Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everyone. I am the chair of the planning commission, Tyler McCloskey, and we'll go on down all the way to my right for introductions.

Wayne Wright, planning commissioner.

Tiffany Mitchell, planning commissioner. Annette Stewart, planning commissioner. Stephanie Bailey, planning commissioner.

Paul Fontenelle, planning commissioner. Jim Fisk, principal planner.

Dennis Ryan, public works director.

It's you Bethe, planning intern.

Connor Delquist, associate planner.

And it looks like online, have Nick.

Nick Bond, community development director.

Thanks, everybody. Alright. We will go on to business item number three, audience comments. Is there anybody online?

There is nobody online.

There's nobody in the room. So we will move on to business item number four, the approval of the minutes from October 7. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes?

I move. I move we accept them as presented.

We have Second. Perfect. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Opposed? Alright. Minutes pass as written. Alright. Moving into business items five a. Open up the public hearing for coliving housing house bill nineteen ninety eight.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this. Prior to opening a public hearing on coliving ordinance, first introduced to the planning commission in October. We'll describe the proposed development regulation amendments related to house bill nineteen ninety eight, which was passed in March 2024. This legislation introduces and defines a new housing type co living housing, and requires jurisdictions like Port Orchard to take specific steps to enable its development. What is co living housing?

Co living housing consists of individually rented blockable sleeping units with private living space while sharing kitchen facilities. It's designed to offer affordable rental options for moderate to low income individuals without relying on public subsidies. Historically, co living has served single person households, seniors, and those seeking a more social or cost effective alternative to traditional rentals. It's important, an HB nineteen ninety eight recognizes co living as a tool to address Washington's housing affordability crisis. It is intended to support adaptive reuse of existing buildings, such as the Miche House at DeKalvin Harrison here locally.

It may help reduce demand for family sized units and eases pressure on subspace housing. House bill nineteen ninety eight requires, that cities permit co living housing on any lot that allows six or more multifamily units, including mixed use zones. Co living must be treated equitably in terms of development standards and review procedures. In Port Orchard's case, we would not be allowed to require conditional use permit. Cities cannot impose requirements beyond state building code standards for room sizes or unit configurations.

Parking requirements are limited. The planning commission did do, quite a bit of work on on parking standards as part of the middle housing ordinance. The h b nineteen ninety eight, it states that no off street parking is required within a half mile of a major transit stop. Elsewhere, no more than point two five spaces per sleeping unit. As far as density density and fees, density calculations, each sleeping unit counts as only one quarter of the dwelling unit.

For sewer connection fees, each sleeping unit counts as half of a dwelling unit. For example, in our three District, it allows six multifamily dwellings. Actually, allows more than six multifamily dwellings, but the density unit the unit density in the R 3 District is six. A co living development could include up to 24 sleeping units. Port Orchard must adopt amended development regulations by 12/31/2025.

If we do not act, House Bill nineteen ninety eight overrides any conflicting local regulations. These amendments were reviewed by, the Planning Commission at the October meeting and are based, on Department of Commerce guidance. They include changes to 2012 and definitions where we clarify co living and ensure it doesn't bypass multifamily standards. In 2032, building types, we've updated apartment classifications to six or more units for consistency with the bill. 20.39, the use provisions.

We've consolidated, several several uses into group living, into and, we've clarified some multifamily thresholds and mixed use buildings. In twenty point one two four, the parking and circulation, we've, included a new use for coliving to distinguish sleeping units from dwelling units. Since you've seen this last in October, and it is in your packet, and I I sent it to you, immediately following the October meeting, the congregate living facility, current definition, we've removed location based criteria to avoid conflict with the bill. Congregate care facility, we've added a definition which is aligned with the standard industrial classification system. We've included some some kind of helpful things as far as definite definitions navigation.

This this is intended to improve usability by organizing definitions alphabetically under their own, subsection. Apartment unit threshold, we've lowered that from seven to six. Multifamily definition, we've updated that to be six or more for consistency with the bill. Mixed use buildings, we've clarified that multi multifamily use may begin at two units in applicable zones, and we've added footnotes to reinforce minimum unit counts for multifamily. On October 8, the the city issued a a determination of non significance.

We've not received any comments, related to the DNS. We've transmitted the amendments to the Department of Commerce also on October 8. We did receive one comment from Commerce requesting a reference to, the definition of a major transit stop in the revised code of Washington, so we have included that in tonight's packet. And we have noticed tonight's public hearing properly consistent with POMC 20.25. So we're hopeful after public testimony and deliberation, planning commission is, able to forward a recommendation to the city council.

