacts and associated
ground -based activities. Principal Planner Fisk also noted that once airborne, drone operations fall
under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) jurisdiction. Principal Planner Fisk concluded by
outlining the intent of the discussion and the likely public process that would follow as the topic
advances.
Commissioner Bailey asked whether an expert could be invited to present information regarding
drone logistics and legal considerations. Commissioner Bailey expressed concern about
jurisdictional overlap and questioned whether a drone launched directly from an operator's hand
versus the ground might affect regulatory applicability. Commissioner Bailey then considered the
level of support or concern within both the community and City Administration regarding drones
operating within city limits and reiterated his support for obtaining an independent expert
presentation.
Commissioner Mitchell recommended that others watch the presentation given to the City Council
to provide additional clarity on drone -related questions. Commissioner Mitchell stated preference
for deeper coverage of topics such as wildlife impacts, reporting regulations, camera function and
data management, and navigational systems. Commissioner Mitchell also requested more
information regarding noise impacts. Commissioner Mitchell asked whether the City intends to
oppose or support Walmart's drone delivery proposal, noting that the Commission faces difficulty
in advancing the discussion without additional data.
Principal Planner Fisk responded that there is currently no clear direction from City Council
regarding support or opposition to drone delivery. Principal Planner Fisk explained that the public
process including review by the Land Use Committee and Planning Commission, will help inform
the City Council's position as discussions progress.
Commissioner Mitchell asked for clarification regarding the overall process and the Planning
Commission's specific role.
Principal Planner Fisk explained that the City Council would direct staff to prepare draft code
language, which would then be brought to the Planning Commission for discussion. A public
hearing would be held, after which each Commissioner would vote in favor of or against a
recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Mitchell then asked whether drone delivery would require an accessory use
designation or permit, particularly given that delivery drivers are not required to obtain similar
approvals.
Page 4 of 5
Page 6 of 34
Principal Planner Fisk responded that there is no definitive answer at this time because drone
delivery is not yet defined within the Municipal Code.
Commissioner Mitchell asked whether allowing drones within City limits could create
insurance -related requirements or liabilities for the City.
Principal Planner Fisk stated that they are not an attorney but generally assumed that the City
would not be liable for damages caused by legally permitted uses.
Commissioner Wright discussed both the potential benefits and concerns associated with drone
delivery. Commissioner Wright identified noise and nuisance impacts as key concerns but also
noted the possibility of reducing traffic congestion in commercial and public areas. Commissioner
Wright advised giving strong consideration to identifying efficient landing zones and suggested the
potential use of parcel lockers. Commissioner Wright also raised questions regarding drone
charging stations and the logistics of storage and charging.
C. DIRECTOR's REPORT
Principal Planner Fisk provided a brief recap of a recent public outreach event held at a local
farmers market. Principal Planner Fisk noted that the City continues to receive active participation
in the park plan survey currently under development.
Commissioner McCloskey asked whether any particular concept was emerging as the preferred
option among survey respondents.
Principal Planner Fisk preferred not to influence ongoing survey participation by identifying which
option is currently leading but confirmed that one concept is receiving the highest number of
responses at this time.
ADJOURN: Commissioner McKlosky adjourned the meeting at 6:55 pm.
Tyler McKlosky, Chair
Nick Bond, AICP, Community Development Director
Page 5 of 5
Page 7 of 34
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Business Items: 6.A. Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park Presentation
Meeting Date: September 1, 2026
Presenter: Connor Dahlquist, Associate Planner
Summary and Background:
In 2022, the City of Port Orchard purchased a 30 -acre property at the south end of Sherman
Avenue near Blackjack Creek to support development of a regional stormwater facility,
pedestrian improvements, and a future neighborhood park. The property is identified as a
resource conservancy and neighborhood park in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS)
Plan and is currently going through a public outreach and master planning process. A Public
Participation Plan (PPP) for this project was approved in 2024, identifying outreach objectives,
audiences, methods, and schedule for developing a park master plan.
