Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the June 2nd Planning Commission meeting. We'll go ahead and get started with the Pledge of Allegiance. Thanks, everybody. We'll move on to the welcome and introduction. I'm Tyler McCloskey, the chair. We'll go to my right, Tiffany.

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

Paul Fontenot, planning commissioner.

Jim Fisk, principal planner.

Deeptan Walker, assistant planner. Connor Dahlquist, associate planner.

Thanks, everybody. Welcome. It doesn't look like we have anyone additionally on Zoom. So we'll go ahead and move on to the approval of the agenda. That's new. Any additions or changes to the agenda this evening?

All right.

All in favor of the agenda as it is?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. We'll move forward with the agenda. Public hearing, which I don't believe we have tonight. So we'll move on to audience comments. Nobody in the room. Is there anyone on Zoom that would like to make a comment? Please raise your hand. There are no attendees. All right. We'll move on to the approval of the minutes. Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes from the May meeting?

Yes.

All right. Any changes, corrections? No. All right. All in favor of the minutes as written?

Aye.

Aye. So one abstention. All right. Minutes are approved as written. One abstention. And we'll move on to the business item 6A, Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park.

All right, good evening, commissioners. I'd like to provide a brief update of the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park project, including a summary of last week's community workshop, where we were in concept design process with attendees. As a refresher, the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park is located at the south end of Sherman Avenue, just west of Southeast Cedric Road and north of Highway 16. This 30-acre property was purchased in 2022 as a regional stormwater facility, which will facilitate the development of sidewalks and roadway improvements to the surrounding neighborhood. The site currently sits undeveloped. Flat terrain is found near Sherman Avenue, with steep slopes and Blackjack Creek are present on the eastern portion of the site. The steering committee had an opportunity to understand this site a bit more during a site visit in 2025. The city has been developing three preliminary park alternatives. These design concepts have been based on the outreach completed so far, which has included direct mailers, door hangers, business outreach, and a project webpage with the survey and the email list signup included. Our first workshop was hosted last fall, and its goals were to inform our concept-making research. What we heard was a high preference for trails, but interest in additional amenities as well. Since the agenda packet for the Planning Commission was published last week, we held our second design workshop, which was last Thursday, May 28, in Council Chambers. We had about 15 residents attend, and they provided thoughtful, detailed feedback on all three part concepts. People spent time at the boards, which you see over there, leaning up against the easels. They asked questions, shared comments about the trails, natural areas, access, and type of amenities that they like to see. We also launched a new online survey, which was advertised at the workshop and is now available on our project webpage as well. The survey will remain open through July 12th, 2026, and we'll continue promoting it as a way to gather as much input as possible. So the three design alternatives include trails and conservation park, the family nature park, and the community garden and recreation park. So going to the first alternative, the Trails and Conservation Park, this option focuses on keeping the site quiet, natural, and low maintenance. Some examples we looked at was the Stormwater Wetland Park in Arlington, the Prairie Waterway Park in Minnesota, and these show how stormwater facilities can double as educational, immersive natural spaces. In simple terms, this alternative is for people who want a calm, scenic place to walk, low maintenance, observed wildlife, and enjoy more of a natural landscape. So kind of diving more into the images of this design. So there's a lot of soft walking trails. They wind through the native vegetation and around the stormwater ponds. The small overlook points, which you'll see in that render, kind of gives views of the wetlands that were mapped by the public works and preliminary designs, as well as viewpoints over Blackjack Creek. There's features that are intentionally minimal here. The goal is to create a more peaceful and natural setting experience. The second alternative is the Family Nature Park. This concept blends nature with family-friendly recreation, and we drew inspiration from parks like the Menominee Valley Community Park, which is in Wisconsin, Thornton Park in Australia. These are pretty successful in combining natural play, open space, and gentle recreation combined with natural environments. So this alternative is ideal for families who want a safe, welcoming park that still feels connected to the environment. So diving into more of those design features includes a nature-inspired play area, open lawn space and looped walking paths, picnic shelters and shaded seating create some great spaces for families to gather, and also stormwater features that can also serve as educational elements with viewing platforms. The third alternative and the last alternative is the community garden and recreation park. This is the most active and social of the three concepts. Case studies like the John McBride Community Garden in Vancouver, B.C., and the Downton Carey Park in North Carolina both show how gardens and flexible gathering spaces can build community. This alternative supports gardening, recreation, and social activity, more of a lively, people-focused park. So diving into more of what that looks like, so community garden plots sitting near the entrance of the park, which is what we determined, a little more flat and terrain, creating a hub for neighbors to gather and grow food, sports courts, open lawns, a small disc golf loop was implemented in this design, and trails are still pretty connected, connecting visitors to the nature, the natural areas near Black Jack Creek, where you'll see more of those environmental critical area buffers. So next steps, we'll continue collecting survey responses through July 12th. Staff will take a deeper dive into the feedback from the workshop and compare it with the survey themes. That combined input will guide us as we refine three alternatives into a preferred concept for the future public to review. And you'll be able to find more information We have a project web page on our website, which is kind of hard to find right now, I think, under construction, our web page. But also there's an email, too, at parkdesign at portorchardwall.gov. If you want to sign up for the email list, we'll get you added. Yeah. Thank you.

