029-08 - Ordinance - Amending the Zoning MapORDINANCE NO. 029-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD ZONING MAP TO CHANGE
THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED
WITHIN THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD FROM RESIDENTIAL 4.5
(R4.5) TO RESIDENTIAL 12 (R12).
TAX PARCELS NO. 022301-2-081-2004,022301-2-082-2003, 022301-
2-083-2002 and 022301-2-137-2008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 2, T 23N, R1E.,
W.M.
FULL LEGAL:
Parcel 081
BEGINNING AT A POINT 30 FEET SOUTH OF NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., RUNNING THENCE SOUTH
ON EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF NORTHWEST
QUARTER, 746.25 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE WEST 446.83 FEET TO A
POINT ON EAST MARGIN OF COUNTY ROAD COMMONLY KNOWN AS
SIDNEY ROAD; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG EAST MARGIN OF SAID
ROAD 798.92 FEET; THENCE EAST 164.70 FEET TO PLACE OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPTING THE NORTH 350 FEET THEREOF, EXCEPTING THERE FROM
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M.,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER THAT IS
432.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION
AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH
ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 234.25 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO LYNN K.
WILLIAMS AND HIS WIFE BY DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE
NUMBER 957039; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LYNN
K. WILLIAMS PROPERTY A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH 2*56'52" EAST
AND PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 165.77 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 67*49'24" WEST A DISTANCE OF 67.42 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 22*40'22" EAST AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SIDNEY
ROAD A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 67*49'24" EAST
135.55 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO EXCEPTING
THERE FROM THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER, SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1
EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, SOUTH 2*5652"
WEST 432.00 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER, THEREOF; THENCE
NORTH 67*49'24" WEST 260.55 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SIDNEY
ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 22*40'22" WEST 100.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 22 DEGREE 40'22" WEST
Ordinance No. 029-08
Page 2 of 4
ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF SIDNEY ROAD 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
67*49'24" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22*40'22" EAST 100.00
FEET; THENCE NORTH 67*49'24" WEST 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; ALSO EXCEPTING THERE FROM THAT PORTION OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M.; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING ATTHE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE
OF SAID SUB -DIVISION 776.25 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING
OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE WEST 100 FEET; THENCE
NORTH PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUB -DIVISION 110 FEET;
THENCE EAST 100 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUB-
DIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 110 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THERE FROM THAT PORTION OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT OF
EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER, SOUTH 2*56'52" WEST 432.00 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST
CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 67*49'24" WEST 260.55 FEET TO
EAST LINE OF SIDNEY ROAD, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
SOUTH 22*40'22" WEST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 67*49'24." EAST
140.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22*40'22" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 67*49'24" WEST 140.00 FEETTO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO EXCEPTING THERE FROM ANY PORTION OF THE LAND LYING
NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A
POINT OF EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER, SOUTH 2*56'52" WEST 432.00 FEET FROM
NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 67*49'24" WEST 260.55
FEET TO EAST LINE OF SIDNEY ROAD. ALSO EXCEPTING THERE FROM
ANY PORTION OF THE LAND LYING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF SIDNEY
ROAD.