We're tentatively scheduling, council action for the November 18 meeting, and I appreciate your time. And I'm I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Jim. Go ahead and open the public hearing if there's anyone online at this time.

There's nobody online raising their hand.

K. We can go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up for discussion and questions.

And I will start. Am I right?

No. No. No. Nothing further. K.

Nothing further from me? I'm good. Nothing.

Yeah. Have nothing further since the October meeting.

I will entertain a motion.

I move it, accept it as proposed and prepared and send it on to the city council.

I second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. Passes on. We'll go ahead and move on to five b, a presentation about tree canopy ordinance.

Yeah. So we're going to, tag team this. Dennis Ryan, the public works director is here. He'll speak to many of these slides, and I'll I'll speak to a few. Connor is gonna share the presentation here. This is included in your packet, so you can follow along if you have a hard copy or on your laptop.

Good evening, commissioners. It's a pleasure to be here tonight before you. Please feel free to ask questions as I move through this. And if I go too fast, don't hesitate to ask for clarification. So I am here to speak tonight about a new requirement of our current phase two permit for Western Washington stormwater compliance. This is I'll just go to the next slide, please. So what is the MPDS? It's the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. It's what governs our operations, everyday operations, and planning, development, and even our maintenance for the city. It's driven by the Clean Water Act of 1972.

Federal level permit regulates stormwater discharges to surface waters. That's particularly important here on Sinclair Inlet with the direct discharge into the sound. Washington State Department of Ecology is the regulatory agent that administers and oversees and monitors our permit. We do an annual permit that we submit to the state each year for compliance. The city of Port Orchard falls under the Western Washington phase two, as I mentioned.

There's a few phase one permit holders. They're usually the larger population centers in the state. It's important to know that once you're a phase one or phase two, permit, you're always a phase one or phase two permit. Cities that are close to, some of the largest cities in the state of Washington now that were previously a phase two permit, like Vancouver, Washington, will always be a phase two permit. So that is the same as the requirements for Port Orchard, Washington.

Go to the next slide. So the MPDS has a tree canopy requirement. There's things that we have to do, a policy that adopts and implements the tree canopy goals, policies to support the stormwater management, establish a long term five to ten year goal of canopy existing or future projections to be used to stormwater management on city owned properties. We'll have to consider how existing or future tree canopies can support stormwater management and water quality improvements in receiving waters. And then finally, specific considerations shall include maintaining or increasing canopy in overburdened communities and maintaining existing mature tree canopies.

So why do the tree canopies matter for stormwater? There's a there's a pretty good graphic here that if you can see it, but I'll I'll walk us through here. Urban tree canopies is a natural stormwater filter. Trees intercept the rainfall. They reduce the runoff, and they improve the water infiltration. Canopy covers helps filter pollutants. I'm sorry. I already said that. The tree roots stabilize our soils, and they reduce erosions. The ecological benefits improves water quality and receiving waters, supports habitat and biodiversity, and enhances community resilience to climate change.

So trees are our filters that filter the water that end up ultimately in Sinclair Inland. So this is just some interesting statistics on how trees store and filter water. A tree one single tree can accumulate up to 4,000 gallons of rainfall per year. A single mature tree tree intercepts that. This reduces the volume of stormwater in entering the drains, and it prevents localized flooding that you see in urban areas.

A 25 foot tree canopy can manage runoff from about a 2,400 square foot impervious surface. So think of a single family home. One mature tree can filter that stormwater. And then reduction of stormwater runoff. Urban tree canopies can reduce stormwater runoff by up to 62%, especially when integrated with other green infrastructures.

I do want to note, so when we talk about urban tree canopies, we are in the Pacific Northwest, and the type of tree. The native trees, the conifers, those are the most effective for our area. There's many trees as planters, as public works. They look great on streetscapes, but some of them are drought tolerant, so it's not getting the same, ecological benefit. So the next slide here is just the process of how we've been mapping.

So each year, the subject the city puts in for capacity grant through the Department of Ecology, and we're usually successful. So with this new permit requirement, we purchased software car called Nearmap, where we're able to use AI in identifying from layered GIS photography where we can identify these existing tree canopies. So step one was to identify the tree canopies in Port Orchard with this GIS tool. And then step two was to measure the total canopy coverage, tree height, and density, and how trees relate to pavement and drainage areas. And third step was the inventory of tree canopies, and this hasn't been done yet.

This is future state that we'll be working on, but we're we're prioritizing our goals. So the third step is we'll enter inventory our tree canopies that are located in the riparian corridors, bioretention areas, erosion prone areas, and the MS 4 tributary basins. Our MS 4 is our publicly owned stormwater conveyance system. And then finally, step four with is to use the results to aid the city in planning stormwater projects and tree planting and preservation goals in the future. So here's a graphic for the entire city.

