May 7, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting PacketCITY OF PORT ORCHARD
Planning Commission
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(36o) 874-5533 planning@portorchardwa.gov
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, May 7, 2024— 6:00 pm
*** Attendees and Planning Commissioners may attend in person at City Hall or via Zoom***
Join Zoom Meeting, Public Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/i/86180242823
Dial -in (phone audio) only: + 1253 215 8782
Webinar ID: 8618024 2823
Planning Commissioners please use individual webinar links.
1. Call to Order: 6:00 p.m.
Pledge of allegiance.
2. Welcome and Introduction.
Planning Commission and City Staff Introductions.
3. Audience Comments: Topics not listed for public hearing on tonight's agenda.
Please limit comments to 3 minutes.
4. Approval of Minutes from:
a) April 2, 2024 (Attachment)(ACTION)
5. Business Items:
a) DISCUSSION: 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update
An update on the progress of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update.
Staff Contact: Jim Fisk, AICP, Principal Planner
b) DISCUSSION: Middle Housing Options Memorandum (Attachment)
Discussion of the Middle Housing Options Memorandum in implementation of House Bill 1110.
Staff Contact: Jim Fisk, AICP, Principal Planner
c) DISCUSSION: Director's Report
Update to the Planning Commission on recent related to past and upcoming Planning Commission
activity.
Staff Contact: Nick Bond, AICP, Community Development Director
6. Adjourn
Next Planning Commission Meeting — June 4, 2024
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
Planning Commission Minutes
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
Phone: (36o) 874-5533 • Fax: (36o) 876-498o
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2024
Zoom Teleconference
COMMISSIONERS:
Present: Tyler McKlosky (acting chair), Annette Stewart, Louis Ta, Wayne Wright, Stephanie Bailey.
Absent: Joe Morrison
STAFF:
Community Development Director Nick Bond, Principal Planner Jim Fisk, Associate Planner Shaun
Raja, Planning Intern Paul Fontenot.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner McKlosky called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. and led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no members of the public present in the chamber, and the remote
attendee did not request the floor. Consequently, there were no comments regarding issues not on the
agenda.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 5, 2024: As Commissioners Bailey and McKlosky were not
present for the March meeting, they abstained from the vote approving the minutes from that meeting.
Commissioner McKlosky asked if the other commissioners had reviewed the minutes from the March
2024 meeting and if anyone had any issues or proposed amendments. Seeing none, a motion was
entertained to approve the minutes. Commissioner Stewart moved to approve the minutes with
Commissioner Ta as a second. The motion passed unanimously with two abstentions.
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
Commissioner McKlosky offered himself as a candidate for Chair. Commissioner Bailey officially
nominated Commissioner McKlosky. Commissioner Stewart seconded that nomination with
Commissioner as a third. Commissioner McKlosky was elected to the position of Chair
unanimously.
Commissioner Bailey nominated Commissioner Stewart for the position of Vice Chair.
Commissioner Ta seconded the nomination. Commissioner Stewart accepted the nomination and
was subsequently elected unanimously to the position of Vice Chair.
B. PRESENTATION: 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERIODIC UPDATE: LAND USE,
HOUSING, CAPITAL FACILITIES, AND CLIMATE ELEMENTS.
Principal Planner Fisk provided an overview of the proposed amendments to the land use, housing,
capital facilities, and climate elements of the comprehensive plan, which had been provided to the
commissioners in the meeting packet. Fisk also mentioned that the department had received
comments from the Kitsap County Association of Realtors giving their endorsement of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Commission's comments and feedback were requested by April 25.
Commissioner McKlosky opened the topic up for discussion.
Commissioner Ta commented that the identification of sections in the Comprehensive Plan for the
Commission to review has been helpful.
Director Bond mentioned that the climate element of the Plan is a new addition to the Plan. The
City is being proactive in its addition as the element is not required until 2029. The capital
facilities element was not as thorough as the Department would have liked as guidance for the
element has not yet been given by the State Department of Commerce.
Commissioner Wright asked about the Department's feedback for the commissioners' comments.
Principle Planner Fisk replied that those responses would be presented to the Commission by June.
Director Bond added that the Department has asked their consulting firm to create a comment
matrix for all such comments.
Commissioner Stewart asked about the use of the phrase "activity unites" in the Comprehensive
Plan. Director Bond explained that activity units were one of many metrics that the Puget Sound
Regional Council measured for specific grant allocations.
Commissioner Stewart commented that the focus of Comprehensive Plan seemed to concern
mostly the downtown area and that she would like to see focus on other commercial centers in the
model of other cities in the region. Director Bond explained that there were several commercial
centers throughout the city addressed in the Comprehensive Plan and that the City does not possess
the same large tax base that other cities have at their disposal.
C. DISCUSSION: DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Bond reported that the State Legislature recently passed a bill relaxing the requirements
for the establishment of middle -housing. Consequently, the Department would reevaluate middle -
housing policies and goals.
ADJOURN: Commissioner McKlosky adjourned the meeting at 6:34 pm.