Parcel 082
PARCEL I: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M. DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER THAT IS 432.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF
234.25 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND
CONVEYED TO LYNN K. WILLIAMS AND HIS WIFE BY DEED RECORDED UNDER
AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 957039; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID LYNN K. WILLIAMS PROPERTY A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH 2*56'52" EAST AND
PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 165.77 FEET; THENCE NORTH
67*49'24" WEST A DISTANCE OF 67.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22*40'22" EAST AND
PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SIDNEY ROAD A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 67*49'24" EAST 135.55 FEETTO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
PARCEL II: AN EASEMENT FOR ACCESS AND UTILITIES UPON THE NORTH 20 FEET
Ordinance No. 029-08
Page 3 of 4
OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST
LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 2; THENCE SOUTH 2*56'52" WEST 432.00 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST
CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 67*49'24" WEST 260.55 FEET TO THE EAST
LINE OF SIDNEY ROAD, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH
22*40'22" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF SIDNEY ROAD 100 FEET THENCE
SOUTH 67*49'24" EAST 125.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22*40-22" EAST AND
PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SIDNEY ROAD 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH
67*49'24" WEST 125.00 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE TRIBE POINT OF BEGINNING;
IN KITSAP COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
Parcel 083
PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST
LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, SOUTH
2*56'52 WEST 432.00 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE
NORTH 67*49'24 WEST 26055 FEETTO THE EAST LINE OF SIDNEY ROAD: THENCE
SOUTH 22*40'22 WEST 100.00 FEETTO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
CONTINUING SOUTH 22*40'22 WEST ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF SIDNEY ROAD
100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 67*49'24 EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH
22*40'22 EAST 100 FEET; THENCE NORTH 67*49'24 WEST 100.00 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING: SITUATE IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
Parcel 137
PT OF SW 1/4 NW1/4 DAF BEG AT NE COR OF SD SWl/4 NW1/4 TH S ALG E LN OF
SD SUBD 776.25FT TO TPOB OF TR HEREIN DES TH W 10OFT TH N PAR TO E LN OF
SD SUBD 11OFT TH E 100FT M/L TO E LN OF SD SUBD TH S 11OFT M/L TO TPOB
TGW AN EASEMENT FOR I & E OVER N 20FT OF S 11OFT OF N 776. 25FT OF TH
PTN OF SWI/4 NWl/4 LY ELY OF CO RD (AKA SIDNEY RD) EXCTH PTN LY WITHIN
ABV DESC MAIN TR
WHEREAS, an application was received on May 21, 2008 from Chuck Childress
(Rezone Application R-1171) requesting approval of a rezone to change the existing zoning on two
parcels totaling 0.77 acres with a current zoning designation of Residential 4.5 (R4.5) to Residential
12 (R12); legally described above; and
WHEREAS, a Determination of Non -Significance was issued on June 28, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner considered the application at a public hearing on
July 17, 2008 and heard testimony on the proposal from the applicant's agent and the public; and
recommended approval of the rezone to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is Medium -Density
residential, which allows the proposed development, and the proposed rezone would be consistent
with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezone is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare
Ordinance No. 029-08
Page 4 of 4
of the community and is both consistent with and in harmony with the general purposes of the Land
Use Regulatory Code, Growth Management Act, and Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, being fully advised, the Council finds and concludes as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Council adopts the Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions as set forth in the
"Findings Conclusions, and Recommendation" for the Childress Rezone No. R-1171, (Attached
Exhibit A) as its own, and the same are incorporated by reference; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Based upon the exhibits, public testimony, recommendations of city staff and
the Hearing Examiner, and the findings and conclusions contained herein, the City of Port Orchard
Zoning Map, is hereby amended by changing the zoning designation for the property described in,
to -wit: Parcel Numbers 022301-2-081-2004, 022301-2-082-2003, 022301-2-083-2002 and 022301-
2-137-2008 from Residential 4.5 (R4.5) to Residential 12 (R12).
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after posting and
publication as required by law. A summary of this Ordinance may be published in lieu of the entire
ordinance, as authorized by State Law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and
attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this 26th day of August, 2008.
ATT.
C. c
Patricia J. Ki.' 'trick, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Aor 4Ssist8 t City Attorney
Sponsored by:
Lie)
Fred in, Councilmember
NOTICE OF CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
ORDINANCE
The following is a summary of an Ordinance approved by the Port Orchard City Council at their regular
Council meeting held August 26, 2008.
ORDINANCE NO. 029-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF
CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF PORT
ORCHARD FROM RESIDENTIAL 4.5 (R4.5) TO RESIDENTIAL 12
(R12).
TAX PARCELS NO. 022301-2-081-2004, 022301-2-082-2003,
022301-2-083-2002 and 022301-2-137-2008
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 2, T 23N,
R1E., W.M.
Copies of Ordinance No. 029-08 are available for review at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Port
Orchard. Upon written request a statement of the full text of the Ordinance will be mailed to any
interested person without charge. Thirty days after publication, copies of Ordinance No. 029-08 will be
provided at a nominal charge.
