City Council - Regular Meeting

Evening, everyone, and welcome to the

Recording in progress.

02/03/2026 Planning Commission meeting. We'll go ahead and get started with the pledge of allegiance. Thank you, everyone. Let's go ahead and move on to welcome and introduction. Welcome, everyone. Looks like we have a couple people in attendance virtually. I am Tyler McCloskey, the chair of the planning commission. We'll start all the way on my right and move our way down.

Wayne Wright, planning commissioner.

Tiffany Mitchell, planning commissioner.

Nick Bond, community development director.

Connor Delquist, associate planner. And we'll take it online. It looks like we've got Jim.

Jim Best, principal planner.

And I also see Joe in attendees.

Sorry. Joe Morrison, planning commissioner.

Hi, Joe. Welcome. Alright. We will move it on to audience comments. If the person in attendance on Zoom would like to say something that is not related to the agenda tonight, please raise your hand.

There are no hands raised online. We'll move on because there is no one in chambers today. On to approval of the minutes from the November 4 meeting. Did everybody get a chance to check those out? Mhmm. Any corrections or additions to the minutes? No. K. I will entertain a motion.

I make a motion to approve the minutes from the 11/20/2520 commission meeting.

Second. All in favor of approving the minutes? Aye. Any Any abstain? Abstain. Abstain. Okay. Perfect. Minutes are passed. Let's move on to business item five a, the election of the chair and the vice chair. I will open it up to a nomination for chair first.

I'd like to nominate Tyler as the chair again.

Second that for sure.

Any nominations for vice chair? I

nominate Wayne for vice chair. I think he would be great if you would accept. So

Sure. If you want.

Just when I was about to throw commissioner Mitchell under the bus, she struck first.

She did. Alright. And now that we have nominations, all in favor of myself as chair. Aye. Aye.

Aye. All

in favor of my name as vice chair. Aye. Aye. Aye. Good. We have myself as the chair and Wayne as the vice chair. On to business item five b, a discussion about landscaping. Jim?

Yeah. Good night. Good evening, commissioners. Tonight, we're continuing our discussion of proposed updates to the municipal code chapter 20.128, our landscaping standards. As you know, the goal of this update is to clean up the current code and align with some upcoming regulatory requirements, better support neighborhood connectivity, environmental performance, and the broader range of housing types we're planning for.

We also wanna make sure that the review process stays predictable for applicants. When we first introduced this topic in November, the followed public works presentation on our NPDES permit obligations. That work is especially important because public works is in the middle of mapping the city's existing tree canopy and identifying long term canopy goals. Their analysis may inform future revisions to tree planting requirements. For now, those standards remain unchanged, but once the canopy work is complete, we expect to revisit them so code can more intentionally support the city's canopy targets.

The draft amendments you have in your packet reflect several updates. They had a purpose statement that emphasizes visual and pedestrian connectivity and discourages long continuous fencing unless it's truly needed. They expand the chapters that it applies to all residential and nonresidential development, and they establish a clear process for amending approved landscape plans. We've also clarified expectations for open space so that turf turf only areas aren't the default unless they're designed for active recreation. And we've strengthened invasive species control standards, especially for blackberry and knotweed.

Buffer and perimeter standards have been modernized a little bit to encourage layered planting and low height screening, and the fence standards have been consolidated with new requirements for treating large blank retaining walls. One of the more significant policy questions for the commission relates to how we treat middle housing compared to traditional detached single family homes. Under house bill eleven ten, middle housing must be regulated the same as detached housing. That means if detached homes remain exempt from landscaping requirements, middle housing up to six units would also be exempt. To avoid that inconsistency, the draft applies the chapter to all residential development.

We'd like your feedback on whether this approach aligns with city goals. Since November, STEP also reviewed landscaping standards from nine Puget Sound cities to see how others are responding to house bill eleven ten. We've included some of that analysis in tonight's packet for your information. The approaches vary pretty widely. Some cities apply consistent standards across all housing types while others rely on zoning based rules that that can lead to uneven outcomes.

