April 1, 2025, Planing Commission Meeting PacketCITY 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
March 411, 2025
Hybrid Meeting — Council Chambers/Zoom Teleconference
COMMISSIONERS:
Present: Tyler McKlosky (Chair), Annette Stewart (Vice Chair), Paul Fontenot, Joe Morrison, Wayne
Wright, Tiffiny Mitchell
Absent: Stephanie Bailey
STAFF:
Community Development Director Nick Bond, Principal Planner Jim Fisk, Associate Planner Connor
Dahlquist
1. CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner McKlosky called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
2. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There was one member of the public present in the chamber and none attending
remotely.
Chamber audience member Tyler Danielson provided comment on agenda item 5A, Parking and
Circulation — LR24 — Code Amendment 01. Danielson shared with the Commissioners that parking code
should be a recommendation instead of a requirement, as Port Townsend currently does.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 13, 2025: Commissioner McKlosky asked if the other
commissioners reviewed the minutes from the January 131h, 2025 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 and Commissioner Fontenot seconded. The motion passed
unanimously with abstention from Commissioners Wright and Morrison.
5. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. DISCUSSION: Parking and Circulation - LR24 - CODE AMENDMENT 01
Principal Planner Fisk presented amendment considerations to the City's parking and circulation
standards in POMC Chapter 20.124. The amendment was introduced to Commissioners at the
February meeting as a proactive measure to align the City's standards with the evolving State
legislation, specifically Senate Bill 5184. If enacted the bill would limit off-street parking that
cities with a population of over 20,000 residents could require for residential and commercial
developments. Although Port Orchard is not yet at 20,000 residents, staff is addressing these
requirements now as population nears that threshold. Staff is requesting the Commission's
feedback on the proposed amendments. Following Commission comments, staff will proceed with
a public hearing to gather additional public feedback before forwarding a recommendation to City
Council. Fisk shared that comments from Commissioners within the next two weeks would be
ideal so that revisions can be presented at next month's Planning Commission meeting.
Commission Wright asked staff if they have assessed the net results of parking if proposed
amendment was implemented. Fisk shared that the code amendment is not a parking maximum but
allows developers to implement the amount of parking needed for their properties as they see fit
using their knowledge of market conditions, instead of the City dictating an arbitrary number
requirement. Wright clarified asking if this amendment would exacerbate current conditions of
minimal available parking during large events downtown and shared concerns that it would disrupt
walkability as residents would need to park farther way to find available spots. Director Bond
shared that parking analysis is based on day-to-day function and not for special events. Daily
parking availability in the downtown area is often open and ample. With the county's parking lot
project happening nearby, it may present an opportunity for additional special event parking if it
were needed. Director Bond shared that Planning may work with Public Works in setting standards
of when on -street public parking is required or optional, as public parking is a public good. In all
other aspects, the market will advise developers how much off-street parking they will need to
satisfy their service. Fisk shared insight on the concern of walkability and that parking minimums
tend to create large amounts of open pavement space which reduces buildable area and incentives
single occupancy vehicles. Extensive surface parking lots create a hostile pedestrian experience
which discourages the option of walking. Wright shared that parking lots serve as a great resource
for community farmer's markets and other weekend events as well as an important resource for
growing businesses as the city continues to grow. Fisk informed Commissioners that in the
downtown area, there already is no ground floor use minimum parking requirements.
Commissioner Mitchell thanked staff for the clarifications. Mitchell had similar concerns whether
the city would have enough parking but now understands that the amendment addresses off-street
parking and not on -street parking.
Commissioner McKlosky agreed with the concerns brought up by the other Commissioners and
that there is a balance to be met. McKlosky shared that the amendment offers enough flexibility
that it may be able to adapt to the neighborhood that it was being applied to.
Commissioner Fontenot shared support for the amendment and agrees with the state's push to limit
off-street parking. Fontenot shared that he sees this amendment as being less restrictive than what
is currently in place as it takes away a minimum mandate and allows flexibility for the developer.
Fontenot also shared that off-street parking doesn't mean that it will be available for public parking
when special events occur so it wouldn't be helpful to rely on them for that need.
Commissioner McKlosky reminded Commissioners to get comments back to Fisk as soon as
possible, preferably in the next two weeks.
B. DISCUSSION: SEPA Threshold Levels - LR24 - CODE AMENDMENT 01
Principal Planner Fisk introduced the proposed amendment to the Port Orchard Municipal Code
Title 20.160 to increase the SEPA threshold exemption for residential development from four
dwelling units to nine dwelling units. The amendment aligns with the allowances established in the
Page 2 of 5
Washington Administrative Code 197-11-800 and ensures consistency with the City's current short
plat procedures which already allows for the creation of up to nine lots through an administrative
approval process. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for
certain projects, however under state law, local laws may adopt higher categorical exemption
thresholds to streamline permitting for small-scale residential projects that are unlikely to have
significant environmental impacts. By increasing the exemption threshold, it would eliminate
unnecessary review timelines and better align the City's SEPA and land division processes. This
amendment is part of a broader effort to increase middle housing options by reducing permitting
timelines.
Staff is requesting the Commission's feedback on the proposed amendments. Following
Commission comments, staff will proceed with a public hearing to gather additional public
feedback in conjunction with the middle housing amendments. Fisk shared that comments from
Commissioners within the next two weeks would be ideal so that revisions can be presented at next
month's Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Wright asked staff what the typical acreage is for current four unit exemptions. Fisk
shared that it does not concern the amount of acreage. Wright shared that critical areas and impact
mitigation involved acreage and asked for clarity if there was an acreage issue for larger projects
as SEPA review is reduced. Fisk shared that all critical areas are subject to the Critical Areas
Ordinance 20.162. SEPA serves as a "safety net" for environmental impacts that city code would
not capture, especially when city code was not as detailed in the past. Critical areas reports will
still be required if a property is within 300 feet from a mapped critical area.
Commissioners Fontenot and Morrison shared that they support the streamlined process to support
new housing projects.
C. DISCUSSION: Accessory Dwelling Units - LR24 - CODE AMENDMENT 05
Principal Planner Fisk presented amendment considerations to the City's accessory dwelling unit,
or ADU, ordinance POMC 20.68 to ensure compliance with recently enacted state law through HB
1337. The proposed amendments allow property owners to build two ADUs where single-family
homes are permitted. The amendment also established dimensional standards setting a maximum
size of 1,000 square feet and a height of 24 feet, unless the principal home is subject to a lower
height restriction. Detached ADUs may be built up to a lot line when adjacent to an alley. Design
standards may also not be more restrictive than the principal dwelling unit. Existing structures may
also be converted to additional dwelling units, even if they do not meet current zoning
requirements. The proposed amendment also updates reducing parking requirements, impact fees,
and street improvements which will allow for more accessibility in creating an ADU. ADUs will
continue to be not allowed in critical areas and geologically hazardous areas.
Commissioner Wright asked staff how utilities are tracked between an ADU and a primary
residence. Director Bond shared that the City is responsible for stormwater, water, and sewer in
most parts of the city. Current water and sewer standards allow for up to one ADU may be
permitted on the same water and sewer connections and that a separate connection will be required
for the second ADU. When an ADU is subdivided and ceases to be an accessory to a principal
Page 3 of 5
unit, it will trigger the requirement of adding it as its own connection. Puget Sound Energy already
installs a second meter on an ADU.
Wright asked whether the city should make a comment in the amendment that if local HOAs
restrict ADUs in their communities, that they are restricted outright rather than ignoring the HOA
policy. Director Bond shared that the City should not be inserting itself into a civil matter between
the HOA and a home owner as the state law is clear on ADU standards. Fisk shared that when staff
is assisting a resident on a property question, they encourage the resident to always go check their
CC&Rs as it is incumbent on the applicant to ensure that they are adhering to their agreed
standards.
Commissioner Mitchell asked if it would be beneficial to address the utility standards now to align
with the proposed ADU ordinance amendments, instead of waiting in the future to do so. Director
Bond shared that it is not a land use regulation and is through a separate approval process all
together. Water systems plans are done every six years and sewer is every 10 years so the City will
look at those rate policies in the next few years as they are updated. Current policies do not prevent
an ADU being built right now. Council may prioritize those rate studies if they were interested in
acquiring a consultant to assist.
Commissioner Stewart asked whether or not there was a standard for physical organization of
ADUs on a lot to prevent inconsistent aesthetics. Director Bond shared that there is not and it is
prohibited to require additional design standards on an ADU per state lot so there is a possibility of
having varying architectural styles and colors. Bond also shared that these projects are not cheap
so it is not likely that they would end up looking out of place.
Commissioner Fontenot shared that through his experience of living in an ADU, he has not had an
issue with utility divisions. Fontenot also shared that there shouldn't be a concern with
unaesthetically looking ADUs as the owners are wanting to provide an attractive product to a
renter or buyer.
Commissioner Morrison asked staff how many ADUs have been permitted in the City. Director
Bond shared that outside of the large amount currently being built in McCormick Villages, only
about four or three have been permitted. Morrison said there hasn't been a rush of ADU building
so it is unlikely aesthetics will be an issue.
D. DISCUSSION: 2025 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket
Principal Planner Fisk shared an information item to Commissioners, the 2025 Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Docket. Staff encouraged Commissioners to review the docket to prepare for
future discussion.
Commissioner Wright asked if staff could provide hyperlinks to the docket items. Fisk shared that
staff will create a webpage on the City's website for quick docket item access.
E. DISCUSSION: DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Bond shared that the Comprehensive Plan was not appealed during the appeal time period
and that it is also in line for the Puget Sound Regional Council's certification as it was
Page 4 of 5
recommended by the policy board to be approved by the full board. Commerce has also reviewed
the plan and had no comments but are waiting for the development regulation update which has a
part of the middle housing policy work being addressed currently and wrapped up in June.
Bond also shared that the pre -approved ADU project is up on the City's website. In partnership
with KRCC, anyone in the county is able to use a set of pre -approved ADU plans free of charge.
By April full plans should be available to the public to use.
ADJOURN: Commissioner McKlosky adjourned the meeting at 7:19 pm.
Tyler McKlosky, Chair
Nick Bond, Community Development Director
Page 5 of 5
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
Ph.: (36o) 874-5533 • FAX: (36o) 876-4980
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No: 5(a) Meeting Date: April 1, 2025
2025 Comprehensive Plan
Prepared by: Nick Bond, Development Director
Subject: Amendments
Summary: In accordance with POMC 20.04.070, the Planning Commission is required to provide a
recommendation by resolution to the City Council prior to June 30, 2025, regarding proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendments. For the 2025 amendment cycle, the City has initiated two text amendments and received
three applicant -initiated amendments: one text amendment and two map amendments to Appendix A. The
proposed amendments are summarized as follows:
1. City -initiated amendment proposing to add the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park Master Plan to
Appendix B — Plans Adopted by Reference.