City of Port Orchard
Patti Kirkpatrick
City Clerk
Publish: Port Orchard Independent
August 30, 2008
Exhibit A
Attachment to Ordinance No. 029-08
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
In the Matter of the Application of j
)
Olympic Development, LLC )
For Approval
No. P-I 161
Overlook Rezone
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
The Hearing Examiner recommends that the request for a rezone from R8 to R12 for seven
parcels located south of Orlando Street at the western terminus of SE Harriet Street. in .port
Orchard, Washington, be APPROVED.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Olympic Development LLC requests a rezone of seven parcels from R8 to R12. The property is
located south of Orlando Street at the western terminus of SE Harriet Street, in Port Orchard,
Washington.
Hearing Late;
The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on July 17, 2008,
Testimony:
The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing:
Jennifer Ilaro, City Associate Planner
Mark Dorsey, City Public Works Director
Marls Kuhlman, P.E., for Applicant
Bernie Johnston, P,E., for Applicant
Gary Beanland
Lloyd Cass
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted into the record:
6
:Af
,y
I. Preliminary Plat Application, received July 13, 2005
2. Parcel ownership validation, maps, and property reports, dated December 15, 2007
1 Application material with the following attachments
a. Rezone application, received March 20, 2007.
b. Cover Letter, received March 20, 2007
c. Statement certifying neighboring property owners, dated October 31, 2006
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Part Orchard Flearing Examiner
Olympic Development, LLC Rezone, No, R-1161
Page 1 of 10
d. Legal description of property
e. Project Narrative, received March 20. 2007
f. Significant tree evaluation report, Arbor Management Services, dated. April 14, 2006
g- Declaration of Boundary Line Adjustment, received March 20, 2007
h. Traffle Impact Analysis, Heath. & Associates, Inc„ dated March 2007
i. Geotechnical Report, Aspect Consulting, i~ ovember 30, 2006 (Revised December 6,
2006)
j. Storm Drainage Report, Team 4 Engineering, dated March 1, 2007
4. Determination of Completeness, dated April 113, 2007
5, Letter of Review from the City Planning Department, dated May 11, 2007
6, Applicant Submittal Update, with the following attaelu-nents
a. Cover letter, received Novernber 28. 2007
b. Project Narrative, received November 28, 2007
c. Preliminary Storm Drainage Report, Team 4 Engineering, dated Novetbet 15, 2007
d. Revised infiltration vault report, Aspect Consulting, dated November 16, 2007
7. Updated. SEPA Environmental Checklist, revised November 29, 2007, received
December 4, 2007
8. Application. Transmittal Letter: Internal Distribution, dated December 5, 2007
9. Letter from the City Panning Department regarding option of project review under old
zoning ordinance procedures or new land use regulations, dated January 17, 2008
10. Comments from City Public Works, dated January 18, 2008
11. Letter from the Applicant requesting review under old zoning ordinance, received
February 16, 2008
12. Letter from the City Planning Department regarding February 8, 2008 meeting; with the
Applicant, with attached submittal requirements, dated February 22, 2008
13, Applicant response to City Planning Department letter dated .February 22, 2008, with
attached revised site plans (16 sheets), received March 26, 2008
14. Application transmittal letter for internal distribution, dated March 26, 2008
15, Applicant submittal with cover letter and replacement Sheet 3 of 13, received April 9,
2008
16. Application transmittal letter for internal distribution, dated April 9, 2008
17. Comments from South Kitsap Fire & Rescue, dated April 9, 2008
18. Applicant request for review under Nearing Examiner process, received April 23, 2008
19, Receipt of deposit for Nearing Examiner review, dated April 30, 2008
20. Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS), dated May 17, 2008, affidavit of
Publication, dated May 17, 2008.