Many jurisdictions are also using flexible tools like tree credits, tree banks, or in lieu fees to help projects meet canopy goals without compromising site feasibility. For Port Orchard, it's important to have a solid canopy inventory and a clear canopy target, which again ties back to the work ongoing work from Public Works. Looking ahead, we remain on track for potential adoption in early fall twenty twenty six. Over the next year, we'll refine draft language, coordinate closely with public works and stormwater folks, and return to you for review, public comment, and ultimately, a recommendation to the city council. Throughout this process, staff will maintain a comment matrix so that we can clearly track input and show how it's addressed.

With that, we welcome your questions and direction, particularly on the treatment of middle housing and detached homes and how you'd like to see the Canopy related standards evolve once Public Works completes its analysis.

Thanks, Jim. A lot of work went into that. I can see there's quite a bit of analysis. I appreciate that you included how other cities have handled this. I will open

it up if anybody has any questions. We'll start with Wayne.

Well, I got I got through it all. And with my experience with plants as a scientist, invasive species are a real problem. So I think the we wanna be careful in how we try to enforce or put any kind of enforcement actions because if your neighbor's got Scott's broom, you got Scott's broom, or you're constantly pulling it. Knotweed has so many seeds on it that if it's on a site that it is developed, for example, unless you kill the seeds, you're gonna get knotweed. So there's a whole lot of things.

What I've been tossing in my mind, Jim, about this one is if there's a way, there's a site prep element to the site planning that helps us address invasive species like Scottsboro and blackberry and knotweed in particular. So when someone has a piece of property, they wanna develop it, putting something down to eradicate that stuff upfront before they even build a house or build a structure or a parking lot will help a ton, I think. So but otherwise, it was a good start. I I thought it was a really good start. I think it's couple of other things that I caught that might be problematic.

There's some comments about in the fencing area about the common property lines. Again, living out of McCormick Woods, we've had some interesting problems with common property lines and fences. So being very explicit and careful on how we define that or talk about that in here will probably save a lot of headaches for the the staff and processing any kind of paperwork in the future. But otherwise, I think those kinds of things we can work on real easy. It's a good start. Thanks. I

don't have any major major comments. I think that it's a wonderful start too. And I just I I feel like I need to read through it one more time to to get some really good notes together because I didn't have as much time this weekend as I thought I would. So that is my plan for our next session when we come in or at least before, actually, just to get everything over to to Nick so that he can and and Jim so that they can take a a look at things. So but I think for the most part, we're on the right track. Thank you.

Joe, anything online?

Yeah. So, Jim, I'm sorry. I can be a bit thick. Are are detached homes currently exempt from this chapter?

I'm sorry. That cursor gave me a lot of problems there. I couldn't unmute.

No worries.

Yeah. I mean, if you're gonna build a single family home right now, they are totally exempt from any landscaping requirements.

K. So what your revision proposes to do is create landscaping requirements for both single family and multifamily homes that would be

For middle housing.

For middle housing.

So I'm just Okay. Payments.

Oh, okay. So I I need to mentally process this further. So single family homes and, middle housing units up to six middle family housing up to six units will then be required to comply with this chapter. Right?

Right. And

middle housing developments above six units, they have a whole separate process.

So you remember last year when we went through that whole middle housing update, we talked about all the the quad well, all all the plexus. Yeah. The duplex, triplex. So that's middle housing. Right? Townhomes, that sort of thing. It's not apartments. Okay?

Yeah.

So we the house bill eleven ten required us to treat those the same as we do a single family home. So in in the packet tonight, it's just showing you, hey. This applies to that whole group. Once you get to multifamily, the landscaping requirements, the they're they're required to comply with the landscaping requirements for apartments. Yeah. Anything greater than six units.

Which are a separate set of requirements. Right?

It's essentially what you find in here. And so Okay. So in the table, you know, there's some work being done there. That that's where you're gonna kinda see the difference from the developing use to the, the existing zone that abuts it. Right? And that treatment that buffer treatment.

So right now, if, d r Horton puts together a single family development of detached homes, it's exempt from this chapter?