Thanks, Connor. Any comments or questions?

I have. Unless anyone wants to go first, I have some questions.

Yes, you guys have any questions? Go ahead. Okay.

So my question is, I guess when I was reading through this, I I'm still trying to learn like where we fit in as a planning commission into a project like this, because I assume that it is not something that like this committee makes the decision on. Is that correct, Jim or Connor?

When we develop the plan, we'll certainly bring it back to the commission for a recommendation to the city council.

And how will the plan be, I guess, decided by you? Like in terms of the alternatives that are available, like I have my own personal favorite of what I would want. But I don't know how you guys come to that decision and then bring it to us to make the final yes or no.

If you have an opinion on it, I'd encourage you to take the survey.

I will do so. But I want to have the final say. That's just me. Because I have a true favorite. So anyway, I'll take the survey. But I just would like to know where we really... fit into trying to create a space that is good for the community and good for nature. So that's just me. So I will be done.

I know that's kind of up for debate. It's kind of still in the preliminary design, especially with engineering. But there's some really good examples of open stormwater detention ponds, which are only full when you have receiving lots of water. That's the engineering way to say it. So I prefer usable space, but I think it's still up for the design phase to figure out if it's fenced or not. I think more of the constant retention ponds would probably be fenced.

And it's important to note that these are merely concepts. This is not, it probably won't look like this. First and foremost, this is a stormwater project, right? So it's intended to capture the runoff from the neighborhood just to the north up Sherman, up that way toward Fireweed. And so that stormwater design has to be accounted for. And then we're looking for input on what we can put in to make this a space that can both function as a park and a stormwater facility.

Do you recall the name of it? That sounds like a good case study to look into. I just looked by the Costco, I guess.

Thank you, that's helpful.

Yeah, I like that we're putting so much consideration into this area. I have a friend of mine who lives down there and I think that all the alternatives are good and certainly preferable to any sort of like further construction of more residential or more industrial or commercial. I think that using it for a communal space in any capacity is better than that. I will say that there's a couple of things I had in mind when looking at this. Excuse me. One of them is that in that area around Sherman Avenue Fireweed, sort of like the end of Sydney Avenue right there, it's an area that although it's located centrally within Port Orchard, I would say from my experience as a lifelong resident is very much kind of out of the way a little bit. Generally, you don't get many people there. from outside of that neighborhood visiting that area. It's kind of tucked in there, mostly for lack of access across Highway 16, connecting it to Sydney Road or that sort of area around the Fernwood and Ruby Creek area. That being said, when we do think of things like a family nature park or community garden and recreation park, I would more picture that if we had that kind of at least predominantly visited by people who live in the area, who live in that sort of neighborhood, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Obviously, it's in their community. They should be able to access it. The one thing I would say is in terms of looking at like a recreation park, Van Zee Park's not too far away as well. as givens, uh, which both have sort of function in that same, same, uh, same vein of lack of garden park, obviously, but the recreation, uh, part of it, uh, definitely applies at the end of, uh, of Sydney Avenue. Uh, there's Van Z park, there's this power parks or powers park, all that sort of stuff. Um, on top of that, uh, if we're looking at, uh, something like a family nature park, um, we do kind of have that as well. Um, a little bit with, uh, with South Kitsap Regional Park. My, my whole sort of thesis here is I'm going more towards trails and conservation park, uh, for a couple of reasons. I think that with Blackjack Creek being there and already being a critical area, obviously it's not on Blackjack Creek, this, this proposed park, but it's near it. Uh, and anywhere near it would be, would probably affect its watershed in one way or another. Um, so I think that as least construction as possible is where I tend to prefer on that, that matter, just something worth considering. Also, when it was mentioned that there would be the least infrastructure put in there as possible with the trails and conservation park, my first thought was, if anything is damaged by a storm, obviously the whole concept of this is supposed to be stormwater park as well. If there's any overflow at any point, any stormwater effect, then that would be a less infrastructure that the city would have to repair, which I think would be beneficial for all sides. And just, yeah, I think that the trails and conservation parks is the least obtrusive. That's only my opinion as a Port Orchard resident. Was there any consideration of like maybe going to the farmer's market and like maybe having a little bit more outreach there to that effect?