21. SEPA Distribution of MDNS and Environmental Checklist to agencies, dated May 21,
2008
22. Notice of Application with affidavit of posting and mailing to surrounding property
owners, dated May 13, 2008
23. Notice of Application with affidavit of publication, dated May 21, 2008
24, Notice of Public Hearing with affidavit of publication, mailing, and posting, dated May
22; 2008, May 23, 2008, and May 28, 2008, respectively
Findings, Conclusions, grad Recommendation
City gf'Port Orchard llearh-7g R.xafniner
Olympic Developntenr, LLC Rezone, No. R-11 61
Pagt 2 of 10
25. MDNS Response from the Washington Department of Fransportation, dated May 22,
2008
26. Email comment from Susan Daniel, received May 28, 2008
27. Affidavit of Publication for Hearing Postponement. dated .Tune 11, 2008
28. Affidavit of Publication for New Hearing Date, dated July 2, 2008
29. Recorded Stormwater Drainage Easement (recorded date June 9, 2008)
30. Affidavit of Notice of Public Hearing Posting & Mailing to neighboring property owners,
dated July 2, 2008
31. Comments from Assistant City Engineer, dated July 2, 2008
32, Staff Report, for July 17, 2008 Public Hearing
33, Memorandum to Pile, prepared by Jennifer Hard, Associate Planner, dated July 16, 2008
34. Letter from Ralph P. and Gladys J. Brady, to City of Port Orchard Planning
Department/Hearing Examiner, dated July 16, 2008
35. Letter from L.E. and J.D. Cass, to City of Port Orchard Planning Department, dated July
16, 2008
36. Letter from J.D. Cass, to City of Port Orchard Planning Department, dated July 16, 2008
The Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions based upon the testimony
and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing:
FINDINGS
Olympic Development LLC (Applicant) requests a rezone of seven parcels from R8 to
R12. The parcels subject to the rezone request are located south of Orlando Street at the
western terminus of SE Harriet Street. The seven parcels are included with an eighth
parcel in a concurrently filed preliminary plat and Planned Residential Development
(PRD) application (File No. SOBDIV 05-03).' Exhibit 3.a; Exhibit 3.e; Exhibit f.b;
Exhibit 32, Staff Report, page 1.
The City of fort Orchard (City) received the rezone application on March 20, 2007, and
determined that the rezone application was complete on April 13, 2007, Exhibit 3.a;
.Exhibit 4. On May 13, 2008, the City provided notice of the application and associated
environmental determination by mailing notice to surrounding property owners and
posting notice on the subject property. The City transmitted notice of the application and
associated threshold environmental determination to relevant agencies on May 21, 2008,
and published notice in the Port Orchard Independent on May 24, 2008. Exhibit S;
Exhibit 14; Exhibit 16; Exhibit 21; Exhibit 22; Exhibit 23. The City provided notice of
1 The seven parcels subject to the rezone application are identified by Tax Assessor's Account Numbers 4598-005-
017-0109;4598-005-022-0003;4598-005-028-0007;4598-006-001-0303;4598-006-004-0003;4598-006-007-0000;
4598-0€16-010-0104, Exhibit 3. a; Exhibit 3. e; Exhibit d. b. The eighth parcel included in the preliminary plat and
planned residential development (PRD) request is identified by Tax Assessor's Account Number 3024-023-060-
2001. E'xhibil3. e,- Ei:hzbit G,b; Exhibit 14. A legal description of'the parcels to be rezoned is included with the
rezone application materials. Exhibit 3,d
Findimms, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Po)•t Orchard Hearing Examiner
Olympic Development, LLC Rezone, No. R-1161
Page 3 of 10
the open record hearing associated with the rezone application by posting notice on -site
and mailing notice to all owners of property within 300 feet of the subject property. The.
City published notice of the hearing in "lie Port Orchard 1m!opendeiu on July 2, 2008.E
Evhzbit 28; Exhibit 30; E_xhibii 32, S'titff Rcpnrr, prage 2.
The City acted as lean{ agency to analyze the environmental impacts of the rezone
proposal together with the concurrently submitted preliminary plat and Planned
Residential Development (PRD) applications. as required by the State Enviromnental
Policy Act (SEPA).� The City determined that with conditions, the rezone, PRD, ar:d
preliminary plat proposals would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the
environment, and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on May
17, 2008. MDNS conditions require the use of best management practices for sensitive
slopes; approval of a construction stormwater general permit; and installation of erosion
control measures prior to any site development activity. The City did not receive any
comments or appeals of the MDNS prior to the end of the SEPA comment period on June
2, 2008. Exhibit 20; Exhibit 32, Staff Report, page 9,
4. The seven parcels subject to the rezone request are currently zoned R8.4 The R8 zone
allows development of up to eight dwelling units per net usable acres The RI zone
allows development of up to 12 dwelling units per net usable acre, The primary purposes
of both the R8 and R 12 zones are to "(a) define areas that allow a greater dwelling unit
density - particularly in locations that are well served by the arterial circulation system
and community facilities in general, (b) implement comprehensive plan goals and
policies for housing quality, diversity, and affordability, and (c) efficiently use residential
land., public services; and energy." PDMC 16.13.1.30(1). The R8 and RI zone purposes
are accomplished by providing a mix of housing types and densities, and allowing only
such accessory and complementary nonresidential uses as are compatible with higher
density communities. PDMC 16.13.130(2). The .zones are appropriate in areas that have
been so designated by the City Comprehensive Plan and that provide adequate sewer,
water, streets, and other public facilities, and where surrounding properties have already
Z The initial hearing date of June 12, 2008, was postponed. The Cary provided notice of the initial hearing date
pursuant to City ordinance, and published notice of the postponement on .Tune 11, 2008. Exhibit 24; Exhibit 27,
"The Washington Supreme Court endorsed this combined threshold review process when it found impacts of a
specific development proposal can be a useful yardstick to measure rezone impacts. See Citizens Alliance v.