2. City -initiated amendment to the Capital Facilities Element to incorporate new projects and funding
sources for transportation, utilities, parks, and public facilities.
3. City -initiated amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to include new roadway,
transit, and active transportation projects, along with additional funding sources.
4. Applicant -initiated text amendment proposing a revision to the Expenditures table in the Capital
Facilities Element to reflect updated cost estimates based on inflation and anticipated changes in
project scope and priorities.
5. (Withdrawn) Applicant -initiated map amendment proposing a legislative Zoning Map amendment for a
parcel located approximately 650 feet northeast of Hull Avenue and Sherman Avenue. The
amendment proposes rezoning from Residential 2 (112) to Residential 3 (R3) to allow for increased
residential density.
6. Applicant -initiated map Comprehensive Plan Map and Legislative Zoning Map amendment for thirteen
parcels located approximately 0.22 miles southwest of SW Old Clifton Road and Lloyd Parkway. The
amendment would redesignate the Comprehensive Plan Land Use found in Appendix A from Industrial
to Medium -Density Residential (MDR) and rezone from Light Industrial (LI) to Residential 3 (R3),
supporting residential development.
Analysis:
1. Addition of the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park Master Plan to Appendix B — Plans Adopted by
Reference.
In 2022, the City of Port Orchard purchased a 30-acre property at the south end of Sherman Avenue
near Blackjack Creek for the development of a regional stormwater facility and neighborhood park.
The project aims to enhance stormwater management, reduce localized flooding, and support
future road and sidewalk improvements in the surrounding area. Additionally, the park will provide
new recreational amenities and public green space for the community.
The City is in the process of developing the Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park Plan through a public
outreach and planning effort. The Plan will define the project's scope, design, and long-term goals.
Given the complexity of the project and the need for public input, the final Plan may not be
completed until the end of 2025 or later.
To ensure consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, this amendment proposes adding the
Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park Plan to Appendix B — Plans Adopted by Reference. This action
creates flexibility for the City to formally incorporate the final Plan by reference once it is adopted,
which may occur in 2025 or 2026.
2 and 4. An amendment to the Capital Facilities Element to incorporate new projects and funding
sources for transportation, utilities, parks, and public facilities. Additionally, as a related matter, an
applicant -initiated amendment revising to the Expenditures table in the Capital Facilities Element to
reflect updated cost estimates based on inflation and anticipated changes in project scope and
priorities.
The Water Expenditures Table in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan currently
reflects incorrect cost allocations for two water infrastructure projects:
• Old Clifton Transmission Main (Reservoir to McCormick Woods Drive)
• 390-580 Intertie and Booster (Old Clifton)
When the projects were originally adopted, the expenditure values for the Transmission Main were
incorrectly attributed to the Intertie and Booster project, resulting in transposed values.
Additionally, updated cost estimates for the Transmission Main project were identified in the City's
Water System Plan, requiring further revision.
Both the City of Port Orchard and the developer recognized the need to correct the expenditure
values and submitted separate applications requesting the amendment —one City -initiated and one
applicant -initiated. This dual application process reflects a shared commitment to ensuring the
Comprehensive Plan accurately represents the planned infrastructure investments.
This amendment corrects the expenditure values by:
• Assigning the appropriate project costs to the 390-580 Intertie and Booster, accurately reflecting
the funding needs for this project.
• Incorporating the revised cost estimates for the Old Clifton Transmission Main project as
identified in the Water System Plan, ensuring consistency with the City's long-term water
infrastructure planning.
The revised Water Expenditures Table will provide accurate cost projections, which are essential for
financial planning, project prioritization, and securing potential funding sources. Correcting these
values ensures the City's Capital Facilities Element accurately reflects the intended infrastructure
investments and supports effective implementation of the Water System Plan.
3. An amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to include new roadway, transit, and
active transportation projects, along with additional funding sources.
2
The TIP is a component of the Capital Facilities Element that outlines the City's long-term transportation
project priorities. The TIP is modified annually, and as needed, to reflect changes in project
prioritization, funding sources, and the completion of previously planned work.
This amendment updates the TIP to include:
• New Projects: Roadway, transit, and active transportation projects identified since the previous
TIP update.
• Additional Funding Sources: Incorporation of new or revised funding mechanisms, including
grants, impact fees, and other revenue streams.
• Project Status Updates: Revisions to reflect completed projects and adjustments to project
timelines or scopes based on current needs and conditions.
The updated TIP ensures that the Comprehensive Plan accurately reflects the City's evolving
transportation infrastructure priorities and funding strategies. This amendment strengthens the City's
ability to secure grant funding and aligns with regional and state transportation goals.
5. The applicant has withdrawn this application and it is no longer being considered.
6. Applicant -initiated map Comprehensive Plan Map and Legislative Zoning Map amendment for thirteen
parcels located approximately 0.22 miles southwest of SW Old Clifton Road and Lloyd Parkway. The
amendment would redesignate the Comprehensive Plan Land Use found in Appendix A from Industrial
to Medium -Density Residential (MDR) and rezone from Light Industrial (LI) to Residential 3 (113),
supporting residential development.
The Medium -Density Residential (MDR) designation allows for a range of residential housing types,
including single-family homes, townhouses, and low-rise apartment buildings, which aligns with the
applicant's vision for the site. The R3 zoning designation would permit increased residential density,
supporting the development of multi -family housing on the parcels.
Following a comprehensive review, staff has determined that the proposed redesignation and zoning
change are consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and would not result in an
employment capacity deficit. The City's employment targets, as established in the Comprehensive Plan
are based on the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Appendix B-2. The targets provide for a mix of
residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The removal of these parcels from the Industrial
designation will not undermine the City's ability to meet its employment objectives, as the properties
are relatively small in scale and not anticipated to be significant contributors to the City's overall
employment capacity.
The parcels are characterized by steep slopes and the presence of a stream, which significantly constrain
their development potential for industrial uses. These environmental constraints create physical and
economic challenges for industrial development, making residential use a more practical and viable
option. Staff's evaluation concluded that residential development would better align with the site's
physical characteristics and provide a more feasible land use solution.
The City conducted an evaluation of its water, sewer, and transportation capacity to assess whether the
proposed land use and zoning change could be supported by existing infrastructure. The analysis
3
confirmed that the City has sufficient capacity to serve potential residential development on the parcels
without compromising its ability to meet the needs of future growth elsewhere. However, it is important
to note that this capacity evaluation does not guarantee or reserve infrastructure capacity for the
applicant. Any future development will be subject to standard utility and transportation concurrency
reviews, and capacity availability will be determined at the time of development application.
While residential development on the subject parcels presents certain challenges related to access and
infrastructure, these challenges are not unique to residential uses. Industrial development would face
similar obstacles due to the site's topography, stream buffer requirements, and infrastructure
limitations. Any future residential development will be required to:
• Demonstrate that the site can be adequately served by water, sewer, and transportation
infrastructure.
• Address and mitigate any site -specific challenges, such as stormwater management, geotechnical
stability, and road access.
• Make adequate provisions for infrastructure improvements necessary to support the
development.
• Resolve all technical requirements through subsequent development activity applications in
accordance with City standards and regulations.
The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
amendment and legislative zoning change and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The
recommendation should address whether the redesignation of the parcels from Industrial to Medium -
Density Residential (MDR) and the corresponding zoning change from Light Industrial (LI) to Residential
3 (R3) are consistent with the City's long-term land use goals, infrastructure capacity, and overall
development strategy.
Recommendation: Consistent with the requirements of POMC 20.04.060 the Port Orchard City Council adopted
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket at the March 11, 2025 City Council meeting. Following the April
Planning Commission meeting, the City of Port Orchard's SEPA Responsible Official should issue a SEPA
Determination and submit the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to the Washington Department of
Commerce for review.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a properly noticed public hearing at the May 6, 2025
Planning Commission meeting.
Attachments: Diaz Land Use Map Amendment - Narrative and Maps, Capital Facilities Element, Transportation
Improvement Program, and Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Appendix B-2
4
rl
t
Subject Property
QO
1p.�84
0 CHARD.
City of Port Orchard
2025 Comprehensive Plan
Appendix - A
Land Use Designation Map
Greenbelt (GB)
Low -Density Residential (LDR)
Medium -Density Residential (MDR)
High -Density Residential (HDR)
Commercial (COM)
Urban Industrial (IND)
Public and Community Spaces (PCS)
= City Limit
N
0 0.020.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Mil
11
<0 11 9
O ON v0D �i ran
D �'� 5� o i
y a�
i rn
i
i a+
i
i
i
i
i
------- - - - ---
Sub ectert9�
Fy
J r••�..�..�...11.I�r77�77C:7�C7�7C�77�C7�77�..�••C77�C7�77C7:.1 "VI_
0+
41%,
LU
r
3
J
a
z
W
Z
W
C
Z
H
DURFEY_
�3
�c
W
•-.._.._.._.._....._ce
F-
c
z
Ix
0
a
z
�o
OR CHARD.
City of Port Orchard
2025 Comprehensive Plan
Proposed Amendment
Appendix - A
Land Use Designation Map
Greenbelt (GB)
Low -Density Residential (LDR)
Medium -Density Residential (MDR)
High -Density Residential (HDR)
Commercial (COM)
Urban Industrial (IND)
Public and Community Spaces (PCS)
Greenbelt (GB)
Low -Density Residential (LDR)
Medium -Density Residential (MDR)
I High -Density Residential (HDR)
Commercial (COM)
r
Urban Industrial (IND)
Public and Community Spaces (PCS)
'- City Limit
N
0 0.020.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Mil
r
t
Subject Property
i
Sinclair Inlet
MEN M11.11.11.11.1E.NE. 11.110
i
i
rn
cn a+
rn
a+
1p.�84
0 CHARD.
City of Port Orchard
Current
2025 Zoning Map
s.NI.NI.11ft
'- City Limit
2024_Zon i ng_LU_Desig nations
New —Zones
= GB
R1
R2
R3
R4
-
R6
-
CC
-
CH
BPMU
C M U
��
DMU
GMU
NMU
-
IF
LI
-
CI
-
PF
PR
0 0.020.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Mil
rl
t
Subject Property
Sinclair Inlet
MEN M11.11.11.11.1E.NE. 11.110
i
i
rn
a+
rn
a+
1p.�84
0 CHARD.
City of Port Orchard
Proposed
2025 Zoning Map
New Zones
- GB
R1
R2
' R3
R4
R6
CC
CH
V///"',
B P M U
���/
C M U
���� DM U
GMU
FZ,0'109 N M U
- IF
LI
- CI
PF
= City Limit
0 0.020.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
Mil
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix B-2: Employment Distribution Through 2044
Jurisdiction
2020 Employment
(US Census)
2020-2044
Employment
Growth
2044 Employment
Target
Metropolitan Cities
Bremerton
44,083*
14,175
58,258
Bremerton UGA
1,401
2,434
3,835
Core City
Silverdale
13,281
11,416
2407
High -Capacity Transit Communities
Bainbridge Island
9,176
1,927
11,103
Kingston
1,077
1,400
2,477
Port Orchard
8,562
5,400
13,962
Port Orchard UGA
2,683
1,500
4,183
Poulsbo
7,638
3,903
11,541
Poulsbo UGA
78
97
175
Urban Unincorporated
Central Kitsap UGA
3,985
1,470
5,455
Rural Areas
Rural
22,896*
2,301
25,197
Source: 2020 Census Redistricting File, PSRC Employment Database PSRC 2018 Regional Forecast, VISION 2050 regional growth
strategy adopted per General Assembly action 10-30-2020
* Represents all employment including jobs covered and not covered under the WA State Unemployment Insurance Program.