Consistent with the PPP, staff conducted a multi -phase outreach program which included
approximately 900 direct mailers, 600 door hangers, and poster outreach to 20 businesses
surrounding the neighborhood. Printed and digital outreach aimed to advertise the two surveys
and two engagement workshops.
Digital outreach consisted of a project webpage, an online survey, and social media
announcements. The website includes a project timeline, regional case studies, prior outreach
summaries, and a park project -specific email list sign-up option. The City's Communications
Specialist also advertised engagement opportunities through the City's Facebook and
Instagram. The first survey, which was available winter 2024/2025, received 80 individual
responses. The second survey ran from May 28th to July 12th, 2026 and received 44 responses.
Additionally, City staff participated at the June 27, 2026, Port Orchard Farmer's Market
describing the project and eliciting feedback through the online survey.
The first survey revealed several clear themes about park use, preferences, and concerns. Many
respondents reported visiting community parks weekly, while those who rarely visited cited
issues such as poor maintenance, inconvenient locations, safety concerns, and limited offerings.
Most households currently drive to parks, though a majority expressed a preference for being
able to walk instead. Walking and running trails emerged as the most desired amenity, followed
by community gardens, playground equipment, sports courts, and picnic shelters, while
features like skate parks and pump tracks were least favored. When asked about the desired
level of design intensity, respondents preferred a balanced approach that combines recreation
Page 8 of 34
space, amenities, and conservation, with the second -highest preference being a more natural
landscape focused on passive recreation. Access and parking were identified as the most
significant site challenges, and many respondents emphasized traffic and pedestrian safety
issues along Sherman Avenue as an important neighborhood consideration. Overall,
participants expressed strong interest in continued engagement, with many willing to attend
future workshops or provide additional input as the project progresses. These results provided
a staff direction on community preferences and priorities to form three park design
alternatives.
The three design alternatives include:
Alternative 1: Trails and Conservation Park. A focus on a quiet, natural setting with soft trails,
overlooks, and native vegetation. It reflects survey support for walking trails and a more natural
landscape with minimal development.
Alternative 2: Family Nature Park. A balanced approach with open lawns, nature play, picnic
areas, and looped walking paths. This option aligns with the community's top ranked
preference for a mix of recreation, amenities, and conservation.
Alternative 3: Community Garden and Recreation Park. The most active layout featuring garden
plots, courts, and gathering spaces. It responds to high interest in community gardens and
recreation facilities while creating a more social and structured park environment.
On September 17th, 2025, staff hosted the first workshop in the Robert G. Geiger Council
Chambers where the three design alternatives were presented. At this phase, the designs were
high-level and in early concepts. The intent of the first workshop was to gain further direction
by members of the public by confirming if these three designs were headed in the right
direction. Workshop 1 told us there was a highest preference for trails and natural conservation
spaces, interest in a mix of amenities, a hope for this park space to preserve and protect the
existing natural landscape, and a desire for a low -maintenance design. The in -person feedback
was greatly valuable for staff's next steps in refining the three design alternatives before
heading back to the public.
On May 28, 2026 the City hosted its second community workshop in the chambers giving
residents the opportunity to react directly to the three design alternatives developed from the
earlier community feedback. Again, the in -person feedback was greatly valuable for staff to
understand if these three design alternatives were the correct direction and if the updates
shown had been responding accordingly to prior comment. Here, staff regularly heard a
preference for Alternative 1 but that it was missing other amenities that were desired.
Concerns were also flagged, which included long-term maintenance, safety related to
encampments and also worries around existing wildlife.
The second survey immediately followed the May workshop. The 44 participants represented
both residents inside and outside city limits, with most reporting they were familiar with the
Page 9 of 34
project and about half having engaged in previous outreach. Respondents generally felt that
the alternatives reflected prior community input, though many indicated they were unsure,
often because they had not reviewed earlier engagement results. Across the survey, several
themes emerged:
Alternative 1: Trails and Conservation Park received the strongest alignment with previously
identified community values around trails, habitat preservation, and low -maintenance natural
areas with the highest number of "Very Well" votes. Soft -surface trails, habitat conservation,
minimal design, and overlook points were consistently rated as the most important features.
