Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. We'll go ahead and move on to the welcome and introduction. I'm Tyler McCloskey, the planning chair. I don't know why there's a weird Echo. Echo.

Are you online too?

Yep. Not on my computer.

Here?

No. I'm not. Try

now.

Alright. We'll keep going. So I'm Tyler Tyler McCloskey, the planning commission chair. We'll start down there with Wayne.

Wayne Wright, planning commissioner.

Tiffany Mitchell, planning commissioner.

Annette Stewart, planning commissioner.

Paul Fontenot, planning commissioner.

Jim Fisk, principal planner. Nick Bond, community development director.

Planning intern. Connor Dahlquist, associate planner. And on Zoom, it looks like we have Stephanie.

Yes. Stephanie Bailey, planning commission. Tyler, do you hear me? Can you guys hear me?

Stephanie, can you hear us?

Yes.

Stephanie, if you're speaking, we are not able to hear you. And we lost Stephanie.

She might be coming in. Yeah. Cool.

This is Joe. You wanna ask Joe?

And, Joe, if you can hear us.

Yeah.

Hi, guys. I can hear you, but I don't think you can hear me.

Can you guys hear me now? No. Shoot.

This one.

Alright. Can you guys hear me now?

Yes. We can hear you now, Stephanie.

Fantastic. Hello. Anyhow, reintroduction, Stephanie Bailey, planning commissioner. Thank

you, Stephanie. And we had Joe, but it looks like we lost Joe.

Okay.

Alright. Moving on to audience comments. It doesn't look like there's anybody in here. Is there anyone online? If there's anyone online that would like to speak, please raise your hand.

There are no others online.

Alright. Thank you, Connor. Moving on to the approval of the July. Has everyone had a chance to review them? Alright. Are there any, additions or corrections to the minutes? Nope. K. Is all in favor of approving the minutes as written? Aye.

Aye.

Any abstentions?

I wasn't here. I I abstain. Okay. Thank you.

Alright. So minutes pass as written. Moving on to the business items five a, the public hearing, critical areas ordinance, the POMC 20 dot one six two. Jim?

Yeah. Tonight, we'd like to provide an update on the city's work to revise our critical areas ordinance, Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.162. This work is being done as part of the 2024 comprehensive plan implementation. As you know, these updates are designed to ensure our regulations align with the Growth Management Act and reflect best available science in how we protect critical areas. We've been discussing this ordinance since last winter with presentations in December, January, and February.

The February meeting staff shared a comment matrix summarizing the public, and agency feedback. We've updated that periodically throughout this process and have provided you the up to date matrix at every meeting. In July and August, we've provided and presented a near final draft. Your feedback from that meeting, in July helped shape shape several changes. The most notable change since since July is in the section on critical areas verification.

Currently, we do not have a way to confirm whether critical areas are present on a site unless there's an active permit application. The proposed language introduces a process that allows the city to verify site conditions earlier, in a process so property owners and consultants can better assess feasibility before jumping into full project planning. Other updates in the CAO include a reorganization of code sections to improve clarity and usability, updated wetland buffer standards consistent with Department of Ecology guidance, a modernized mitigation hierarchy that supports tools like mitigation banking, replacing stream buffer with riparian management zone in line with the fish and wildlife terminology, and updated, those riparian management zone standards that meet or exceed fish and wildlife minimums to better protect, those those habitats. These changes are consistent with, state law and help implement comprehensive plan goals related to environmental protection and public safety. As a reminder, critical areas under state law include wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas.

Procedurally, the city issued a SIPA determination of nonsignificance on September 12 and routed the draft ordinance to the Department of Commerce on the same day for their required sixty day review. Tonight, we are asking the Planning Commission to open public hearing, which was properly noticed consistent with the requirements of POMC 20.25 to take public testimony. After tonight's hearing and upon a recommendation of planning commission, we anticipate bringing the final ordinance to the city council for consideration at their November 18 meeting.

Thanks, Jim. A lot of work went into this, and we'll start down with Wayne if you have any thoughts or comments.

Yep. I've went through this several times, and most recently this afternoon, I've read the whole thing one more time. I found one typo. It's on page 58 of the document you sent to us. It's 20.162O7O7F. You've got number six, StreamBank stabilization embedded in that f portion. I think that's a mistake. You'll wanna take a look at that and find where that goes or it needs to be deleted, one or the other. But, otherwise, I wanna commend staff on on going through this pretty well with our consultants. My comments are well documented.

I'm still too much red for me, guys. I'd like to see more of my comments embedded, honestly. I've been doing this for four years, but my my comments are on the record, so I'm gonna recommend to the council that they read the comment page carefully and consider this document for what it is. Thank you.

I have no additional comments other than I also appreciate the work that has gone into this. It's been a lot, and and a learning experience for me too. So I just really appreciated it, and, yeah, thank you. Annette?

