04/16/2024 - Work Study - PacketT.Q9RCHARD.
Meeting Location: Contact us:
Council Chambers, 311 Floor Phone (360) 876-4407
216 Prospect Street citvhall@portorchardwa.gov
Port Orchard, WA 98366 www.portorchardwa.gov
City of Port Orchard City Council
Work Study Session Agenda
April 16, 2024
6:30 p.m.
Pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW, the City Council is conducting its public meeting in a hybrid
format with options for in -person attendance in the Council Chambers at City Hall or remote viewing and participation via
Zoom (link below). The meeting is streamed live on the City's YouTube channel, click here.
Remote access
Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/i/82651589851
Zoom Meeting ID: 826 5158 9851
Zoom Call -In: 1.253.215.8782
Guiding Principles
• Are we raising the bar?
• Are we honoring the past, but not living in the past?
• Are we building connections with outside partners?
• Is the decision -making process positively impacting diversity, equity, and inclusion?
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
2. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. POMC 5.60 Fireworks (Bond) Page 3
Estimated Time: 25 minutes
B. Storm Drainage Rate and Capital Facility Charges (Archer) Page 33
Estimated Time: 15 minutes
C. Proposed 2024 Zoning Map (Bond) Page 51
Estimated Time: 20 minutes
D. Middle Housing Options -Implementation of WA State Department of Commerce Middle Housing
Grant (Bond) Page 60
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
3. CITY COUNCIL GOOD OF THE ORDER
4. ADJOURNMENT
ADA Requirements: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need accommodations to
participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (360) 876-4407. Notification at least
48 hours in advance of meeting will enable the City to make arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.
REMINDER: Please silence all electronic devices while City Council is in session.
To subscribe to our general news & public notices click the link: https://portorchardwa.gov/subscribe
Robert (Rob) Putaansuu
Mayor
Administrative Official
Eric Warden
Councilmember Position 4
Land Use Committee
Utilities/Sewer Advisory Committee
KRCC-alt
Brandy Wallace, MMC, CPRO
City Clerk
Matt Brown
Police Chief
Mark Trenary
Councilmember Position 1
Finance Committee, Chair
Transportation Committee
KRCC
PSRC-alt
Heidi Fenton
Councilmember Position 5
Utilities/Sewer Advisory Committee
E/D & Tourism Committee
Transportation Committee
Debbie Lund, CEBS SPHR SHRM-SCP
Human Resources Director
Nicholas Bond, AICP
Community Development Director
Jay Rosapepe
Councilmember Position 2
Utilities/Sewer Advisory Committee, Chair
Land Use Committee, Chair
KEDA-alt
Fred Chang
Councilmember Position 6
(Mayor Pro-Tempore)
E/D & Tourism Committee
Kitsap Community Resources
Finance Committee
Noah Crocker, M.B.A.
Finance Director
Denis Ryan, CPWP-M, CPRP
Public Works Director
Scott Diener
Councilmember Position 3
Land Use Committee
Transportation Committee
Kitsap Public Health District
John Morrissey
Councilmember Position At -Large
Finance Committee
E/D & Tourism Committee
Lodging Tax, Chair
Kitsap Economic Development Alliance
PSRC EDD-alt
Tim Drury
Municipal Court Judge
April 16, 2024, Work Study Session Agenda Page 2 of 2
Back to Agenda
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366
citvhall&portorchardwa.gov 1 (360) 876-4407
www.portorchardwa.gov
Work Study Session Executive Summary
Issue Title.: 2A POMC 5.60 Fireworks
Time Required: 25 Minutes
Action Requested:
ORCHARD.
Meeting Date: April 16, 2024
Attendees: Nick Bond
Discussion on whether to revisit the proposed 2022 Ordinance to restrict
firework use and sales within city limits.
Issue: The Land Use Committee has recommended that the City Council discuss the rules and regulations
concerning the sale and use of fireworks under POMC 5.60. In 2022, the City Council considered, but did
not adopt an ordinance that would ban the sale and use of fireworks in Port Orchard. The existing code
and the 2022 proposed ordinance are attached for review and discussion.
Background: Currently the city allows for fireworks sales and private use of approved fireworks in the city
under Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) Section 5.60. Under the existing code, fireworks sales are
permitted the Commercial Heavy (CH) and Industrial Flex (IF) zones and fireworks may be discharged
within the city limits in accordance with POMC 5.60.
The proposed 2022 ordinance would have banned the sale, possession, use, and discharge of fireworks
within the city, but would not have changed the rules concerning public fireworks displays which would
have continued to be allowed. As part of considering the 2022 ordinance, the City Council conducted
public outreach and received public comments in a public hearing. The comments and survey results from
2022 are attached to this staff report.
Alternative: Request that the proposed 2022 ordinance be brought back for consideration at a future
meeting, conduct additional public outreach, proposed alternative code changes, do nothing.
Recommendation: Land Use Committee recommends that the City Council discuss the draft fireworks
ordinance proposed in 2022 and review the previous public comments received on the issue and provide
direction to staff.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Attachments: POMC 5.60, The previous 2022 ordinance is attached to accompany this staff report,
previously reviewed public comments, 2022 Survey Results.
Page 3 of 86
Back to Agenda
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO
FIREWORKS; AMENDING CHAPTER 5.60 OF THE PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL
CODE ("POMC"), AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the State of Washington regulates the sale, discharge, and display of fireworks
under Chapter 70.77 RCW; and
WHEREAS, for many years the City and its elected officials have received numerous
complaints regarding the discharge of both legal and illegal fireworks; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that prohibiting fireworks, with a limited exception
for large-scale display shows subject to a City -issued permit, would enhance the health, safety,
and welfare of the public; and
[Insert additional findings once survey is complete]
WHEREAS, chapter 70.77 RCW authorizes cities to adopt fireworks ordinances that are more
restrictive than state law, but such ordinances may only become effective one year after their
adoption; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Port Orchard Municipal Code 5.60.010 is hereby amended to read as follows
5.60.010 ReTraa;}tea-fit&tom I+sense requ Ppe Sales, possession, use, and
discharge of fireworks unlawful.
It is unlawful for any-4e person, firm or corporation s4A to import, manufacture, transport
(except as a public carrier delivering to a licensee), possess, store, sell or offer to sell at retail or
wholesale or discharge fireworks inside the city limits of the city of Port Orchard ; provided, that
this prohibition shall not apply to duly authorized public displays. Any item of fireworks which
does not meet the State of Washington Fire Marshal's approval in conformity with RCW Chapter
70.77, as amended shall be deemed dangerous and is prohibited by this chapter. �•i*+w thAl cfirsc
a-cter+it sfils( 90 peFeapayable-i ^Ee.
SECTION 2. Port Orchard Municipal Code 5.60.015 is hereby amended to read as follows
Page 4 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 5
5.60.015 Public display of fireworks mac; permits required — Forms and
deadlines.
(1) It is unlawful for any person to hold, conduct, or engage in any public display of
fireworks within the city without first having obtained and being the holder of a valid permit
under the arovisions of this chanter.
{� 2) Applications for permits required by this chapter shall be submitted in such form
and detail as prescribed by the ;fit 4p a4th 4y. A separate application shall be required for
each site and activity. Applications shall include, at a minimum:
(a) The application fee;
(b) Copy of appropriate state licenses;
(c) A site or discharge plan;
(d) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the applicant(s) and responsible
party(ies); and
(e) When applicable, a description of the proposed activity detailing how it satisfies the
conditions set forth under POMC 5.60.020.
Q4 3) Permit applications shall be received by the DCD permit center for review by the
CAY4 +",,, +„
�b# no later than 4:30 p.m. at least 40 business days prior to the date of an intended
public display; and
{� () Pursuant to RCW 70.77.280, the city council hereby designates the Director of the
Department of Community Development r."e^f ^f t-he f,r^ ,,.+"^.;+., or his or her designee as the
person with the authority to grant or deny permits that are sought pursuant to this chapter.
{4} Permits issued pursuant to this chapter are nontransferable.
SECTION 3. Port Orchard Municipal Code 5.60.020 is hereby amended to read as follows
5.60.020 Conditions for s-,'es- Of f'6r^•AFA-rkg- -a^d public disolav — Permit issuance.
Page 5 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No.
Page 3 of 5
A permit for the ^f fi.re-.ve '-s ^F fer public display of fireworks shall be issued only
upon the following terms and conditions:
(1) The applicant shall have a valid and subsisting license issued by the state of
Washington authorizing the holder thereof to engage in the fireworks business, a copy of which
shall be filed with the DCD permit center.
(2) FeF sales ef fiFewed(s, the applicant shall obtain a business license fFem the eity.
W{� The applicant shall have and keep in full force and effect a policy of insurance
approved by the city attorney saving the city harmless for any acts of the licensee in the following
amounts: $500,000 or more for injury to any one person in one accident or occurrence,
$1,000,000 for injury to more than one person for any one accident or occurrence, $300,000 for
injury to property in any one accident or occurrence. Proof of insurance coverage shall be
included with the application for a permit and shall be filed with the DCD permit center.
(3){� Public displays of fireworks shall comply with the provisions of RCW 70.77.2804R
SECTION 4. New Section 5.60.025 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby enacted
to read as follows
5.60.025 Permit Fees.
The annual fee for a "public display" permit for the public display of fireworks shall be
$100, payable in advance.
SECTION 5. Port Orchard Municipal Code 5.60.030 is hereby repealed.
SECTION 6. Port Orchard Municipal Code 5.60.040 is hereby repealed.
SECTION 7. Port Orchard Municipal Code 5.60.050 is hereby repealed.
Page 6 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No.
Page 4 of 5
SECTION & Port Orchard Municipal Code 5.60.055 is hereby amended to read as follows
5.60.055 Prohibition due to extreme fire danger.
The mayor, after consulting with at#e fire authority, and other officials as may be deemed
appropriate, may prohibit the discharge of all fireworks during periods of extreme fire danger. IR
r,..... "- ..__.....a, ......_.r._ ._,
Such
emergency limitations or prohibitions shall be temporary and the reasons necessitating the
emergency limitations or prohibitions shall be clearly defined in the resolution.
SECTION 9. Ratification. All acts taken pursuant to the authority of this Ordinance but
prior to its effective date are hereby ratified.
SECTION 10. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
SECTION 11. Savings Clause. Those portions of Chapter 5.60 of the Port Orchard
Municipal Code which are repealed by this ordinance shall remain in force and effect until the
effective date of this ordinance. Such repeals shall not be construed as affecting any existing
right acquired under the laws repealed, nor as affecting any proceeding instituted thereunder,
nor any rule, regulation or order promulgated thereunder.
SECTION 12. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect twelve (12)
months after posting and publication as required by law. A summary of this Ordinance may be
published in lieu of the entire ordinance, as authorized by State Law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and
attested by the City Clerk in authentication of such passage this _ day of 2024.
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brandy Wallace, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: SPONSORED BY:
Page 7 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No.
Page 5 of 5
Charlotte A. Archer, City Attorney Scott Diener, Councilmember
Page 8 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance Relating to Fireworks — Redline of Existing Code
5.60.010 Ren,,,t-.state I+se+-se Keged�� Sales, possession, use, and
discharge of fireworks unlawful.
It is unlawful for any -No person, firm or corporation s4A to import, manufacture, transport
(except as a public carrier delivering to a licensee), possess, store, sell or offer to sell at retail or
wholesale or discharge fireworks inside the city limits of the city of Port Orchard ; provided, that
this prohibition shall not apply to duly authorized public displays. Any item of fireworks which
does not meet the State of Washington Fire Marshal's approval in conformity with RCW Chapter
70.77, as amended shall be deemed dangerous and is prohibited by this chapter. AA+"^„+ f;rSt
a-citypeFmit shams $100.00-peF yeaF payable-i^advance.
5.60.015 Public display of fireworks mks permits required — Forms and
deadlines.
(1) It is unlawful for any person to hold, conduct, or engage in any public display of
fireworks within the city without first having obtained and being the holder of a valid permit
under the provisions of this chapter.
{� 2) Applications for permits required by this chapter shall be submitted in such form
and detail as prescribed by the ;fit 4p a4th^4y. A separate application shall be required for
each site and activity. Applications shall include, at a minimum:
(a) The application fee;
(b) Copy of appropriate state licenses;
(c) A site or discharge plan;
(d) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the applicant(s) and responsible
party(ies); and
(e) When applicable, a description of the proposed activity detailing how it satisfies the
conditions set forth under POMC 5.60.020.
Q4 3) Permit applications shall be received by the DCD permit center for review by the
Page 9 of 86
Back to Agenda
-Pie no later than 4:30 p.m. at least 40 business days prior to the date of an intended
public display; and
�} (4) Pursuant to RCW 70.77.280, the city council hereby designates the Director of the
Department of Community Development P-h;,,f f+h fir +herit„ or his or her designee as the
person with the authority to grant or deny permits that are sought pursuant to this chapter.
�44 Permits issued pursuant to this chapter are nontransferable.
5.60.020 Conditions for public disalav — Permit issuance.
A permit for the �Sa'^ .,f f;,e-,.ved(s eF fer public display of fireworks shall be issued only
upon the following terms and conditions:
(1) The applicant shall have a valid and subsisting license issued by the state of
Washington authorizing the holder thereof to engage in the fireworks business, a copy of which
shall be filed with the DCD permit center.
M{� The applicant shall have and keep in full force and effect a policy of insurance
approved by the city attorney saving the city harmless for any acts of the licensee in the following
amounts: $500,000 or more for injury to any one person in one accident or occurrence,
$1,000,000 for injury to more than one person for any one accident or occurrence, $300,000 for
injury to property in any one accident or occurrence. Proof of insurance coverage shall be
included with the application for a permit and shall be filed with the DCD permit center.
the zeRiRgFdiRaRe s f the eit
y.
(3){� Public displays of fireworks shall comply with the provisions of RCW 70.77.2804R
shall be filed vVith the PCD n mit Rt r
Page 10 of 86
Back to Agenda
5.60.055 Prohibition due to extreme fire danger.
The mayor, after consulting with at#e fire authority, and other officials as may be deemed
appropriate, may prohibit the discharge of all fireworks during periods of extreme fire danger. IR
Such
emergency limitations or prohibitions shall be temporary and the reasons necessitating the
emergency limitations or prohibitions shall be clearly defined in the resolution.
Page 11 of 86
Back to Agenda
Fireworks Survey Results
Page 12 of 86
Back to Agenda
The City received 367
completed survey
responses.
• An additional 186
people started the
survey but failed to
complete the survey.
• 84% of completed
responses were
completed by City
residents.
Percentage of Survey
Respondents Who Live in
the City
■ City Residents
■ Non City Residents
Page 13 of 86
Back to Agenda
69% of respondents
supported a ban on
fireworks.
• 69% of residents
supported a ban on
fireworks.
Percentage Support for
Fireworks Ban Among
Respondents And
Residents Who Completed
Survey
■ Percent of People
Who Support
Banning Fireworks
■ Percent of People
Who Do Not Support
Banning Fireworks
Page 14 of 86
Back to Agenda
• Of the respondents
who completed the
survey, a variety of
reasons were provided
in support of a ban on
fireworks.
• Fire danger, noise, and
impacts on pets were
the top reasons given.
Reasons for Supporting a
Ban on Fireworks from
People Who Completed
Survey and Indicated
Support for a Ban
RISK OF INJURY
IMPACTS ON PEOPLE (PTSD,
ETC.)
IMPACTS ON PETS
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY
LITTER
NOISE
SMOKE
WATER POLLUTION
FIRE DANGER
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Page 15 of 86
Back to Agenda
• Of the respondents
who are residents and
completed the survey, a
variety of reasons were
provided in support of a
ban on fireworks.
• Fire danger, noise, and
impacts on pets were
the top reasons given.
Reasons Among Residents
Who Completed the
Survey for Supporting a
Ban on Fireworks
RISK OF INJURY
IMPACTS ON PEOPLE (PTSD,
ETC.)
IMPACTS ON PETS
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY
LITTER
NOISE
SMOKE
WATER POLLUTION
FIRE DANGER
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Page 16 of 86
Back to Agenda
From:
cory holmberg
To:
Planning Mailbox
Subject:
Fireworks
Date:
Thursday, March 10, 2022 11:06:53 AM
Good morning/ afternoon/ evening,
The Banning of fireworks inside Port Orchard City limits
To whom it may concern on this topic.
Let's think and be logical and not think on this topic emotionally.
Limiting freedoms...
Is this something you, the City of Port Orchard really want to do? Something you want to do during a
pandemic where people are already stressed, wanting more things to do? Do you really want to incite a ban
on fireworks and not have it go through a vote of the people? (We have seen the public outrage on the tab
fee ordinance, people voted and the state did the opposite.)