Tyler McKlosky, Chair
Nick Bond, Community Development Director
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
Ph.: (360) 874-5533 • FAX: (360) 876-4980
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No: 5(a) Meeting Date: May 7, 2024
2024 Comprehensive Plan Prepared by: Nick Bond, AICP, Development
Subject: Update Director
Issue: Over the past several months, beginning in February, the City of Port Orchard, in collaboration with
AHBL, has presented 10 Comprehensive Plan Elements to the Planning Commission for review and
feedback. These elements include the Introduction, Land Use, Housing, Transportation, Economic
Development, Capital Facilities, Climate, Parks and Recreation, Natural Systems, and Utilities.
The input provided by the Planning Commission is appreciated by the staff. While there are no new
materials for review this month, staff is actively addressing the feedback received from the public, Planning
Commission, and other stakeholders concerning the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update.
In May, staff's focus lies in developing the draft Bethel subarea plans and refining all draft Elements based
on previous feedback. This groundwork aims to conclude in a workshop during the June Planning
Commission meeting, where a revised final draft plan will be presented to the public. This milestone will
enable the City to submit the draft Comprehensive Plan to the Department of Commerce for review, as part
of the Year 2 Periodic Update Grant.
All comments received through April 2024 will be addressed in a comment matrix, explaining staff's
disposition toward each comment received. This matrix will convey whether comments will be
incorporated into the final draft later this year, require further consideration, or will not be included.
Following the June workshop, staff plans to hold a special Planning Commission meeting during the last
week of June 2024 to conduct a public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan. This public hearing will
serve as another opportunity for the Planning Commission and the public to provide invaluable feedback.
On May 9, 2024, the City will host a Land Use strategy Workshop in the City Council Chambers, extending
an invitation to the Planning Commission to attend and participate. Feedback from this workshop may be
integrated into the Land Use and Housing Elements prior to their presentation at the June Workshop.
Looking ahead, after gathering additional feedback at the June workshop and public hearing, further edits
will be made to culminate in the Final version of the Comprehensive Plan. Subsequently, the City will
provide a 60-day Notice to Adopt to the Department of Commerce, with the Notice to Adopt submittal
anticipated in August. This timeline allows for additional refinement of the Comprehensive Plan before
adoption, which must occur prior to December 31, 2024.
Attachments: None
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
Ph.: (360) 874-5533 • FAX: (360) 876-4980
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No: 5(b) Meeting Date: May 7, 2024
Middle Housing Memorandum prepared by: Nick Bond, AICP, Development
Subject: HB 1110 Implementation Director
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.
Staff presented the Middle Housing Options Memorandum at the April 16, 2024 City Council Work Study
session where the City Council directed staff to pursue Alternative 2. 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.
Attachments: Middle Housing Options Memorandum, Affected Properties Map, Proposed Alternative 2
Zoning Map
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 in
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
(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
(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
(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
612112I9mlIsIe
DOO DODU12fic
F",
0
D23_Zon
ew 7nnp
STARVIEW DR SW
SW SUNSHINE WAY
E
U
❑
z
O
n
ry
Q
w
m
Residential 1 Properties
U
J
w
O
_
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
3�
�A
w %/yO
Q Rs
0
z W FRONE DR SR
O Okv0
QW PLEASANT ST
_
U
cy- W ALDER ST
m
W FRONTAGE RD wS-r a
E HVVY U
6 RAMP z
W IRVIN WAY O
0
r�
U
ry
Of
Q
U
U
SW CLAIR RD SW CEDARVALE CT
SW HUDSON DR
SAND DOLLAR RD W
�I EONO �P� pF2
i
O
/—CI)
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
p O
w U
w
F 0
<
Q
PUGET SOUND BLVD
U
z
J
I—
U
Z)
Y
Q
O
SW HARPER RD
U
Z
F—
w
Z
U
2
U
WEYERS LN SW
f
a
U
Z
J
Q
z
Q
w
JJ
SW BERRY LAKE RD
ITA
w
❑
co
c
SW HONEY RD
■111 NE!
N
w
U
0
op°
cD
O
❑
SE ROSE RD
/ V, E 2ND ST uw
W
w E 3RD ST Q
> '
Q 9 yo��f
C ATLI nr O
DR
c-
m
w
m
c/)
�0
Of
�
O
ui
Z
><
W
Q
U
z
M
om
SE HOPI WAY
G
w
w U
U
Q
w
> LL
O
00 �w SE BASIL CT
ii amino
llr�p,
�ii1111eIII11 ,
w
Q cwn
w
J
w
0
w
w❑
Q
Y
SE MAPLE ST
SE PLYMOUTH WAY
w
U
❑
R'
U
w
U
m
J
=
U
SE TIBURON CT Y
w
U w
w
w
U
.J
SE MORITZ WAY a
}
Q
a
z
w w
<
m
of
O
❑ ❑ ❑
x w
w
U U
O
Q
2
SE SALMONBERRY RD
w
U
z
SE FAY CT
w
�
U
SE VALE RD
U
z
w
Y
Y
SE DOWNING PL
SE FIR ST
w
U
Q
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
Q U
m
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
Q
m
w
co
U
w
co
z
Q
=
o
L
U
Y
w
U
Q
SE COPPER CREEK DR
w
U ui
o U
z
w
w
U
w
<
z Q
F—
-i
W
U
w
Q
❑ j
Q
Q
W
J
U)
LIJ
Uz
Q
Y
0
[if >
w
J
> Z
z
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
J
a
z
0
N
SE CONCEPT LN
w
U
❑
U
U
Qrr
m
R1 _properties
m SE KRISTA ST