No comments. I think it looks good.

Paul? Yeah. My only comments regarding just

a lot of the work that's been put out. Of course, we've seen this a couple of times now.

It's not the first time we're seeing this.

In

terms of public absence from the from the the public hearing today, I think that more goes less into maliciousness and more to either indifference or an assumption that we already had an ordinance in our code that already specified this. As Jim had mentioned that we don't currently have a vehicle by which, these, you know, evaluations can be done without a full development going on, which is a hindrance for the the environmental wing. It's also a hindrance for property owners who wanna do things. So it just seems like it's it's long overdue. So that's my approval.

Thanks, Paul. Taking it online. Stephanie, do you have any comments?

No comments. Thank you, Tyler.

Thanks, Stephanie. Joe, any comments?

No comments. Thank you.

Alright. And as we do not have anyone in here from the public, we'll open and close the public hearing portion.

Yeah. I think you have to ask, but I think, you're on the right track there.

Okay. Is there any

objection to closing public hearing? I will is there a promotion with this? No. Just okay. Well,

hang hang on. So since it's you're recommending whatever you're recommending to the city council, that needs to be in the form of a motion in a second.

I will You'll wanna close the public hearing then.

Alright. We will go ahead and

close the public hearing, and I will entertain a motion.

I motion that, city council pass the updated, critical areas ordinance.

Thank you. Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Thank you, Annette. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Passes unanimously. Moving on to business item five b, a discussion of the co living housing house bill nineteen ninety eight. Jim?

Okay. So bear with me. Tonight, we're presenting proposed amendments to Port Orchard Municipal Code in response to house bill nineteen ninety eight, which was adopted by the state legislature in March 2024. This bill requires cities like Port Orchard to allow co living housing in areas zoned for multifamily and mixed use development. Co living refers to residential developments made up of individually rented lockable sleeping units.

Each unit includes private living and sleeping space, but residents share kitchen facilities. The intent is to provide more affordable rental options for moderate to low income individuals, especially single person households, seniors, and those seeking a more social or cost effective alternative to traditional apartments. Importantly, this this housing model does not rely on public subsidies. House bill nineteen ninety eight identifies co living as a tool to address Washington's housing affordability crisis. Development standards and review procedures.

So what that means for us is that co living must be permitted on any lot that allows six or more multifamily units. We cannot impose requirements beyond state building code standards for room sizes or unit configurations. Parking requirements are limited within a half mile of major transit and no off street parking can be required elsewhere. No more than 0.25 spaces can be required per sleeping unit. Co living must be treated as a permitted use.

Conditional use permits will not apply. For density calculations, each sleeping unit counts as one quarter of a dwelling unit for sewer fees, more than one half. For example, in the R three zone, which allows six dwelling units in an apartment, A co living development could include up to 24 sleeping units. To comply with house bill nineteen ninety eight, the city must adopt, updated zoning and development regulations by the end of this year. If we don't, the state law will override any conflicting local rules.

Fortunately, any action we take to comply is protected from legal challenge under CEPA and the Growth Management Act. In your packet tonight, you'll find red line amendments to four code sections. In 2012, definitions clarifies clarifies what qualifies as co living and ensures it doesn't does not bypass multifamily development standards. 20.32 in building types is a change to the number of units in an apartment from five to six. That that was originally intended to housing bill,

h b twelve ten, middle housing units, and

co living

is allowed in multi panel, which in this bill in nineteen ninety eight six. So those two pieces of state legislation and a little bit of conflict, but the red line that we provided clarifies it for us. In the use provisions in 20.39, we've consolidated group living uses like boarding houses and dorms into a single co living category. And then we further defined co living in section twenty point three nine point one five. 20.124, we did a lot of work on this in the middle housing pool.

Units under 1,200 square feet are not required to provide any parking standards as it is. This amendment clarifies co living as a use and distinguishes that from dwelling units. These amendments meet the minimum requirements of house built 1998. They also follow the guidance provided from the Department of Commerce. They provide guardrails to prevent co living from being used to circumvent multifamily development standards.

Following tonight's review, the city's CEPA responsible official is expected to use the determination of non significance and transmit the proposed amendments to the Department of Commerce for their required review. Staff will properly notice a public hearing for your November 4 meeting where we take public testimony and ask for your recommendations to the city council. Final council actions tentatively scheduled for November 18 following conferences expedited review. So I'm happy to answer any questions or walk through the proposed changes in more detail.

Thank you, Jim. We'll start down with Wayne. Did you have any clarifying questions?