Yeah, we're going on. June 21st. June 21st. Excellent. 27th. 27th. So, yeah. Okay, cool.

Excellent.

Yeah. I'm not sure if we did advertise it. I think we advertised a little bit last summer. I don't know. I can't remember, but yeah, for sure. I remember we'll also be there.

I just think that the people from the farmer's market are already pretty community involved. So it'd be a good opportunity to get some opinions. And this is definitely one where people I feel like would share their opinions pretty strongly. So yeah.

Yeah. We'll have the survey open until July 12th. So hopefully we capture a good amount. I think we have about, 13, 12 or so since last Thursday. So definitely helpful feedback. I think the trials and conservation, as you can kind of see with the sticky notes, was a little more active and popular with the in-person feedback. But yeah, definitely echoing to take the survey and provide that feedback, which you can find on our website or the QR code.

For sure. Yeah. I'll be there. I'll spread the word as well. Appreciate it. And Annette had another follow-up question.

Yeah, so is this only...

It's likely only to be accessed off of Sherman.

And I see that Joe is online. Joe, do you have any questions or comments about the trail or the park plans?

I'm just excited to see this come to fruition. This is really great.

Thanks, Joe. All right. Moving on to business item 6B, the 2026 legislative session. Jim?

As provided in tonight's packet, three recent state bills affecting local land use and permitting are grouped under one agenda item tonight. While they appear together for this introduction, all future work and future agenda items will be handled separately for each of these bills. These new laws require cities to update development regulations, permitting procedures and internal processes on varying timelines. We'll be prioritizing our work based on those deadlines, beginning with House Bill 1859, which now requires cities to allow increased residential density for affordable housing on property owned or controlled by religious organizations. Because Port Orchard uses a form-based code, we may need to find creative ways to meet the density requirements, potentially through height increases. And we need to be prepared to act quickly when a request comes in. Once a qualifying organization makes a request, the city has 90 days to adopt it. The next bill, House Bill 2418, sets new standards for permit efficiency and transparency. We already have a strong foundation for this, but we'll need to refine some of the municipal code tracking systems and coordination, especially with utilities, so that we can meet those requirements. And lastly, House Bill 2266 requires cities to update zoning by 2028 to support permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, and indoor emergency shelters. The city has made progress in recent years, but this recent legislation requires some some additional adjustments to ensure full compliance. So with that, we just wanted to get the bills in your hands so that you can review them going forward. Like I said, we'll handle these one by one. And we'll return to you with individual updates and code amendments for each bill as we make progress on that work.

Awesome. Thanks, Jim. I'm glad we're looking at these now. Any questions?

I have.

Some questions. So like when I was reading through some of the bills and like what they regulated, I guess I. And since you said that the city has already made like some progress on like where HB 2418 is moving us to. I just thought it was so crazy that it's like 28 days. And if it's not like if the permitting process and all of that is not done by day 28, then by day 29, it's done. And it just feels like a very, very quick process. And I was wondering if you could provide some clarification on like, Is this really doable? Does it create shortcuts that shouldn't be there? I guess that's what I'm trying to clarify.

Well, we do that now. Okay. So in our current code, we have a completeness check. We have to determine if an application is complete within 28 days. After the 28th day, the application becomes complete. It does not necessarily mean it's approved. Right. It just means it's complete and we haven't said we need additional information. So we're already doing that. One of the more significant changes in that bill is that for housing projects, there has to be one dedicated point of contact. And that is the SEPA responsible official.