Public Safety...
Instead of banning fireworks in the City of Port Orchard, the city should put out public safety flyers and or
have the stands put out flyers when selling to customers on how to do fireworks safely. The state has a
firework safety program through the WSP. Maybe you could ask them how they do it. I have attended a
meeting with the guy they have who is in charge of their firework safety program. He is very
knowledgeable and would say that he too would be against a ban.
Provided below is a link to one of the WSP informational pages on safety.
https://www.wsp.wa. gov/202l /07/O 1 /fireworks -safety -tips -for -independence -day -celebrations/
I understand that some years are dryer then others. And those years you could use the emergency temporary
ban. But years where it's not an issue. I do not see why this should be enacted.
Sending revenue to other towns/cities...
Let's say you ban fireworks in Port Orchard. You, the City of Port Orchard are only hurting yourselves and
its local businesses. You are now going to send all of those potential firework customers to other
towns/city's or the tribe to buy there fireworks. I would say most of these people are going to not just go
buy fireworks when they are going out to buy them in a different town. They will buy lunch or dinner out
(loss of revenue), they may do there grocery shopping in that town for convince while buying there
fireworks elsewhere (loss of revenue). Is the city really ok with losing revenue from the impact of banning
fireworks in the city of Port Orchard? Yes it's only for a week, but that is a week of potential losses for the
city of Port Orchard to take. Banning fireworks will cause a domino effect. Again, this will only hurt the
City of Port Orchard and its businesses due to revenue losses.
Local groups and teams...
If you do ban them you are hurting local citizens. There are local citizens who go out on a limb to pre
purchase these fireworks to sell to the community. You would be sticking them with a huge amount of debt
Page 17 of 86
Back to Agenda
by doing this. Your stands like TNT, these stands are all ran by local youth groups to fundraise for their
groups and teams. A portion of their proceeds go towards these groups to help raise funds for stuff like new
gear, or fuel, etc. Stuff that they normally could not afford to do if they did not have this extra income. It is
one of the quickest and easiest ways for these groups to raise money for their organization. Banning
fireworks would be detrimental to these local groups.
They're going to do it anyways whether you ban the sale and discharge or not.
No matter if you ban them or not, people are going to go buy there fireworks and discharge them. You do
not have a police force large enough to even police this. The state of WA has made sure of that. All that
banning fireworks will do is piss off more and more people. The state is already trying to pass through new
laws and or mandates restricting people's freedoms. Do you want to be a local government who does the
same?
Here is an example for you. This is the state of California, in Los Angeles, where fireworks are also banned.
ht1ps://youtu.be/tIvdcdogC6k
Here is another example for those of you who have kids, this will make sense.
Your kid asks you (Mom) can I have a cookie. Mom says no. what does the kid do in return? Do they listen
to what Mom said? Probably not, what do they actually do? They go ask dad if they can have a cookie. Dad
being dad, of course you can have a cookie.
See where I'm going with this? Same concept applies to adults. You tell them no you can't do that, they are
going to do the opposite of what you say. Especially when it comes to one of their freedoms.
I believe if you ban fireworks you will be receiving the inverse reaction to what you want. You are going to
make the dude who goes to the stand to buy 200$ worth want to go buy 500$ now. Just out of spite because
you decided to take away one of their freedoms. When you have stands in your local community you also
have more control over what fireworks come into your town. If you ban them, people are still going to do it,
most likely even more people, and those people are going to spend even more money buying them. Now
they will go to a different town to buy them or even the tribe (which carries some of the illegal fireworks in
our state.) By allowing fireworks to be sold in our town you are also limiting the amount of people who go
to the tribe to buy these fireworks. Most people don't want to be bothered to go from Port Orchard all the
way to Tacoma or Suquamish to buy regular fireworks, but if you ban the sale of them in Port Orchard that
feeling of not wanting to travel to those places might just happen.
If you do for some reason decide to stick with the banning of consumer fireworks in Port Orchard, then I
would highly suggest making your 4th of julyshow on the waterfront a much bigger and extravagant show.
The city will need to help supplement this show. People want to see a good show. Have a good time. Be
with friends. By limiting yet another freedom that only happens once a year you are stripping away yet
another part of the community. A vast majority of our citizens love fireworks. Not all of them are ones to
set them off but most like to see them safely go off in the night sky and celebrate our nation's independence.
I sincerely hope that you really hear the community and get them involved on this topic not just barely put
out any effort into notifying the community over it. Let's get people involved and have the end result be
what's best for the majority of its citizens not the few.
Thank you for hearing me out,
Cory
Page 18 of 86
Back to Agenda
From:
Rob Putaansuu
To:
Nick Bond
Cc:
Brandy Wallace
Subject:
FW: Fireworks Survey
Date:
Sunday, March 13, 2022 10:15:16 AM
Nick, I believe you're collecting the comments for our public process? If not let me know.
Rob Putaansuu
City of Port Orchard Mayor
Please be aware that e-mails which pertain to City business may be considered public records and may be
subject to public disclosure laws. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please
notify the sender via e-mail or telephone at 36o.876.4407•
From: M Neiner <mneiner@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 7:36 PM
To: Rob Putaansuu <rputaansuu@cityofportorchard.us>
Subject: Fireworks Survey
Dear Mayor,
I recently took the survey.
The first question is problematic
Do I support the City banning or restricting fireworks in the City?
The City already restricts / Bans the sale and use of fireworks to certain days and times of the year. I
support those current City ordinances. So I answered Yes.
This bounced me to a second question which I answered and the survey was over.
The survey never got to my concerns nor did it really address the new Total Ban.
Honestly, I am not opposed to a new Ban on sales and use. My concern is the impact on non
profits.
It's hard enough to raise money. Car washes , a once rather uncomplicated event, has evolved due
to environmental concerns. Not worth the effort. I think a robust discussion and understanding of
the impact to fund raising should be had before the city does the ban. If the City taketh away, what
are they doing to mitigate the impact.
Page 19 of 86
Back to Agenda
I recommend you take a look at that first survey question. It is posed as if the City doesn't restrict
fireworks already.
Respectfully
Mike Neiner
PORT ORCHARD.
Page 20 of 86
Back to Agenda
From: MARK BEECHER
To: Planning Mailbox; Shawn Cucciardi; Jay Rosag_epe; Scott Diener; John Clauson; Cindy Lucarelli; Fred Chang;
Mark Trenary
Subject: Comments for Public Hearing on Fireworks Ordinance
Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 6:25:07 PM
To Port Orchard City Council,
I am writing regarding the upcoming city council meeting discussion about revisions to
Port Orchard Municipal Code Section 5.60. 1 would like to voice opposition to any
more restrictive laws regarding the sale and use of consumer fireworks. While I do not
currently live within Port Orchard City Limits, I frequent the area, and purchase my
fireworks from licensed retailers that operate within and around Port Orchard.
I support sensible and regulated use of all consumer fireworks. Restricting the sale
and/or use of consumer fireworks will drive retailers out of City limits, into areas of
Unincorporated Kitsap County or surrounding cities. This will have an obvious impact
on seasonal employment, potential tax revenue, as well as permit fees. Additionally, a
majority of the fireworks retailers are operated for non -profits and charity
organizations for fundraising.
According to WSP State Fire Marshall's Office (latest data available):
Approximately 1.5% of fires in our region (Region 1) over five years were caused by
explosives and fireworks (104 out of 6,627 total fires). This is less that the statewide
average (approximately 2.4%). This category includes non -fireworks explosive
devices, further reducing the number of firework -only fires.
Over 11 % of the injuries last year were from illegal fireworks (27 of 237 total injuries).
There was a 2.7% decrease of fireworks -related incidents over the last year, and a
12% decrease in fireworks related injuries.
Kitsap county only accounted for 30 of the 537 fireworks related incidents from last
year (9 fires and 21 injuries, less than 6% of the statewide total).
This data reflects that the use of fireworks is generally safe, with a trend towards less
injuries and fires that previous years. This is despite the fact that prior to the last year
data was available, there were partial bans across much of our region due to
dry/hazardous conditions. This shows that responsible and safe fireworks use is
obtainable without restricting the sale or use of consumer fireworks.
John Adam's suggested, of celebrating our nations independence, that "It ought to be
commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God
Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games,
Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the
other from this Time forward forever more." I support the sentiment of his writing. I
would encourage enforcement of the current laws, and focusing on educating the
public on safe fireworks use before any outright bans or restrictions were put into
place.
I would request that you not vote to make any existing laws regarding the sale and
Page 21 of 86
Back to Agenda
use of consumer fireworks more restrictive than what the state currently allows.
Respectfully,
Mark Beecher
Page 22 of 86
Back to Agenda
From: Jenine Floyd
To: Council Members
Cc: Rob Putaansuu; Nick Bond
Subject: FW: Fireworks public comment for City Council meeting *DO NOT REPLY TO ALL*
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:31:30 AM
Good morning,
Please see below email regarding fireworks.
Jenine Floyd, CMC I Deputy City Clerk
City of Port Orchard 1 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
360.876.7024 1 www.cityofportorchard.us I Click here to visit our Facebook page
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Please be aware that e-mails which pertain to City business may be considered public records and may be subject to
public disclosure laws. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender via
e-mail or telephone at 360.876.7024.
From: artistrybyelissa@wavecable.com <artistrybyelissa@wavecable.com>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 12:08 PM
To: CityClerk Mailbox <CityClerk@cityofportorchard.us>
Subject: Fireworks public comment for City Council meeting
To Whom It May Concern,
We strongly support the elimination of residential fireworks. It has been a constant concern in our
neighborhood for decades.
Fire hazard is of greatest concern. Continued dryness at the time of the 4th is a constant worry.
Scenes of what has happened in other neighborhoods due to errant fireworks are haunting. Not
only is it dangerous, but comes with unassignable liability and puts the burden of restoration on
innocent parties.
Enforcement is practically impossible under the current ordinances and over taxes our systems put
into place to protect the public. The war zone like atmosphere in our neighborhood is a prime
example of this.
Debris clean up is expensive for the City, the Port and Kitsap Transit. The residual is also hugely
annoying for property owners and pet walkers. Case in point: 2 grocery bags of debris were
Page 23 of 86
Back to Agenda
collected from our yard alone as a result of fireworks being set off at the adjoining intersection of
our home. We do not engage in fire work usage, so none of it was due to our celebration.
The frequent misuse of fireworks combined with alcohol consumption increases the potential for
injury to people and property. The stress to combat veterans and pets is uncompassionate and
offers them little comfort in the face of random explosions that are unpredictable. Limiting
fireworks to a public display could insure those suffering from PTSD would provide an opportunity to
prepare accordingly for a predictable duration of explosion activity.
The present use of fireworks, both legal and not, has turned our neighborhood into a chaotic mess
that has deleted our tradition of a friends and family parade down our street. It is no longer safe to
venture out like we used to. We feel like prisoners in our own home. Even our guests have a
difficult time trying to watch the public display from our own yard as those who are lighting off
fireworks are having their own unleashed celebration in the street.
We really feel celebrating our country's birth should have more respect for all that it is and should
not endanger people and property. The paramount concern is fire. Putting our communities at risk
during these arid times seems incredibly reckless, stressful and a matter of keeping one's fingers
crossed in hopes that nothing happens. The time for change has come, as many other cities have
recognized.
Thank you so very much for addressing changes to our current policies. It is our hope this could
bring a sense of joy and celebration back into our 4th of July celebration.
Sincerely,
Nick and Elissa Whittleton
Page 24 of 86
Back to Agenda
From: davepyro(cbwavecable.com
To: Planning Mailbox; Shawn Cucciardi; Jay Rosaoeoe; Scott Diener; John Clauson; Cindy Lucarelli; Fred Chang;
Mark Trenary
Cc: Dave Douglas; melchase(c live.com; Lisa Stone
Subject: My input for City of Port Orchard fireworks restriction
Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 4:33:55 PM
Attachments: PO Ban input from Dave Douglas.docx
All,
Please find attached my brief input for the city fireworks measure.
I have provided just the highlights in order to keep it brief.
Please read the entire file, and try to realize the full impact before you
vote on this restriction.
Please understand there are a number of points I have not included in
order to be brief.
will very much welcome any discussion of the numbers or points I have
included.
Please call me if you wish to discuss this measure. I am usually
available between 10:00 am and 11:00 pm every day.
I would also like to hear from any of the addressees that have shopped
at either of my fireworks stands.
How were you treated, and do you have any suggestions to make?
Thank -you for your due diligence and your honest consideration,
Dave Douglas
Pyro Dave's Fireworks
cell 360-621-7719
Page 25 of 86
Back to Agenda
March 21,2022
To whom it may concern,
I wish to provide input for due consideration for the public input into the Port Orchard city council
measure to ban consumer fireworks within the city limits.
FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE CITY IF MEASURE IS PASSED:
• There were 13 permitted stands in 2019; 10 permitted stands in 2020; and 9 permitted stands
in 2021 within the Port Orchard city limits.
• In the years from 2019 to 2021 1 paid a total of $400.00 to the city for local stand permits.
• In the years from 2019 to 2021 1 paid a total of $9,700.00 to lease my Port Orchard site for 3
weeks each year.
• In 2019 1 paid $857.06 in state "local use sales" tax to locality #1802 which was the city of Port
Orchard. For 2020 1 paid $1,438.16 and for 2021 1 will be paying $1,776.17.
• Without this income the city will still need to find funds to pay the law enforcement and fire
fighters responding to the 911 calls. You will still need to respond to the irresponsible and
careless people that will visit the reservations and the Internet to procure their own extreme
and illegal pyrotechnics. Also, someone will still have to clean up the public areas.
• During the 2021 fireworks season I paid out $16,624.05 to my employees for their labor.
$7,796.70 of these funds were paid for my Port Orchard stand. If I am forced to close my Port
Orchard stand, then how are these people going to be able to replace this income?
MY BACKGROUND:
• 1 am the sole owner of local Pyro Dave's Fireworks stands. My Port Orchard stand is located
on Bethel Avenue across from US post Office.
• I have owned and managed consumer fireworks stands for the last 33 years.
• I have been a Washington state licensed Pyrotechnic Operator (license number P-04112)
since 1998. As part of my annual license renewal I am required to participate in at least one
display fireworks show or training class every year.
• 1 operate an Internet web page for my business and for my customers at
www.kitsapfireworks.com. I provide instructions for safety, pet care, preparations, fire risk
reduction, and clean up and disposal. On this web page I also provide videos for most of my
stand inventory, and my recent Veteran's Appreciation fireworks shows.
FIREWORKS REALITY:
• It has been my experience that about 95% of all fireworks problems are caused by a small
minority of irresponsible people. These are the people that manufacture or buy illegal
fireworks. This minority are the people that do not clean up their mess; that shoot late when
allowed; and ignite fireworks on New Year's Eve.
• The City Council needs to recognize that the people that do these activities will continue to
keep doing whatever they want regardless of any new regulations. No one can legislate
against stupid (as a friend of mine once said). This new restriction will only penalize the law-
abiding citizens.
• For example: Take a look at what happens on New Year's Eve in Kitsap County. Every law-
abiding citizen knows that ALL fireworks are illegal on New Year's Eve. Yet it is almost as
Page 26 of 86
Back to Agenda
noisy as the 4th of July. No one is ever made to stop, and the local ordinances are not
enforced. It is quite obvious that the local reservations are doing a booming business for New
Years Eve, but legal stand operators are not allowed to open even though it is allowed by state
law.
In all of my years of talking fireworks with the public at large (as well as my customers) I have
never ever met a single person was given a citation for a fireworks violation! It makes
absolutely no sense to penalize the law-abiding residents of Port Orchard when the local
regulations are not and will not be enforced.
• As was pointed out to me: If local law enforcement cannot stop a car theft and ramming a
police car, then how are they going to enforce a local fireworks ban?
• Without the legal stands how are citizens going to receive pet and safety instructions? How
are the educational handouts going to get into citizen's hands?
LOCAL EXPERIENCES:
Please note that each of my employees carefully explains how each firework functions (when
asked), and how to be safe. Also, I have videos on a tablet in each of my stands so each
customer can learn what they are buying. Then they can plan their purchases and show in a
safe manner.
• In 2018 and 2019 my family used the Vanzee Park basketball court near Sidney and Tremont
to watch our family fireworks. The fact that the city provided a public place and a safe area
with garbage bags and city cleaning for us to watch our fireworks was very greatly appreciated.
• A significant percentage of my customers are confused about local fireworks ordinances. It
would greatly reduce the confusion if the local entities would simply adopt the Washington
state fireworks laws.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD:
• What kind of message are you sending to our military families? If the city passes this
measure, then we are devaluing the personal costs paid by our military families. The 4th of
July is the celebration of our country's birthday, and of the people that serve our country. It
has always been celebrated with public and private fireworks. Denying our veterans and our
military the right to celebrate their service is a huge slap in the face of each one of these fine
people and their families.