Represents uniformed military personnel assigned to major regional installations (per VISION 2050).
* Note: In the City of Bremerton, 7,982 of 44,083 jobs in 2020 are held by military personnel. In the Rural Areas, 3,100 of the 22,896
jobs in 2020 are held by military personnel.
During a Comprehensive Plan review process, a city and its associated UGA may transfer population and employment between the two
jurisdictions with approval by elected bodies from both jurisdictions, while not exceeding the overall targets. KRCC shall update the
CPPs via an amendment after these changes are complete. See UGA-5 i for more details and information.
DIAZ -COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT /
REZONE - INDUSTRIAL TO RES. MEDIUM
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Introduction: Sometime in the 2006 - 2012 era, this 23.46-acre area was
planned and zoned for industrial development. On the east side of the
creek and adjacent to Old Clifton Road S.W. the industrial zoning included
another 7.6-acres of area. In that property there were three mobile
homes. No other homes or buildings were found on the entire industrially
zoned area comprising 30.1-acres.
In 2011-2012, there was a proposal to utilize about 3-4-acres of the
property fronting on Old Clifton Rd. SW for a mini -storage and an office -
warehouse facility. Given the fact there was direct road access to Old
Clifton Road for both facilities and gentle to moderate topographic site
conditions, this property was far more suitable for industrial development
than the property west of the creek. Available water supply, also
supported the then project proposals. Another notable aspect affecting
potential development of the industrial property on both sides of the
seasonal creek was the apparent willingness of the State Department of
Fish and Wildlife to consider a creek crossing via an installed culvert in
the vicinity of Parcel 2-044.
With the advent of the 2016-2017 Comprehensive Plan the 23+acres west
of the seasonal creek remained industrial zoned, but the 7.6-acres with
frontage on Old Clifton Road SW was rezoned from Industrial to R-4
Residential. It is not known as to who the progenitor was of the change in
zoning in the current (soon to be updated) Comprehensive Plan. However,
in the intervening years between 2012 and 2017 a sewer line serving the
McCormick Woods development was installed along Old Clifton Road SW.
The availability of a public sewer is a benefit to both industrial and
residential development, but is an absolute necessity for residential
development, either multifamily or single-family detached (at densities
greater than 3- dwelling units per acre). Changes in circumstances that
PAGE 2
favor property development, like a sewer line, can be off set by other
restrictions intended to deter or prohibit property use. Such a "change"
took place between 2012 and 2017 in how the seasonal creek was/is
evaluated by both the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and
subsequently the City of Port Orchard. In earlier times this seasonal
creek was evaluated on the basis of its fish bearing potential. Because no
fish can access this portion of the creek's course, crossing it was less of a
hurdle than would be the case in subsequent years.
It was not fish bearing in the years between 2005 and 2012 and even today.
So, what changed? The answer is the "stream classification system." In
this somewhat new classification system "fish" considerations changed to
"wildlife" presence. Only problem with the change is, no one bothered to
identify any species of wildlife whether vermin, bears (there are bears in
Kitsap County), deer, rabbits, birds or all species other than fish. Since
the presence or even habitat supporting fish runs or spawning no longer
had to be a consideration, development restrictions could be proposed ad
hoc based on whatever value Fish and Wildlife decided to assign the
stream corridor. A value assignment not challengeable by a property
owner.
Why does the foregoing matter, particularly with regard to the Diaz rezone
request? Because this creek corridor now presents a barrier to its
crossing most pertinent to road access to Old Clifton Road SW. It is still
feasible to extend water and sewer lines across the creek and its
sidewalls, but a road connection is no longer feasible. Hence, the creek
course, together with the required buffers has the effect of isolating the
Diaz proposed rezone property, i.e., the 23.46-acres.
Site Characteristics: The proposed rezone area is composed of 13-
prior platted parcels. None of these parcels have a direct access
connection to Old Clifton Road SW, even a platted one. The parcels range
in size from 0.87-acres to 5.45-acres.
Vegetation - Conifer trees, with some deciduous populate the entire 23.46-
acre proposed rezone area. The understory has shrubs and grass,
consisting of Sala[, Oregon Grape, Sword and Bracken Ferns, Evergreen &
Red Huckleberry and trailing Blackberry vines.
PAGE 3
Soils - The soils of the site seem to be laid down in strata or bands. There
are three basic types, Alderwood Series, which is a very gravelly sandy
loam to a depth of approximately 22-inches before "hard pan / glacial till"
is encountered; Harstine Series, a gravelly sandy loam with a depth to
hard pan of about 32-inches and Dystric Xerorthents, which is a mixture of
soil types usually indicative of fill material placed on a site or what one
finds in the substrate of saltwater tidelands.
Topography - . Generally, the site has sloped terrain with 16-18% gradient
and there are some portions of the area with moderate sloping conditions
with 7-10% gradients. Along the east border of the properties, there is a
seasonal creek and adjacent to the creek on both sides are steep slopes
in the 50-60% gradient category.
Creek / Wetland - Already mentioned in the introduction discussion is the
presence of a seasonal creek, which has its course along the eastern
property lines of five of the 13-parcels comprising the total site area.
Adjacent to the creek bed on both sides are steep slopes rising
approximately 35-40-feet in a horizontal distance of about 90-feet.
Even though this creek cannot bear any fish, partially due to its seasonal
flow conditions (dry in the summer), because its course disappears
subsurface in the vicinity of Port Orchard's industrial area and because
somewhere near State Highway 16, there are a series of culverts it must
pass through before it continues to its lower reaches, it still qualifies for a
150-foot buffer. The buffer more than either the slopes along side the
creek or the creek itself is the limiting aspect of this seasonal creek's
presence.
An April 2024 resonance of creek environs reveals the presence of a
potential wetland on the east border of Parcel 2-092 near its SE corner.
That wetland has not been delineated or rated but based on a cursory
analysis it appears to qualify as a Class III wetland necessitating therefore
a 165-foot buffer. This wetland appears that it would also encumber a
portion of Parcel 2-094. (See Soundview Consultant's exhibit)
RECONNAISSANCE MAP
l
!
I � �
�♦ ♦ Wetland A
/
Potential Category III
:4,
♦
I. .N .N Y
'
J ♦.
/
`�
/
�`
�/ Stream Z
1 Type F
'`..
` ♦,
`
♦
/
$ KITSAP COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS:
."
032301-2-059-2001, 032301-2-060-2008, 032301-2-061-2007,
032301-2-070-2006, 032301-2-071-2005, 032301-2-087-2007,
032301-2-088-2006,032301-2-089-2005,032301-2-090-2002,
032301-2-091-2001,032301-2-092-2000,032301-2-094-2008,
032301-2-101-2009
I /
! / 0 Cuheert
/
/ Drainage
OHW
Potential Wetla
(Not Delineate
1 I 165' Standard V
( � Buffer
' 123.75' Reduce4
Buffer
! / SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC ASSUMES 150' Standard S
OTE: REDUCED BUFFERS ASSUME
MINIMIZATION MEASURES
ARE FOLLOWED
Soundview Consultants 1LC
Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions
2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954
www.soundviewconsultants.com
NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR
CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS, OR
ESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET
RECONNAISSANCE LEVEL ONLY
0 100 200 400 Feet
I I I I I I I I
WEST ASSEMBLAGE
SW OLD CLIFTON ROAD
1337/1347/1351/1383/1389 OLD CLIFTON ROAD
PORT ORCF-LNRD, WA 98437
n vT1 `: 4/ 18/2024
JOB: 2235.0003
BY: DDS
SCALE: 1 " = 200 '
FIGURF NO. 1
PAGE 4
Well Site - Along the common boundary of Parcels 2-059 and 2-094 there
is a well site approximately 100-feet from the two -parcels north boundary.
This well is a potential asset if it can be used to support the development
of the property, whether industrial or residential. If it cannot be used, it
will be decommissioned, per Health District regulations.
RATIONALE SUPPORTING THE REZONE:
Infeasibility of Industrial Development
History of Non -Use - As previously discussed, the thirteen -parcels that
are the subject of the proposed rezone to Residential Medium have been
classified as Industrial for at least the last 18-years. In that same time -
frame a number of companies seeking to develop in the Port Orchard area
have located on sites within Port Orchard, or nearby, like at the Bremerton
International Airport's industrial area. Significantly, these other
properties are more set up for industrial use besides having appropriate
zoning, with a full complement of utilities, convenient access to major
arterials, minimal impediments for permit approvals, favorable land
acquisition or long-term land lease prices or terms and sites with level to
moderate sloped terrain.
Basic Industrial Land Characteristics Vis-a-vis This Site - Except for the
fact that the subject property is zoned for industrial development it has
none of the other characteristics that businesses have in their checklist
for suitable sites. For example, site access is a problem, the site area has
no direct access to either a major arterial, or arterial connector. Another
use limiting factor, is the lack of connection to a public water source.
While access to a sanitary sewer is now possible, it was not for the first 5
of the 18-years the property has been industrially zoned. Such a
connection is not easily made due to the presence of the seasonal creek
and its "typing by the State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife," and the steep slope
conditions present a particular challenge for site development in that
there would necessarily be a greater expense for grading, structurally
designed retaining walls and foundation supports. Also, a consideration is
what the regulatory environment would allow for the clearing of trees,
PAGE 5
slope grading and slope stabilization. While site clearing might be a
common development need, the slope conditions with their steep
gradients are the greater concern.
Different Types of Industrial Facilities - Several examples of different
kinds of industrial development, which potentially could be suited for this
site area can be seen in various parts of Kitsap County for a comparison
purposes. Here are the range of examples:
1. The Amazon facility - it has a plant size in excess of 118,000 S.F. and
it occupies 27.5-Acres, mostly graded level.