Correct. The only thing the only way it kind of gets tied in is that, twenty point one hundred, the subdivision design standards, they require open space, Right? Active and passive recreation. And so then we can apply these standards to those spaces. That's all. We do not apply it to the individual lots. Street trees, those are required through the public works standard. Okay? But anything that happens in somebody's front yard, that that is entirely on the developer well, pardon me, the builder or the subsequent, property owner.

Right. I think that as you proceed forward, I'll be thinking carefully from my perspective about whether, whether I think it's good or bad, for want of a better word, to, force single family homes to comply with this. And I'm not I'm not convinced it is. There are plenty of permitting and planning requirements that those developments have to go through. I do care about the aesthetics of of our community, of course, and I understand the the reasoning for that.

But I'm not I'm not sure I'm there with the planning and permitting overhead that that would create. So it's something to think about, and I'd be interested to know, and I'll look at some of the research from other jurisdictions on how they're handling it. And in particular, jurisdictions that I think are would be good for Port Orchard to be aspirational toward because they care about a beautiful city as well. Smaller question. Again, I'm a bit thick. It seems difficult to require, and commissioner Wright got to this a little bit. It seems difficult to fix noxious weeds. How do you get at that?

That's a that's a great question. And right now, we don't have any ability to do that. And so what we're finding is when we go into these subdivisions, like like you mentioned, from Doctor Horton, you know, these builders, we're finding invasive species, but we don't have any tools to regulate that. And so what this really intends to do is to develop a set of tools that we can then use to clean up sites.

And and then, like, will you be able to go to the HOA of that subdivision?

That that's why we're here. We're figuring all that out right now. Right? And and to your point about requiring landscaping on single family homes, that's why we're having this discussion here so that we can fully vet, you know, the direction we go in.

K. Thank you. Appreciate the answers. I'm good.

I can't hear you.

I have to turn on my microphone. Apologies. Do you have a deadline for when you would like feedback by?

Throughout this process, but, I mean, the sooner that you can get it to us, sooner we can put it in the in a comment matrix and and continue that discussion at subsequent meetings.

Perfect. Thank you, Jim.

Hey. Tyler, I wanted to ask a question of Jim just to clarify something that Joe asked about. So Jim, my reading of the code is that the individual single family lot does not have to have a landscape plan. But when you develop a subdivision, you have to provide a buffer between adjacent uses. So per the perimeter of the subdivision in that case is going to have to meet the buffer requirement in accordance with the table. So I you're not proposing that we require a landscape plan to build one single family house on a lot. It's only that you provide a landscape plan for a subdivision and meet the perimeter buffer requirement. Is that correct?

I think I think it's a discussion that we have to have in look in, you know, maybe in thinking about if somebody comes in, not necessarily in a subdivision, but a one off single family home on a a lot of record. If we have to treat middle housing the same as we do a single family home or, you know, vice versa, then then it would potentially apply to that one off.

You know, that's a that that was one of my questions too regarding the individual single family lot. Say someone's got 10 acres of pasture, few trees, and wants to put a house on it, that's a whole different ball of wax in middle housing type of scenario. People's preferences and people's desires for their property, we're getting pretty perilously close to telling people what they can do and can't do on their property when it comes to their landscape. Invasive species are a problem. It will be a problem.

If it's next door to you on a public right of way, say a city of Port Orchard Ditch is full of invasive species and its wind blows your way, who's responsible for that? So there's there's a there's a can of worms when you come to enforcing invasive species control. I would recommend we handle it in the the planning process of a project development. Similarly, living out of McCormick Woods and very familiar with our HOA's rules and regulations, we have a very strict landscaping policy. It seems to me another way we can get around this a bit on the larger developments is to ask for review of that policy as part of the package of of the development so that we understand what they're doing with their recreational facilities, what they're doing with their buffer management if you will, their landscaping plans, and what their maintenance is.

I know we spend more money on maintenance in McCormick Woods than almost any other thing we do because of the we want the landscaping to look good. So the more more food for thought, but I think there's ways we can get around this and make make it easier on staff and easier on on the communities to plan better upfront for this sort of stuff rather than try to enforce it on the back end. And I think as far as middle family, single family stuff, that's gonna be an interesting scenario. I I I don't know how to wrap wrestle that one right now. I have to think about that. Thanks.

