Loading...
September 1, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Zoom Teleconference Commissioners: Present: Phil King, Joe Morrison, Annette Stewart, Trish Tierney, Mark Trenary Absent: Stephanie Bailey, Dave Bernstein, Suanne Martin Smith Staff Present: Community Development Director Nick Bond, Long Range Planner Keri Sallee, Planning Intern Josie Rademacher City Consultants Present: Mitch Ptacek and Rich Schipanski, GGLO; Andrea MacLennan and Jeff Parsons, Herrera Environmental 1. Call to Order: Chair Stewart called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m., and read the “Stay Home, Stay Healthy” remote meeting protocol into the record. Stewart then led the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Public Comments: There were no public comments from the audience. 3. Approval of Minutes From August 4, 2020: Commissioner Tierney made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 4, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, as presented. Commissioner King seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Business items: Downtown and County Government Campus Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS – Scoping Meeting and Request for Comments. Chair Stewart opened the scoping meeting for the Downtown and County Government Campus Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS. Mitch Ptacek, a consultant with GGLO, gave a presentation on the subarea plan and EIS process. The study area is approximately 329 acres, and includes the existing Downtown and County Campus centers, plus additional land areas to the south and east, on either side of the Blackjack Creek corridor. Project objectives include establishing a vibrant urban center, increasing housing consistent with the goals of the City’s E2SHB grant and supporting walkable neighborhoods, accommodating future regional growth, and reducing barriers to future development with a planned action EIS. Public outreach and engagement will be an important part of the planning process, with three online surveys and three community meetings as well as public hearings. An initial public survey hosted in June-July 2020 indicated that key topics of importance are improving recreational opportunities and enhancing existing waterfront open space; creating a downtown waterfront destination; ensuring that the scale and character of new development is consistent with the existing neighborhood; maintain downtown parking; improve safety and security at parks and open space; and improve multi-modal connections throughout the study area. Rich Schipanski with GGLO said that the purpose of the EIS is to study the three proposed alternatives and the potential environmental impacts from each one. (Alternative 1 = No Action, Alternative 2 = Higher Capacity Residential Focus, Alternative 3 = Higher Capacity Mixed-Use Focus.) For each of these alternatives, impacts to population and employment, housing, aesthetics, transportation, public services, utilities and land use must be evaluated. The public is invited to submit comments on these alternatives through September 4, 2020. Chair Stewart opened the meeting for public comment. Geri Harmon said that very few people were aware of the subarea planning process and the scoping meeting, or received notification of it. There need to be many meetings, not just a few. The survey should have allowed people to start taking it and then save their answers and come back to finish it later, but she could not get back into the survey the next day to finish hers. She would like to know who is driving this process – is it developers? Developers have offered to buy her property and those of other people she knows, so do the developers know something and they are in the dark? The people of Port Orchard should be the driving force, not developers or the PSRC. In response to Ms. Harmon, Long Range Planner Sallee said that notification was mailed in the form of a letter sent by USPS to all property owners within the current Downtown and County Campus centers and the expanded study areas, and an additional 800 feet beyond those boundaries. Addresses were obtained from the Kitsap County Assessor’s office prior to the mailout. Dana Harmon and Kimberly Phillips said that they did not receive notice of the scoping meeting, and their neighbor Nolan Larson did not get a notification either. Sallee asked that all of these meeting attendees, and any other persons attending the meeting, contact her at planning@cityofportorchard.us if they want to be placed on the project email list for all further project notices and communications. Michael Hendrickson said he had questions about the areas depicted as “high hazard”. Community Development Director Bond said that these are the areas designated as geologically hazard areas in the City’s critical areas mapping, such as steep slopes on high erodible soils. The assumptions for development potential in those areas are more limited than unconstrained areas, and a geotechnical report is generally required to ensure safe development. Patrick Moriarty asked if eminent domain acquisition was proposed in the East Downtown area or other areas of this project, and how views might be impacted. Bond said that no eminent domain action was proposed, and the existing view protection overlay district that protects downtown hillside views is not proposed to be altered. Downtown height limits will vary from 3-5 stories and will attempt to minimize view obstruction. Hearing this concern about view impacts is one of the reasons for having a scoping meeting. Kat Sarensen asked if property taxes will go up if zoning changes are made. Bond said that no zoning changes have been proposed at this time, but if property owners have concerns about specific properties and/or zoning changes, those comments can be made during this planning process. Tamara Peterson said that she has one of the few residences on Bay Street, and it appears that her property is intended for commercial use. What does that mean, and will eminent domain be used on the property? Bond said that any residential property that is a legal nonconforming use can be used and maintained in perpetuity. In some parts of the United States, local governments can use eminent domain authority to acquire and aggregate properties for private development and redevelopment, but that is not allowed under the State of Washington’s constitution. The City is only creating conditions where a property owner could redevelop or sell a residential property for other uses if it is zoned commercial. Bond is not aware of any specific developers who are trying to acquire properties downtown for redevelopment. Bond said that the Legislature gave grants of $50,000 to cities (the E2SHB grant) to study housing affordability and provide additional housing opportunities in urban areas. This grant is part of the reason why the City is undertaking the subarea planning process. It is not being pushed by any developers. This scoping meeting is the first public meeting, and there will be more meetings with additional opportunities for public comment and involvement. Dana Harmon asked if affordable housing was being considered for the McCormick Woods area, or only for the downtown and older residential areas. Bond said that affordable housing is not necessarily “low income housing”; according to state law it means housing that is affordable to people making between 80% -115% of the median income for Kitsap County. McCormick North has less expensive