• Port Orchard has always been a great community for our families. I know many of my
customers are grateful to live in a community where fireworks are allowed. Many families that
move here (a lot of them are current military) are excited to learn about consumer fireworks.
POINT OF CONTACT:
If any Port Orchard employees or officials would like to request fireworks information from me,
or if they should have any questions, then please contact me.
Dave Douglas
Pyro Dave's Fireworks
2540 Lori Linda CT SE
Port Orchard, WA 98366
Cell: 360-621-7719
FAX: 360-895-9146 Email: davepyro@wavecable.com
Page 27 of 86
4/11/24, 11:40AM
Chapter 5.60 FIREWORKS
Back to Agenda
Sections:
5.60.005 Definitions.
Chapter 5.60
FIREWORKS
5.60.010 Permit and state license required —Fee.
5.60.015 Fireworks permits — Forms and deadlines.
5.60.020 Conditions for sales of fireworks and public display — Permit issuance.
5.60.030 Temporary stands.
5.60.040 Number of licenses and stands limited.
5.60.050 Exploding fireworks legal period designated.
5.60.055 Prohibition due to extreme fire danger.
5.60.060 Chapter supplementary to state law.
5.60.070 Violations — Penalty.
5.60.080 Enforcement.
5.60.005 Definitions.
(1) "Fireworks" means any composition or device designed to produce a visible or an audible effect by
combustion, deflagration, or detonation, and which meets the definition of "articles pyrotechnic" or
"consumer fireworks" or "display fireworks" as set forth in Chapter 70.77 RCW.
(2) "Consumer fireworks" means smaller fireworks designed primarily for use by consumers, as further
defined by RCW 70.77.136 and WAC 212-17-025.
(3) "Display fireworks" means larger fireworks designed primarily for display and classified as such by
the U.S. Department of Transportation, as further defined by RCW 70.77.131 and WAC 212-17-025.
(4) "Public display" means an entertainment feature where the public is or could be invited, admitted
and/or permitted to view the display or discharge of display fireworks.
Page 28 of 86
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/PortOrchard/#!/PortOrchard05/PortOrchardO560.htm1#5.60 1 /5
4/11/24, 11:40AM Chapter5.60 FIREWORKS Back to Agenda
(5) "Extreme fire danger" means a period of hot, dry weather accompanied by low tuel moistures. It is
during this period that wildland fires can be expected, and fire growth will be accelerated.
(6) "Fire authority" means the city of Port Orchard department of community development's fire code
official or their designee for the purposes of this chapter.
(7) "Retail sales" means any person who, at a fixed location or place of business, offers for sale, sells,
or exchanges for consideration consumer fireworks to a consumer or user. (Ord. 035-23 § 2; Ord. 017-
23 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 066-21 § 4 (Exh. C); Ord. 013-16 § 2)
5.60.010 Permit and state license required — Fee.
No person, firm or corporation shall import, manufacture, transport (except as a public carrier
delivering to a licensee), possess, store, sell or offer to sell at retail or wholesale fireworks inside the
city limits of the city of Port Orchard without first obtaining a permit from the city and a license from the
state of Washington. The fee for obtaining a city permit for fireworks sales shall be $100.00 per year
payable in advance. The fee for fireworks display shall be set by city council resolution in the fee
schedules for departments of community development and public works. (Ord. 035-23 § 3; Ord. 066-
21 § 4 (Exh. C); Ord. 038-08 § 2; Ord. 026-08 § 2; Ord. 1706 § 1, 1998).
5.60.015 Fireworks permits — Forms and deadlines.
(1) Applications for permits required by this chapter shall be submitted to the city in such form and
detail as prescribed by the city's fire code official. A separate application shall be required for each site
and activity. Applications shall include, at a minimum:
(a) The application fee;
(b) Copy of appropriate state licenses;
(c) A site or discharge plan;
(d) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the applicant(s) and responsible party(ies);
and
(e) When applicable, a description of the proposed activity detailing how it satisfies the conditions
set forth under POMC 5.60.020.
(2) Permit applications shall be received by the DCD permit center for review by the fire authority:
(a) No later than 4:30 p.m. on the last official city work day in May for retail sales;
Page 29 of 86
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/PortOrchard/#!/PortOrchard05/PortOrchardO560.htm1#5.60 2/5
4/11/24, 11:40AM Chapter5.60 FIREWORKS Back to Agenda
(b) No later than 4:30 p.m. at least 40 business days prior to the date of an intended public
display; and
(c) Prior to commencing a permitted activity for all other uses.
(3) Permits issued pursuant to this chapter are nontransferable. (Ord. 035-23 § 4; Ord. 066-21 § 4
(Exh. C); Ord. 032-17 § 2; Ord. 013-16 § 3; Ord. 038-08 § 3).
5.60.020 Conditions for sales of fireworks and public display — Permit issuance.
A permit for the sale of fireworks or for public display shall be issued only upon the following terms and
conditions:
(1) The applicant shall have a valid and subsisting license issued by the state of Washington
authorizing the holder thereof to engage in the fireworks business, a copy of which shall be filed with
the DCD permit center.
(2) For sales of fireworks, the applicant shall obtain a business license from the city.
(3) The applicant shall have and keep in full force and effect a policy of insurance approved by the city
attorney saving the city harmless for any acts of the licensee in the following amounts: $500,000 or
more for injury to any one person in one accident or occurrence, $1,000,000 for injury to more than
one person for any one accident or occurrence, $300,000 for injury to property in any one accident or
occurrence. Proof of insurance coverage shall be included with the application for a permit and shall
be filed with the DCD permit center.
(4) For sales of fireworks, the location of the proposed place of business shall comply with the zoning
ordinances of the city.
(5) Public displays of fireworks shall comply with the provisions of RCW 70.77.280 in that the city's fire
code official shall determine whether the proposed display would pose a hazard to property or a
danger to persons. The city's fire code official shall prepare a written report detailing the findings and
recommendations for or against the issuance of the permit. The fire authority report shall be filed with
the DCD permit center. (Ord. 035-23 § 5; Ord. 017-23 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 066-21 § 4 (Exh. C); Ord.
032-17 § 3; Ord. 013-16 § 4; Ord. 038-08 § 4; Ord. 026-08 § 3; Ord. 1706 § 2, 1998).
5.60.030 Temporary stands.
All safe and sane consumer fireworks shall be sold only from temporary stands and must conform to
the written rules and regulations of the city's fire code official. (Ord. 035-23 § 6; Ord. 066-21 § 4 (Exh.
C); Ord. 013-16 § 5; Ord. 1706 § 3, 1998).
Page 30 of 86
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/PortOrchard/#!/PortOrchard05/PortOrchardO560.htm1#5.60
3/5
4/11/24, 11:40 AM Chapter 5.60 FIREWORKS Back to Agenda
5.60.040 Number of licenses and stands limited.
(1) Fourth of July Holiday Period. Each permittee shall be issued a fireworks permit annually and is
entitled to only one retail sales outlet. (Ord. 066-21 § 4 (Exh. C); Ord. 013-16 § 6; Ord. 016-09 § 1;
Ord. 038-08 § 5; Ord. 026-08 § 4; Ord. 1706 § 4, 1998).
5.60.050 Exploding fireworks legal period designated.
No person shall use or explode any fireworks within the city except from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on
the fourth day of July of any year and except where public displays are authorized pursuant to the
laws of the state of Washington. (Ord. 066-21 § 4 (Exh. C); Ord. 026-08 § 5; Ord. 1706 § 5, 1998).
5.60.055 Prohibition due to extreme fire danger.
The mayor, after consulting with the fire authority, and other officials as may be deemed appropriate,
may prohibit the discharge of all fireworks during periods of extreme fire danger. In addition, the city
council may, after conducting a public hearing, adopt by resolution emergency limitations or
prohibitions on the sale of fireworks during periods of extreme fire danger. Such emergency limitations
or prohibitions shall be temporary and the reasons necessitating the emergency limitations or
prohibitions shall be clearly defined in the resolution. (Ord. 066-21 § 4 (Exh. C); Ord. 015-16 § 1; Ord.
013-16 § 7).
5.60.060 Chapter supplementary to state law.
This chapter is intended to implement Chapter 70.77 RCW and shall be construed in connection with
the law and any and all rules or regulations issued pursuant thereto. (Ord. 066-21 § 4 (Exh. C); Ord.
1706 § 6, 1998).
5.60.070 Violations — Penalty.
(1) Any person failing to comply with Chapter 70.77 RCW or any rules or regulations of the State Fire
Marshal or the city's fire code official shall be guilty of a violation of this chapter.
(2) Any person violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of
this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person convicted of a misdemeanor shall be
punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or by both such
fine and imprisonment. Each such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day
during any portion of which any violation or any provision of this chapter is committed, continued or
permitted by any such person. (Ord. 035-23 § 6; Ord. 066-21 § 4 (Exh. C); Ord. 1706 § 7, 1998).
5.60.080 Enforcement.
The city fire code official or duly authorized representative is designated as the enforcing officer of this
chapter. (Ord. 035-23 § 7; Ord. 066-21 § 4 (Exh. C); Ord. 1706 § 8, 1998).
Page 31 of 86
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/PortOrchard/#!/PortOrchardO5/PortOrchardO560.html#5.60 4/5
4/11/24, 11:40AM
Back to Agenda
The Port Orchard Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 003-24, passed February 13, 2024.
Chapter 5.60 FIREWORKS
Disclaimer: The city clerk's office has the official version of the Port Orchard Municipal Code. Users should
contact the city clerk's office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: https://www.cityofportorchard.us/
City Telephone: (360) 876-4407
Code Publishing Company_
Page 32 of 86
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/PortOrchard/#!/PortOrchard05/PortOrchardO560.htm1#5.60 5/5
Back to Agenda
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366
citvhall&portorchardwa.gov 1 (360) 876-4407
www.portorchardwa.gov
ORCHARD.
Work Study Session Executive Summary
Issue Title.: 2B Storm Drainage Rates and Capital Meeting Date: April 16, 2024
Facility Charges
Time Required: 15 Minutes Attendees: Charlotte Archer
Nick Bond
Action Requested:
Adoption of an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Port Orchard Municipal Code
Section 13.06.160, and Amending POMC Sections 13.06.060, 13.06.080, and
13.06.100
Issue: Following adoption and in preparing to implement Ordinance No. 038-23, which amended the City's
monthly service charge for storm drainage and adopted a capital facility charge for the storm drainage
utility, staff identified additional modifications to the code language to facilitate implementation. Staff
worked to provide suggested amendments to redress these issues, along with the delayed implementation
date to ensure additional public outreach.
Background: In 2023, the City Council adopted the City's 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds
Comprehensive Plan following a multi -year collaborative effort to evaluate the City's stormwater drainage
system and its impact on the community. Concurrently with the development of the Comprehensive Plan,
the City commissioned a rate study conducted by FCS Group to evaluate the City's existing monthly base
rate for storm drainage, as well as the need for a capital facility charge to fund the construction of
additional facilities to support growth. The results of this effort were memorialized in Ordinance No. 038-
23, which was adopted by the City Council in late 2023. The Ordinance adopted a capital facility charge,
as well as updated the base charge into the future, based on the evaluated needs set forth in the rate
study. The Ordinance set an effective date of April 1, 2024, for the implementation of the updated base
rate and the capital facilities charge. Port Orchard Municipal Code Chapter 13.06 contains all codified
regulations governing the City's Storm Drainage Utility.
Following adoption and in preparing to implement Ordinance No. 038-23, staff identified three issues for
remediation prior to implementation:
1. An error in Section 4 of Ordinance No. 038-23, wherein one portion of the section adopted the
Capital Facility Charge in the code chapter for Storm Drainage Utility (at POMC 13.06.160), while
another sentence purported to adopt the Capital Facility Charge into the existing fee schedule
embedded in the POMC chapter for the City's Water/Sewer Utilities (at POMC 13.04.025).
Page 33 of 86
Back to Agenda
Executive Summary 213
Page 2 of 2
To remedy this confusion, staff propose to repeal and replace POMC 13.06.160 and Section 4 of
Ordinance No. 038-23 and re -adopt the language in the correct location: POMC 13.06.160.
2. An inspection fee and procedures for an inspection to occur at the time the capital facility charge
is paid was included in both amended POMC 13.06.160 and POMC 13.06.150, but staff determined
that the inspection and associated fee was not necessary. The associated inspections occur as a
component of existing permitting; thus the inspection added at POMC 13.06.150 and the
associated fee added at POMC 13.06.160 were duplicative and unnecessary.
To remedy this duplication, staff propose to remove the language referencing the inspection in
POMC 13.06.150 and remove the associated fee through the repeal and replacement of POMC
13.06.160 and Section 4 of Ordinance No. 038-23 (discussed above).
3. A requested clarification regarding the measurement of "Impervious surface unit (ISU)" for
residential structures containing more than one dwelling unit. Under the existing regulations, the
City charges for storm drainage is based on the ISU count for the parcel for the purposes of
calculating the monthly utility service charge. An ISU is defined as "3,000 square feet of impervious
ground cover and is the measure of impervious ground cover to be used by the utility in assessing
service charges." The City utilizes a flat rate charge for single-family residential (which is presumed
to be one ISU), multiplied the flat rate charge by the number of dwelling units for duplexes and
triplexes, and calculated the number of ISUs for multi -family (defined as and commercial accounts
based on the measured impervious surface area of those particular uses. In order to ensure that
duplex, triplex, as well as single-family residential with ADU(s) were charged in accordance with
their impervious surface area, the recommendation was to utilize the measurement approach for
all non -single-family residential properties, rather than a multiplier of the base rate. Staff
identified less than 100 potentially impacted accounts. If this ordinance is adopted, staff will utilize
the measurement methodology to evaluate the ISU count for these properties and assign a new
base rate for these properties. It is estimated that the base rate is likely to reduce for many of
these accounts, based on initial review of impacted parcel sizes. This calculation method is utilized
by neighboring jurisdictions, including Kitsap County.
The ordinance makes the necessary amendments to the definitions applicable to this chapter (at
POMC 13.06.060), as well as amendments to the calculation methodology set out in POMC
13.06.080 and POMC 13.06.100.
Alternative: Take no action and provide alternative guidance.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of an ordinance repealing and replacing Port Orchard
Municipal Code Section 13.06.160, and amending POMC Sections 13.06.060, 13.06.080, and 13.06.100.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 7 - Utilities
Attachments: (1) Draft Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Port Orchard Municipal Code Section
13.06.160, and Amending POMC Sections 13.06.060, 13.06.080, and 13.06.100; (2) redline of proposed
POMC amendments; and (3) copy of Ordinance No. 038-23
Page 34 of 86
Back to Agenda
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO
THE STORM DRAINAGE RATES AND CAPITAL FACILITY CHARGES (CFC);
REPEALING AND REPLACING A PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE (POMC)
SECTION 13.06.160; AMENDING POMC SECTIONS 13.06.060, 13.06.080, AND
13.06.100; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PUBLICATION; AND SETTING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council recently amended the City's utility rates and fees via
Ordinance No. 038-23; and
WHEREAS, in the process of implementing the amendments set out in Ordinance No.
038-23, staff identified additional necessary amendments to refine and clarify the City's
implementation of the recently amended rates and fees; and
WHEREAS, this effort also identified additional amendment to enables more accurate
and equitable measurement of the base rate for the monthly service charge; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that that the amendments herein are consistent with
goals and policies of the City's 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan and
related regulations, and serve the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of
Port Orchard; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Repealer. Section 13.06.160, as adopted by Ordinance No. 038-23 at
Section 4, is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. Adoption. New Section 13.06.160 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is
hereby adopted to read as follows:
13.06.160 Fee schedule.
(1) The fees set forth below are referenced in POMC 13.06.150.
Storm Drainage Capital
Facility Charge
See POMC 13.06.150
Per ISU
$3,087
10849325.1 - 366922 - 0001
Page 35 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No.
Page 2 of 6
SECTION 3. Amendment. Section 13.06.060 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
13.06.060 Definitions.
The following words when used in this chapter shall have the following meanings, unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise:
(1) "City" shall mean the city of Port Orchard, Washington, a municipal corporation created and
existing under the laws of the state of Washington.
(2) "Commercial/multifamily" shall mean all property which is not defined as single-family
residential in subsection (6) of this section, including but not limited to those residential
structures accommodating two, three or four dwelling units.
(3) "Developed" shall mean that condition of real property altered from its natural state by the
addition to or construction on such property of impervious ground cover or other manmade
physical improvements (such as clearing or grading) such that the hydrology of the property or
portion thereof is materially affected.