Respondents also identified desired additions such as playgrounds, bike trails, community
access improvements, bathrooms, and volunteer opportunities to support long-term upkeep.
Alternative 2: Family Nature Park saw broad support for looped walking paths, nature play
areas, picnic spaces, and educational signage. Participants requested additions such as bike
trails, sport courts, and community gardens. Several respondents emphasized the importance
of low -impact design, preservation, and managing noise near the highway.
Alternative 3: Community Garden and Recreation Park also ranked high in doing "very well" in
representing community feedback. Alternative 3 attracted respondents interested in gardening,
gathering areas, and small courts, though feedback on sport courts (particularly pickleball) was
mixed. Several respondents expressed preference for quieter amenities, more nature paths, or
alternatives such as disc golf or skate elements. Concerns about access, low -impact design, and
wildlife conservation also arose.
A clear preference emerged for a park concept rooted in trails, natural areas, and habitat
preservation, with Alternative 1: Trails and Conservation Park receiving the strongest support
from participants. At the same time, a significant share of the community expressed interest in
blending elements across the alternatives, particularly combining conservation -focused design
with select features like community gardens, modest gathering areas, and low -impact
recreation. Smaller portions of respondents favored more active or family -oriented layouts.
Together, this feedback will direct staff to form a final preferred design alternative which will be
nature -based enhanced by low -impact and community -focused amenities.
The purpose of this presentation is to outline the City's past engagement efforts and confirm
with the City Council the preferred direction before advancing to broader public review. Based
on the full range of community feedback gathered through surveys, workshops, and written
comments, staff recommends proceeding with a hybrid alternative that builds primarily from
Alternative 1, the Trails and Conservation Park, while incorporating select amenities that the
community consistently identifies as missing. This preferred hybrid concept strengthens the
natural and conservation -focused identity of Alternative 1 while integrating recreation
elements that support youth activity, social gathering, and multi -generational use. Some key
features include variations of trail styles, including paved, soft -surface, and natural paths,
structured playgrounds and nature -play areas, a community garden space in coordination with
a local group, and picnic and small social gathering spaces. This blended concept reflects the
Page 10 of 34
strongest public preferences which emphasizes trails, conservation, and ecological protection
while responding directly to community calls for more accessible recreation, family -friendly
amenities, and opportunities for social connection.
Staff presented the hybrid alternative option to City Council on August 11, 2026 during their
regular meeting. City Council shared their support for the plan and offered personal thoughts
on wanting to see the community garden, a pavilion, and a non -intensive active park come to
light in the final preferred alternative. Their feedback emphasized the importance of creating a
welcoming first impression for visitors, including a clear and attractive entry sequence
supported by visual renderings as the design progresses. Councilmembers expressed particular
interest in incorporating a large pavilion near the park entrance to serve as a flexible space for
community gatherings, educational programs, and neighborhood events. They reiterated that
while some recreational amenities were appropriate, the park should maintain a primarily
natural, low -impact character rather than evolve into a highly active sports -oriented facility.
Support for community and urban garden spaces was strong, reflecting Council's interest in
opportunities for environmental education, local stewardship, and intergenerational activity.
This direction reinforces the community's core preferences and will guide staff in refining the
final preferred alternative to ensure it aligns with both public input and Council priorities as the
project enters its next phase of detailed design and broader public review.
Next steps include refining and developing the hybrid park concept, followed by presenting the
updated design to the project steering committee for additional guidance. After incorporating
that feedback, staff will introduce the final preferred alternative to the community for broader
public review. Once the preferred concept is confirmed, staff will prepare and formally adopt
the Sherman Avenue Park Plan and subsequently amend the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
(PROS) Plan so it accurately reflects the final preferred alternative and its long-term vision for
the site.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan:
Recommendation: Staff seeks the Commission's direction to advance this preferred hybrid
alternative into detailed design and broader public engagement.