Auburn, 126 Wn.2d. 356, 365 (1995). Combined threshold review is consistent with Port Orchard Municipal Code
(.PDMC) 16.06.1 10; is a more efficient use of City, applicant and public resources; and promotes SFPA policies.
See 126 Wn.2d at 366 ("The SFPA rules underscore flexibility and gauge the level of detail according to the
proposal at issue").
4 The eighth parcel subject to the concurrent preliminary plat/PRD application is zoned R20. Exhibit 3.e; Exhibit 13.
5 Net usable site area is defined as "the total site area less sensitive environmental features (equal to gross useable
site area) and dedications as these areas are defined elsewhere in this code." POVC 1640.040.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City gfPort 0,-chard Hearing examiner
Olympic Development, LLC Rezone, No. R-1161
Page 4of10
been developed fOr lower intensity residential uses but abut nonresidential land uses
featuring services supportive of higher density residential uses. POW 16.13.130(3),
The RS zone requires a minimum lot. size of 5.445 square ficet; maximum lot coverage of
75 percent; and minimum landscaping site coverage of 25 percent. The R 12 zone
mandates a minimum lot size of 3,630 square feet; maximum lot coverage of 85 percent;
and minimum landscaping site coverage of 15 percent. Other development standards,
including setbacks and building height; are the same for both the R8 and R12 zoning
districts. POUC 16, 40, 025 Table 9.
Surrounding property to the north and west is zoned R20; property to the east is zoned
R4.5; and property to the south is zoned Commercial (CO). Property to the north and
east are developed with single-family residences; property to the south is developed with
a movie theater; property to the west is developed with a multi -family apartment complex
and commercial shopping center. The subject property is designated High
Density/Mediurn Density Residential in the City Comprehensive Plan, Surrounding
property to the north is designated High Density Residential; property to the east is
designated Medium Density Residential; property to the south is Commercial; and
property to the west is High Density Residential and Commercial. Exhibit 32, Staff
Report, page 1 and 2.
The City Council enacted the Medium Density .Residential (MDR.) Comprehensive Plan
designation in 2000 through City Ordinance No. 1807.6 Pursuant to the Ordinance, the
MDR designation allows for housing density of 8 dwelling units per net acre, and
potentially up to 12 dwelling units per net usable acre. The ordinance requires that areas
designated MDR contain adequate water, sewer, and drainage services, among other
requirements. MDR areas are intended to allow infrll and redevelopment with strict
design guidelines, intended to be pedestrian oriented, and intended to be compatible with
existing development. Ordinance No. 180T
T The property currently contains one single-family residence and associated outbuildings,
The Applicant's updated Environmental Checklist states that the existing home would not
be demolished. Exhibit 7,
8. The property features steep slopes, ranging frorn 30 percent grade to approximately 50
percent grade, with a total elevation drop of approximately 80 feet from the eastern
property boundary to the northwestern corner of the property. The Applicant submitted a
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by Aspect Consulting, last
revised December 6, 2006, Aspect Consulting determined that the; risk of damage to
"The Ordinance states that the land use designations "have been developed as a result of extensive public
participation and planning goals." Ordinance No 1807, Section 1, With adoption of the ordinance, the City
Planning Commission determined that the addition of the Medium Density Residential land use designation "is not
detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community and is proposed to be within the character of the
Growth Management Act, Comprehensive Plan, and the corns-n tnity." Ordinance No. 1807, Attachment A.