(4) "Impervious ground cover" shall mean those hard surfaces which either prevent or retard
the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soil under natural
conditions preexistent to development, or which cause water to run off the surface in greater
quantities or at an increased rate of flow than that present under natural conditions preexistent
to development, including, without limitation, such surfaces as rooftops, asphalt or concrete
sidewalks, paving, driveways and parking lots, walkways, patio areas, storage areas, and gravel,
oiled macadam or other surfaces which similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns
existing prior to development. Excluded, however, are all lawns, agricultural areas, and
landscaped areas.
(5) "Impervious surface unit (ISU)" shall mean 3,000 square feet of impervious ground cover
and is the measure of impervious ground cover to be used by the utility in assessing service
charges.
(6) "Single-family residential" shall mean any residential structure designated for occupancy by
one dwelling unit. Single-family residential includes "home business" pursuant to POMC Title
20; provided, that the commercial activity remains incidental to the residential use and does
not interfere with the residential character of the neighborhood through noise, traffic, safety
hazards, or other public nuisances that may be generated by the commercial activity.
(7) "Service charge" shall mean the monthly fee levied by the utility.
Page 36 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No.
Page 3 of 6
(8) "Undeveloped" shall mean that condition of real property unaltered by the construction on
or addition to such property of impervious ground cover or physical manmade improvements
of any kind that change the hydrology of the property from its natural state.
(9) "Utility" means the storm drainage utility established by Ordinance No. 036-08, passed on
October 14, 2008.
SECTION 4. Amendment. Section 13.06.080 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(1) Three thousand square feet of impervious ground cover shall be equal to one impervious
surface unit (ISU).
(2) All single-family residential uses are deemed to contain one equivalent ISU for purposes of
the monthly storm drainage utility service charge.
(3) The utility shall determine the actual number of ISUs contained on all other property,
including but not limited to duplex, single-family residential with accessory dwelling unit(s),
triplex, multifamily, and commercial properties and these accounts shall pay a service charge to
be calculated as follows: actual impervious ground cover/3,000 square feet multiplied by the
single-family residential rate. In making the calculation of the actual number of ISUs, fractions
shall be rounded to the nearest whole number but not less than one.
SECTION 5. Amendment. Section 13.06.100 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
13.06.100 Storm drainage service charges.
In accordance with the basis for a rate structure set forth in POMC 13.06.070 and 13.06.080,
there is levied upon all developed real property within the boundaries of the utility the
following service charges which shall be collected from the owners of such properties:
(1) Effective June 1, 2024, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
(a) For all single-family residential uses, including mobile homes, the monthly
service charge shall be $18.34.
(b) For all other developed property, including but not limited to duplex, single-
family residential with accessory dwelling unit(s), triplex, multifamily, and commercial
accounts, the monthly service charge shall be $18.34, multiplied by the number of ISUs
determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel pursuant to POMC 13.06.080.
(2) Effective January 1, 2025, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
Page 37 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No.
Page 4 of 6
(a) For all detached house accounts, including mobile homes, the monthly
service charge shall be $24.03.
(b) For all other developed property, including but not limited to duplex, single-
family residential with accessory dwelling unit(s), triplex, multifamily and commercial
accounts, the monthly service charge shall be $24.03, multiplied by the number of ISUs
determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel pursuant to POMC 13.06.080.
(3) Effective January 1, 2026, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
(a) For all detached houses accounts, including mobile homes, the monthly
service charge shall be $31.47.
(b) For all other developed property, including but not limited to duplex, single-
family residential with accessory dwelling unit(s), triplex, multifamily and commercial
accounts, the monthly service charge shall be $31.47, multiplied by the number of ISUs
determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel pursuant to POMC 13.06.080.
(4) Effective January 1, 2027, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
(a) For all detached houses, including mobile homes, the monthly service charge
shall be $32.42.
(b) For all other developed property, including but not limited to duplex, single-
family residential with accessory dwelling unit(s), triplex, multifamily and commercial
accounts, the monthly service charge shall be $32.42, multiplied by the number of ISUs
determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel pursuant to POMC 13.06.080.
(5) Effective January 1, 2028, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
(a) For all detached houses, including mobile homes, the monthly service charge
shall be $33.39.
(b) For all other developed property, including but not limited to duplex, single-
family residential with accessory dwelling unit(s), triplex, multifamily and commercial
accounts, the monthly service charge shall be $33.39, multiplied by the number of ISUs
determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel pursuant to POMC 13.06.080.
SECTION 6. Amendment. Section 13.06.150 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
13.06.150 Storm drainage capital facilities charge.
(1) The storm drainage capital facility charge is designed to mitigate the impact of new
demands on the existing storm drainage system and to require new or expanded development
Page 38 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No.
Page 5 of 6
to pay its fair share of the value of the storm drainage system including, but not limited to,
storm drainage transmission, storage, management, filtration, and dispersal facilities in
compliance with the City's NPDES permit. The storm drainage capital facility charge applies to
new construction, changes in use, and building modifications which modify the ISU count for
the property. Prior to constructing any impervious surface and obtaining either a land
disturbing activity permit/stormwater drainage permit and/or building permit, the property
owner shall pay, in addition to other applicable charges, the applicable stormwater drainage
capital facility charge. The storm drainage capital facility charge for a residential or
nonresidential connection is based on a set fee per ISU which is set forth in POMC 13.06.160.
(2) Storm drainage Capital Facility Charge - Exception for Redevelopment or Change of Use.
Property owners may apply to receive a partial or a full exception to the assessment of the
storm drainage capital facility charge, provided all of the following requirements are met:
(a) Property owners must submit an application for a partial or a full exception on the
city's application form prior to the issuance of any land use or development permits
which change the use or development of the property; and
(b) A nonresidential or residential account has continuously paid a minimum base fee as
applicable; and
(c) The property owner decides to construct a new building, change the original use, or
modify the original building; and
(d) For a full exception, after the building improvements are completed, or new use
implemented, the total calculated ISU for the account will be equal to or less than the
ISU number calculated by the city under the prior use or development consistent with
this section. A partial exception is applicable when the new ISU calculation is larger than
the existing ISU calculation. In such case the city will establish the prior calculated ISU
which will be used as the basis for a credit toward the storm drainage capital facility
charge.
SECTION 7. Severability. Should any portion of this ordinance be held to be
unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,
sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance.
SECTION 8. Savings Clause. Those portions of the Port Orchard Municipal Code which
are amended by this ordinance shall remain in force and effect as set out prior to this ordinance
until the effective date of this ordinance. Such amendments shall not be construed as affecting
any existing right acquired under the laws repealed, nor as affecting any proceeding instituted
thereunder, nor any rule, regulation or order promulgated thereunder.
Page 39 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No.
Page 6 of 6
SECTION 9. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary
consisting of the title.
SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and
effect five days after publication, as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and
attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this _ day of February 2024.
ATTEST:
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
SPONSOR:
Brandy Wallace, MMC, City Clerk , Councilmember
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Charlotte A. Archer, City Attorney
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Page 40 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No. XXX-24 — Redline of Code Amendments
13.06.060 Definitions.
The following words when used in this chapter shall have the following meanings, unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise:
(1) "City" shall mean the city of Port Orchard, Washington, a municipal corporation created and
existing under the laws of the state of Washington.
(2) "Commercial/multifamily' shall mean all property which is not defined as single-family
residential in subsection (6) of this section, including but not limited to those residential
structures accommodating two. three or four dwelling units.
(3) "Developed" shall mean that condition of real property altered from its natural state by the
addition to or construction on such property of impervious ground cover or other manmade
physical improvements (such as clearing or grading) such that the hydrology of the property or
portion thereof is materially affected.
(4) "Impervious ground cover" shall mean those hard surfaces which either prevent or retard the
entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soil under natural
conditions preexistent to development, or which cause water to run off the surface in greater
quantities or at an increased rate of flow than that present under natural conditions preexistent
to development, including, without limitation, such surfaces as rooftops, asphalt or concrete
sidewalks, paving, driveways and parking lots, walkways, patio areas, storage areas, and gravel,
oiled macadam or other surfaces which similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns
existing prior to development. Excluded, however, are all lawns, agricultural areas, and
landscaped areas.
(5) "Impervious surface unit (ISU)" shall mean 3,000 square feet of impervious ground cover and
is the measure of impervious ground cover to be used by the utility in assessing service charges.
(6) "Single-family residential" shall mean any residential structure designated for occupancy by
one dwelling unit. fhr,,,, r 1 « family hr usehel.ds (SiRgle family, ,duplex aR d triplex) G!61 d* -
+hr,�S '-S S Whgeh may Single-family residential includes "home business" pursuant to POMC Title
20; provided, that the commercial activity remains incidental to the residential use and does not
interfere with the residential character of the neighborhood through noise, traffic, safety
hazards, or other public nuisances that may be generated by the commercial activity.
(7) "Service charge" shall mean the monthly fee levied by the utility.
(8) "Undeveloped" shall mean that condition of real property unaltered by the construction on
or addition to such property of impervious ground cover or physical manmade improvements of
any kind that change the hydrology of the property from its natural state.
(9) "Utility" means the storm drainage utility established by Ordinance No. 036-08, passed on
October 14, 2008.
10816528.1 - 366922 - 0001
Page 41 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No. XXX-24 — Redline of Code Amendments
POMC 13.06.080 Storm drainage service charge calculation is hereby amended as follows:
(1) Three thousand square feet of impervious ground cover shall be equal to one impervious
surface unit (ISU).
(2) All single-family residential aeeewnts uses (including mobile homes) are deemed to contain
one equivalent ISU for purposes of the monthly storm drainage utility service charge.
(3) The utility shall determine the actual number of ISUs contained on all other property,
including but not limited to duplex, single-family residential with accessory dwelling unit(s),
triplex, multifamily and commercial properties and these accounts shall pay a service charge to
be calculated as follows: actual impervious ground cover/3,000 square feet multiplied* by the
single-family residential rate. In making the calculation of the actual number of ISUs, fractions
shall be rounded to the nearest whole number but not less than one.
POMC 13.06.100 Storm drainage service charges.
In accordance with the basis for a rate structure set forth in POMC 13.06.070 and 13.06.080,
there is levied upon all developed real property within the boundaries of the utility the following
service charges which shall be collected from the owners of such properties:
(1) Effective June 1, 2024, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
(a) For all detached houses, including mobile homes, the monthly service charge
shall be $18.34.
(bd) For all other developed property, including but not limited to duplex, single-
family residential with accessory dwelling unit(s), triplex, multifamily and
commercial accounts, the monthly service charge shall be $18.34, multiplied by
the number of ISUs determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel
pursuant to POMC 13.06.080.
(2) Effective January 1, 2025, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
(a) For all detached house accounts, including mobile homes, the monthly
service charge shall be $24.03.
10816528.1 - 366922 - 0001
Page 42 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No. XXX-24 — Redline of Code Amendments
(bd) For all other developed property, including but not limited to duplex, single-
family residential with accessory dwelling unit(s), triplex, multifamily and
commercial accounts, the monthly service charge shall be $24.03, multiplied by
the number of ISUs determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel
pursuant to POMC 13.06.080.
(3) Effective January 1, 2026, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
(a) For all detached houses accounts, including mobile homes, the monthly
service charge shall be $31.47.
(b) FeF all duplexes, r feF detached heuses with a accesseFy .Dwelling unit, the
mvii-c y s eivi ce charge shall be 5.-rper -residential raTrr�
(bd) For all other developed property, including but not limited to duplex, single-
family residential with accessory dwelling unit(s), triplex, multifamily and
commercial accounts, the monthly service charge shall be $31.47, multiplied by
the number of ISUs determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel
pursuant to POMC 13.06.080.
(4) Effective January 1, 2027, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
(a) For all detached houses, including mobile homes, the monthly service charge
shall be $32.42.
(b) PeF all duplexes, nr fer detar,hed- ...i+h-AG-C--'--S5GFY.J....,IliRg WRi+ the
rMe rthly se%rEe eharge shall be $16.21 p ssi.J.,.,+i I
(bd) For all other developed property, including but not limited to duplex, single-
family residential with accessory dwelling unit(s), triplex, multifamily and
commercial accounts, the monthly service charge shall be $32.42, multiplied by
the number of ISUs determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel
pursuant to POMC 13.06.080.
(5) Effective January 1, 2028, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
10816528.1 - 366922 - 0001
Page 43 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No. XXX-24 — Redline of Code Amendments
(a) For all detached houses, including mobile homes, the monthly service charge
shall be $33.39.
..In- IMMMZTMMI�
(bd) For all other developed property, including but not limited to duplex, single-
family residential with accessory dwelling unit(s), triplex, multifamily and
commercial accounts, the monthly service charge shall be $33.39, multiplied by
the number of ISUs determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel
pursuant to POMC 13.06.080.
13.06.150 Storm drainage capital facilities charge.
(1) The storm drainage capital facility charge is designed to mitigate the impact of new demands
on the existing storm drainage system and to require new or expanded development to pay its
fair share of the value of the storm drainage system including, but not limited to, storm drainage
transmission, storage, management, filtration, and dispersal facilities in compliance with the
City's NPDES permit. The storm drainage capital facility charge applies to new construction,
changes in use, and building modifications which modify the ISU count for the property. Prior to
constructing any impervious surface and obtaining either a land disturbing activity
permit/stormwater drainage permit and/or building permit, the property owner shall pay, in
addition to other applicable charees. the apDlicable stormwater drainage capital facilitv charge.
t#capmE-A-hle ster ge Ea ital faedity The storm drainage capital facility charge
for a residential or nonresidential connection is based on a set fee per ISU which is set forth in
POMC 13.06.160.
(2) Storm drainage Capital Facility Charge - Exception for Redevelopment or Change of Use.
Property owners may apply to receive a partial or a full exception to the assessment of the storm
drainage capital facility charge, provided all of the following requirements are met:
(a) Property owners must submit an application for a partial or a full exception on the city's
application form prior to the issuance of any land use or development permits which change the
use or development of the property; and
(b) A nonresidential or residential account has continuously paid a minimum base fee as
10816528.1 - 366922 - 0001
Page 44 of 86
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No. XXX-24 — Redline of Code Amendments
applicable; and
(c) The property owner decides to construct a new building, change the original use, or modify
the original building; and
(d) For a full exception, after the building improvements are completed, or new use
implemented, the total calculated ISU for the account will be equal to or less than the ISU number
calculated by the city under the prior use or development consistent with this section. A partial
exception is applicable when the new ISU calculation is larger than the existing ISU calculation.
In such case the city will establish the prior calculated ISU which will be used as the basis for a
credit toward the storm
1110111
Wy
_.
POW 13.06.160 Fee schedule.
(1) The fees set forth below are referenced in POW 13.06.150.
Storm Drainage Capital
Facility Charge
POMC 13.06.150
Per ISU
$3,087
10816528.1 - 366922 - 0001
Page 45 of 86
Back to Agenda
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4332D489-5BB9-4060-98BC-BF5F7C565C39
ORDINANCE NO. 038-23
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON,
RELATING TO THE STORM DRAINAGE RATES AND CAPITAL FACILITY
CHARGES (CFC); AMENDING PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE (POMC)
SECTION 13.06.100TO UPDATE STORM DRAINAGE RATESTHROUGH 2O28;
ADDING NEW SECTIONS 13.06.1S0 AND 13.06.160 TO THE POMC TO
ADOPT STORM DRAINAGE CAPITAL FACILITY CHARGES AND INSPECTION
FEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND CORRECTIONS; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has been in the process of updating its Stormwater and Watersheds
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023 Stormwater and
Watersheds Comprehensive Plan by resolution; and
WHEREAS, in coordination with the 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive
Plan, the City reviewed storm drainage rates and the need for a capital facilities fee for new or
expanded buildings and/or development that impact the storm drainage system; and
WHEREAS, in order to implement these rate changes and fees, amendments to Chapter
13.06 "Storm Drainage Utility" are needed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendments herein are consistent with goals and
policies of the City's 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan and related
regulations, and serve the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Port Orchard;
now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are adopted as findings for this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Section 13.06.100 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
13.06.100 Storm drainage service charges.
In accordance with the basis for a rate structure set forth in POMC 13.06.070 and
13.06.080, there is levied upon all developed real property within the boundaries of the
utility the following service charges which shall be collected from the owners of such
properties:
(1)
(a)PeF all single l id tial reau n ORG161diRg P,..i,ile h0 ffle5, the Rie Rthl__e
Page 46 of 86
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4332D489-5BB9-4060-98BC-BF5F7C565C39
Back to Agenda
■
1
Ordinance No. 038-23
Page 2 of 5
..,
M_
. .........
IN
. .
..