2. The Boat Sales Facility adjacent to Bree Drive & SR-3 - the building
is approximately 4,800 S.F. in size and the site is 2.25-acres
3. The Gorst Warehouse adjacent to Old SR-3, two buildings one 30,800
S.F. and the other 8,127 S.F. Site size is 3.3-acres.
4. Werner Road & Ida Street site with topography in the 10-12% range,
graded to accommodate buildings 61,000 S.F. with site size of 2.44-
acres.
5. UPS facility on Werner Road, building size 15,294 S.F. situated on
1.38-acres.
6. East Pioneer Road, north of Poulsbo, 7.93-acre site with four
office/warehouse buildings, 3,600 S.F., 4,800 S.F., 3,840 S.F. & 3,360
S.F.
7. Pioneer Road Industrial Park, warehouse of Hill Logistics, 39,240
S.F. on 6.28-acres.
There are in fact many other examples of industrial development that
could be referenced. Chosen here are the seven representing both the
range in size of buildings and the sites they occupy. In reference to the
existing parcels established in the subject rezone area, if that was the
only consideration, each such lot could accommodate any one of the
buildings occupying the sites in the foregoing examples. Noteworthy, if
there might be a need for a large single building such as Amazon requires,
that would require the entire zoned area.
But parcel or site area is not the only consideration for industrial
development. Already highlighted in the discussion of "Basic Industrial
Land Characteristics are the criteria for why some properties are suitable
PAGE 6
for such development and others, even industrially zoned properties are
not.
Included with this narrative are three figures, i.e., Pages Cl-C3 prepared
by Bannon Engineering demonstrating the challenge of creating usable
sites for industrial use on this 23.46-acre zoned area. Suffice to say the
grading and filling of this site area represents a monumental challenge.
Not that it could not be accomplished, but it becomes infeasible when it is
necessary to respect existing slope conditions, creek alignment, its
protective buffers and the wetland and its required buffer.
With the exception of the number 4 example above, all of the other six
sites have either flat or gently sloping topography, with room for the
buildings), required parking and outdoor storage areas for materials or
products. Also, common to all seven is either direct or convenient access
to a major arterial or a State Highway. None of the access routes in and
out of the afore referenced properties require the negotiation of steep
grades as would be the case for a north exit/entrance to this site area.
Regarding the enclosed exhibits prepared by Bannon Engineers, i.e., Pages
CI-C3, they well demonstrate the problems associated with attempting to
create "pad sites" suitable for industrial development. What is not evident
in these exhibits is the possible use of the 30-foot easements connecting
the subject property to Anderson Hill Road SW. The distance to Anderson
Hill Road from this site is approximately a quarter -mile across 4-Rural
Zoned parcels in unincorporated Kitsap County. (See enclosed exhibits &
Vicinity Map in Comp. Plan / Rezone Application).
Distance to Anderson Hill Road is not the central issue. The fact that
industrial related traffic would pass through single-family residential
development is the problem. Mothers against such traffic is more than a
small consideration in their attempts to protect their children or have their
quiet life disrupted by heavy trucks and equipment passing by their
homes.
Land Capacity Analysis - Based on findings of the City's Consultant,
Leland Consulting Group, LLC, there is sufficient employment capacity
represented in other commercial or industrial developments within the
3rss! Siva n3a
,N1SY3AO3Gt9N3NONNVs "IIYMY lost-96S (OK) :131
UR6 YM .q.0 a
Mfi saoid a j-8 66,vz
6UIJ88UIBU3 UODULB — nna a)sm aminnaad sz tz z
}
H
} cr
F W
CL
U a
-9
rev
Z
A �
� $ Z
a
J
i m
MEN
(V
;t
NVId ONIOV89 V 31lS
ldlalSn(INI AUVNlW1138d (r,"
9Z6L-OOZ (90Z) V
w6isnaNl XNVNIVi113Nd ZVIO
J
� W
w�
I
I
I
Ie
�I
f
V
N
S
W
Q
2
o
U)
ik
9 I
0
J
r-
J
>
H
w
a
¢
F- U
}
W U-
W
LL
0
d I N J
6
(1)
O
a
o
z
°C w '�
a woo
00
w
} r=¢w
ow
}
F «-ar
Wi
U Z }
arO
w O
a
z Dv�
LU
zLL
O
cr CL
Y0}
2 U
w
-1C7
J Z
F- 00
¢ ¢
z
3za
Oz
3¢
a
=oa
vw
w
3 WOm
zz
>
0
z
V) 003
ao
FJ
z0
� Va0
¢m
z��
wa
~O
z mOEr
aw
a(II
D
z
�¢f
jr ¢
0
oi3C7i
riK-
m 06
z
O
a
Q
O
Q 02
o3
I
C � w
Q �
r✓
J
H
z
��
} z
w
z=
xo�o
2
> n 2
z llz
O U
o Z=¢
V
N Q0
4
ohm
F
eL..w
O
tJ
U a
�
a�
.iN'1SVOW000lON3NONNtlB lIVW3 loSl-865 (m) :131
3n551 3iv0 n3tl
���- �w
Z �O l SN011J3S
ones Vm oasmaa
6uiaaaui6u3 UODUS8
9Z6L-00Z (90Z)
U
NV]d a31SVA A&MA113ad oZ [a/zl
�VIa1SSONl A2IVNIW1�3ad ZVIO
N
a
m
n�
�g
w�
Al
m N
W
0'01£
68'62£ m
i'SIE ,o
w
a
U
2'S62
w 80'EEE a
m 6'862Llj
0
Q o
c7
w
� o i
tL
oeOgE
I6IE
w
W
O
0
a
so CSC
8'EO£
O
CE
6'22£ +
96 ESE
-- it
w
W
� O
00'E9£ .D
£ 82£
Z
o0'bS£ ni
STE
Q U
Z w
ni
�
co
�
J
m R
a
i 0
w
r
¢ Q
00'E9E
0'bE£ N
_ o0'F9F m
b obF
�
00 bSF
i S'6IE
w
o b9'FSF
QD
c7
g >
w
J JLn
(] J W
¢
ww
N NO
a
tE 29E
6'SbE
�
W
O
Q
O
I
z
�
X
x
W
"'ESE
9,62E {
w O
U tY
U D_
�.
G
Of
F-
w
U
LL'29E
9'ESF
moo
z v
3
¢
I [If
j
66'9SF :o
0'S£E m
z
Q _0
=
Z V a U
W O d
W
�O1 >
J
n = >
w
v) _ > W
Z
x
X
w
I7 119E
2,09E
L9'69£ a
L'S9E
ES'09£ �u
O
a
2 I9F m
b'8b£ N
0
99'69E W
6,01E N
00'0LE a
N
J
w 0029E <
Z 8'ESE N
N
X
W
00,29E o
9'bL£ a
Z
2'6S£ N
C7
2
C
00'OLE
I m
00,29E
J
m
b'LLE
00,01E
i
2'b9E
29't9E a
L'69E
S6.69E:
6'b8F _.
o 9
u w'o �
o
u
L'IL£
8
f
i
m
2'LOE
9'9LE '
�S
3 w m
6'68E
a
n
n W
j w
a
}xm
O
U)
0
U O o 0.
Zv1 0
Y
V, S >
z
Z
\
11
O
}
W
m
w
o
C-D
C7
Z
0
J
Gl
z
v~i
w
�D N p QQ�J
Y � (rl Cif N
6£"18£ 2
t'sae tE'IoE
I N
W l _ 6£'eLE ti
3 s 0 88E 19'60E m
l s's62
N
in
m
v
a
.o
N
m
+ Zaa
N H p V
H :+
F
C Y
ne = >
F
or W
c+u 3
0
N
d
N
0
2IILE
0'06E
m
o
OL'91E v
8'S6a +
l
E8'OL£
a
I
b'68E
+
06,12E o
1'962 +
X
$
IL OLE
6'L8£
+
o
�
II8aE .o
a
a'96a M
8S'OL£
'
J
<
0'9aE
+
N - 11 w
S'962 m
b'OLE
(U
H Va' i
EL +
..
'96a
E62 a
w
d
h SMOLC
L'b8E
m+
W
�
LS'I6E a
o•ooe N
12'OLE
9,68E
+
¢'
0
3
l m
i
8£'92£
L'OOE n,
9,28E
0
+
m
j a
o
y ! �
S
10,01E $
b'EO£
9S'69£
008E
.o
F
S9'60E w
0,90E +
8 �L4E£
0
+
i
14921£ m
' A c
S
9££
-
O
m
1
11'9IE
9
,n
o
L£'E9E
O'SLE
�6'19£
S'ELE
_ SS"19E
o
I+
b'aLE
£L'19£
O'OLE
N
+ m
a
N
t� N
m
r
8T'OIE �
y m
o
3
w L'a1E +
J
6'baE
n,
8,69E
.*p <
;
31
w
0 w LL-60£
a
�" 68'S£E
_.
86.19E
a H Y
&
Z O
Z
j. 6'12£
n L
ll
Uj
2=
9£'T9£
6'S9£
0
a-+
u
25.
OS'6S£
E'E9E
4
w
;p
+
m
S6't0£ a
a's0e
O
w
m
a r„
b9'LSE
0'E9£
9£'9S£
9'E9E
+
m
*
N
9£•9S£
L'O9£
9£'99e
L'6S£
v
+
(V
o
w 4
p
w
N
N
n 1
3 2L'S4E
,o
3
a'ta£
+
9E'95£
0,09E
;o
N v
o
l!
9E'9S£
o
N
H n
F 622E
L65£
a _ >iz
R
_ 9695E
b'es£
0
Z
g
3a a0
I
PAGE 7
City to meet the City's Growth Management Planning Criteria supporting
residential development. Noteworthy, is the fact that there were few
hundred jobs associated with this Industrially Zoned property that would
be lost. According to December 11, 2024 comments of Nick Bond the
Director of the City's Department of Community Development these loss of
jobs does not reduce potential employment below minimum levels.
Conclusion - The some eighteen years this subject area has been zoned
Industrial, but remained undeveloped is testimony that the challenges of
industrial property use are most formidable. The reality is, the proof of
the years with no activity suggests the subject site area is not the best
candidate for this kind of land use. Drilling down to the impediments to
such development makes it quite clear that the actions required for
placing industrial buildings, whether office warehouse, widget
manufacturing, users with "laydown areas for products" and providing
parking areas for employees and their customers is not really an option
given the topographic site conditions of the subject area.
Couple those issues with lack of utility service and the challenges of
access in and out of the site, one has to conclude that it is infeasible to
consider the continuance of Industrial Zoning / Use of these 13-properties.
Feasibility of Medium Density Residential Site Development
Difference ,between residential (single-family detached) and even small
site industrial - Probably the greatest difference in residential verses
industrial development is that site access and site use allow for greater
flexibility it its requirements. For example, industrial site use calls for
large flat areas for buildings in excess of 4,000 S.F. together with required
parking. A need not shared by single-family detached development
whether proposed for a site of gentle to moderate slopes or one with
steeply sloped property.