homes than what has been built in the main part of McCormick Woods, and has a multifamily component that will be built within a few years. The City is not trying to put all “low income” or “affordable” housing in one area of Port Orchard. The scope of the project, however, is more than just providing housing – it is about making downtown Port Orchard a great place to live. Bond invited the public to comment on any or all of the alternatives, and suggest changes, by the deadline of September 4. Ptacek said that there will be another comment period and public notice when the draft EIS is issued, and possibly other meetings for the subarea plan as well. In further response to concerns about view impacts, Bond screen-shared the maps in Chapter 20.38 POMC for the Downtown Height Overlay District and the View Protection Overlay District, which restrict height limits downtown and protect downtown hillside views. Continued Public Hearing/Recommendation: Ruby Creek Neighborhood Subarea Plan and Development Regulations. Bond said that when the Ruby Creek Subarea Plan public hearing was opened in August, it did not include the associated development regulations, which were still under preparation. The development regulations are now complete, and a new Notice of Hearing was issued for the continued public hearing on the subarea plan, as well as for the development regulations. Bond noted that a complete set of comments provided during the August hearing, as well as comments received by DCD before the September Planning Commission meeting, have been provided to the Planning Commissioners in summary form for their consideration. In response to some of the comments received in August, plan revisions were made to address traffic volume and safety concerns in several locations. Chair Stewart reopened the public hearing. Brianne Kelsey represents Tarragon which recently acquired an 18-acre property at the north end of the neighborhood intended for a 216-unit multifamily development (the “Tallman property”). They support the subarea plan and look forward to moving forward with their project. Ron Rice said a Zoom-type public hearing is inadequate. All the information that the public shares in conversation together outside of testimony into a microphone doesn’t exist. He would like to know how many lanes Sidney Road SW would be widened into – 3 or 5? He supports commercial development without restrictions in this area. Who is going to put infrastructure into this area if the developers can’t afford it? Dick Brown said he annexed his property in this area into the City, got it zoned commercial, and has been working on a project for it for about 24 years. He and others were not notified about this plan. He is opposed to any restrictions on how property owners can use their properties, but mostly has a problem with the traffic issues, which are not solvable without road improvements to Sidney and Sedgwick that include crossing the creek. Susan Schultheis said that the water level in Ruby Creek is lower now than they have ever seen it. She believes it is because of development off Glenwood Road, which has also caused their water table to drop. It is a nightmare to get in and out of Sidney Glen Elementary at Birch Lane, and a left turn can take 30 minutes. With current and future development, she has doubts that the creek will be safeguarded the way they had hoped it would be. Dick Brown said four or five property owners are creating improvements to Ruby Creek north of where Ms. Schultheis lives on Birch Lane. There is a large wetland created by Bob Wiltermood that cuts down on the water flow to lower Ruby Creek. Ron Rice asked who would maintain Sedgwick Road? And who says that a bridge crossing Blackjack Creek would cost $25 million? In response to the above questions, Bond said that Sidney Road SW is identified to be a 3-lane road with a center turn lane and landscape islands, bike lanes, sidewalks and landscape strips. The road will be tapered to 2 lanes where it crosses Ruby Creek to minimize impacts. As always in Port Orchard, it is intended that development will pay for development in terms of utility installation and road improvements. Sewer and water connection fees, and traffic impact fees, will pay for many of the necessary improvements that are included in the City’s utility plans and transportation improvement plan. The City could also issue bonds for some of these improvements. The Sidney Road design has been included in the City’s 2021 budget so that the City can pursue grant opportunities to fully build the road. Landowners could also join in a local improvement district (LID) for improvements such as a sewer lift station. All of the needed improvements add up to $40 or $50 million. Sedgwick Rd within City boundaries will be maintained by the City. As a result of comments received at the August hearing, a goal was added to the plan to prioritize adding capacity to Sedgwick Rd and to continue lobbying WSDOT to improve the SR-16 interchange. With regard to protection of Blackjack and Ruby Creeks, the maps included in the plan show a 150-ft buffer on each side of the creeks. A public park, to be established through park impact fees, to be located at the confluence of the creek will also protect this area from development. He will support adding an additional goal to the plan that addresses traffic safety improvements at the intersection of Sidney and Birch. Chair Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trenary made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Ruby Creek Neighborhood Subarea Plan and development regulations, with an additional goal addressing traffic safety at the Sidney and Birch intersection. Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Shoreline Master Program Update: Impacts of Sea Level Rise on City Shoreline. Andrea MacLennan with Herrera Environmental gave an overview of a report commissioned by the City to evaluate the effects of future sea level rise on the City’s downtown shoreline, as part of the City’s required 2021 periodic Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. The report identifies the areas of downtown Port Orchard that are most likely to be impacted by sea level rise, evaluates current flood hazards and how sea level rise could worsen those risks, identifies vulnerable infrastructure such as stormwater outfalls and roads, and provides recommendations for code revisions and future management of identified hazards. The sea level along Sinclair Inlet is expected to rise by 0.7 feet by 2050 and 2 feet by 2100, with potential “high end” rises of 1.3 and 4.8 feet respectively. Storm surges are also likely to become more damaging when combined with the rising sea level. Large areas of the downtown waterfront park and parking lot areas, businesses, and infrastructure will become more vulnerable to marine flooding. Access to the wastewater treatment plant may also become an issue during storm and flooding events. Increased precipitation and vegetation changes, including increased salinity further up the riparian corridor, may affect erosion and slope stability in the Blackjack Creek ravine upslope from the estuarine mouth. As part of their report, Herrera has recommended that updated federal FIRM mapping should be formally adopted by the City, and that all shorelines in Port Orchard should be classified in the SMP as Coastal High Hazard Areas. Adjourn: Chair Stewart adjourned the meeting at 8:12 pm. Annette Stewart, Chair Nick Bond, Community Development Director