Well, I I understand what's going on, but it's you're talking about seven units, starts the whole process, and it's gotta have sleeping issues. It has a bathroom. It might have a kitchen. It might not. Lockable. How's that really different than a small hotel or motel? I'm not quite sure. I'm understanding think

These units could possibly have a kitchenette, and they and it starts at 6 dwelling six dwelling units is kind of the base standard. Alright? They don't have to have a kitchen. They can have a kitchenette. There's no kitchen involved in each one

of these units. How's it different than a motel or hoteling? Residence ends all have the same thing. They have small kitchenette, they've got a bathroom, they've got living space. They're usually about three to five minutes.

It's very it's very similar.

Yes. So you're putting this then into what zoning units what zoning areas are

they gonna get?

These will be permitted in R 3, all the mixed use districts, R 4, R 5, and commercial corridor. All of those all of those districts allow at least six multifamily units.

And parking is no different than it is now?

Parking is not required. We have in our current code, we have a similar, use. It's called congregate living facility. That requires a conditional use permit, and had some location criteria associated with it. This bill does not allow us to apply those same location criteria, but that was permitted as a use in the R 2 District. This amendment would take that out of R 2 completely, but it would be permitted in all of those districts.

And how is this similar to adult care facilities? Many adult care facilities have small apartments with kitchenettes for adults.

Sure. Yeah.

No. That's already in here, so now we've got two things that are kinda similar.

Kind of, except that congregate care facility. I believe the version that you have has a definition of that, and that definition comes from the standard industrial classification. And that really intends to have, on-site service and care, you know, nursing facilities and things like that. Co living is is not that. They are independent living quarters.

Okay. Thanks.

Tiffany, any questions?

So just to go off the the question that we just had on congregate living facilities. When I was going through it, and I just searched it to make sure I saw it. Congregate living facilities is redlined out. So are we we're no longer like, you said we consolidated all of this. Right? Or

So in twenty point three nine, we've moved some of those co living uses like a dorm

Yeah.

And move that into coliving into a new section in twenty point three nine point one one five. In twenty point twelve and, you may actually have a an an out of date version now that I'm thinking about it. We've had discussion with legal on this. In 2012, congregate living facilities as defined, the last half of that definition is intended to be struck. So it's still defined except those location criteria are taken out.

K? Congregate care facility, that is in in twenty point one ten, which is group living. We've included a definition in 2012 to further clarify that it that it's like a nursing home facility or something like that.

The only other thing is I I echo Wayne's concern over parking, but that's just because I think we live in a world and a community of people that rely on their cars for transportation. That said, as you mentioned earlier, and and I believe it says it in here too that we can't impose requirements that are stronger than the state law. If we couldn't put in those parking requirements even if we wanted to, correct?

Well, and and it would also conflict with what the the planning commission recommended for the council for approval, this summer. So those two things would conflict. But, yes, you're right. We we cannot impose greater standards.

Yep.

It's Just a follow-up on that, too. This is Wainwright again. Congregate care living is not defined in the definitions. Congregate living facilities in our file is struck completely.

So

we need to be sure the definitions of these things are properly in here so we understand what's going on.

So what I will do, immediately following this, or maybe tomorrow, I'll send you all the current red line. I apologize. This packet went out before we we got some feedback from legal. I'll provide that to you well in advance of a hearing in November. I think that'll clarify a lot of it for you. But if you have any questions about it, you can call me and we can discuss it. I don't have a problem with that.

Thanks. Thank you.

Annette, did you have any questions?

Not really. Just some comments. I agree with, like, what is the difference between senior living or apartments or hotels, but I'm good. Yeah.

It just doesn't make any sense. Western. Is

that kinda like what's gone up up here?

At at the Amici House at DeKalb And Harrison, I think?

Yeah. Is that kind of what this is?

That's correct.

Okay.

In fact, the Department of Commerce guidance actually has a photograph of that property as an example of co living.

Okay.

Paul, any questions? Yeah. Sort of,

I guess, off of other commissioners' comments. It seems to me this is an awful lot like mostly housing for people who are low income or and or this is their first rentals. So for me, had experience with that when I was in my undergrad program. I could have stayed in a dorm, would have provided a lot of what this had, but it would have been $13,000 every three months and I didn't have that. So instead, I had the opportunity to rent out a room and a house, was which around $500 a month, which was much more agreeable.

And without that opportunity, I would not have been able to, basically rent anywhere. And so being able to offer that, especially for for kids who maybe are are getting up on their feet, you know, 18, 19 year olds who don't have that kind of income yet. In terms of being able to offer parking spaces to them, again, taking from my own experience as as as a young college student, I had no car because I couldn't afford housing, let alone a car. So being able to offer that to those kinds of people, I think that it is true, what Tiffany said, of we kinda live in a community that unfortunately, kind of forces people to own a car and forces people to occupy a car. But the I the the fact of the matter also is that there are many portaitred residents who don't drive.