Findink,s, Conclusions, and Recotnmandation
City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner
Olympir Development, LLC ReEone, No. R-1161
Page 5 gf10
Proposed structures from landslide activity would be minimal. and could be mitigated
with observance of slope setbacks, control of surface water run-off, and maintenance of
established vegetation. Aspect Consulting determined that the steep slopes and sparse
vegetation on -site create a moderate to high erosion potential in some areas. Aspect
Consulting provided initigation measures to reduce the erosion hazard, and recommended
that only the areas necessary for construction be stripped of vegetation. Exhibit 3. i.
9. In the Project Narrative; the Applicant states that the proposed preliminary plat and PRD
associated with the rezone request has been designed so that lots are clustered away frotrt
the steep slopes and associated vegetation, The City Staff Report states that the majority
of the steep slopes will be preserved as depicted on the site plan. The site plan depicts
1.74-acre Tract A as an Open Space (Conservation) tract. Tract A would occupy 28.9
percent of the total property area. With development of the plat/PRD associated with the
rezone request, impervious surfaces would cover approximately 53.5 percent of the site.
Exhibit 6 b; Exhibit 13; Exhibit 32, Stuff Report, prrge 7.
10. The City received comments expressing concern about potential erosion and surface
water run-off problems arising out of the proposed development associated with the
rezone request. Lloyd, Cass testified that stormwater is not flowing well in the area,
negatively impacting a salmon stream.. He testified that storxnwatcr control should
receive special attention; and requested that no additional stormwater be routed through
the Pinkerton easement and existing culvert. Exhibit 26, Exhibit 35; Exhibit 36;
Testimony of Mr. Cass.
11. Marls Kuhlman, P.E., testified for the Applicant that the City revised the City stormwater
code following construction of Previous developments that created stormwater run-off
problems in the area. Mr. Kuhlman testified that the City adopted the 1997 Department
of Ecology ,Storinwater Management Manual, which limits surface water discharge to 50
percent of pre -development run-off, based on a two-year storm event. He acknowledged
that the proposed development associated with the rezone request would contribute run-
off to the Pinkerton easement and K-Mary property; however, he testified that the
property has a right to flow to those areas. Mr. Kuhlman further testified that the
Applicant would incorporate infiltration techniques on the property, and then would
ensure that run-off is less than pre -development rates, Mark: Dorsey, City Public Works
Director, testified that the proposed development associated with the rezone request
would comply with the City's stormwater requirements and would reduce the rate of flow
to the drainage basin. Testimony of Mr. Kuhlman; Testimony of Mr. Dorsey.
12. Development associated with the proposed rezone would incorporate stortnwater control
in compliance with the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual and
City Code in effect at the tithe of the preliminary plat/PRD application. The Applicant
proposes construction of a combined retentiotl/detention infiltration vault system to
manage and treat stormwater run-off. Water quality treatment would be provided
through an off -site bioswale located in the Overlook Condo project to the southwest.
Findings, Conclusions, and Reconaprendalion
Ciij7 of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner
Olympic Development, LLC Rezone, No, R-1161
Page 6 of 10
Following treatment in the pond and bioswale, storrnwater run-off would be routed. to an
existing storm conveyance system in Olney Avenue, west of the property, and. would
discharge into an existing ditch before flowing ultimately into Sinclair Inlet in Puget
Sound. The updated Preliminary Storm Drainage Report, dated November 15, 2007,
states that the proposed vault and bioswal.e would be designed to for stability for 100-year
flows from within the site,, pursuant to the City's Public Worsts Stormwater Management
Ordinance and Design Manual. Exhibit 6. c; Exhibil 32, StaffReport, pages 8, 11 --12.
13. The City of Port Orchard provides water and sanitary sewer service to the property.
Puget Sound Energy Services provides electric service to the property. Exhibit 7,
14. The City Planning Department reviewed the rezone request under current rezone
approval criteria, and recommended approval of the request. Exhibit 32, Staff Report,
pages 3 --- 5.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction
The City of Port Orchard Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to held an open record hearing on
rezone applications that are not part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process: Based on
the evidence in the record, the Hearing Examiner may recommend that the City Council approve,
approve with modifications, or deny the application. Port Orchard Municipal Cade (POIVC)
2, 76.080; POMC 2, 76.100; POMC 2.76110; POMC 16, 01.021(3).' The Hearing Examiner will
submit separate recommendations to the City Council on the rezone and preliminary plat/PRD
applications. City Ordinance Yo. 1748.