And that was my big thing.

That's really the biggest one in there that I've seen so far. But the rest of it, I can't remember the bill that really started this permit processing, but it was a year It may have been two sessions ago, but we adopted regulations to be consistent with that. So we're pretty close to meeting what's in here. I think the legislature just wanted to kind of push us along a little more.

Okay. As long as you think it can be done and there isn't, like, especially when it comes to SEPA, like, I guess cutting corners and not doing full due diligence on that. So anyway, there we go. We're done.

Thanks, Stephanie. Annette? Paul? No, no, real comment. I think we've done a lot over my time in the commission to catch up with state requirements. So I think we're pretty good at it by now.

Joe, any questions, comments?

No comments.

All right. Thank you, Joe. All right. Business item 6C, the survey results of code efficiency.

Okay. So the survey results provide a clear picture of how the Planning Commission views potential amendments to improve development review efficiency. Although the number of participants is small, given you're a body of seven, the responses show consistent preferences. Commissioners place the highest priority on creating objective design standards with graphics. This potential amendment received the strongest overall ranking signaling that clear measurable design expectations would reduce interpretation disputes and make the review process more predictable for applicants and staff. I think we can go to the next slide here. The second highest priority was consolidating redundant review steps in the site plan process. This potential amendment also received the most votes when commissioners were asked which single change would have the greatest long-term impact on predictability and consistency. Feedback indicates that overlapping reviews slow down the process and that streamlining these steps would produce immediate benefits. The third area of support was the creation of pre-approved landscaping plant list. We've had discussion about this as far as our landscaping code amendments and the Kitsap noxious weed folks are are working with us to develop that list that we may be able to adopt by reference. The commission favored these tools that simplify technical requirements or reduce the need for repeated revisions. And then kind of the mid-level priorities included expanding administrative approval for site plan revisions, reducing the number of uses requiring a conditional use permit, and simplifying even further, more than what we've already done, the parking standards. These amendments were reviewed as helpful, or viewed as helpful, pardon me, but not as central as the top three. And the lower ranked items included administrative deviations for landscaping quantities and a tiered conditional use permit review path. The written comments. I'm sorry, Ethan. I'm not giving you a signal. You can go to the next one, I think. And the next one. All right. So the written comments reinforce the main themes commissioners pointed to permit processing time redundant steps and subjective design expectations as barriers to efficient review. You also noted that clear design and landscaping standards could support both functional outcomes and the city's long-term character. The results point to a straightforward set of priorities. The Planning Commission may wish to focus first on establishing objective design standards, streamlining those overlapping review steps and simplifying landscape requirements. These amendments appear to offer the strongest improvements to efficiency and predictability in the development review process. So we're not asking for any decisions tonight. The goal is simply to understand what the commission believes the most value, where the most value is in this. So with that, if the commission chooses to give us any additional direction, we'd be happy to take it. Thanks, Jim. Tiffany.

Only that I believe in my survey, I did put up pretty high and the reduction of I mean, everything that you said where we like consolidate overlapping and redundant steps in processes. But one of the biggest things for me was. The design review, like getting rid of the subjectiveness of it, because I do think that, as you indicated, it creates an opportunity to really create a specific character to Port Orchard. because there are certainly cities in Washington, there are cities in other places. I come from Utah, and so there are cities there, like Park City, Utah, that have a very specific character to them and a way that people identify them and make that a destination and a place they want to go. And I think doing something like that creates an opportunity for people Like you mentioned, functional purposes, but also like long term, what does that make Port Orchard? What do people think about when they think about Port Orchard and they want to come?

So I'm excited about that and hope that we go that direction.

Thanks, Tiffany.

Annette?

Paul? Not currently, no. Joe, anything?

I'm just interested in where the reduce the number of uses requiring a conditional use permit came out in the survey.

I'll have to pull up the results here. Just bear with me. But in the meantime, Ms. Mitchell, I don't want to imply that Our code is purely subjective. It really isn't. There are some areas that need improvement. So we don't have a group of people sitting around saying, I like this or I like that. So I didn't want to give that impression.

No, you didn't. I just think that we are moving in a direction, which is good.

Well, there you go, Joe.

It's on the slide. The CUP received one vote, it appears. You're muted if you're trying to.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks a lot.