It is true a single-family residence might have 4,000 S.F. but such a home
will be at least 2-story in configuration and thus occupy a smaller site
area. Home sites can be stepped up or down a slope thereby providing
greater flexibility in how homes are position on sloped property. Roads
can be planned such that they utilize the natural contours of the land. Yes,
PAGE 8
a platted road does require grading, perhaps some revetments and
maintains a gradient usually less than 12-percent, but significantly it does
not have to be connected to a major arterial or even a collector arterial.
Respect for other environmental concerns - Residential verses industrial
vis-a-vis, creek corridors, wetlands, slope setback requirements,
wetlands (when present) and their buffer's protection is more possible
with single-family residential than industrial. Regarding industrial use of
this property as previously discussed, effective utilization of steep sloped
areas, will require either significant loss of developed site area or a huge
financial outlay for grading and filling. Likely too, there would be a greater
possibility of compromising at least the creek's protective buffer. Single-
family residential development would not have these same site
development requirements.
Contrasting single-family detached residential, with multiple -family (MFR)
development at greater densities than 8-dwelling units per acre, the MFR
would have some of the same site use issues as industrial development.
Even so, MFR can better utilize steep sloped property than the
requirements for industrial development.
Site access for MFR is closer to the needs of a single-family detached lot
subdivision. For example, single-family residential can make use of the
existing easement provisions extending to Anderson Hill Road SW. Traffic
generation may be greater than the rural residential lots it crosses, but its
character is residential not industrial, the same is true for MFR. Although,
in some people's view MFR traffic has a more intense impact than single-
family homes.
Conclusion - A proposal for single-family residential at the City's medium
density classification represents the better option for development of this
property. Once so classified, there will be a proposal to convert this
unused property to home sites. Thus, the growth mandates of the Growth
Management Act can be better achieved, especially in light of the fact the
City already has substantial multiple -family development either in use or
in construction. And those goals can be achieved without compromising
the City's need for a sufficient employment base.
Water
Port Orchard Public Works Department maintains and manages the City's water system. With two systems
serving the City (City System) and McCormick Woods (McCormick Woods System), Port Orchard serves
over 4,000 connections. Goal 5 and its related policies state the City will ensure that an adequate water
supply is available to support the level of population growth and land development projected within the
City. Details on the City's water system can be found in the Utilities Element as well as the 2020 Water
System Plan. Priority investments and funding assumptions targeted in the next six years are summarized
below.
Funding
City/DeveloperProject
Old Clifton Transmission
Main (Reservoir to
McCormick Woods Drive) 407OW
Source
..
,000,008 1,235,000 I-,040,4=1,235,000
Annual Water Preservation
300,000
400,000
700,000
Well #13
600,000
5,500,000
5,500,000
11,600,000
Well #12
7,000,000 (D)
7,000,000
Well #11 (#3)
465,000
8,500,000
8,965,000
Melcher PS Rebuild (#10)
750,000
500,000
1,250,000
Well #7
500,000
1,015,000
1,515,000
580 to 660 Zone Booster
Station
750,000 (D)
750,000
390-580 Booster Pump
(Glenwood)
725,000
725,000
390-580 Transmission Main
(Glenwood)
515,624 (D)
515,624
660 Zone Storage (CFC
Credit)
2,850,000 (D)
2,850,000
Foster Mitigation
7,200,000
7,200,000
390-580 Intertie and booster
(Old Clifton)
40,000
1,000,000
5-000;0003,9 00,000
5,000,000
TOTAL
13,995,624
19,'�9919,310,0
00
49,305,62449,110,6
24
16,000,000
Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DECEMBER 2024 Amended Month 2025
Expenditures
Project Prior Years -,,----S-024-2030 Expenditures Total
Old Clifton Transmission
Main (Reservoir to
McCormick Woods Drive) 1,235,0004 940,NQ 1,235,0004-,940-,9A9
Annual Water
Preservation
N/A
700,000
700,000
Well #13
6,100,000
5,500,000
11,600,000
Well #12 (CFC Credit)
7,000,000
7,000,000
Well #11(#3)
2,100,000
6,865,000
8,965,000
Melcher PS Rebuild (#10)
114,000
11136,000
1,250,000
Well #7
1,515,000
1,515,000
580 to 660 Zone Booster
Station (CFC Credit)
750,000
750,000
390-580 Booster Pump
725,000
(Glenwood) (CFC Credit)
725,000
390-580 Transmission
Main (CFC Credit)
(Glenwood)
515,624
515,624
660 Zone Storage (CFC
Credit)
2,850,000
2, 850,000
Foster Mitigation
7,200,000
7,200,000
390-580 Intertie (Old
Clifton)
5,000,000
5,000,000
TOTAL
8,314,000
49-, 1439,476,624
49,305,624A9-4
Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DECEMBER 2024 Amended Month 2025
Proj#
(TIF
Proj#)
Project Title/Project Description
City of Port Orchard Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
For 2025-2030 TIER 1 (Reasonably Constrained)
Road Name Total Future
Begin Termini Project Spent Prior Expenditure
End Termini Length Total Est. Cost to 2024 2024 s 2025 2026 2027 2028
Phase Federal State
Start Funding Fund Fund
2029 2030 Year Status Phase Code Federal Funds Code State Funds Local Funds
Capital Projects
1.1 Bay Street Pedestiran Pathway ROW PO Shoreline:
Add 14-ft Multi -Modal (bikes & pedestrians) Sidney Ave. Foot 1.2 2,280,000 1,140,000 1,140,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 S ROW STP 1,923,590 0 300,212
waterfront pathway & cantilevered retaining wall Ferry to Annapolis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 P ROW 0 581,000
following historic Mosquito Fleet trail and Foot Ferry
N/A pedestrian bridge across Black Jack Creek.
1.2
Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway CN
The CN phase for the 14-ft Multi -Modal (bike & ped)
1.2 1,115,000 650,000
465,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 1,115,000
S CN
waterfront pathway/cantilevered retailing wall
3,000,000 0
3,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2024 S CN ConnWA 3,000,000 1,500,000
following the historic Mosquito Fleet trail. Includes
the demolition/removal of (5) overwater structures.
N/A
lnclurJPs SPEs #3 Ad Ready Doc PrPn_
1.4
Old Clifton/ Anderson Hill Intersection Improvements Old Clifton Rd /
Intersection Improvements (roundabout) as Anderson Hill Rd.
0 300,000 0
0 300,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 2027 S PE Developer:$320,000 + 700,000 + McCormick 0
identified in the McCormick Urban Village Trans Plan Intersection
21000,000 0
0 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 2028 P CN TIF; $786,000 0
TIF 1.4
and partially funded by Bayside Mit Funds.
1.5 Old Clifton Rd Non -Motorized Improvements
Roadway Improvements identified in the McCormick
Urban Village Trans Plan. Design and Construction.
TIF 1.5, 2.07 Separated pathway and shoulder facilities.
Old Clifton Road:
McCormick Village 0.75 450,000
to Anderson Hill Rd.
150,000
0
450,000
2,000,000
0
450,000 0 0 2026
2,700,000 2027
P
P
PE
CN
0
STP(U), TIB/CS
RCO
450,000
1.7 Bethel Phase 5a - Bethel/Lincoln/ Mitchel RABs
Bethel/Lincoln/Lunb
erg/ Mitchell
Safety and capacity improvements to intersection
0 4,000,000
800,000
0
2021
S
PE
800,000
and reconfiguration of approaches. Phase 1 Lincoln
0
11100,000
2,100,000
2100000
2022
S
CN
HSP 1,500,000 TIB UAP 1,100,000
700,000
TIF 2.04e Mitchel completed.
1.8 Bethel Phase 1a - Blueberry RAB
Bethel Road/
Phase 1a. Bethel/ Blueberry RAB 60% PE in 2022
Blueberry 0 3,341,000
0
250,000
285,000
160,000 125,000
2022
S
PE
0 0
535,000
and start ROW for Phase la/b.
Intersection
268,000
134,000 134,000
2024
S
ROW
0
268,000
2,788,000
2788000
2026
P
CN
TIB/
0
2,788,000
UAP/CS
f I F 2.04a
1.9 Bethel ase lb - Salmonberry RAB
Bethel Road;
Phaselb. Bethel/ Salmonberry RAB Round and
Salmonberry 0 11,467,000 0
375,000 891,000
497,000
394,000
2023
S
PE
0
0
1,272,000
roadway segment design from Blueberry to
intersection;
3,206,000
1,603,000
1,603,000 0
2024
S
ROW
0
3,206,000
Salmonberry. Salmbonberry from Bethel to City
Salmonberry East
7,000
7,370,000
2026
P
CN
TIB/UAP/
0
7,370,000370,
fIF 2.04a Limits.
CS
1.10 Bethel Phase 4b; Vallair Ct Connector
Bethel
Intersection improvements and road extension and
Road/Walmart Drive 0.25 3,000,000 0
0 1,000,000
0
0 0
0 1,000,000 0 2027
P
PE & ROW
0
0
1,000,000
intersection improvements included in the Bethel
Intersection to 0
0 2,000,000
0
0 0
0 0 1,000,000 2028
P
CN
0 TIB
0
1,000,000
Road Corridor study
Vallair Ct.
TIF 1.7
1.14 Sidney Road SW Sidewalk Sidney Glen
Address gap in sidewalk along school frontage Elementary 0.95 1,895,000 0 235,000 0 2023 P PE 173,000 62,000
Sidewalk 11660,000 1,660,000 2024 P CN SRTS 1,222,000 438,000
TIF 2.05
1.16 SR166 Bay Street Reconstruction SR166 from Geiger
Raise street to address sea level rise and improve to to Frederick 3,891,000 200,000 1,135,000 0 0 0 2022 S PE CDS 1,000,000 135,000
current standard in accordance with redevelopment 2,649,000 2,649,000 2026 S CN KRCC 2,000,000 649,000
plans. Amount shown does not include water and
sewer utility improvments.
N/A
Citywide corridors,
1.17 Street Lighting Improvements highest priority
Currently funded work include Pottery, Sidney Rd. locations 1,310,000 0 0 100,000
Future applications to be submitted for Tremont 210,000 1,000,000
N/A
100,000 2023 S
PE
HSIP
0 0
1,000,000 2024 S
CN
HSIP
210,000 0
P
DN/CN
HSIP
1,100,00 0
3/21/2025 Page 1 of 7 C:\Users\ fisk\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\35FY88E1\2025-2044 TIP.3_17_2025.draft
City of Port Orchard Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
For 2025-2030 TIER 1 (Reasonably Constrained)
Proj#
Road Name
Total
Future
Phase
Federal
State
(TIF
Begin Termini
Project
Spent Prior
Expenditure
Start
Funding
Fund
Fund
Proj#) project Title/Project Description
End Termini
Length Total Est. Cost
to 2024
2024
s
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Year
Status
Phase
Code
Federal Funds Code
State Funds Local Funds
1.18 Tremont Phase 2 and 3
Port Orchard Blvd to
Sidney Ave.