This is a GIS tool, and, again, it is near map. So what we've mapped so far is a 169.2 acres of tree canopy that are managed within the city right of way. The right of way is the publicly owned street, sidewalks that's adjacent to properties. Provide a baseline to aid in planting tree canopy, policies and goals that support stormwater management. Our next steps are to map canopy on the city owned properties.

So in addition, would be our parks, city hall, other facilities that we own throughout the city. Catalog the tree species and the diversity of trees, analyze the cap canopy's impact on stormwater. So, eventually, we'll have an equation where we have x amount of acres of trees, type of trees that equates to how much area of surface can be treated by these trees that are currently existing. And I believe I'm turning it over to Jim with this next slide, but I do wanna reiterate the the NPDS phase two permit, it's constantly changing. So what we see in today's requirements is going to obviously most more likely become more stringent in the next permit period of five years. So that was it for me. Thanks, Jim.

We go to the the next slide there, Connor. So I'm I'm gonna provide a quick overview of our current regulations in regard to preserving tree canopy. PYMC 20.129, that's our significant tree ordinance. It provides a framework for protecting Port Orchard's tree canopy through regulation and some other standards. Some of the strengths of this portion of the code include clear definitions.

It establishes precise criteria for what qualifies as a significant tree. Those are trees that are generally in good health, they're not dangerous and they have a width of 18 inches in diameter at breast height. There are some incentives for preservation of significant trees. We encourage developers to retain significant trees through built in incentives in the code which supports our our citywide canopy preservation goals. There's some construction period protections, which requires protective measures during construction such as fencing, root zone avoidance, and and designated tree protection zones.

This is intended to safeguard trees on active development sites. There's some replacement and mitigation standards in twenty point one two nine. The replacement ratios, when a significant tree is removed, it depends on the the diameter of the tree, how many replacement trees, you have to to plant in their place that helps offset some environmental and aesthetic impacts. And it includes some detailed planting specifications for the replacement trees to promote that sustained ecological benefit and canopy coverage over time. There are some limitations to 20.129 though.

It it does it does provide some protections for significant trees. There's several gaps, that limit its effectiveness. The canopy equivalency replacement ratios do not guarantee that new plantings will match the mature canopy area or ecological function of removed trees. Post construction protection, it's it's limited to the construction phase and with few safeguards against long term damage from grading utility installation or other site modifications. The code lacks requirements for long term monitoring, maintenance schedule, and enforcement to ensure replacement trees survive and thrive outside of, a two year maintenance period.

The planting standards don't promote native species or larger stock or diversity in those species. These factors are critical to accelerating canopy growth and improve resilience to pests and climate and stress. So there are some some gaps in it. The standards really focus on mitigating tree loss rather than proactively expanding, pardon me, expanding the canopy coverage. If we can go to the the next slide here.

This is, McCormick Village Overlay District. This is this is separate than the significant tree ordinance, which applies citywide. This is a very localized spot. There are strong regulations within the m MOD, but, again, it's only a small portion of Port Orchard. It's a proactive approach to preserving the neighborhood character and ecological benefits through, the the development of, of the site.

Development sites within the MVOD must meet specific canopy coverage thresholds to maintain environmental quality and visual appeal. Tree planting is directed to complement site layout, streetscapes, parking areas and open spaces to and enhance shading and screening. The existing canopy is prioritized for retention and replacement planting is required when the canopy is lost due to the development. Regulations include tree protection measures during construction and set clear expectations for installation and long term maintenance. So while these standards, are a model for for, you know, some canopy management, it's important, to recognize that they currently only apply within the MVOD, leaving the majority of Port Orchard without similar protections.

So I think this next slide, shows you the MVOD. It's that portion that is outlined in green near map to the the tree canopy mapping exercise. I don't think it captured everything that's going to be retained there along Old Clifton, but there is a a swath of property there that that is intended to be preserved. They will need to plant to meet the the standards, and and that plan has already been approved. They just obviously, in this this aerial photograph, they've not gotten that far yet.

There are some limitations to the to the MVOD tree canopy standards. It's a short term focus, emphasizes on-site canopy coverage without ensuring that replacement or retained trees will deliver the equivalent mature canopy or benefits over time. It lacks requirements for long term survival monitoring, ongoing maintenance, and and enforcement to ensure newly planted trees reach maturity. The standards prioritize site level compliance rather than targeting canopy growth in areas with heat vulnerability, storm water needs, or equity concerns. Do not the the regulations do not require larger tree stock, native species, or species diversities.