Motion for Consideration:
Has item been presented to Committee/Work Study? Yes
If so, which one: City Council
Fiscal Impact:
Alternatives:
Page 11 of 34
Attachments:
Outreach Summary - Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park
Page 12 of 34
Ah
Outreac
r
nd Feedback
ORCHARD .
Department of Community Development
An
An
•«•
ayor
ity Councilman
Director of Community Development
— Director of Public Works
— Principal Planner
= Associate Planner
Overview
• The City purchased a 30 -acre property on Sherman
Avenue to support regional stormwater facility,
pedestrian improvements, and a future neighborhood
park.
• The site is identified as a resource conservancy and
neighborhood park in the PROS Plan.
• A Public Participation Plan was approved in 2024 to
begin public outreach to form a concept park design.
ORCHARD
■
verview
_
I III
� ��'
"�1•�i
`�.
�
�., i r
��: 1-�:
•
Public Participation Plan
Adopted August 2024
Defines outreach objectives, audiences, methods, and
schedule
Guides engagement throughout planning phases
Ensures inclusive, representative community input
ORCHAR
11mmmunity
Online Survey:
• door hangers hung at
apartment buildings
- postcards mailed to
sing e -family residences an
property owners
osters posted in nea
businesses
agement
Workshop #1
• Presented background
• Reviewed survey input
• Introduced three design
alternatives
• Workshop #2
ar
• Presented refined three
design alternatives
• Survey #2
• In -dept opportunity for
alternatives feedback.
Open to everyone
• Farmer's Market tabling
OPCHAR
Community Engagement So Far
• Project -specific email list
• Project webpage
• Prior engagement result
summaries
•• Email list sign up
• Project timeline
Social media posts
ORCHARD
Targeted
Outreach
LJ
W
he surveys, workshops, and email -list
re and continue to be open to everyone
in the public
Mailers and posters targeted to
urrounding neighborhood community
members
ORCHAR
ORCHARD
1ERNMEE1I1 RESIDENTS VISITORS BUSINESS MOW DO I... dRllZH
- -
CONTACT US
SHERMAN AVENUE STORMWATER PARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
000tiiiono
OVERVIEW
Email Canmunits Oeveloanent
022, Coy Pat Orchard 30 located Sherman
Plryecel Addeas Q V5w Nap
u the of purchased a -acre property at the soai end of
:.cnoe tree, Blackjack Creed (seethe property oultned m block below) The gpperty wee purchased
720 Pmepem Street
i. iov do a regional stormweta fedley that would fecilltete the deoebgrlent of sidewalks erid red
Pon 010 -et , WA 98366
Ocenreerts n the surrounding eedglbodtood end to poNde a ne4e6aFw0d pak_ The Coy is
umg the public outreach ga ass to dnermine reighbahood gdaenoes fa how de properly
_ uld be developed end to develop a perk master plan for the gopeny.
000011 01
_ — .. _.. _ __ _ t�
MahnoAddreu
216 ProepecrStreet
Port Ordard, WA 98366
Phone: 3608745533
HOURS
{'
s\Iaiik
Mmdey,t ough Friday
8amto430 pm
y _
Closed on of Wesha gton State • - • • , . -
holidays
STAY ENGAGED!
Went to stay mfamed and engaged' Stop W below
SHERMAN STORM WATER PARK
• indicalea a reapied field
FkNMame• laN Maw•
jar Name
Emw Emaa
O 'acme an email copyof lhb fain.
Email address
The vela ml pen of H.. lam Wnim.
wl,aa
COMMUNITY OUTREACH FEEDBACK
The Cny has engaged ooh neighborhood residents multiple
im ice beg.ming the outreach process in November
2024 Inmel engagement included a neighborhood wide
digital survey advertised through 636 doorhangerc on
epenment buildings. B52 postcerds mailed to single tempt
residences within the 0501M area, and 30 posters displayed
34
Outreach
irst survey feedback helped form three design
alternatives based on community wants and needs.
There were 80 respondents.