{-3} Effective June 1, 20152024, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
(a) For all single-family residential accounts, including mobile homes, the monthly
service charge shall be $14-BA18.34.
(b) For all duplexes and triplexes, the monthly service charge shall be $44:-001 . 4
for each residential unit.
(c) For all other developed property, including but not limited to multifamily and
commercial accounts, the monthly service charge shall be $44-.-8918.34, multiplied by the
number of ISUs determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel pursuant to POW
13.06.080.
(2) Effective January 1. 2025, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
la) For all single-family residential accounts, including mobile homes, the monthly
service charge shall be 524.03.
(b) For all duplexes and triplexes, the monthly service charge shall be S24.03 for
each residential unit.
c For all other developed property,including but not limited to multifamil n
commercial accounts., monthly service charge shall be 24.03 m Iti lied by the
number of ISUs determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel pursuant to POMC
13.06.080.
(3) Effective January 1. 2026, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
(a) For all single-family residential accounts, including mobile homes, the monthly
service charge shall be 531.47.
(b) For all duplexes and triplexes, the monthly service -charge shall be $31.47 for
each residential unit.
(c) For all other developed property. including but not limited to multifamily and
Commercial accounts. the monthly service charge shall be 531.47, multiplied by the
number of ISLIs determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel pursuant to POMC
13.06.080.
Page 47 of 86
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4332D489-5BB9-4060-98BC-BF5F7C565C39
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No. 038-23
Page 3 of 5
(4) Effective January 1. 2027, the storm drainage charges are shown below:
(a) For all single-family residential accounts, including mobile homes. the monthly
service charge shall be 532.42.
(b) For all duel xes and triplexes, the monthly service charge_ shall be_a32.42 for
each residential unit.
(c) For all ether developed property, including but not limited to multifamily and
commercial accounts, the monthly service charge shall be 532.42, multiplied by the
number of ISUs determined by the utility to be contained irtsuch parcel pursuant to POMC
13.06.080.
i5) Effectivejanuary 1 2028, the storm drainage charges are shown below,
a For all single-family residential accounts, including mobit h m s he monthl
service charge shall be $33.39.
b For all duplexes and triplexes, the monthly service charge shall be $33,39 for
each residential unit.
c For all other developed property, includingjLULrjgt limited to multifamily and
commercial accounts, the monthly service charge shall be S33 39 multiplied by the
number of ISUs determined by the utility to be contained in such parcel pursuant to POMC
13.06.080.
SECTION 3. A new Section 13.06.150 is hereby added to the Port Orchard Municipal
Code to read as follows:
13.06.150 Storm drainage capital facilities charge.
(1) The storm drainage capital facility charge is designed to mitigate the impact of
new demands on the existing storm drainage system and to require new or expanded
development to pay its fair share of the value of the storm drainage system including, but
not limited to, storm drainage transmission, storage, management, filtration, and
dispersal facilities in compliance with the City's NPDES permit. The storm drainage capital
facility charge applies to new construction, changes in use, and building modifications
which modify the ISU count for the property. Prior to connecting to the city's storm
drainage system and obtaining either a building permit or certificate of occupancy, the
property owner shall pay, in addition to other applicable charges, the applicable storm
drainage capital facility charge. The storm drainage capital facility charge for a residential
or nonresidential connection is based on a set fee per ISU which is set forth in POMC
13.06.160.
(2) Storm drainage Capital Facility Charge — Exception for Redevelopment or
Change of Use. Property owners may apply to receive a partial or a full exception to the
assessment of the storm drainage capital facility charge, provided all of the following
requirements are met:
(a) Property owners must submit an application for a partial or a full
exception on the city's application form prior to the issuance of any land use or
Page 48 of 86
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4332D489-5BB9-4060-98BC-BF5F7C565C39
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No. 038-23
Page 4 of 5
development permits which change the use or development of the property; and
(b) A nonresidential or residential account has continuously paid a
minimum base fee as applicable; and
(c) The property owner decides to construct a new building, change the
original use, or modify the original building; and
(d) For a full exception, after the building improvements are completed, or
new use implemented, the total calculated ISU for the account will be equal to or less
than the ISU number calculated by the city under the prior use or development consistent
with this section. A partial exception is applicable when the new ISU calculation is larger
than the existing ISU calculation. In such case the city will establish the prior calculated
ISU which will be used as the basis for a credit toward the storm
(3) At the time the storm drainage capital facility charge is paid, a storm drainage
inspection fee shall be paid. The storm drainage inspection fee is set forth in POMC
13.06.160.
SECTION 4. A new Section 13.06.160 is hereby added to the Port Orchard Municipal
Code to read as follows:
13.04.025 Fee schedule.
(1) The fees set forth below are referenced in POMC 13.06.160.
Storm Drainage Fees
Storm Drainage
POMC 13.06.150
Capital Facility
Charge
Per ISU
$3,087
Storm Drainage
Inspection Fee
POMC 13.06.155
Per Connection
$111.37
Page 49 of 86
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4332D489-5BB9-4060-98BC-BF5F7C565C39
Back to Agenda
Ordinance No. 038-23
Page 5 of 5
SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance.
SECTION 6. Corrections. Upon the approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and/or
code publisher is authorized to make any necessary technical corrections to this Ordinance,
including but not limited to the correction of scrivener's/clerical errors, references, Ordinance
numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any reference thereto.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be posted and published as required by
law and shall be effective and in full force five (5) days following publication, provided,
however, that the rates and fees described in Sections 2 through 4 above, shall be effective April
1, 2024. A summary of this ordinance may be published in lieu of publishing the
ordinance in its entirety.,
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor
Pro -Tern and attested by the Clerk in authentication r
age this 12T" day of
December 2023.
Mark Trenary, Mayor Pro-Tem
ATTEST:
1e me Floyd, C , Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
UocuSigned by:
Charlotte A. Archer, City Attorney
PUBLISHED: December 15, 2023
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 2023
SPONSOR:
Cindy carelli, Councilmember
.NSEAL
f',;,K *FWAV'17"''
Page 50 of 86
Back to Agenda
City of Port Orchard OW216 Prospect Street Port Or1 (36 , 87 -4407 ORCHARD.
cityhall ar portorchardwa.gov � (360) 876-4407
www. ortorchardwa. ov
Work Studv Session Executive Summa
Issue Title.: 2C Proposed 2024 Zoning Map
Time Required: 20 Minutes
Action Requested:
Meeting Date: April 16, 2024
Attendees: Nick Bond
Review and discuss the Zoning Map that is proposed in conjunction with the
2024 Comprehensive Plan.
Issue: The City is in the middle of its 2024 Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan. An updated
Comprehensive Plan must be adopted by December 31, 2024, and is required to plan for the City through
2044. Port Orchard currently has more than enough residential land capacity to accommodate its 2044
population targets. Its employment land capacity is slightly below that which is needed to accommodate
the 2044 employment targets. Very minor zoning map changes have been proposed as part of the 2024
Comp Plan Periodic Update process to address the employment land shortage and other issues.
Growth Targets and Land Capacity: The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies require that Port Orchard
plan, as part of the 2024 Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan, accommodate 10,500 additional
residents and 5,400 more jobs between 2020 and 2044. The 2019 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report
showed that the City has land capacity to accommodate an additional 16,250 residents and 5,243 more
jobs. The City needs to convert a small amount of residential land to land that supports employment to
make up the employment land capacity deficit of 157 jobs.
Recently, Port Madison Enterprises, the development arm of the Suquamish Tribe, purchased lands
located south of Sedgwick near Bravo Terrace and Geiger Avenue comprising 56.95 acres. Port Madison
Enterprises has applied to the Department of the Interior to have these lands recognized as tribal land. As
tribal land, the City's zoning code will no longer apply to the property. However, the zoning in our plan
should still reflect the likely use of the land if Port Madison Enterprises were to develop the land. Port
Madison Enterprises has indicated that they solely develop commercial property and do not develop
residential projects. As such, this land is proposed to be changed from Commercial Mixed -Use (3.44 acres)
and R4 (53.51 acres) to Commercial Heavy. These changes create more than enough additional
employment capacity to correct our deficit of employment capacity relative to our employment target.
The Port Madison Enterprises -owned land proposed for Commercial Heavy CH zoning is shown below:
Page 51 of 86
Back to Agenda
Executive Summary 2C
Page 2 of 4
Park Oriented Development: The Port Orchard Housing Action Plan (HAP), completed in 2023, contained
some additional recommendations for minor zoning changes concerning "Park Oriented Development."
The HAP suggested that rezoning from residential low density (Residential 2 -112) to neighborhood mixed -
use be considered in the vicinity of Givens Park, McCormick Village Park, and Central (Clayton) Park. Park
oriented development was previously approved as part of the McCormick Village Subarea Plan and is
currently under development. DCD is recommending that the City consider the recommended zoning
changes in proximity to Givens Park at this time but forgo any changes surrounding Central Park. Areas
north of Givens Park are currently zoned Business Professional Mixed -Use (blue with white cross hatching
in the map below) in support of the County Courthouse Campus. Areas along Sidney Avenue across from
the Givens Center and areas on the West side of Cline are currently zoned Neighborhood Mixed -Use (pink
with white cross hatching on the map below). Areas to the northwest, west, and south of Givens Park are
currently zoned R2. Rather than opening the door to commercial development on these frontages
consistent with the Housing Action Plan, staff suggests instead changing some of the R2 properties to be
zoned R3 in the hopes of stimulating some interest in Park Oriented Residential Development. This action
would also rectify an existing non -conforming use along Sroufe Street. The properties in solid orange on
the image below are proposed for a change from R2 to R3 zoning:
Page 52 of 86
Back to Agenda
Executive Summary 2C
Page 3 of 4
Parks and Recreation/Public Facilities Zoning: The other proposed zoning changes that have been
initiated intend to correctly identify parks and open space lands as well as public facilities. Currently all
residential open space tracts conveyed as part of a subdivision are zoned residential (primarily R1, R2,
and 113). Likewise, the 18-hole McCormick Woods Golf Course is zoned residential. This is misleading to
someone viewing the zoning map the idea that these areas are to be developed residentially, rather than
showing these lands as dedicated open space or as a golf course. Likewise, there are numerous
stormwater ponds in the city that are shown as residential on the zoning map rather than as public
facilities. The map is proposed to be updated to correct these designations. As open space gets
dedicated as part of future subdivisions, the zoning map will need to be updated to correctly identify
open space tracts as being in a parks and recreation designation. It is important to note that these
changes will not impact the City's population targets or land capacity as these areas were considered not
to have residential capacity in the 2019 Buildable Land Report. Prior to the proposed map changes, all of
the bright green that is on the proposed zoning map as shown below was zoned R2 or R3 (except for
McCormick Village Park):
Page 53 of 86
Back to Agenda
Executive Summary 2C
Page 4 of 4
Alternative: The only change that the City is required to make at this time is to address the shortage of
employment land available to accommodate our employment target. There are many ways to do this, but
the proposal concerning the Land owned by Port Madison Enterprises is a simple and easy solution. The
Council could direct staff not to proceed with the other two proposed changes if desired. The City intends
to notify affected property owners of the proposed changes as part of the Comprehensive Plan Periodic
Update process. There are other ways to address the employment capacity issue, but exploring
alternatives could risk the city missing its December 31, 2024 deadline and could threaten the City's ability
to seek state and federal (PSRC) funding.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the proposed zoning changes and
provide staff with direction on the proposed changes as described herein.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: The proposed changes are being made as part of the City's
Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations.
Attachments: Housing Action Plan section 4.2.3, Existing Zoning Map, Proposed Zoning Map.
Page 54 of 86
Back to Agenda
Page 55 of 86
Back to Agenda
Page 56 of 86
Back to Agenda
Page 57 of 86
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023
Back to Agenda
Page 53
4.2.3 — Park -Oriented Development
Action: Consider increasing zoning capacity around Port Orchard's major parks.
Port Orchard's parks are major assets of the community, and access to outdoor recreation is
important for public health and well-being. Allowing more housing near major parks and
recreation uses (such as within a quarter -mile) can have several benefits, including allowing
more people to walk and bike to parks for healthy recreation and encouraging a long-term
increase in park users and community ownership of parks. Park access is particularly important
for families with children. Notable rezoning opportunities are in the areas around Givens
Playfield (which is also adjacent to a community center), McCormick Village Park, and Clayton
Park. Most parks are also near transit stops.
Part of the area north of Givens Playfield is also near the Kitsap County campus and zoned
BPMU. This area consists mostly of detached homes and some vacant lots. The zoning
encourages a transition to commercial uses over time, though little such activity has occurred.
Rezoning this area for park -oriented development could also have the dual benefits of
increasing the feasibility of mixed -use development with commercial space and multifamily
housing.
Figure 17. The vicinity of Givens Playfield (Google Maps)
Page 58 of 86
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023
Back to Agenda
Page 54
Another large park which Port Orchard residents utilize is South Kitsap Regional Park. This is
currently outside the city limits but contained in the urban growth area. When this area is
annexed the City should consider park -oriented zoning that allows for a wider range of housing
types near the park.
Recently adopted development regulations for the area near the planned west entrance to
McCormick Village Park allow middle housing development and a proposed mixed housing
neighborhood is in permitting review. However, there are other unentitled properties near
McCormick Village Park and the golf course clubhouse that may be candidates for multifamily
and middle housing uses. These changes would ensure that all areas of the city provide
opportunities for people of different economic means with the opportunity to live and work (see
further discussion in the introduction to Strategy 2.1).
Figure 18. A concept for a mix of housing including middle housing from the recently adopted McCormick
Village Subarea Plan in a location adjacent to McCormick Village Park.
saaoo
i
I
Figure 19. Examples of parcels highlighted in green that could be zoned for multifamily or middle housing
due to their proximity to parks and recreation amenities.
Page 59 of 86
Back to Agenda
City of Port Orchard OW216 Prospect Street Port Or1 (36 , 87 -4407 ORCHARD.
cityhall ar portorchardwa.gov � (360) 876-4407
www. ortorchardwa. ov
Work Study Session Executive Summary
Issue Title.: 21) Middle Housing Options - Implementation of Meeting Date: April 16, 2024
WA State Department of Commerce Middle
Housing Grant Attendees: Nick Bond
Time Required: 30 Minutes
Action Requested:
Review and discuss the Middle Housing Options Memo prepared as part of the
Department of Commerce Middle Housing Grant.
Issue: The Washington State Legislature passed House Bill 1110 in 2023, followed by ESHB 2321 in 2024,
which significantly impacted housing planning for cities like Port Orchard. These laws mandate that cities
of certain sizes and locations permit multiple dwelling units per lot in a middle housing form. The attached
memorandum was prepared as a requirement of the City's Washington State Department of Commerce
Middle Housing Grant as described in the Scope of Work for C087-23. The Memorandum outlines the
requirements of HB 1110 and ESHB 2321 and references the City of Port Orchard Housing Action Plan and
is intended to serve as a guide for the City Council.
Middle housing, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030, includes various building types that harmonize with single-
family houses but offer multiple units within a single structure, such as duplexes, triplexes, and
townhouses. It plays a crucial role in addressing housing needs by providing diverse housing options,
promoting affordability, supporting efficient land use, and enhancing walkability and accessibility in
neighborhoods.
Port Orchard's zoning designations subject to middle housing requirements include R1, R2 and R3 zones,
primarily dedicated to single-family use. However, Port Orchard is required to allow for at least two units
per lot in residential zones, with the potential to require more as the population grows, which requires
adjustments to our current zoning regulations.
Port Orchard's current regulations offer flexibility in accommodating various housing types, including those
required by HB 1110 and ESHB 2321. However, code amendments are necessary to meet state mandates.
Those amendments include permitting duplexes within the R1 designation, redesignating properties to R2
districts and creating additional building types.
Page 60 of 86
Back to Agenda
Executive Summary 2D
Page 2 of 2
Alternative 1 proposes a straightforward code amendment to permit duplexes in the R1 designation,
ensuring compliance with HB 1110. Alternative 2 is a proactive approach which suggests redesignating
properties to R2 zoning districts, repealing existing R1 zoning standards, and implementing middle housing
building types mandated by state law. Alternative 2 is in anticipation of Port Orchard's population
exceeding the 25,000-population threshold and becoming a Tier Two city. These alternatives aim to
achieve compliance with state mandates, promote affordability, and plan effectively for future growth in
Port Orchard.
Alternative: The City Council could choose a streamlined approach to middle housing implementation by
focusing solely on addressing the requirements of HB 1110 and ESHB 2321 through Alternative 1. This
alternative suggests including duplexes as a permitted building type within the R1 zone, thereby meeting
the minimum requirement of allowing two units per lot.