Non motorized connectivity study and design of
4,732,000
0
732,000
732,000
2023
S
PE
PedBike
732,000 0
elements for future ROW and/or CN application
1,000,000
1,000,000
2027
P
ROW
PedBike
TBD TBD
3,000,000
3,000,000
2029
P
CN
PedBike
TBD TBD
2.12 & 2.30
1.19 SR160 Sedgwick Phase 2a
New Intersection
New Roundabout midway between SR16 and Bethel Rd.
1,550,000
0
0
600,000
600,000
2027
P
PE
BuildAm
600,000
Facilitate development. 60% DN and ROW acquisition for
950,000
950,000
2028
P
ROW
BuildAm
950,000
two lane RAB that will be innitially constructed as one
TIF
lane. Also acquisition of a reminent on the north side
2.04B west of the proposed RAB.
1.20 Bethel Phase 4a; Lund RAB
New Intersection
New roundabout at Bethel and Lund Intersection.
1,000,000
0
0
500,000
0
500,000
2027
P
PE
STP
432,500
67,500
500,000
0
500,000
2029
P
ROW
STP
432,500
67,500
2.04
TIF
1.21 Old Clifton/ McCormick Woods Dr. RAB
Old Clifton Rd /
Intersection Improvements (roundabout) as
Anderson Hill Rd.
0 1,600,000
0
0
250,000
250,000
0
2025
P
PE
Developer
450,000
identified in the McCormick Urban Village Trans Plan
Intersection
0
0
0
0
0
2025
P
ROW
Removed from
project
0
and partially funded by Bayside Mit Funds.
TIF 2.08
1,350,000
1,350,000
2027
P
CN
Developer
1,750,000
Total Capital Pojects
$44,331,000
$2,940,000
$10,302,000
$34,689,000
$6,454,000
$4,905,000
$13,258,000
$2,050,000
$7,650,000
$1,000,000
$8,028,590
$4,832,000 $25,719,212
Maintenance Projects
Total
2024
Future Exp
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
1.51 Annual Pavement Maintenance
Includes patching, crack -sealing , striping, and other
656,500
56,500
600,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
On going
S
CN
600,000
activities
1.52 * Annual Sidewalk & ADA Upgrade Program
Repair and replace concrete sidewalks and curb
1,238,000
38,000
1,200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
On going
S
CN
1,200,000
ramps as identified in the program
1.53 ** Annual Pavement Management System Paving Projects
Pavement replacement projects as identified in the
4,135,000
535,000
3,600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
On going
S
CN
3,600,000
pavement management system program
Total Maintenance Projects
6,029,500
0
629,500
5,400,000
900,000
900,000
900,000
900,000
900,000
900,000
0
0 5,400,000
* Per 2016 ADA transition plan: $180,000 annually over 20 years to comply on arterial streets.
** Per 2016 Pavement Management Analysis Report: $1.45 million
annually to maintain network condition (PCI of 70), $500k to keep network PCI above 65 after 5 years.
3/21/2025 Page 2 of 7 C:\Users\ fisk\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\35FY88E1\2025-2044 TIP.3_17_2025.draft
City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
For 2031-2044 TIER 2 (Unconstrained)
Road Name
Total
Phase
Priority
Begin Termini
Project
Start
Funding
Federal
State
Number
Project Title/Project Description
End Termini
Length
Total Est. Cost
2031-2035
2036-2044
Year
Status
Phase
Fund Code
Federal Funds Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
Capital Projects
2.01
Sidney Avenue (North of Tremont)
Tremont Street to
1
3,750,000
3,750,000
0
2029
P
PE/RW
STP(U)
0
0
3,750,000
The design, permitting, right-of-way acquisition
Fireweed
6,750,000
6,750,000
0
2031
P
CN
!!! Note !!!
0
6,750,000
and construction for this project with bike lanes,
Need updated
storm drainage and sidewalks. (COMPLETE
traffic model
TIF 2.01
STREET)
STP(U)
input before
2.02A
Sedgwick Road West - Design, Permitting & ROW
SR 16 Interchange to
0.4
462,428
462,428
0
2029
P
PE
STP(U)
400,000
0
62,428
The design, permitting and right-of-way
Sidney Avenue
693,642
693,642
0
2030
P
RW
STP(U)
600,000
0
93,642
acquisition phase for this widening project with 3
lanes (continuous TWTL), bike lanes, sidewalks
and box culvert across Blackjack Creek.)
TIF 2.02
2.0213
Sedgwick Road West - Construction
SR 16 Interchange to
0.4
3,468,208
3,468,208
0
2031
P
CN
STP(U)
3,000,000
0
468,208
The construction phase for this widening project
Sidney Rd.
with 3 lanes (continuous TWTL), bike lanes,
sidewalks and box culvert across Blackjack Creek.)
TIF 2.02
2.04A.2
Ramsey Road Widening
Sedgwick Road to
Widen road to two travel lanes with bike
Salmonberry Road
0.5
4,000,000
0
4,000,000
2029
P
ALL
0
0
0
facilities, sidewalks and stormwater system
TIF 2.04A
improvements.
Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Phase 2 -
Sedgwick Road: SR-16
2.04113
Design, ROW and Construction
interchange to Bethel
1,110,000
1,110,000
0
2030
P
PE
0
0
1,110,000
Design, ROW acquisition and construction of the
0.7
2,802,000
2,802,000
0
2031
P
RW
0
0
2,802,000
second phase of the street improvements per the
12,757,000
12,757,000
0
2032
P
CN
12,725,000
0
0
Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan (2018).
TIF 2.04B
2.04C
Not Used
Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Phase 4 -
Bethel Road: Lund to
2.04D
Design, ROW and Construction
Salmonberry
616,000
0
616,000
2034
P
PE
0
0
616,000
Design, ROW acquisition and construction of the
0.5
1,041,000
0
1,041,000
2035
P
RW
0
0
1,041,000
fourth phase of the street improvements per the
7,087,000
0
7,087,000
2036
P
CN
7,087,000
0
0
Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan (2018).
TIF 2.04D
Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Phase 5 -
Bethel Road: Mile Hill
2.04E
Design, ROW and Construction
Drive to Lund
720,000
0
720,000
2036
P
PE
0
0
720,000
Design, ROW acquisition and construction of the
1.1
1,532,000
0
1,532,000
2037
P
RW
0
0
1,532,000
fifth phase of the street improvements per the
6,283,000
0
6,283,000
2038
P
CN
6,283,000
0
0
Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan (2018).
TIF 2.04E
3/21/2025 Page 3 of 7 C:\Users\ fisk\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\35FY88E1\2025-2044 TIP.3_17_2025.draft
City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
For 2031-2044 TIER 2 (Unconstrained)
Priority
Number
Project Title/Project Description
Road Name
Begin Termini
End Termini
Total
Project
Length
Total Est. Cost
2031-2035
2036-2044
Phase
Start
Year
Funding
Status
Phase
Federal State
Fund Code Federal Funds Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
2.05
Sidney Road SW Widening Phase 2
Roadway widening to three lanes (additional
0.95
500,000
500,000
0
2028
P
PE
0
0
500,000
TWTL) including bike lanes, sidewalks, traffic
3,000,000
3,000,000
0
2029
P
CN
STP(U) 0 TIB
0
3,000,000
calming, and stormwater system improvements.
(COMPLETE STREET).
TIF 2.05
2.06
Pottery Avenue Widening
Pottery Avenue:
Widen road to two travel lanes with bike
Tremont Place to
0.22
1,600,000
1,600,000
0
2029
P
ALL
0
0
1,600,000
facilities, sidewalks and stormwater system
Melcher Street
TIF 2.06
improvements.
2.07 Old Clifton Rd Shoulder & Pedestrian Improvements Old Clifton Road:
Design and construction of shoulder widening, Anderson Hill to 1.35 2,700,000 2,700,000 0 2028 P CN 0 0 2,000,000
street lighting, watermain extension and grade- McCormick Wood Dr.
seperated Pedestrian Path as identified in the
TIF 2.07 McCormick Urban Village Trans Plan.
2.08 Not used
2.09 Melcher Street Widening
Reconstruction to widen road to allow two safe Melcher Street:
travel lanes, bike facilities, sidewalks and a Pottery Avenue to
stormwater system. Sherman Avenue
TIF 2.09
0.4 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 2032 P ALL
0
0 1,500,000
2.10 Fireweed Road Widening
Reconstruction widening the road to allow for Fireweed Road: 0.25 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 2035 P ALL 0 0 1,500,000
safe travel lanes, bike facilities, sidewalks and a Sidney Avenue to
stormwater system. South Flower Avenue
TIF 2.10
2.11 Sherman Avenue Widening Sherman Avenue:
Reconstruction widening roadway to allow two Fireweed Road to 0.35 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 2032 P ALL 0 0 2,000,000
safe travel lanes, bike facilities, sidewalks and a Terminus at SR 16
stormwater system.
TIF 2.12
2.12 Tremont St Widening - Port Orchard Blvd (Ph. 2) Port Orchard Blvd.
Construct roundabouts at Tremont Street/PO Tremont Street to 1.1
Street SR166 809,250 0 809,250 2033 P PE STP(U) 700,000 0 109,250
Ba
Blvd. and Bay Street (SR166)/PO Blvd. and curb, Y ( )
gutter, bike lanes, sidewalks, street lighting, 520,231 0 520,231 2035 P RW STP(U) 450,000 0 70,231
storm drainage and Schedule 74 Undergrounding. 7,225,434 0 7,225,434 2037 P CN STP(U) 6,250,000 0 975,434
TIF 2.13
2.13 Not Used
3/21/2025 Page 4 of 7 C:\Users\ fisk\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\35FY88E1\2025-2044 TIP.3_17_2025.draft
City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
For 2031-2044 TIER 2 (Unconstrained)
Road Name
Total
Phase
Priority
Begin Termini
Project
Start
Funding
Federal State
Number
Project Title/Project Description
End Termini
Length
Total Est. Cost
2031-2035
2036-2044
Year
Status
Phase
Fund Code Federal Funds Fund Code
State Funds
Local Funds
2.14
Old Clifton Berry Lake Road Intersection
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Intersection Improvement by Kitsap County
2.15
Blueberry Road Widening
Geiger Road to Bethel
Widen road to two travel lanes with bike lanes,
Road
0.4
1,200,000
0
1,200,000
2036
P
ALL
0
0
0
sidewalks and stormwater system improvements.