And, if we are leaving out these kinds of options of housing and leaving out these kinds of options of of, being able to access those sort of things, then we're leaving out those people as well. So, in terms of this legislation, obviously, the state, deemed it, necessary, and I think it's, just one more measure to kind of allow, more opportunities for housing with trying to deal with the housing crisis that the Pacific Northwest in general is dealing with right now, I think, is very important. Obviously, I frankly don't think it really hurts anybody either way. In terms of the differences between this kind of housing and dorms or hotels or things like that, I know that hotels and motels are significantly more expensive, on average than a lot of these co living spaces. But they offer also a lot of opportunity if people have that space and maybe they're not using it for one reason or another, to be able to rent that out and maybe earn supplemental income.

So in that in that vein, it's kind of a win win for a lot of people. So my thoughts on it.

Thanks. Online, Stephanie, do you have any questions?

No questions at this time. I kind of wanted to learn a little more about it before I lend any comments.

Alright. Thank you, Stephanie.

Thank you.

Joe, any any questions or comments?

I'll just comment that I live in the neighborhood where a Nietzsche house is, and I think it was it it I think our neighborhood benefited from the refurbishment of a previously dormant building and the establishment of these units, And I think it's gone well. I also think the parking around that facility has been managed well in addition. So I'm I'm enthusiastic.

Thank you, Joe. Alright. So, Jim, you will send out the updated version, and then we will hear this, for the public hearing in November?

Yes. I'm sending it right now.

Perfect. Thank you. Alright. So moving on to five c, the director's report. Nick? Yeah.

I just have two announcements tonight. At our November meeting, the public works department is going to be in attendance, and they're going to be here talking about tree canopy. And, the city under our NPDES permit, that's National Pollution Discharge Elimination, CS stands for system.

Thank you.

We have a permit that gets renewed every five years from the feds that allows us to discharge our storm water into federal receiving waters. And so one of the conditions of that new permit is that we establish goals and policies to improve tree canopy within the city. And so they're going to, start laying the groundwork for some eventual code revisions, will include an updated citywide tree canopy ordinance. And so, look forward to that presentation in November. The other thing I wanted to share with the Planning Commission is that you probably all have heard, and if not, this will be, news to you, but, Kitsap Bank has, decided to merge with Heritage Bank out of Olympia.

And, unfortunately, that means that the downtown bank headquarters is no longer needed as office space. And so we we have been meeting with Kitsap Bank, and we're gonna be meeting with the new managers that will be taking over from Heritage Bank. And we are being assured that Kitsap Bank intends to be a good steward of the downtown. They want to find the right person to take over their project, whether it be office or whether they convert that building to be more of like a boutique hotel or a mixed use building with residential over retail. They do want to see a project go forward, and they're they're going to look for the right person to help, accomplish that.

So we are, we were a little shocked when we heard the news last week, but we are, more optimistic after meeting with Kitab Bank that they intend to to do the right thing for Port Orchard and and hopefully will give us a good project. So I'll I'll keep you updated if I I hear anything more on our our downtown.

Hey, Nick. Questions. How are you?

Wasn't that where the community center was gonna go, the Kitsap facility?

No. Kitsap Bank was going to build a new headquarters next to the community center where their drive through is. Uh-huh. And so they had proposed a three story office building that was going to be one of the the three legs of our three legged stool of redevelopment, which is now down to one leg, which is the community event center. We're also hopeful that the Southern Side Of Bay Street will redevelop as part of that. We always expected that to come last, but now we have a hole to fill with the Kitsap Bank headquarters not

being So this move doesn't affect the community center?

Does not affect the community center.

No. Thank you.

So a quick clarification on that. So the right now, Kitsap Bank is suggesting that they're looking for somebody to take over the construction of that building and trying to get to something else, or what is that?

Yeah. They're you know, they've they've indicated to the mayor and I that, they're they are seeking individuals who would potentially develop, one or both of their sites, and take ownership of them and and assume the role in the there are pending permits right now. There's a shoreline permit that's been issued. And so they would like to sell those entitlements to somebody who's going to do the right thing, but only if they are going to develop in a timely manner and they aren't just looking to sit on the property is what we're being told. On on the part the paved parking lot here is owned by the bank, and it could stay under bank ownership.

It could be sold. It could be, it could provide parking for whatever develops, across the street. We we don't know yet.

We got one other of a public works question, I guess. Now that that IV has been being invasive, are they gonna at least start taking it out? Or what if like, the boulevard, for example. There is so much of that growing up the trees. And will that be removed?

I I have heard nothing about Ivy from public works, but you'd have to ask them. Maybe you can ask them at next month's meeting.

Fifteen months.

And it looked like Stephanie had a question online.

Ashley, Wayne asked it. Thank you.

Alright. Any other questions, comments for the good of the order? Alright. Hearing none, we will go ahead and adjourn the meeting. We will meet next on November 4. Thanks, everybody.

Take care, guys. Bye.

Thanks, folks. Bye bye.