Criteria for Review
City Ordinance No. 1748 does not provide criteria for approval of a rezone request, The City
Staff Report states that the applicable rezone review criteria can be found in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, dated 1995, as amended. Exhibit 32, StaffRepnrt, page 2. According to
the City Staff Report, the Comprehensive Plan required only that the rezone request comply with
the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property subject to the request, and that the
City Council approve the request. Exhibit 32, Staff Report, page 3. The City Planning
Department also reviewed this rezone request for compliance with current rezone review criteria
found within `Title 16 of the City Code.8 Exhibit 32, Staff Deport, pages 3 4.
7 On December 19, 2007, the Port Orchard City Council passed and the fort Orchard Mayor signed City Ordinance;
No 047-07, repealing POMC 2.20,040 in its entirety and adding a new POMC Chapter 2,76 (Hearing Examiner),
City Ordinance No. 047-07 POW Chapter 2.76 has not yet been codified and is not currently available on the City
website. Although the preliminary plat, PRD, and rezone application are reviewed pursuant to the previous code
criteria, the Applicant opted to use the new Hearing Examiner review process under POMC Chapter 2.76. .Exhibit
18.
8 The current City code rnandates that the Hearing Examiner shall grant a request for a rezone shall only if:
(1) The reclassification is substantially related to the public health, safety, or welfare; and
Findings, Conclusions, and Recontmendalion
City cfPort Orchard flearing Lxandner
013.mpic Development, LLC Rezone, No. R-1161
Page 7of10
In addition, Washington state courts apply the following general rules to rezone applications:
(1) there is no presumption of validity favoring the action of rezoning.
(2) the proponents of the rezone.have the burden of proof in demonstrating that
conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning; and
(3) the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or
welfare.
Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978).
Proof of changed circumstances are not required for a rezone if the proposed rezone and
associated development implement policies contained in the comprehensive plan. Bjarnsart v.
Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840 (Div. 1, 1995); 1-fenderson v. Kittitas County, 124 Wn. App.
747 (Div. I1I, 2004). Only general conformance with a comprehensive plan is required. Woods
v, Kittitas County, 130 Wn. App. 573 (Div. I11, 2005).
Conclusions
1. The rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and complies with the City
code. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as High Density/Medium
Density Residential. The Medium Density Residential designation provides for
development at a density of eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. Surrounding
property to the north is designated High Density Residential; property to the east is
designated Medium .Density Residential; property to the south is Commercial; and
property to the west is High Density Residential and Commercial. The subject property's
current zone only allows for development at a density of up to eight dwelling units per
acre. The requested rezone would allow development of up to 12 dwelling units per acre,
creating the opportunity for infill development with a variety of housing types, consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Planning Department also reviewed the rezone
request under current rezone criteria. The City recommended approval of the rezone.
Future development would be reviewed at the time of application to ensure compliance
(2) `rhe reclassification is warranted because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional
property in the proposed land: use zone classification or because the proposed zoning classification is
appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; and
(3) The subject property is suitable for development in general conformance with zoning standards under the
proposed zoning classification; and.
(4) The reclassification will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the.
subject property or incompatible with such uses; and
(5) The reclassification has merit and value for the community as a whole; and
(6) The reclassification is in accord with the comprehensive plan; and
(7) `-lie reclassification complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of the Port Orchard Municipal
Code.
POW 16.25.060.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recummendalion
City of Part Orchard Hearing Examiner
Olympic Development, LLC.Rezone, No. R-1161
Page 8 f 10
with the City code in place at that time, including erosion control, stormwater standards.
and requirements for setbacks, building height, lot coverage, and landscaping. Findings
1. 4 - 14.
The rezone is warranted because of changed circumstances. The proposed rezone
would comply with the City Comprehensive flan. Proof of'changed circumstances is not
required for a rezone if the proposed rezone and associated development implement
policies contained in the comprehensive plan. In 2000, the City Council enacted
Ordinance No, 1807, creating the Medium Density Residential land use designation. The
subject property is currently designated High Density/Mediurn Density Residential in the
City Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezone would allow for development at a
density of up to 12 dwelling units per acre, providing the opportunity for inhll
development with a variety of housing types and designs, consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, Findings 4 - 6.