TIF 2.16
2.16
Geiger Road Widening
Sedgwick Road to
Widen road to two travel lanes with bike
Blueberry Road
0.25
750,000
0
750,000
2034
P
ALL
0
0
0
facilities, sidewalks and stormwater system
TIF 2.17
improvements.
2.17
Salmonberry Road Widening
Ramsey Road to Bethel
Widen road to two travel lanes, sidewalks, new
Road
0.15
2,500,000
0
2,500,000
2031
P
ALL
0
0
0
culvert and conveyances to blackjack creek.
TIF 2.18
2.18
Piperberry Way Extention
Geiger Road to Ramsey
Provide an extension of Piperberry from Ramsey
Road
0.25
1,150,000
0
1,150,000
2034
P
ALL
0
0
0
to Geiger and a new street connection to the
proposed roundabout on Sedgwick.
TIF 2.19
2.19
Old Clifton & Feilgly Intersection
Feigly intersection
Complete street improvement identified in the
0
2,800,000
0
2,800,000
2040
P
ALL
0
0
0
McCormicks Urban Village Transportation Plan.
Continuation of 1.5A
TIF 2.21
2.20
Bay Street Pathway - West
Tremont to Footferry
Continuation of project following study in 1.8
0
4,000,000
4,000,000
0
2030
P
ALL
0
0
0
2.21
Bethel Business Connector
Lund to Salmonberry via
Provides street internal to business district for
Cathie Ave., Jerry Ln, and
1,400,000
400,000
2032
P
ROW
traffic conjestion relief on Bethel. Includes
the Walmart Connector.
0.25
1
1,000,000
2040
P
DN & CN
0
0
0
permanent easement acquisition thru proposed
Home Depot site and adjacent to Salmonberrry
Atp's site.
TIF 2.04A
2.22 Not Used
2.23 Bay Street Improvements Port Orchard Blvd to
Complete Street and utility improvements. Refer Mile Hill Dr intersection 0 10,000,000 0 10,000,000 2040 P ALL 0 0 0
to Study. with Bay Street.
2.24 Bay St. & Port Orchard Blvd Intersection Bay Street at Port
3/21/2025
Page 5 of 7 C:\Users\ fisk\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\35FY88E1\2025-2044 TIP.3_17_2025.draft
City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
For 2031-2044 TIER 2 (Unconstrained)
Road Name
Total
Phase
Priority
Begin Termini
Project
Start Funding Federal State
Number Project Title/Project Description
End Termini
Length Total Est. Cost 2031-2035
2036-2044 Year Status Phase Fund Code Federal Funds Fund Code State Funds Local Funds
Single Lane Round About to address safety and
Orchard Boulevard
0 3,000,000 0
3,000,000 2040 P ALL 0 0 0
capacity. Bay Street Pathway crossing. Assumed
creek is not impacted by project/ no major
mitigation.
2.25 Bay St. & Kitsap Street Intersection Improvement Bay Street at Kitsap
Re -align Kitsap intersection to address safety and Street 0 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 2040 P ALL 0 0 0
capacity. Cline to end at Kitsap. Relocate flag
pole. Signalized Intersection?
2.26 Bay St. & Mitchell and Guy Wetzel Bay Street at Mitchell
Reconfigure intersections to address safety and Avenue and Guy Wetzel 0 2,500,000 0 2,500,000 2040 P ALL 0 0 0
capacity. St
2.27 Sidney Avenue Improvements Prospect St. to the
Sidewalk and streetscape improvements. Waterfront 0 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 2040 P ALL 0 0 0
Developer Imrpovements?
2.28
Harrison Avenue Improvements
Bay Street to the
Sidewalk and streetscape improvements. Signal
Waterfront
0
1,000,000
0
1,000,000
2040
P
ALL
0
0
0
replacement? Developer Project?
2.28
Fredrick Avenue Impr.
Cline St. to Sidney Ave.
Convert to two way street with angled parking.
0
1,500,000
0
1,500,000
2040
P
ALL
0
0
0
Provide sidewalk and streetscape impr.
2.29
New Waterfront Street
Cline Street to Harrson
Sidewalk and streetscape improvements.
Avenue
0
2,500,000
0
2,500,000
2040
P
ALL
0
0
0
"Shared Street" concept. Developer
Improvement?
Port Orchard Blvd. to
2.30
Tremont St Widening - Port Orchard Blvd (Ph. 3)
Sidney Ave.
Center median, bike lane, sidewalk, and
0
5,000,000
0
5,000,000
2041
P
ALL STP(U)
0
-IB, Ped Biki 0
0
streetscape improvements on Tremont and
Sidney. Roundabout at the Tremont/ Sidney
intersection for non -motorized safety.
Accomodation for fire station. ROW needed on
north side of Tremont.
Glenwood at McC Wds
2.31
Glenwood at McCormick Woods Drive Interection
Dr.
Roundabout and approaches for future bike lanes
0
3,000,000
0
3,000,000
2041
P
ALL STP(U)
0
-IB, Ped Biki 0
0
and sidewalks
Kitsap Transit to PO Blvd
2.32
Bay Street Pedestiran Pathway - West
3/21/2025 Page 6 of 7 C:\Users\ fisk\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\35FY88E1\2025-2044 TIP.3_17_2025.draft
City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
For 2031-2044 TIER 2 (Unconstrained)
Road Name
Total
Phase
Priority
Begin Termini
Project
Start
Funding
Federal
State
Number Project Title/Project Description
End Termini
Length Total Est. Cost 2031-2035
2036-2044 Year
Status
Phase Fund Code
Federal Funds Fund Code State Funds Local Funds
Multi -use Pathway
0 1,000,000 0
1,000,000 2041
P
ALL STP(U)
0 -IB, Ped Biki 0 0
Bay Street to Tremont
2.33 Port Orchard Blvd. Non -motorized
Separated mutli-use pathway using existing paved
0 1,500,000 0
1,500,000 2041
P
ALL STP(U)
0 -IB, Ped Biki 0 0
surfaces, street lighting
PO Blvd. to Geiger St.
2.34 Bay Street Reconstruction Phase 2
Sidewalk improvments, power undergrounding,
0.2 mi 5,000,000 5,000,000 2034
street lighting, stormwater recontruction, water
and sewer utility (separate cost tracking).
Interection improvements at PO Blvd and Kitsap
2.35 Bay Street Reconstruction Phase 3
Frederick to Harrison
Marque removal, sidewalk improvements, power
0.15 mi 4,000,000 4,000,000 2044
undergrounding, street lighting, stormwater
recontruction, water and sewer utility may be
added at additional cost
S. Kitsap & Lippert
2.36 Pottery Intersections
RAB improvemetns to maintain LOS.
4,000,000 6,000,000 2044
Frederick to Harrison
2.37 Old Clifton/ Lloyd Intersection
RAB improvement to maintain LOS
4,000,000 4,000,000 2040
Total Tier 2 Capital Projects 80,027,193 39,593,278 40,433,915 37,495,000 0 32,200,193
Maintenance Project
2.51 Cline Avenue Repairs
Replace sidewalk and parking strip. Cline Avenue: 0.13 200,000 0 0 P ALL 200,000
Kitsap Street to
Dwight Street
Total Tier 2 Maintenance Projects 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000
3/21/2025 Page 7 of 7 C:\Users\ fisk\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\35FY88E1\2025-2044 TIP.3_17_2025.draft
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: April 1, 2025
Interim Adoption of
Department of Commerce
Model Middle Housing
Subject: Ordinance — HB 1110
Compliance
Prepared by: Nick Bond, AICP, Development
Director
Issue: The City proposes the interim adoption of the Department of Commerce's Model Middle Housing
Ordinance in compliance with House Bill 1110 (HB 1110). This adoption is necessary to meet the June 30,
2025, deadline and ensure Port Orchard satisfies the minimum requirements for Tier 3 cities.
HB 1110 mandates the inclusion of middle housing into development regulations to increase residential
density in certain urban areas. Port Orchard is currently classified as a Tier 3 city under HB 1110. The
Department of Commerce has issued Middle Housing Guidance for Tier 3 Cities, which identifies, in bold
text, the components of the Model Ordinance required for compliance.
While the City previously aimed to adopt regulations consistent with Tier 2 city requirements, in
anticipation of future population growth, the City will first adopt an interim ordinance that satisfies Tier 3
city requirements. This approach allows the City to meet the HB 1110 deadline while continuing work on
permanent regulations aligned with Tier 2 standards later in 2025.
The adoption of the interim ordinance will primarily involve amendments to the Port Orchard Municipal
Code (POMC), including:
• POMC 20.12 — Definitions: Revisions to include middle housing terminology.
• POMC 20.32 — Building Types: Modifications to include middle housing types (e.g., duplexes,
triplexes, and fourplexes) as permitted uses and incorporating residential design standards
currently in POMC 20.139.
• POMC 20.34 — Residential Districts: Updates to development standards, such as lot sizes, setbacks,
and density allowances, to accommodate middle housing.
• POMC 20.139 — Residential Design Standards: Repealing the majority of this section as it's
incorporated into Building Types.
While the interim ordinance will focus on Tier 3 requirements, the City has already worked on related
amendments as part of its Tier 2 preparation. These amendments will support HB 1110 implementation
and may be included in the interim ordinance or adopted concurrently:
• POMC 20.87 — Unit Lot Subdivision: Facilitates ownership flexibility for middle housing.
• POMC 20.68 —Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Aligns ADU standards with state law.
• POMC 20.124 — Parking and Circulation: Reflects anticipated compliance with Senate Bill 5184 (SB
5184) regarding off-street parking reductions.
• POMC 20.162 — State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): Streamlines environmental review for
middle housing projects.
At this meeting, the Planning Commission is asked to review the Tier 3 city requirements outlined in the
Department of Commerce's Model Ordinance and provide feedback on the City's proposed interim
ordinance approach.
Following this meeting, staff will develop specific code revisions for the Planning Commission's
consideration at the May meeting. In May, staff will seek input on whether the draft ordinance effectively
addresses the minimum requirements of HB 1110 while aligning with the City's long-term planning goals.
During that meeting, the Commission will have the opportunity to review the draft ordinance in detail and
offer further recommendations.
In June 2025, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing, where public comment will be accepted.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission is expected to make a formal recommendation to the City
Council regarding the adoption of the interim ordinance.
Once the interim ordinance is adopted, staff will shift its focus back to developing permanent Tier 2-
compliant regulations. However, some of the supporting code amendments, such as those related to
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and SEPA, are expected to be finalized as part of the interim ordinance
process. Since these updates align with the City's long-term objectives and the requirements of HB 1110,
they may not require further review by the Planning Commission.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the Department of Commerce Model Ordinance for
Tier 3 cities and provide comments on the proposed interim ordinance approach.