All right. Thanks, Jim. On to the director's report. Is that Nick online?

All right. Good evening planning Commissioners I tried my best to think of something to report to you tonight, but I have failed so i'm just going to say hello and keep up the good work, Jim and planning team.

Well, Nick do you want to give a brief. discussion about drone delivery.

Oh, I can. I thought that that was something that you were going to speak to. Yeah, I'll talk about it briefly. The Walmart, Walmart as a company is looking at expanding their drone delivery program into Washington state. At the city council work study meeting last month, Some representatives from Walmart and their partner company that actually manufactures the drones that they use in other states came and gave a presentation to the city council. And I would encourage you to sign into the city council work-study meeting if you want to learn more about that. But they are looking at expanding drone delivery in proximity to the I-5 corridor. And so Port Orchard is one of the stores that they are looking at. Right now, our land use code is... silent on whether a drone delivery base is an allowed land use, either as a primary or accessory use. And so we really don't regulate drones at all from the land use standpoint. The FAA regulates the flight of drones. So even if we pass something locally in our land use code about the basis from which drones would be taking off, that doesn't mean that they can't fly over the city from a base elsewhere so um walmart seems to be looking at between i think six and eighteen um uh pads for individual drones so up to 18 drones could be operating in port orchard um the um payload is about five pounds uh with their larger drone and then they have a smaller drone that i think does up to three pounds And so right now they're just exploring this and the City Council has asked Jim and his team to work on some land use regulations to spell out whether these are going to be allowed or not allowed as a land use in Port Orchard. So this will be coming to the Planning Commission for consideration at some point in the coming months. And the question that, you know, we're going to work to define this drone base as an accessory use. And then in the table, we have to say whether it's permitted, conditionally permitted or not permitted in various zones. So start thinking about that. And Jim, if you would, please, can you send the link to the name of the company that actually makes the drones? They have some good informational materials for the planning commission so that they can read up on this in advance of future discussions. Will do.

Just a couple other things. I guess final processing ordinance. City Council approved that at their first meeting in May, just a few days after you all held your public hearing. And then we are transitioning. You can see from kind of a new agenda that we had tonight. We're transitioning to Civic Plus. to handle all of our agendas and packets. And so everything is going to be made available online. It's a pretty impressive system, although we're still learning it. I've asked the city clerk, Brandy Wallace, to provide the commission with some training. And so I think she plans to be here at your August meeting to kind of run you through it. So we're going to kind of slow roll this out to you all. We'll continue doing it the way we have, but at some point, likely before the end of the year, we'll fully transition to Civic+. Um, so yeah. And then as a reminder, if you've not done your land use training, um, I've sent you a few emails. Uh, some of you have completed that. Um, but if you can send Connor or I your certificate that you receive after completing that training course, that'd be appreciated. And then we can have the clerk update their records.

That's all I have. All right. Thank you, Nick and Jim. Anything else for the good of the order? All right. Last thing, looking at the setting the date of the July Planning Commission meeting. Let me look at a calendar.

I'm sorry. Can we go back to that? One more thing. Sure. On Friday, This Friday, the city's downtown grant, downtown refacing grant program, we'll start accepting applications. And so we have a web page set up for this. It provides the policy. It describes generally what properties are eligible. So it's that area between Frederick and, is it, it's not Sydney, it's, Oh, I can't remember. Just down there past Between between the the feed store. That one there. I can't remember the name. I apologize. Um, but anyway, um, the policy that was adopted by the city council is, is available online so that you can see what kind of projects would qualify. Um, so if you, or, you know, somebody who might be interested in this program, encourage you to direct them to this page. Um, the city has, um, some funds for matching, um, and it depends, uh, on the size of your project evaluation project. Um, How much the match would be so that that's all outlined on the web page and folks can can start submitting applications at the end of the week. Very cool.

Is this is this live now.

You can you can see this page. Now, Joe, it's available on the on the city website. We're just not accepting applications until the date listed there on the on the website.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so the normal date for our July meeting falls on July 4th. Or no, sorry, 7th. I jumped ahead and I was looking at August. July 7th. Is everybody... I'm good with that. Joe, does that work for you? Good. All right. So we'll stick with our normal date and it'll be July 7th. All right. Go ahead and adjourn the meeting. We'll see everybody in July.