Any other comments or questions on this topic? Alright. We'll go ahead and move to your next one, Jim. The discussion of permitting and development approval.

Okay. Tonight, we're introducing a set of proposed amendments to, municipal code chapters 20.22, 20.8, and 20.9 that would, update the city's process for reviewing and approving final plats. The goal is straightforward, to bring our procedures into alignment with state law and to create an administrative pathway for final plat approval. Right now, final plats are processed as type four permits. That means public notice, a public hearing before either no.

This no. Before the hearing examiner or the commission, and then a recommendation recommendation to the city council. In practice, this adds an extra hearing at a point in the process when the applicant has already completed all required improvements tied to the preliminary plat, improvements that have typically been reviewed in detail through a land disturbing activity permit. It's important to remember that preliminary plats, are type three permits, already go through a full public hearing before the hearing examiner. That decision includes conditions of approval that address code requirements and any relevant issues raised through public comment.

Those conditions set the expectations for the applicant as they move into construction. By the time a final plat is submitted, the question is simply whether those conditions have been met. Requiring another public hearing at that stage is redundant and can introduce uncertainty into what should be a ministerial compliance check. State law reinforces this. While the legislative body may choose to retain authority for plan final plat approval, It can also delegate that authority to a planning commission or to, administrative staff.

And because final plat review is limited to verifying compliance with the preliminary approval and applicable regulations, approval must be granted once those requirements are satisfied. A public hearing is not required. To improve the process and ensure consistent consistency with state law, staff is recommending this the city ship to an administrative approval model for final plats. We plan to bring draft red line amendments to you in March for initial review and discussion. And after that, we would like to schedule a public hearing likely in April, and then ask the commission to forward a recommendation to the city council.

We look forward to your feedback as we refine it, but we'll have more to offer you next month. Similar to landscaping code, we will maintain a comment matrix and and, you know, provide that transparency throughout this. So I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thanks, Jim. Any questions?

So, Jim, could you walk us through the process of getting to final plat approval? I'm assuming you get as built drawings for all the public amenities, all the pieces and parts and moving things. Who reviews that and who inspects it to make sure it's where it's supposed to be?

So just we're just gonna talk about final plat and nothing that comes before that. So once it's submitted, city staff reviews those those as built drawings. City inspectors, when they're called for inspection, they go out and inspect it in the field, ensure that everything meets public work standards and anything in the code, any of those code requirements. And so the as built simply reflects what's what's built on the ground, which should be consistent with the conditions of preliminary plat approval.

Okay. And have you had issues in the past where a plat was unacceptable and a fine at final stage and stalled them out to get fixes? I'm I'm thinking of this the Complete Streets program where we've got vegetation required by the Complete Streets and sidewalks that the city inherits. It's our our sidewalk. It could be. And I wanna make sure the city's not inheriting something poorly constructed or something like that. It it wouldn't be caught if it was just administrative review. Are we confident that we're getting that job done? I'm I'm not asking because I really don't know.

No. I I I think we are. And so to answer your question, I've never had a final plat application where everything has been complete, built to you know, no changes. Nothing in the field. Nothing on a final plat document or anything.

I've never had an experience where everything is perfect on first submittal. And so there's always some back and forth between us and the developer. However, a lot of the corrections that are made are made before a final plat is even submitted because they are trying to close out, the associated land disturbing activity permit. Right? So the the inspectors are out there once they're called, you know, looking at catch basins and, you know, all of these things and and saying, yeah. You know, this is the right elevation. This is it's flowing downhill. Yeah. You know? So all of that is constantly being checked throughout the process.

And so by the time they get to final plat, it should just be you've done everything that's that's been required of you.

Okay. And I wanna add to that. The other thing that we're checking for with the final plat application, the applicant has to turn in a bill of sale documenting all of the assets that are being granted to the city, and they also have to provide, bond agreements, are just template agreements that our city attorney has reviewed ahead of time. And so in the only time when I have even threatened to recommend denial of a final plat was when somebody was proposing performance bonds for work that was not complete, where I said, you're trying to bond too much work. I'm gonna recommend that the city council not approve this.