The Council may choose not to pursue the other proposed changes related to middle housing in the R2
district and direct staff to prioritize the inclusion of duplexes in the R1 zone postponing any work related
to middle housing in the R2 district until the population threshold is exceeded.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the proposed alternatives and provide
staff with direction on the proposed changes as described herein.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: The memo outlines the new requirements of the Growth
Management Act which must be implemented through the City's Comprehensive Plan and Development
Regulations.
Attachments: Memorandum- Middle Housing Options
Page 61 of 86
Back to Agenda
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
Department of Community Development
s Nui;, 216 Prospect Street
Port Orchard, WA 98366
Phone (36o) 874-5533 - Fax (36o) 876-4980
Memorandum
To: The Port Orchard City Council
From: Nicholas Bond, AICP
Date: April 1, 2024
Re: Middle Housing Options - Implementation of Washington State Department of
Commerce Middle Housing Grant
At Issue:
In 2023, the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill 1110, requiring
significant changes to housing planning for many Washington cities. This legislation
mandates that cities of specific sizes and locations permit multiple dwelling units per
lot in areas that historically are exclusive to detached homes. In 2024, the
Legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2321, which modified the
requirements created under HB 1110.
This memorandum has been prepared as a requirement of the City's Washington
State Department of Commerce Middle Housing Grant, which funds the City's efforts
to implement regulations to comply with these new laws. The City Council accepted
the grant in 2023 (Department of Commerce Interagency Agreement with the City of
Port Orchard ,Department of Commerce Contract Number 24-63326-132 and City
Contract Number 087-23).
This memorandum provides the City Council with the tools needed to evaluate the
available options for compliance with these new laws by outlining the requirements
of HB 1110 and ESHB 2321 and summarizing the City of Port Orchard Housing
Action Plan (accepted by the City Council on June 13, 2023 and accepted by
Commerce in June 2023) and associated 2023 community survey results, as well as
Middle Housing guidance provided by the Washington State Department of
Commerce. Finally, it serves as a guide for City decision -makers to implement the
new middle housing laws by providing a menu of options intended to increase the
availability of middle housing types, while considering the recommendations outlined
in the City of Port Orchard Housing Action Plan.
What is Middle Housing?
Page 1 of 22
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 62 of 86
Back to Agenda
As defined in RCW 36.70A.030, "Middle housing" is a term used to refer to homes
that offer an option that is in the middle between detached single-family houses and
large multifamily complexes. Ideally, these buildings harmonize in scale, form, and
character with traditional single-family houses. Most commonly the term is used to
encompass two or more attached, stacked, or clustered homes such as duplexes,
triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard
apartments, and cottage housing.
These housing types
typically offer multiple
units within a single
structure, providing a
variety of living
arrangements and
densities within
neighborhoods.
,
Middle housing is
important in addressing
housing needs for o.
several reasons as it
promotes: `
.� iir � it � � � ®• -- .
Ile
Diverse I M
Housing
Options: Middle Exampfesofthe nine middle housrngtypes. Source: MAKERS
housing diversifies the housing stock within a community, catering to a
broader range of household sizes, incomes, and preferences. This variety
accommodates individuals and families at different stages of life, from young
professionals to empty nesters, and promotes inclusive and vibrant
neighborhoods.
Affordability: Middle housing often offers more affordable options than
single-family homes or large apartment complexes. By allowing for the
development of smaller, more compact units, middle housing helps increase
housing affordability, particularly in high -demand urban areas where land
costs are prohibitive.
Density and Efficient Land Use: Middle housing promotes higher residential
densities, which can lead to more efficient land use and support transit -
oriented development. By accommodating more housing units within existing
neighborhoods, middle housing reduces urban sprawl, preserves green
space, and fosters sustainable growth patterns.
Walkability and Accessibility: Middle housing encourages walkable
neighborhoods by increasing housing density and supporting mixed -use
development. This, in turn, enhances access to amenities, services, and
public transportation, reducing reliance on cars and promoting healthier, more
active lifestyles.
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 63 of 86
Back to Agenda
Where is Middle Housing Required?
The Legislature has adopted middle housing requirements that target zones
designated for predominantly residential use, unless zoning already exists to permit
higher densities or intensities. Port Orchard has six residential zoning designations
subject to the middle housing requirements of HB 1110 and ESHB 2321.The Port
Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) describes the impacted designations as follows:
• Residential 1 (R1): The R1 district is intended to accommodate single-family
detached houses with a minimum lot size of 5,000 to 6,000 square feet.
(Cottage court developments may have individual lots as small as 1,200
square feet, as indicated below.) R1 may be applied in areas designated as
residential low or residential medium in the Port Orchard comprehensive plan.
Uses and building types that would substantially interfere with the single-
family residential nature of the district are not allowed. (POMC 20.34.010)
• Residential 2 (R2): The R2 district is primarily intended to accommodate
detached house, duplex, and townhouse development with a minimum lot
size that varies based on building type. The R2 district is intended to
implement the residential medium density comprehensive plan designation.
Additional building types that are allowed include backyard cottage (detached
accessory dwelling unit), cottage court, duplex and attached house. Uses that
would substantially interfere with the residential nature of the district are not
allowed. (POMC 20.34.020)
• Residential (R3): The R3 district is intended to accommodate a variety of
residential options limited to three stories in height. The R3 zone should be
applied in areas designated as residential medium density in the Port Orchard
comprehensive plan. Uses that would substantially interfere with the
residential nature of the district are not allowed. (POMC 20.34.030)
• Residential (R4): The R4 district is intended to accommodate a variety of
multifamily residential options at heights of 45 feet or less. Uses that would
substantially interfere with the residential nature of the district are not allowed.
(POMC 20.34.040)
• Residential (R5): The R5 district is intended to accommodate a variety of
multifamily residential options at heights of 55 feet or less. Uses that would
substantially interfere with the residential nature of the district are not allowed.
(POMC 20.34.050)
• Residential (R6): The R6 district is primarily intended to accommodate
detached house development with a minimum lot size that varies based on
building type. The R6 district is intended to implement the residential medium
density comprehensive plan designation in selected parts of the McCormick
Woods master planning area. Additional building types that are allowed
include backyard cottage (detached accessory dwelling unit), cottage court,
duplex and attached house. Uses that would substantially interfere with the
residential nature of the district are not allowed. (POMC 20.34.060)
3
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 64 of 86
Back to Agenda
The R3, R4, and R5 zones allow for apartments and thus these zones allow
densities that are higher and more intense than what is required for middle housing
and are not impacted by the middle housing legislation. The City's R1 zone allows
for detached houses and ADUs, while the City's R2 zone allows for Detached
Houses, ADUs, Cottage Courts, Duplexes, and Townhomes (which can contain 3-4
units). The R1 and R2 zones are primarily dedicated to Single Family use. The R6
zone is like R1 and R2 and is proposed for elimination (changing to R2) in the 2024
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Port Orchard residents recognize the importance of flexibility in integrating a variety
of housing options to expand housing supply and land capacity. The Housing Action
Plan (HAP) community survey revealed strong support, with 70% of respondents
endorsing the idea of "[a]llow more housing types like duplexes, cottages, and
townhouses in single-family neighborhoods if they're compatibly sized and
designed."
A summary of the basic requirements for Cities subject to HB 1110 and ESHB 2321
are provided in Table 1:
4
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 65 of 86
Back to Agenda
Table 1
Minimum number
NEAR A MAJOR
WITH
Requires
of middle
TRANSIT STOP:
AFFORDABLE
allowance for
housing units
Minimum number
HOUSING:
six of nine
that must be
of middle
Minimum number
middle
allowed per lot in
housing units
of middle
housing types
predominately
that must be
housing units
in zones
residential zones
allowed per lot
that must be
predominantly
within 1/4 mile
allowed per lot
for middle
walking distance
with affordable
housing.
of major transit
housing in
stop in
predominately
predominately
residential zones
residential
where density in
zones
applicable zone
does not
otherwise allow
this number
(See also HB
1110, Sec. 3 2
TIER ONE:
4 du/lot, unless
6 du/ lot, unless
6 du/lot if at least 2
Yes
Cities with
zoning permits
zoning permits
units are
population of
higher densities
higher densities
affordable, unless
at least 75,000
zoning permits
E2SHB 1110,
higher densities
Sec. 3(1)(b)
TIER TWO:
2 du/lot unless
4 du/lot, unless
4 du/lot if at least 1
Yes
Cities with
zoning permits
zoning permits
unit is affordable,
population of
higher densities
higher densities
unless zoning
at least 25,000
permits higher
but less than
densities
75,000 E2SHB
1110, Sec.
31 a
TIER THREE:
2 du/lot, unless
N/A
N/A
No *Amended
Cities with
zoning permits
by HB 2321
population
higher densities
passed in
under 25,000
2024.
that are
contiguous
with a UGA
that includes
the largest city
in a county
with a
population
over 275,000
E2SHB 1110,
Sec. 3(1)(c)
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 66 of 86
Back to Agenda
As a Tier Three city, Port Orchard is required to allow for at least two units per lot in
zones predominantly for residential use, unless the residential zone already allows
for higher densities or intensities. This means that every R1 and R2 lot will need to
allow for at least two units per lot, but the City is not yet required to meet the
requirements identified for Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities. However, Port Orchard is rapidly
growing and could surpass 25,000 residents in the next few years and even sooner
if it were to annex additional lands. This would mean that, upon reaching this
population threshold, the City would move into Tier 2 and would be required to
provide for six of the nine middle housing types in the R1 and R2 zones.
In anticipation of the likely move into Tier 2, the City may need to make additional
preemptive modifications to R1 and R2 (beyond those required for Tier 3). For
example, the R2 zone, as it currently exists, may satisfy some of the Tier 2
requirements, but some minor amendments to create distinctive building types (for
instance, permitting and creating a distinct "triplex" building type — currently the city
lumps triplex and fourplex types together) are warranted to ensure full compliance.
Additionally, the R1 zone as adopted would not satisfy the minimum requirements
for a Tier Two city.
Port Orchard's Current Middle Housing Regulations:
In 2019, the City of Port Orchard adopted POMC Title 20 — Unified Development
Code which is a form -based code' (Ord. 011-19) offering several advantages in
promoting middle housing development. POMC Title 20 prioritizes the physical
characteristics and design of buildings and streets over strict land use regulations.
This allows for more flexibility in accommodating a variety of housing types,
including middle housing like duplexes, triplexes, and townhouses, within existing
neighborhoods. POMC Title 20 also allows the City to be more responsive and
flexible to changing demographic and market trends . As housing needs evolve, Port
Orchard can adjust the regulations to encourage the development of middle housing
types that meet the demands of residents, such as smaller units for aging
populations or affordable options for young families.
POMC 20.32, Building Types, addresses the differentiation of building types and
provides standards for the construction of different building types. The focus of
POMC 20.32 is the physical form of development rather than just land use
emphasizing the design and layout of buildings, streets, and public spaces to create
a cohesive and visually appealing built environment.
' Form -based zoning is an approach to zoning that emphasizes built form over land use. This
emphasis distinguishes it from conventional (Euclidean) zoning, which prioritizes a separation of
potentially incompatible land uses, and performance zoning, which prioritizes mitigating the potential
negative effects of new land uses or development. Over the past several decades, hundreds of cities
and counties have adopted form -based zoning regulations (i.e., form -based codes) to foster or protect
a pedestrian -oriented development pattern. American Planning Association.
6
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 67 of 86
Back to Agenda
POMC 20.32 provides a framework to facilitate the development of middle housing
in Port Orchard in a manner that is compatible with the city's overall urban design
goals and vision for sustainable growth including middle housing types as described
in HB 1110. Title 20 currently incorporates many of the identified housing types in
HB 1110 and permits them in all Residential zoning districts as shown in Table 2.
POMC 20.32 establishes specific requirements and standards for building types in
Port Orchard and identifies where those building types are appropriate.
Table 2
Building Type
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
Detached House
P
P
P
--
--
P
Backyard Cottage
P
P
P
--
--
P
Cottage Court
P
P
P
--
--
P
Duplex: Side -by -Side
--
P
P
--
--
--
Duplex: Back -to -Back
--
P
P
--
--
--
Attached House
--
P
P
--
--
--
Four lex
--
--
P
P
P
--
Townhouse
--
P*
P
P
P
Apartment
--
P
P
P
--
*Restricted to three units in the R2 zone.
As illustrated in Table 2, POMC 20.32 currently includes several building types that
satisfy the requirements of HB 1110 and ESHB 2321, which encourages the
development of middle housing options. These include backyard cottages
(Accessory Dwelling Units), cottage courts, duplexes (both side -by -side and back-to-
back configurations), attached houses, fourplexes, and townhouses. These building
types are permitted in the appropriate zoning designations.
However, to align more closely with the requirements of HB 1110 and ESHB 2321
and in anticipation of exceeding the 25,000-population threshold which would require
Port Orchard to have at least six of the nine required middle housing types and to
provide clarity and distinction between different types of housing, the City could
make minimal amendments as described in Alternative 2 in the following section.
By adopting certain amendments, Port Orchard's Municipal Code 20.32 would better
align with the requirements of HB 1110 and ESHB 2321, supporting the
development of diverse middle housing options while providing clear and coherent
regulations for developers, residents, and city officials.
Middle Housing Alternatives
7
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 68 of 86
Back to Agenda
HB 1110 and ESHB 2321 allow for alternatives in its implementation. The following
three alternatives have been identified by staff, in consultation with the Department
of Commerce and review of the Middle Housing Bills as solutions to compliance with
the mandates. In Alternatives 1 and 2, it is assumed the R6 district will be eliminated
through the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update process. Those properties
currently designated R6 would be redesignated to R2.
Historically, most middle housing types have been rental units without the
opportunity for fee simple ownership. The "unit lot subdivision" process provides a
solution to this issue. This process allows for singular ownership of individual
housing units while enabling common ownership of shared facilities and lands. RCW
58.17.060 mandates that cities, including Port Orchard, incorporate provisions for
unit lot subdivisions into their short plat regulations and procedures. To comply with
this mandate and address the need for fee simple ownership opportunities in middle
housing, amendments to the Port Orchard Municipal Code are necessary. These
amendments will ensure compliance with state law while facilitating the
implementation of unit lot subdivisions within Port Orchard, providing residents with
greater flexibility and ownership options in the middle housing market. These
amendments will be necessary in the implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2.
Alternative 1: To ensure compliance with the mandates outlined in RCW
36.70A.635(1)(c) regarding middle housing, Port Orchard must allow for a minimum
of two dwelling units per lot. Currently, the Port Orchard Municipal Code
accommodates several middle housing types as required. However, to fully align
with the requirements of HB 1110, a straightforward code amendment permitting
duplexes within the Residential 1 designation is warranted. This adjustment will
effectively meet Port Orchard's existing obligations and ensure full compliance with
HB 1110 and ESHB 2321.
Alternative 2: Alternative 2 proposes the redesignation of properties from R1 to R2
zoning districts to comply with HB 1110. This involves repealing existing R1 zoning
standards and implementing middle housing building types mandated by HB 1110 it
the R2 district. Port Orchard anticipates population growth, prompting compliance
with density requirements outlined in RCW 36.70A.635(1)(a), allowing for at least
two units per lot and higher densities near major transit stops and for affordable
housing units. Though lacking Major Transit Stops, the City recognizes the
importance of increased densities near transit for equitable access to transportation.
By analyzing existing regulations and identifying suitable areas for higher -density
development, Port Orchard aims to plan effectively for growth, promote affordability,
and encourage sustainability.
Alternative 3: RCW 36.70A. provides relief from the requirements of HB 1110
where certain criteria can be met and demonstrated. The Department of Commerce
was directed to establish a process for cities to seek approval of alternative local
actions to meet the HB 1110 requirements. Approval may be granted for cities that
s
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 69 of 86
Back to Agenda
have adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations substantially
similar to the requirements of HB 1110 by January 1, 2023.
Port Orchard could potentially seek approval of alternative local action under
36.70A.636(3)(a) if the City can demonstrate that its adopted form -based code is
substantially similar to the requirements of HB 1110. This would involve showing that
the code results in an overall increase in housing units allowed in single-family
zones, allows for middle housing throughout the city, and permits additional density
near major transit stops, although Port Orchard does not have any major transit
stops, and for projects with dedicated affordable housing. If the Department of
Commerce approves such action, the City's implementation efforts would be exempt
from appeals, providing a streamlined path for compliance. However, careful
consideration and documentation of how the form -based code aligns with the
specified criteria would be essential to support any exemption request.
Middle Housing Alternatives Implementation
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 proposes the inclusion of duplex building types within the R1 district.
This adjustment aligns with the mandates of HB 1110 and ESHB 2321, advocating
for increased density and housing diversity while addressing the demand for
affordable housing options. By allowing at least two dwelling units, through the
inclusion of duplexes, on all lots primarily designated for single-family residential
use, the proposed amendment ensures full compliance with the Middle Housing
Bills.