We already talked about that a little bit, and that, that improves resilience and and to pests to pests and climate stress. Tree protections are concentrated around the construction phase with few safeguards against long term damage from grading or utility work. These limitations suggest the need for a broader, strategic, canopy policies that extend beyond the MVOD and support long term tree canopy, health across Port Orchard. So I'm gonna turn it back to to Dennis, and he can wrap this up.

So the canopy counts for clean water. The tree cami canopy is natural infrastructure. Trees intercept the rainfall, so this is just a summary. They are essential to the climate resilience and the ecological health of our environment here in Port Orchard and throughout the state of Washington. Port Orchard is making progress.

We've mapped the 169 acres that we spoke of earlier, laying the groundwork for our NPDS compliance and our long term, planning goals and preparing us for the future permit and the requirements that are going to come forward. We we did, as Jim, discussed, we have gaps that remain, weak long term maintenance and monitoring, limited strategic planting in high need areas, and replacement trees may not match the mature tree canopy, as Jim discussed. Our next steps will complete the canopy mapping on city owned properties, set measurable canopy goals, strengthen code and long term custom, outcomes, priorities, equality, equity in stormwater sensitive areas. I'm happy to answer any additional questions. Or, Jim, you

Just a little bit more to add, not in the presentation, but, planning and public works are gonna work on this this project together. It will require some code amendments that'll come before the planning commission. And in fact, the next item on the agenda is kind of an introduction to that. So, Dennis, if you wanna stick around, that'd be great. But, yeah, we're we're excited, and and we wanna get the planning commission's feedback. But this this presentation was just intended, to let you know where these requirements are coming from.

Awesome. Thank you, Dennis and Jim.

May I be recognized? Of course. Okay. Thank you. So my question is so that is the next part then. We're gonna be talking about how you plan to address those shortcomings that exist in in code changes?

That's the hope. Yes.

Yes. Okay. I'm happy about that. Thank you.

I've got a couple questions. You mentioned early on, director, that, there's a way of calculating the impact of the tree canopy on stormwater. I'm curious what that math looks like. Being a bit of an expert myself, I'm curious what you're using to figure this out.

You you you know, I do not have the answer to the exact methodology, but earlier in the slides, we did provide a graphic, and I think this is based off of industry. We're

not

the first agency to have this tree canopy requirement. So referring back, it was the 4,000 gallons of mature tree could store a year. That's just a statistic. I can't tell you if that's an 80 or 80 foot conifer or

Right. Yeah. That's a

maple tree.

Okay. I'm just curious. But I I will follow-up later as we get closer to write an ordinance about what that math is. It's gonna be important. Yep. This is Species matters. Height matters.

Absolutely. I would tell you that this is the best case scenario that we would shoot for.

Okay. I'm I'm okay with that as long as we all know where you're at with your assumptions. Second couple questions I have. 169 plus Summaraj acres already mapped. That's pretty impressive, actually. How does that compare to the total acreage of city owned property?

I I don't have the statistics of how many acres we have in parks, property. We have several lots throughout the city, reservoir sites that are substantial. Nick, director Bond, do you have do you have any idea of what we own publicly?

Not not that we own publicly. I can tell you what the total acreage of the city is, which is 6,400 acres.

Applies to city city owned pieces of property. Correct? This this NPD as per man?

Correct. This is that's the first requirement. I would, anticipate future requirements of the permit requirement. Our next cycle would be twenty twenty nine. I it's gonna become more strict and more a higher guideline to identify areas likely outside of the city Okay. Ownership.

So, like, all the riparian corridors, buffers, wetlands, stuff like that will all get lumped into there?

It possibly could. Okay.

I'm curious also when we are we're dealing with the lot you mentioned a lot of 169 acres. It's mostly around road corridors or stormwater conduit like ditches and stuff like that, I assume.

This statistic said just right of way, so that would be the transportation corridor.

Transportation. Alright. So species again matters. I mean, how many street cleaners do we have in the city?

What was the question?

How many street cleaners? Sweepers, those vacuum trucks?

The city has two vacuum trucks, and we have two street sweepers, one mechanical and one vacuum.

I guess my point would be we really don't want to see big leaf maples put everywhere, or we're going need to get some more sweepers, because they plug up the storm water conduits pretty bad in November and December and January.

There are native species that are beneficial.

I'm just saying it's going cost more money if we don't be careful with what species we promote to put into some of these areas. So just a thought. Okay. I'm good. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions, comments over here?