And so I I don't know, Jim, if you touched on this in your report, but I think that where performance bonds are proposed for work that isn't complete, that may still involve some additional level of review or it may be that just the bond agreement has to go to city council for approval unless they delegate that authority to me. But or or to the public works director. But, you know, anytime when work is substantially complete and you're only talking about very minor bonds, like maybe PSC hasn't put the street lights in yet, but they've paid PSC or, maybe they're recording a plat in December and some landscaping has to wait till spring to be planted, we'll accept a bond for landscaping installation. It's, you know, those types of minor things may be in a bond agreement which kind of varies from project to project. The the form is the same.

It's just the list of improvements attached to that bond form are different.

Okay. That that helps a lot. And I I expected something like that. Didn't think we're getting too much final plat pushback. But it's good to hear that we're on top of it. That's where we should be. Thanks.

Joe, anything online?

No. It's I'm I'm happy and excited. Sounds good to me.

Sounds good. Thanks, everybody. Thanks, Jim. Alright. Moving on to, five d, the director's report. Nick?

Yeah. I just had a couple of announcements. First of all, in our building department, I wanted to share that we just had a a job offer accepted for a new senior level buildings plans examiner and inspector position, and so they'll be starting in about two weeks. Interestingly, they're a licensed architect. They have a master of public administration and are a certified building official.

So very, very qualified with a lot of experience, and looking forward to, relying a little bit less on our consultant building staff and having more of an in office presence and greater availability, for our staff to meet with folks and and, be helpful because we've had a very busy couple of years. The other thing I wanted to share, Connor's gonna share his screen, but the final two preapproved accessory dwelling units are now approved and available for use. And so there are Connor, if you can scroll down in the the the bottom row, the the right two ADUs, one of them is a 1,000 square foot single story large accessory dwelling unit. And then the other one is a carriage house, which is you can either build it as a two car garage with a one bedroom apartment above or a three car garage with a two bedroom apartment above. And so those plans are now approved, and all you have to do is request the plans, submit a site plan for approval, and pay the permit fees.

And as long as you don't have a a site with critical areas or major challenges, you should be able to get a permit, in in under two weeks is kind of our target for these. So, very excited to share that those are now available. And so if you know somebody who has, too much backyard and wants to, build something like this, you should encourage them to to reach out to us.

Have you had very many tickers on this?

We've got one request in for Connor may know of more. I've heard that we've received one request, but this is available countywide. I think Bremerton's got five now. So there's been a fair amount of interest, and it's still a fairly new thing. But I think we may see this pick up here as we head into the spring and summer construction season.

Very cool. That's exciting.

Does someone have to can it be a rental on the front and one of those on the back, or does the homeowner have to live in

There's no ownership requirement. So, yeah, there's that state law preempted that. That's no longer a requirement.

And

I there is one other announcement I wanted to make, and that is that we have no, we received no applications for comprehensive plan amendments this year. So your workload, got significantly lighter in terms of, how much you're gonna be tackling this year. We'll continue working on the landscaping and tree canopy issue and the the, procedural code that Jim introduced. Connor is working on a, a master plan for the stormwater park on Sherman Avenue, and so that will probably come to the planning commission at some point, in the near future for, once once we get closer to actually adopting that plan. And then Jim is also he's got a growing list of housekeeping amendments.

And so at some point this year, we'll we'll be bringing you a list of just minor, corrections, cleanup. You know, I I've been sharing with people that I'm subjecting myself to development regulations by trying to add on to my house at this time. And so I've learned from the user standpoint of how frustrating it can be to work with the city. And so it's given me new perspective on how to think about our code, and I have some ideas for some things that could be approved that are kind of minor housekeeping type amendments. And so you may see some of that sort of thing rolled into, the work that Jim brings forward later this year. But, overall, I would expect a a fairly light workload for 2026.

Thank you. Anything else for the good of the order tonight? Joe, anything extra?

Nope. Alright.

Well, with that, we'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting, and we'll see everybody next month, March 3. See everybody March 3. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Bye.