Alternative 1 represents a strategic response to housing needs and the legislative
mandates outlined in HB 1110. By permitting duplex building types within the R1
zoning district, compliance with state directives is achieved with minimal disruption
to property owners. Zoning designations and currently allowed uses would remain
largely unchanged; the amendment would simply introduce another building type to
the R1 designation.
However, it's important to acknowledge potential negative impacts. Established
single-family neighborhoods currently designated as R1 would now have
redevelopment potential that includes duplexes, which may alter the character of
these areas. Approximately 17.38% of properties, which currently allow detached
housing but not duplex building types, would be affected by this change. It's worth
noting that the remaining 82.62% of properties already allow for duplexes in addition
to other middle housing types such as townhouses or cottage courts. It is important
to note that the R6 district would be redesignated as R2 through the 2024
Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update process. Alternative 1 limits change to the
minimum necessary to comply with HB 1110 and ESHB 2321 mandates.
9
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 70 of 86
Back to Agenda
Table 3 describes the current area and the percentage of the whole of Residential
zones that permit detached houses.
Table 3
Zone
Area in Acres
Percent
R1
309.01
8.69%
R2
1929.21
54.25%
R3
1008.97
28.37%
R6
308.95
8.69%
Total
3556.14
100.00%
Furthermore, except for eliminating the R6 zone, this amendment would not
necessitate alterations to the currently adopted Zoning Map or change a property's
zoning designation; it would simply broaden the scope of allowable building types
within the R1 district. The affected properties are identified in Attachment A.
Alternative 2
The following analysis provides a functional path for compliance with HB 1110 and
ESHB 2321 as described in Alternative 2 above. To ensure compliance with HB
1110, Alternative 2 involves the redesignation properties currently within the R1
district to R2 and requires the repeal of the currently adopted R1 zoning designation
development standards. The amended R2 district would include the required middle
housing building types mandated by HB 1110.
Port Orchard anticipates surpassing the minimum population threshold outlined in
RCW 36.70A.635(1)(a) within the next five years, driven by historic growth rates and
potential annexations. In anticipation of this increase, the city will comply with RCW
36.70A.635(1)(a) by allowing for at least two units per lot on residential -zoned lots,
with higher density requirements near major transit stops and for affordable housing
units.
Although Port Orchard lacks Major Transit Stops as defined in RCW 81.104.015, the
City should recognize the importance of increasing densities near transit stops to
promote equitable access to transportation and sustainable growth. While not
mandated by the law, the City would acknowledge the benefits of such actions.
By taking proactive measures, Port Orchard will effectively plan for anticipated
population growth, promote housing affordability, and encourage sustainable
development in line with the requirements of HB 1110.
Currently, Port Orchard operates under a form -based code established in 2019,
which largely aligns with the requirements of HB 1110. However, certain
adjustments to the code are necessary to effectively integrate the new mandates
outlined in HB 1110. City staff has conducted a thorough examination of the relevant
regulations within the Port Orchard Municipal Code, particularly those related to
zoning designations and building types. Through this review, modifications
10
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 71 of 86
Back to Agenda
necessary for compliance have been identified, while also considering the
recommendations suggested in Port Orchard's June 2023 Housing Action Plan.
The R2 zone as currently written mostly complies with the impending requirements
for allowing middle housing pursuant to HB 1110 and ESHB 2321. As such, the City
would designate all residential land in the City where middle housing is required as
R2. This means that properties currently zoned R1 would be changed to R2. The
elimination of the R6 district through the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update
process would result in those properties being designated Residential 2 prior to any
amendments to achieve compliance with the Middle Housing Bills.
It is important to note that while the proposed zoning change and middle housing
allowances would be permitted by city code, there may be instances where
compliance with these regulations is restricted by existing conditions such as
restrictive covenants (CC&Rs) established prior to the enactment of HB 1110. In
addition, privately owned stormwater facilities serving neighborhoods could pose
limitations on the development of middle housing, unless additional measures are
taken to manage stormwater impacts on the lots where middle housing is proposed.
These caveats underscore the need for thorough analysis and consideration of site -
specific factors when implementing middle housing strategies, ensuring that
regulatory compliance is balanced with practical constraints and environmental
considerations.
The required amendments to the POMC would introduce one new building type
(stacked flat) and create distinction in requirements of existing building types to
achieve at least six of the nine building types required by HB 1110 and ESHB 2321
through the following actions:
Combine Duplex Types: Combine the three types of duplexes (attached
house, side -by -side, and back-to-back) into a singular type. This consolidation
simplifies the regulations and eliminates unnecessary distinctions between
these similar housing types.
Create a Stacked Flat building type: To further consistency with HB 1110 and
enhance the diversity of housing options in Port Orchard, a suggested code
amendment to POMC 20.32 could be considered to introduce a new building
type termed "stacked flat." The stacked flat would be similar in nature to a
duplex but would offer a distinct configuration and characteristics, providing
additional flexibility for housing development.
Permit and Create Distinction Between Triplex and Fourplex: Currently, the
fourplex building type in the Municipal Code may be three to four units which
would include both the triplex and fourplex configurations required by HB
1110. To create clarity and distinguish between these housing options, and to
further compliance with HB 1110, the City could amend the fourplex building
type to divide the fourplex category into two distinct building types: triplex and
fourplex. This revision ensures that each housing type is clearly defined and
11
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 72 of 86
Back to Agenda
regulated separately within the code, facilitating easier compliance and
enforcement.
Create Infill Cluster Housing: Create a housing type that allows a mix of up to
nine residential units within compact detached and/or and/or duplexes on unit
lots with common areas and private open space. It may be allowed in R2 and
R3 districts. The specifications should include provisions for lot size,
setbacks, building height, private usable open space, parking location, shared
driveway materials and design, landscaping requirements among other site -
design issues. The Infill Cluster Housing aims to provide a flexible and
efficient housing option within the R2 and R3 districts.
Table 4 depicts the minimum resultant permitted building types required of HB 1110
and ESHB 2321 in Alternative 2. The amendments are illustrated where additions are
identified in bold text and deletions with italicized text. The R6 district, depicted with
black fill, would be repealed in its entirety and properties currently designated R6
would be redesignated as R2. The amendments identified below would be the
minimum necessary to comply with HB 1110 and ESHB 2321 as currently adopted.
Table 4
Building Type
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5 '.
Detached House
P
P
F,
--
-- '
Backyard Cottage
P
P
P
--
-- '
Cottage Court
P
P
P
--
-- '
Duplex: Side -by -Side
--
P
P
--
--
Duplex: Back -to -Back
--
P
P
--
--
Duplex
P
P
P
Stacked Flat
P
P
P
Attached House
--
P
F,
--
--
Triplex
P
P
Fourplex
--
P
P
P
P
Townhouse
--
P*
P
P
P
Apartment
--I
I P
I P
IF,
• *The current restriction of three units in the R2 zone would be repealed.
It is important to note that the Housing Action Plan provides guidance promoting
middle housing and some of those recommendations have been incorporated into
the implementation of HB 1110 and ESHB 2321. Some amendments would include
the elimination of the Residential 5 zoning designation which is currently in the Port
Orchard Municipal Code but has not been utilized since adoption, and the
redesignation of R6 properties to R2.
Alternative 3
12
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 73 of 86
Back to Agenda
To analyze Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) Title 20 in relation to middle
housing implementation and its alignment with the requirements of HB 1110, the City
must examine key provisions of Title 20 and evaluate how they address the following
criteria:
Overall Increase in Housing Units Allowed in Single -Family Zones: The City
must assess whether Title 20 facilitates an increase in housing units within
single-family zones compared to previous regulations. As demonstrated in the
Kitsap County 2014 and 2021 Buildable Lands Reports, the City of Port
Orchard increased its residential density in all residential zones. This is
demonstrated by a significant increase in platted lots from 288 in 2013 to 503
in 2019. The maximum allowed densities permitted in the form -based code
also increased significantly as illustrated in the R2 district, formerly the R8
district, to a maximum allowed density at 21.7 du/acre from 8 du/acre.
Allowance for Middle Housing Throughout the City: The City has determined
that Title 20 permits various types of middle housing, such as duplexes,
triplexes, and townhouses, in residential areas beyond just specific zones or
targeted locations. The Residential 1 district allows for Accessory Dwelling
Units in a zoning designation that otherwise only permits detached houses.
The inclusion of ADUs in all residential zones may create consistency with the
requirement that all districts allow at least two dwelling units per lot. The
current residential zoning districts which primarily allow single family housing
(R1, R2, R3 and R6) comprise approximately 3,556.14 acres within Port
Orchard, of which only 17.38% within the R1 and R6 districts does not permit
some sort of middle housing.
Zone
Area in Acres
Percent
R1
309.01
8.69%
R2
1929.21
54.25%
R3
1008.97
28.37%
R6
308.95
8.69%
Total
3556.14
100.00%
Additional Density near Major Transit Stops and for Projects with Dedicated
Affordable Housing: While Title 20 does not specifically allow densities
bonuses, the lack of major transit stops makes compliance with this
requirement moot. The City should consider discussion regarding the former
multifamily tax exemption process to be revisited and potentially expanded to
include middle housing types.
By conducting a thorough review of Title 20 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code,
particularly sections related to zoning, development standards, and housing
regulations, we can assess its compliance with the stated requirements. However,
initial review of the mandates of HB 1110 and ESHB 2321 and the 2019 Unified
Development Code is likely to satisfy the exemption allowance.
13
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 74 of 86
Back to Agenda
Additional Steps
To achieve success in meeting the Middle Housing Bill requirements, additional
steps for implementation include:
Stakeholder Engagement: Port Orchard's Housing Action Plan included a
robust outreach process which engaged community stakeholders, including
property owners, residents, and developers to gather input and provides a
guide to the community's needs and preferences. Allow an opportunity for the
public to review and comment on proposed zoning changes, as described in
Alternative 2 Implementation, through the Department of Community
Development Viewer.
• Public Outreach and Education: The Land Use Workshop and potential
outreach efforts at the Port Orchard Farmer's Market offer an opportunity to
residents about the benefits and implications of middle housing, fostering
understanding and support for the proposed changes.
• Policy Development: Formulate policies and guidelines to regulate the design,
density, and compatibility of middle housing developments, ensuring they
enhance neighborhood character and quality of life.
• Incentive Programs: Explore incentive programs, such as density bonuses or
fee reductions or property tax exemptions, to encourage the development of
middle housing and facilitate affordability.
• Zoning Code Amendments: Draft and propose amendments to the Port
Orchard Municipal Code to introduce the new building types and revise
existing regulations to facilitate middle housing development.
By incorporating these additional steps into the City's process, we can ensure a
complete approach to middle housing that addresses community needs, promotes
sustainable growth, and enhances the overall livability of Port Orchard while meeting
the requirements of HB 1110 and ESHB 2321.
Conclusion
This memorandum outlines the implementation of the Washington State Department
of Commerce Middle Housing Grant in accordance with the Middle Housing Bills (HB
1110 and ESHB 2321) with consideration to the City of Port Orchard Housing Action
Plan. It provides guidance for City decision -makers to align zoning regulations with
the objectives of promoting middle housing and affordable housing within Port
Orchard, consistent with the requirements of the Middle Housing Bills.
14
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 75 of 86
Back to Agenda
To implement middle housing effectively, Port Orchard is reviewing its zoning
regulations, considering critical areas, and proposing amendments to align with HB
1110 and ESHB 2321 requirements. Additional steps for implementation include
stakeholder engagement, public outreach, policy development, potential incentive
programs, and zoning code amendments.
Alternatives 1 and 2 are the minimum necessary in the short-term as a Tier 3 city
and proactively addressing the requirement of becoming a Tier 2 city. These
Alternatives offer the most direct solution to the Middle Housing compliance with
minimal impact to most property owners. Port Orchard has taken proactive steps to
foster development of middle housing through the adoption of the 2019 Unified
Development Code. Alternative 3 offers a path to compliance but comes with risk as
it is subject to a qualitative assessment by others.
Port Orchard aims to meet the requirements of the Middle Housing Bills through a
comprehensive approach to middle housing, and community needs, promote
sustainable growth, and enhance the livability of Port Orchard fostering a vibrant and
inclusive community for all residents.
15
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 76 of 86
Back to Agenda
Housing Action Plan Recommendations Summary
The Housing Action Plan presents a comprehensive approach to addressing various
challenges and opportunities within the housing landscape of Port Orchard. While
the Plan encompasses a wide range of issues, the significant barriers related to
middle housing are highlighted below. Alternatives 1 and 2 are proposed as key
strategies to address them through the development regulation framework. These
alternatives aim to expand allowed uses, streamline building type standards, adjust
form and intensity standards, and revise other development regulations to promote
the production of diverse middle housing options while enhancing affordability..
Although the HAP provides suggested solutions, the City Council may utilize other
means to meet the statutory requirements than what is noted in the HAP summary
below.
1) Expand Allowed Uses. These proposed changes aim to create a more inclusive and
diversified housing landscape within the City of Port Orchard by evaluating and updating
zoning regulations to permit a broader range of housing types in various zones,
facilitating the development of middle housing and enhancing affordability.
a) Allow more housing types in more zones to promote middle housing and affordable
housing.
i) R5 Zone: Considering the absence of current mapped R5 zones and the
proposed changes to R4, this section recommends eliminating the R5 zone from
the code. Proposed changes to the R6 zone, including a potential renaming to
R5, aim to ensure a seamless zoning framework.
ii) NMU Zone: To address inconsistencies in the use table, it is recommended to
allow the apartment building type in Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) zones,
correcting the existing disparity.
iii) Congregate Living Housing: Streamlining standards for congregate living
housing, acknowledging its historical significance as an affordable housing
option, is proposed. Specific recommendations include:
(1) Moving land use standards from the definition to POMC 20.39.100.
(2) Allowing congregate living housing in some non-residential zones, particularly
in the CMU zone.
(3) Clarifying parking requirements in POMC 20.124.130 and Table 20.124.140.
(4) Amending standards for more flexible lease arrangements.
iv) Adult Family Homes: In response to new state legislation (RCW 70.128.066), it is
recommended to update standards and definitions under POMC 20.39.100(10) to
accommodate adult family homes with seven or eight beds.
v) Supportive Housing: Acknowledging state legislation (RCW 35A.21.430, 2021)
and ensuring compliance, recommendations include providing definitions
referencing state law for emergency housing, emergency shelter, permanent
supportive housing, and transitional housing. Operational plans and information -
sharing requirements, inspired by examples from other jurisdictions, are also
suggested to enhance oversight and community engagement.
2) Streamline the Building Types. These modifications aim to simplify and streamline
building type standards, reducing complexity and encouraging the production of diverse
middle housing options.
a) Adjust Cottage Court Standards:
16
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 77 of 86
Back to Agenda
i) Option 1: Remove or Reduce Minimum Site Size
(1) Building footprints, setbacks, parking, and open space largely dictate land
requirements. Eliminate the minimum site size. Alternatively, consider 12,000
sq. ft. for standard lots and 10,000 sq. ft. for lots with alley access.
ii) Option 2: Reduce Minimum Number of Cottages
(1) Lower minimum from five to four, aligning with standards in other regions.
Enhances flexibility for cottage court design on smaller sites.
iii) Option 3: Adjust Minimum Courtyard Size Standards.
(1) Replace complex standards with a simpler approach: Require a minimum of
400 sq. ft. of common courtyard space per cottage cluster. Set minimum
dimensions at 15-20 feet for greater alignment with regional practices.
iv) Option 4: Allow Duplex Cottages in All Zones
(1) Enable efficient land and material use. May require a clear code statement
due to current impracticality with a 1,200 sq. ft. maximum building footprint.
b) Consolidate Duplex Types:
i) Option 1: Merge "Duplex: Side -by -Side" and "Duplex: Back -to -Back" into
"Duplex"
(a) Simplify duplex standards to encourage greater production. Suggest
replacing "Two-family" with "Duplex" for naming consistency in Chapter
20.39 POMC.
(b) Consider further consolidation by providing a comprehensive duplex
building type definition.
c) Rename the Fourplex Type:
i) Option: Change "Fourplex" to "Triplex/Fourplex"
(1) Clarify that this building type allows 3-4 units.
(2) Avoid misleading interpretations and promote triplexes as a viable middle
housing option.
d) Adjust Townhouse Type Standards:
i) Option: Remove Minimum Site Size and Width
(1) Allow other zoning standards and market factors to determine land area
needed for townhouse development.
(2) Enhance flexibility without compromising necessary standards like open
space, parking, setbacks, and landscaping.
e) Consolidate the Live -Work Type:
i) Option: De-emphasize Live -Work Type
(1) Recognize limited feasibility outside strong urban markets.