Following survey, the first community workshop
presented three concepts of the park design alternatives
The three designs formed included:
Trails and Conservation Park, Family Nature Park, and
Community and Recreation Park
ORCHAR
The Design Alternatives
�`�'`'•� - "t� R: �`�`ad!!1�'� IRS �
}
•r�
s'" °` rrL �r T gyp" .. �•k ,nom , _
Trails and
Conservation Park
Natural setting and habitat space, soft trails,
overlook points, and low maintenance.
Family Nature Park
Balance of open lawn, nature play, picnic
spots, looped walking paths, viewing
platforms, educational signage
Community Garden
and Recreation Park
More active recreation, garden plots, courts,
gathering spaces. Prioritized social and
community connection focus.
ORCHARD
Alternative 1:
Trails and Conservation Park
e-% 0I
••�
Alternative 2:
Family Nature Park
LI
'�� 40 S
i
'• ♦ Page 25 of 34
Alternative 3:
Community Garden and
Recreation Park
' 4•
•
Page 26 of 34
What Workshop #1 Told Us
Highest preference for trails and natural conservation
spaces
Interest in a mix of amenities included with trails
Highest preference for existing habitat and Blackjack
Creek preservation
Desire for low -maintenance design
ORCHARD
SHERMAN AVENUE
STORMWATER PARK
Visit our project website to get involved and stay informed!
portorchardwa.gov/sherman-avenue-stormwater-park/
QE Od&to Le w mo"
6b UOwork MP May 28--
9
Stormwater Park Location
+ Are you a resident in this
area? Participate in the
second neighborhood
workshop!
+ Learn about the design
alternatives formed by the
previous workshop and
survey results.
+ Give your input on
the park guiding plan!
Y0
[1
Workshop #2
of 34
What Workshop #2 Told Us
0
i
• Residents provided verbal and written feedback. The
themes that emerged included:
• A combination of the alternatives most desired
• High preference for conservation
• High preference for having amenities for children
• Concerns raised included:
• Long-term maintenance
• Safety related to encampments
• Safety related to wildlife
ORCHARD
ey #2 Told Us
• 44 respondents
• Soft -surface trails (64%) and habitat conservation
(61%) are top priorities in Alternative 1
• Looped walking paths (81%) was favored in
Alternative 2
• Community gardens (59%), social spaces (59%), and
small sports courts (55%) were most preferred from
Alternative 3
ORCHAR
rvey #2 Told Us
Missing Elements Identified
• Youth Recreation Areas/Playgrounds
• Bike Paths
• Bathrooms
• Highway sound mitigation
Preferred Direction
• 43% choose Alternative 1 — Trails and Conservation
• 34% choose a combination, most commonly:
• Trails from Alt 1
• Limited, low -impact family amenities from Alt 2
• Small-scale gathering spaces or gardens from Alt 3
OPCHAR
A Preferr
Alternati
Based on community feedback and survey
analysis, staff recommends pursuing a hybri
option which heavily incorporates
'Twit
such as playground areas an
mmunity social spaces
What you would find in this option:
• Variation of trail styles (paved, soft,
• Structured playgrounds and nature play areas
• A community garden space*
• Picnic gathering spaces
In coordination with a local group or organization who would like to manage the garden space
OPCHAR
t'SJWMKt 9M
Hybrid outreach utilizing direct mailing
and flyer methods for project kickoff.
Creation of website for outreach and
project updates.
Online Survey for the Development of
Alternatives.
Project Workshop
Develop preferred alternatives based upon
draft concepts presented at first workshop
Finalize alternatives and solicit input.
Survey to determine priorities and
themes for alternatives.
Draft Alternatives Development
ORCHARD.
Present finalized design alternatives
to the public
Review most -preferred alternative
with the Land Use Committee
Present most -preferred alternative
to the Planning Commission.
ORCHARD
r
•
Council was supportive of
direction.
Is staff on the right track?
Should staff proceed to
develop the preferred
alternative, as outlined, and
present to the public?
Trails and Conservation Par
Natural setting and habitat space, soft traits, overlook points, and low maintenance
Precedents
Amenities
• B1i',t
y ,
,I
Wetland
Boardwalk
Legend
•
pp
rr
of 34