Yeah. Generally, I think that it's it's moving in the right direction. I think that there are some significant gaps that you guys had mentioned that we really need to look at. I I fear that, like, with a lot of tree canopy legislation I've seen, it ends up just being, like, protecting individual trees that are large. Like, I not to say that's not that's not bad to protect the large trees, but it should be thought of more holistically in a more, like, ecosystem sense.

One tree on its own that's being saved can't really survive all that well or do much in favor of the city if it's not within a larger ecosystem. So I think that that's a consideration we have to take in. I also had thought about the requirements that we have now being only city property and only on right of way corridors that may be farther in the future. You'd mentioned that that would be the the restrictions would be more stringent, and then we could, you know, consider that then. Considering the legislation that we've moved on to to council and we've seen adopted in Port Orchard regarding other things, us, sort of amending the state standards, I think it'd be positive to sort of get ahead of that, if there are potential, more stringent standards that we can take those into consideration.

Those that we can adopt, that would be rather easy to. That way when those stricter standards come along, I think we'd already be prepared for that. I think that would be a positive. In terms of the cost that it would take to, you know, input certain trees that would be beneficial for the the stormwater runoff and the environment of Port Orchard in general, I would argue that the cost of not protecting the environment would be much larger, especially for people who've had businesses along Bay Street and along other stormwater areas within Port Orchard. Knowing personally a few of those business owners that they've had a a heck of a time with a lot of the, the the floods that have happened, especially along Bay Street.

One of the more low level flooding, but it's still enough to to ruin somebody's their business. So, in terms of that, it's it's as as Jim was saying that it's it seems to be the limitation is it's a lot of short term thinking, and I'd I'd prefer to see more long term planning in that regard. So just a few things to keep in mind.

I would add that coming from other agencies, this is currently, we don't have, like, a replacement tree policy, that I'm aware of, Jim. You might be able to clarify. But I I you know, we've had we we we do best practices in public works where if we have to take a tree down on one of our pieces of property, I wanna put two back because it's gonna take some time to to get it back what we needed to.

Our our significant tree ordinance 20.129 does have replacement ratios, as I mentioned earlier. So, yeah, those those do apply in the right of way. But, again, 18 inches is is a fairly large tree. Significant tree.

Stephanie, any questions, comments?

Not right now.

Alright. I look forward to hearing, discussing future code amendments. Alright. Moving on to five c, discussion about landscaping, POMC 20 dot one two eight. Jim?

Oh, thank you. Tonight, we wanna introduce a topic that'll be coming back to the planning commission in, the months ahead. These are potential amendments to Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.128, which addresses landscape standards. No action is required this evening, but we're beginning the conversations that we can gather your input early in the process. As you know, landscaping plays a role in shaping the look and feel of our neighborhoods.

It defines streetscapes, buffers between uses and influences how we manage stormwater and tree canopy. Our current code has some gaps and inconsistency that have become more apparent through recent project reviews and coordination with public works. So we're looking at this. We've identified several, recurring challenges. I'm just gonna go off and name about five of them.

Perimeter landscaping blocks visual and pedestrian connections between lots. There's no clear process for amending approved landscape plans. Open spaces that are mostly turf, They offer little ecological or recreational value, well, passive recreational value. There's persistent invasive invasive species like Himalayan blackberry and Japanese knotweed, which we will have a program to to resolve other than, through the county's noxious weed program. We have inconsistent landscape standards for middle housing compared to to detached houses.

We're look we're looking to align these standards along with the NPDES, storm water obligations that we we, discussed in the tree canopy goals. And so we're aiming, we're still drafting the language, but but some of the ideas that we are exploring is adding a purpose statement that emphasizes visual and pedestrian connectivity and discourages saw solid perimeter barriers unless it's needed for safety. We want to create a clear administratable process for amending the landscape plans, defining what counts as minor versus a major change, align tree canopy and landscaping requirements with stormwater goals, including potential credits for preserved trees and clear replacement metrics. Clarify passive open space requirements to ensure they include meaningful vegetation, not just turf. Introduce enforceable standards for controlling priority invasive species, including monitoring and maintenance expectations.

Revise buffer and perimeter standards to favor layered plantings, view corridors, and low fencing instead of continuous solid fencing. And then ensure middle housing types are treated equitably. As you know we must treat middle housing the same as detached houses. This means that either we require landscaping for detached houses and we apply those same standards to middle housing or we do not require landscaping for middle housing types at all and, not to detached houses. So we anticipate, this coming back in December, we're we're gonna ask for your input and policy priorities and sequencing, through the end of the year.

And then in January, I might be getting ahead of myself a little bit. January or February, we'll prepare a draft ordinance, language, some illustrations, and checklists.