(2) Acknowledge the rarity of households with self-employed businesses suitable
for live -work spaces.
(3) Consider de-emphasizing live -work in the code due to its infrequent
occurrence and potential cost implications.
f) Adjust Shopfront House Standards:
i) Option: Allow a Range of 2-4 Units per Lot
(1) Provide flexibility in configuration options by permitting 2-4 units per lot for the
Shopfront House building type.
g) Building Height:
i) Option: Remove Maximum Building Height, Except for Backyard Cottages and
Cottage Courts
(1) Ensure clear and consistent standards by eliminating maximum building
height from all building types, excluding backyard cottages and cottage
courts.
(2) Regulate accessory structure height limits in zoning chapters.
17
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 78 of 86
Back to Agenda
h) Minimum Private Usable Open Space:
i) Option: Introduce Minimum Private Usable Open Space Requirements
(1) Address the need for usable open space in middle housing types.
(a) Recommended standards:
(i) Minimum 300 sq. ft. per unit.
(ii) Dimensions: 10 feet per unit (6 feet for rooftop patio or balcony).
(iii) Shared open spaces permitted, subject to specific dimensions.
(iv) Front yard usage allowed with a demarcating low fence.
(v) Prohibit parking or driving, except for emergency access.
i) Ground Floor Elevation:
i) Option: Apply Elevation Standard to Detached Houses and Duplex Types Only
(1) Reduce minimum elevation from two feet to 16 inches.
(2) Align with block frontage standards for improved transition and privacy.
j) Blank Walls:
i) Option: Remove Blank Wall Standards for Selected Building Types
(1) Eliminate or adjust standards for blank walls in apartment, single -story
shopfront, mixed -use shopfront, and general building types.
(2) Consider applying a standard consistent with POMC 20.127.460 for smaller
building types where applicable.
k) Transparency:
i) Option: Move Transparency Standards to Chapter 20.32 POMC for Consistency
(1) Shift the minimum transparency standard of 8% from POMC 20.139.025(3) to
Chapter 20.32 POMC for uniformity among building types.
(2) Retain the measurement method of transparency in Chapter 20.139.
3) Adjust Form & Intensity Standards.
a) To reduce barriers to "middle" housing/building types, consider the following
recommendations for adjusting minimum lot dimensions:
i) R2 Zone:
(1) Retain current minimum lot dimensions for detached houses.
(2) For cottage courts, refer to Strategy 2.2.1 for updated suggestions on
minimum site area.
(3) Exempt other "middle" building types (duplexes, attached houses,
triplexes/fourplexes, and townhouses) from minimum lot area and width
standards.
ii) R3 Zone:
(1) Retain current minimum lot dimensions for detached houses.
(2) For cottage courts, refer to Strategy 2.2.1 for updated suggestions on
minimum site area.
(3) Exempt other "middle" building types (backyard cottages, duplexes, attached
houses, fourplexes, and townhouses) from minimum lot area and width
standards.
(4) For apartments, consider reducing the current 10,000 sq. ft. lot size minimum
to 7,000 sq. ft., with the option for 5,000 sq. ft. lots where alley access is
available. Reduce minimum lot width from 80 feet to 70 feet, with the option
for 50-foot wide lots where alley access is available.
iii) R4 Zone:
(1) Consider eliminating lot dimension standards entirely, especially as detached
houses are not allowed, relying on other standards to meet community
objectives.
iv) R5 Zone:
18
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 79 of 86
Back to Agenda
(1) If not eliminating this zone (refer to Strategy 2.1.6), consider removing lot
dimension standards for the same reasons as in the R4 zone.
v) R6 Zone:
(1) Retain the current 4,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size and 40-feet lot width for a
detached house.
(2) Exempt other "middle" building types from minimum lot area and width
standards (duplexes, attached houses, triplexes/fourplexes, and
townhouses).
vi) Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones:
(1) Retain existing minimum lot size and width provisions for detached houses.
(2) Eliminate such standards for all other building types to maximize flexibility,
including the McCormick Village Overlay District. Rely on existing standards
to ensure integration in a compatible manner.
b) To address housing affordability and economic feasibility, consider the following
recommendations for adjusting height limits and introducing affordable housing
bonuses:
i) Base Height Limit Adjustments:
(1) Explore modest changes to base height limits (up to one floor) in key
multifamily and commercial zones.
(2) Enhance economic feasibility for multifamily and mixed -use development.
ii) Bonus Height Limits for MFTE Participants:
(1) Introduce bonus height limits allowing up to two additional floors for
developments participating in the City's Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE)
program.
(2) Incentivize greater production of multifamily housing, especially affordable
(subsidized) housing.
(3) Limit the MFTE bonus to the Type 1, 12-year affordability program, with
potential expansion to the 20-year program if adopted by the City.
iii) Consideration of TDR Program Impact:
(1) Acknowledge the existing Transfer -of -Development -Rights (TDR) program in
place since 2019.
(2) Recognize that proposed height changes may impact the attractiveness of
the TDR program, but highlight the tradeoff of incentivizing affordable
housing.
(3) Emphasize that TDR remains the exclusive way to achieve the tallest allowed
buildings in certain locations (up to eight stories or 88 feet).
iv) Mitigation through Design Standards:
(1) Emphasize that increased height limits and potentially larger buildings will be
mitigated by existing multifamily and commercial design standards.
(2) Highlight existing standards for building massing, light and air access, usable
open space, attractive materials, windows and entries, ensuring high -quality
development.
c) To align with Comprehensive Plan policies and state law, consider the following
options for adjusting minimum residential density standards:
i) Citywide Minimum Density Requirements:
(1) Implement citywide minimum residential density requirements in alignment
with Comprehensive Plan policies LU-11, HS-9, and HS-16.
(2) Mandate a minimum of 15 units per acre in locations eligible for the
Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) 12-year and 20-year programs.
ii) Thresholds for Application:
19
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 80 of 86
Back to Agenda
(1) Apply minimum density requirements only to new developments on sites
above a specified size, such as % acre or'/2 net acre.
(2) Define "net acre" as per the MFTE chapter, excluding critical areas, buffers,
and undevelopable land like shoreline buffers and tidelands.
(3) Aim to reduce complications for small infill development and promote
economies of scale.
iii) Centers -Focused Density Standards:
(1) Consider applying minimum density standards exclusively to sites within
designated centers, directing growth more intensely in these areas.
(2) Align with the City's goal of promoting compact and walkable development in
specific zones.
iv) Limited Zoning Application:
(1) Propose minimum residential density standards for a limited number of zones
based on public feedback and the typical application of the MFTE program.
(2) Tailor the application to zones where the City seeks to encourage growth and
development.
d) To address the religiously owned land density bonus mandated by state law (RCW
35A.63.300), consider the following options:
i) Zoning Update or Overlay Zone:
(1) Explore updating underlying zoning or creating a new overlay zone to
accommodate the density bonus for religiously -owned land.
(2) Assess the impact on residential and mixed -use neighborhoods with existing
churches.
ii) Development Agreements:
(1) Prefer development agreements as the implementation option, considering
the potential rarity of utilizing this density bonus.
(2) Provide flexibility for religious organizations seeking to develop affordable
housing.
iii) Comprehensive Plan Policy Addition:
(1) Introduce a Comprehensive Plan policy specific to religiously owned
affordable housing.
(2) Specify a minimum density requirement, such as 30 dwelling units per net
acre, ensuring alignment with state law.
iv) Proactive Engagement:
(1) Proactively engage with religious organizations to gauge their interest in
developing affordable housing on their properties.
(2) Consider assigning responsibilities for this outreach to a Housing Coordinator
staff position.
4) Adjust Other Standards. Adjust other development regulations to help reduce barriers
to housing production by identifying and revising additional development regulations that
may pose obstacles to housing production, ensuring a streamlined process for middle
housing projects.
a) To refine the residential design standards outlined in Chapter 20.139 POMC,
consider the following options:
i) Enhance Cross -References:
(1) Include additional cross-references in Chapter 20.32 POMC, connecting
building type standards with residential design standards for improved code
navigation.
ii) Consolidate Garage Configuration Standards:
(1) Consolidate duplex garage configuration standards (20.139.015).
20
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 81 of 86
Back to Agenda
(2) Utilize the 40-feet lot width threshold for all configurations to streamline and
simplify standards.
iii) Transparency Standards Placement:
(1) Place transparency standards (20.139.025(3)) for specific building types
directly within the building type standards for consistency.
iv) Roof Pitch Modification:
(1) Modify the minimum 4:12 roof pitch standard (20.139.045(2)) to allow for
modern architectural styles with flat roofs and roof decks.
(2) Consider deleting the first sentence and maintaining the roof elements
standard without the term "pitched."
v) Resolve Duplex Standards Conflicts:
(1) Resolve conflicting transparency standards and repetitive driveway standards
in Section 20.139.055 for duplexes.
(2) Address duplication of porch projection standards (subsection (2)) by aligning
with POMC 20.122.060 to avoid redundancy.
5) Adjust Significant Tree Standards: To address challenges associated with significant
tree standards in Port Orchard, consider the following options:
a) Explore Alternative Approaches:
i) Investigate alternative approaches for tree standards that are easier to
administer and have a reduced impact on soft costs and housing capacity.
b) Canopy Coverage Requirement:
i) Consider shifting the focus from individual trees to requiring a minimum tree
canopy coverage at the time of tree species maturity.
ii) Allow both newly planted and existing trees to contribute to the required canopy
coverage.
c) Align with McCormick Village Overlay District Method:
i) Align with the method applied in the McCormick Village Overlay District (POMC
20.38.280), where tree removal for new development is managed by considering
overall tree canopy coverage.
d) Exemption for Middle Housing Developments:
i) In the near term, consider exempting middle housing developments or mixed
housing developments with a significant number of middle housing types
(duplexes, cottage housing, townhouses, triplexes/fourplexes) from the
requirement to prepare a significant tree retention plan.
e) Balance Benefits and Costs:
i) Weigh the benefits and costs of the existing significant tree code to ensure a
balanced approach that addresses environmental considerations without
imposing excessive costs on development.
6) Adjusting Family Definition: To align with state law and address family definition in
Port Orchard, consider the following options:
a) Amend Definition to Reflect State Law:
i) Amend the definition of "family" under POMC 20.12.010 to align with state law
RCW 35A.21.314 (2021).
ii) Ensure that the definition does not regulate or limit the number of unrelated
persons occupying a household or dwelling unit.
b) Simplified Family Definition:
i) Adopt a simplified family definition, such as:
21
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 82 of 86
Back to Agenda
(1) "Family" means any number of persons related by blood, marriage, or legal
adoption, including foster children and exchange students living together as a
single housekeeping unit.
7) Adjusting Elevator Penthouse Standards: To enhance the functionality and livability
of multifamily and mixed -use housing in Port Orchard, consider the following options
related to elevator penthouses:
a) Increase Height Allowance for Elevator Penthouse:
i) Amend POMC 20.40.050(2)(c)(i) to increase the allowable height for structures
screening elevators, particularly when providing access to roof decks.
ii) Consider raising the height allowance from the current limit of 10 feet to 17 feet
to accommodate modern elevator designs and facilitate features like 10-feet tall
elevator cabs and elevator -accessible roof decks.
b) Adapt Standards to Evolving Elevator Technology:
i) Recognize advancements in elevator technology, such as the "Machine Room -
Less" design, which offers cost-effective options for taller buildings.
ii) Adjust code provisions to accommodate the unique characteristics of modern
elevator designs, allowing for increased overrun above the roof level.
c) Flexible Design Considerations:
i) Introduce flexibility in standards to account for evolving design trends and
resident preferences.
ii) Ensure that the code provides sufficient leeway for incorporating features like 10-
feet tall elevator cabs and rooftop decks without compromising structural integrity
or violating height restrictions.
8) Adjusting Parking Lot Landscaping Standards: To enhance the efficiency of land use
in smaller lots, particularly for infill multifamily and townhouse development, consider the
following options related to parking lot landscaping:
a) Reduce Minimum Planting Area Widths:
i) Amend POMC 20.128.070(3) to reduce the minimum width requirements for
planting areas along public streets and internal lot lines.
ii) Consider a uniform minimum width of 7.5 feet for landscaping along public
streets and five feet along internal lot lines, promoting more efficient land
utilization.
b) Simplify Planting Area Standards:
i) Streamline and simplify the planting area standards to facilitate easier
interpretation and compliance.
ii) Ensure that the revised standards align with the purpose of parking lot
landscaping while accommodating the constraints of smaller lots.
c) Create a Dedicated Code Section:
i) Establish a separate code section specifically addressing parking lot landscaping
standards for better organization and accessibility.
ii) Consider renumbering or creating a new section, such as 20.128.075, to
specifically address parking lot landscaping, making it more visible and user-
friendly in code documents.
22
10850357.1 - 366922 - 0001 Page 83 of 86
Back to Agenda
Page 84 of 86
Back to Agenda
STARVIEW DR SW
SW SUNSHINE WAY
E
U
°
°
z
O
In
<
w
m
Residential 1 Properties
U
J
w
O
_
E-
O
a
E
z
J
Of
w
m
w
Z
O
J
UNNAMED
W JARSTAD DR
2
O
O �
<2 Q
W BELFAIR VALLEY RD 4_
3�
�y
w Tyo
Q Rs
0
z W FRONE DR S
O RO
0
QW PLEASANT ST
_
U
ICY- W ALDER ST
m
W FRONTAGE RD wS-r a
E HwY U
6 z RAMP
W IRVIN WAY O
0
U
°
rY
}
Of
<
U
U
SW CLAIR RD SW CEDARVALE CT
SW HUDSON DR
0
A
SAND DOLLAR RD W
�I EONO pF2
O
O44/
O
Q
w
z
w
Y
Z
Y
>
W STATE HWY 16
SW COOK RD
SW WHITECAP LN
SW HANSON RD
U
SW DURFEY LN
J
ry z
° O
w U
w
F o
<
<
PUGET SOUND BLVD
U
z
J
I—
U
_
Y
<
O
SW HARPER RD
Z
F—
U
w
Z
2
°
w
Y
Q
J
}
D
<
w
m
WEYERS LN SW
Cl)
Z
J
Q
z
<
w
SW BERRY LAKE RD
JAA w
o
c
SW HONEY RD
N
w
U
0
o
�N
o°°
(D
O
°
w
SE ROSE RD
�'9 E 2ND ST uw
W
w E 3RD ST Q
> '
Y�tf
Q W
C ATLI nr O
DR
Milo
� ���� 1111111111111
w
a
)
w
J
w
0
w
Q
w°
Y
SE MAPLE ST
SE DOWNING PL
W
Z
J
SE FIR ST
C/)
W
W
_Oz
T
GO
�
�
w
j
U
O
O
Q
Ji
Z
J
C
U
IQ
Z
m
W
?
om
SE HOPI WAY
J
G
QJ
2
U
°
w
<
°
w
z
w
U
x
>
Q
O
Q
°
X
rY
>
O
00
LL
SE BASIL CT
Cw
SE PLYMOUTH WAY
w
°
R'
U
w
U
m
J
=
U
SE TIBURON CT Y
w
U w
w
w
U
J
SE MORITZ WAY a
a
}
<
°
z
w < �
U w Z
Q
m
of
O
° ° °
12� w
W
U U
O
<
2
SE SALMONBERRY RD
w
U
z
of
SE FAY CT
�
U
SE VALE RD
U
z
w
Y
Y
w
U
F--
U
<
J
J
>
SE FOREST VILLA CT
SE BERGER LN
w
U
SE ARIE CT
w
w
w U
Q
z
O
z
� J
Y
° J
Q
U
Q
� Z
U O
z OJ
< U
CIO
w
U
z
wSE COLUSA ST SE COLVEA DR
F--
SE CALAVERAS ST
SE PIERSON ST
SE TRAVERA DR
SE TIFFANY LN
SE BEECHCREST CT
w
<
m
w
U
U
w
w
z
Q
U
=
z
O
L
U
Y
ILL
U
<
SE COPPER CREEK DR
w
U w
Cl)
° z
w
w
U
Z
w
U
< J
Z Q
F—
W
U
w
° j
Q
_<
Z
w
w U)
w
O
Y
z
O
J
> Z
Z J
Uw
GRANADA PL SE
2
SE CELEBRITY CT
HASTINGS LN SE
SE RICHMOND LN
MARTELL MOBILE MNR
T SE HILLWOOD LN
SE DALEA PL
SE CEDAR RD
n ALONAH PL SE
T
r
PERDEMCO AVE SE
w
U
J
d
z
O
N
SE CONCEPT LN
R1 _properties
Page 85 of 86
m SE KRISTA ST
Back to Agenda
Page 86 of 86