3. The rezone is substantially related to the public health, safety, morals or welfare.
The City Council reviewed the potential impacts of increased density when the Medium
Density Residential land use designation was approved to allow development at eight to
twelve dwelling units per acre. After consideration of public input and planning goals,
the City Council determined that the increased density would continue the community
character. The City provided notice of the rezone application and associated open record
hearing. The proposed rezone would allow for infill development with a variety of
housing types and densities development, in compliance with the property's
Comprehensive flan land use designation. The City analyzed the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed rezone and associated preliminary plat/PRD
applications and determined that with conditions, the proposal would not result in
probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The City issued a Mitigated
Determination of lvonsignificance on May 17, 2008. There was no comment on or
appeal of the MDNS. The proposed plat/PRD associated with the rezone request would
cluster development away from the steep slopes. 28.9 percent of the total property area
would be set aside in an Open Space (Conservation) tract. Any future development of the
property would be reviewed for compliance with City requirements, including public
utilities, erosion control, and stormwater drainage standards, Findings 1 - 6, S, 9, 11 -
13.
Discussion
As requested by the Applicant, this rezone request is reviewed according to the Hearing
Examiner review process established by the City Council under POMC Chapter 2.76 (effective
December 19, 2007).
The Hearing Examiner system is a quasi-judicial process, with a single open record hearing on
an application for change in zoning classification. This is in contrast to legislative action, such
as a Comprehensive Plan amendment, with potentially multiple hearings on a land use policy
proposal.. The state legislature and City Council recognize the importance of an efficient process
Findings, Conclusions, and Reconnnendation
City of Tort Orchard Hearing Examiner
Olympic Developarent, LLC Rezone, No: R-1161
Page 9 of 10
by providing for a single open record hearing under the Hearing Examiner for certain land use.
applications. See Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35. 63.130; RCW 36.708 030(2); Port
Orchard Municipal Cache (POMC) 16.01.021(3).
Current City code authorizes the Hearing Examiner to hold an open record hearing on rezone
requests that are not part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. POW 16.01.021(3),
The City Council then reviews the Hearing Examiner's recommendation in a closed record
hearing to ensure that no mistakes have been made by the Hearing Examiner. "Open record
hearing" is defined as a "hearing, conducted by the hearing examiner, that creates the City's
official record through testimony and submission of evidence and information." POMC
16, 08,520. In contrast, the closed record hearing to be held by the City Council does not allow
for the submittal of new evidence or testimony. See POMC 16 08.138.
The rezone application is vested to City Zoning Ordinance No. 1748, and this is the ordinance
that the Hearing Examiner and City Council must use to evaluate the rezone application. If the
City Council determines that no mistake has been committed by the Hearing Examiner, the City
Council would Iikely approve the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. If the Council amends
or rejects the findings of the Hearing Examiner, it should do so only with specific reference to
exhibits or testimony in the record that support the rejection or amendment, If the Council
believes a mistake was made in a conclusion., it is suggested the Council also review the
underlying support for that conclusion to determine specifically how it fails to provide support.
Conclusions should only be modified or rejected if the reference in support of the conclusion
fails to provide substantial evidence in support of the conclusion.
In general, when a rezone application and preliminary plat are initiated in the same timeframe, it
is preferable to consolidate review of the proposals, .RCW 36. 70B.120, However, when
reviewing a rezone application, the Hearing Examiner does not review development proposals.
Rather, the role of the Hearing Examiner is to review the rezone request to ensure compliance
with the rezone criteria. Development -related conditions are appropriately proposed, considered,
and imposed as part of Hearing Examiner's review of the preliminary plat and planned
residential development applications.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above findings and conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the
request to rezone seven parcels from R8 to R12 on property located south of Orlando Street at
the western terminus of SE Harriet Street, in fort Orchard, Washington, be APPROVED.
Decided this Qday of August 2008,
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendwion
City ref fort Orchard Hearing Exaniiner
Ofvjnpic Development, LLC Rezone, No. R-1161
Page 10 of 10