Attachments: Department of Commerce Middle Housing Model Ordinance for Tier 3 Cities
2
TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
January 23, 2024
The Tier 3 provisions of this Middle Housing Model Ordinance apply to cities with a population of less than
25,000, that are within a contiguous urban growth area with the largest city in a county with a population of
more than 275,000, based on 2020 Office of Financial Management population estimates.
The Department of Commerce's authority to publish this Model Ordinance is provided in RCW 36.70A.636(2)(a)
and (b), which state:
"(2) (a) The department shall publish model middle housing ordinances no later than six months following
July 23, 2023.
(b) In any city subject to RCW 36.70A.635 that has not passed ordinances, regulations, or other official
controls within the time frames provided under RCW 36.70A.635(11), the model ordinance supersedes,
preempts, and invalidates local development regulations until the city takes all actions necessary to
implement RCW 36.70A.635."
The Model Ordinances have two text styles meant to address HB 1110 implementation:
Bold text in the Model Ordinances represents provisions from RCW 36.70A.635 that cities subject to the
law must implement.
The non -bold text are standards that are optional for a city to use. Cities may choose to revise these
optional standards, as well as adopt all, some, or none of the optional provisions. However, the non -bold
text will apply to a city that does not pass ordinances, regulations, or other local controls to implement
House Bill 1110 within the time frame required by RCW 36.70A.635(11), until such time the city takes all
actions necessary to implement RCW 36.70A.635. Certain optional standards are included in the Model
Ordinance for this specific reason, to allow a city to have basic standards for certain middle housing types
(such as cottage housing) should the Model Ordinance temporarily be in effect.
The diagram below summarizes the scenarios in which this Model Ordinance applies.
Scenario 1
City adopts regulations
complying with HB 1110
by its deadline*
Bold text is integrated
(required by HB 1110)
Non -bold text is optional
Scenario 2
City has not adopted regulations
complying with HB 1110
by its deadline*
Bold text is in effect
(required by HB 1110)
Non -bold text is in effect
Later, after the deadline, city
adopts regulations complying
with HB 1110
Bold text is integrated
(required by HB 1110)
Non -bold text is optional
* Deadline is six months after a city's next periodic comprehensive plan update required by RCW 36.70A.130
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY/TOWN OF , WASHINGTON, IMPLEMENTING THE
REQUIREMENTS OF ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL (E2SHB) 1110, ADDING NEW
SECTIONS , AMENDING SECTIONS PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, in 2023 the Washington State legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill (E2SHB)
1110 (chapter 332, Laws of 2023) related to middle housing; and
WHEREAS, in passing E2SHB 1110 (chapter 332, Laws of 2023) the State legislature found that
Washington is facing an unprecedented housing crisis for its current population and a lack of housing
choices, and is not likely to meet affordability goals for future populations; and
WHEREAS, the State legislature further found that in order to meet the goal of 1,000,000 new homes
statewide by 2044, and enhanced quality of life and environmental protection, innovative housing policies
will need to be adopted and that increasing housing options that are more affordable to various income
levels is critical to achieving the state's housing goals, including those established by the legislature in
Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill No. 1220 (chapter 254, Laws of 2021); and
WHEREAS, the State legislature further found:
There is continued need for the development of housing at all income levels, including middle housing
that will provide a wider variety of housing options and configurations to allow Washingtonians to live
near where they work;
Homes developed at higher densities are more affordable by design for Washington residents both in
their construction and reduced household energy and transportation costs;
While creating more housing options, it is essential for cities to identify areas at higher risk of
displacement and establish anti -displacement policies as required in Engrossed Second Substitute
House Bill No. 1220 (chapter 254, Laws of 2021);
The state has made historic investments in subsidized affordable housing through the housing trust
fund, yet even with these historic investments, the magnitude of the housing shortage requires both
public and private investment;
and
In addition to addressing the housing shortage, allowing more housing options in areas already served
by urban infrastructure will reduce the pressure to develop natural and working lands, support key
strategies for climate change, food security, and Puget Sound recovery, and save taxpayers and
ratepayers money.
WHEREAS, on , the city/town council passed Ordinance No. incorporating
middle housing policies into the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan as required by House Bill
1220 (chapter 254, Laws of 2021); and
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
2
WHEREAS, on , the city/town transmitted a copy of the proposed ordinance to the
Washington State Department of Commerce in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 at least 60 days in
advance of adoption for the required 60-day State review period; and
WHEREAS, on , the city/town issued a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) on the proposed ordinance, which is a non -project proposal: and
WHEREAS, during the course of developing the proposed ordinance, various means of public outreach
were used including, but not limited to, public meetings, a middle housing webpage, presentations at
various community groups, notification of public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the city/town planning commission held work sessions on to study and review
matters related to implementing ES2HB 1110; (chapter 332, Laws of 2023) and
WHEREAS, on , the city/town Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the
proposed ordinance, accepted testimony and made a recommendation to the city/town council;
and
WHEREAS, on , the city/town council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
planning commission recommendation and accept public testimony; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the ordinance will bring the city/town into compliance with ES2HB 1110 (chapter
332, Laws of 2023) and will serve the general welfare of the public;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY/TOWN COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
3
Section 1 - Purpose
The purpose of this middle housing ordinance ("ordinance") is to:
A. Implement Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1110, codified in RCW 36.70A.030, 36.70A.280,
36.70A.635, 36.70A.636, 36.70A.637, 36.70A.638, 43.21 C.495, and 43.21 C.450, 64.32, 64.34, and 64.38,
and 64.90, by providing land use, development, design, and other standards for middle housing developed
on all lots zoned predominantly for residential use.
B. If necessary, supersede, preempt, and invalidate the city's development regulations that conflict with this
ordinance until such time the city takes all actions necessary to implement RCW 36.7OA.635, if the city
has not taken action necessary to implement RCW 36.7OA.635 by the time frame required by RCW
36.70A.635(11). The model ordinance shall remain in effect until the city has taken all necessary actions
to implement RCW 36.7OA.635.
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
4
Section 2 - General Provisions
A. Nothing in this ordinance prohibits the city from permitting detached single-family residences.
B. Nothing in this ordinance prohibits the city from requiring any development, including middle housing
development, to provide affordable housing, either on -site or through an in -lieu payment, nor limit the
city's ability to expand or modify the requirements of an existing affordable housing program enacted
under RCW 36.7OA.54O.
C. Nothing in this ordinance requires the issuance of a building permit if other federal, state, and local
requirements for a building permit are not met.
D. Nothing in this ordinance affects or modifies the responsibilities of the city to plan for or provide "urban
governmental services" as defined in RCW 36.7OA.O3O.
E. The city shall not approve a building permit for middle housing without compliance with the adequate
water supply requirements of RCW 19.27.097.
F. The city shall not require through development regulations any standards for middle housing that are
more restrictive than those required for detached single-family residences, but may apply any objective
development regulations that are required for detached single-family residences, including, but not
limited to, set -back, lot coverage, stormwater, clearing, and tree canopy and retention requirements to
ensure compliance with existing ordinances intended to protect critical areas and public health and
safety.
G. The same development permit and environmental review processes shall apply to middle housing that
apply to detached single-family residences, unless otherwise required by state law including, but not
limited to, shoreline regulations under chapter 90.58 RCW, building codes under chapter 19.27 RCW,
energy codes under chapter 19.27A RCW, or electrical codes under chapter 19.28 RCW.
H. Conflicts. In the event of a conflict between this ordinance and other development regulations applicable to
middle housing, the standards of this ordinance control.
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
Section 3 — Definitions
The following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this ordinance, notwithstanding other definitions in the
city's development regulations:
"Administrative design review" means a development permit process whereby an application is reviewed,
approved, or denied by the planning director or the planning director's designee based solely on objective
design and development standards without a public predecision hearing, unless such review is otherwise
required by state or federal law, or the structure is a designated landmark or historic district established
under a local preservation ordinance. A city may utilize public meetings, hearings, or voluntary review boards
to consider, recommend, or approve requests for variances from locally established design review standards.
"All lots zoned predominantly for residential use" means all zoning districts in which residential dwellings are
the predominant use. This excludes lands zoned primarily for commercial, industrial, and/or public uses, even
if those zones allow for the development of detached single-family residences. This also excludes lands zoned
primarily for mixed uses, even if those zones allow for the development of detached single-family residences, if
the zones permit by -right multifamily use and a variety of commercial uses, including but not limited to retail,
services, eating and drinking establishments, entertainment, recreation, and office uses.
"Cottage housing" means residential units on a lot with a common open space that either: (a) Is owned in
common; or (b) has units owned as condominium units with property owned in common and a minimum of 20
percent of the lot size as open space.
"Courtyard apartments" means up to four attached dwelling units arranged on two or three sides of a yard or
court."
"Development regulations" means any controls placed on development or land use activities by the city,
including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, official controls, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan
ordinances.
"Duplex" means a residential building with two attached dwelling units.
"Fiveplex" means a residential building with five attached dwelling units.
"Fourplex" means a residential building with four attached dwelling units.
"Major transit stop" means a stop on a high capacity transportation system funded or expanded under the
provisions of chapter 81.104 RCW, commuter rail stops, stops on rail or fixed guideway systems, and stops
on bus rapid transit routes.
"Middle housing" means buildings that are compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family
houses and contain two or more attached, stacked, or clustered homes including duplexes, triplexes,
fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments, and cottage housing.
"Single-family zones" means those zones where single-family detached residences are the predominant land
use.
"Sixplex" means a residential building with six attached dwelling units.
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
19i
"Stacked flat" means dwelling units in a residential building of no more than three stories on a residential
zoned lot in which each floor may be separately rented or owned.
"Tier 3 city" means a city with a population of less than 25,000, that is within a contiguous urban growth area
with the largest city in a county with a population of more than 275,000, based on 2020 Office of Financial
Management population estimates.
"Triplex" means a residential building with three attached dwelling units.
"Townhouses" means buildings that contain three or more attached single-family dwelling units that extend
from foundation to roof and that have a yard or public way on not less than two sides.
"Unit density" means the number of dwelling units allowed on a lot, regardless of lot size.
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
fi
Section 4 - Applicability
A. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to all lots zoned predominantly for residential use.
B. The provisions of this ordinance do not apply to:
1. Lots designated with critical areas designated under RCW 36.7OA.17O or their buffers as required by
RCW 36.70A.170.
2. A watershed serving a reservoir for potable water if that watershed is or was listed, as of July 23,
2023, as impaired or threatened under section 3O3(d) of the federal clean water act (33 U.S.C. Sec.
1313(d)).
3. Lots that have been designated urban separators by countywide planning policies as of July 23, 2023.
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
Section 5 — Unit Density
A. The permitted unit density on all lots zoned predominantly for residential use is two units per lot, unless
zoning permitting higher densities or intensities applies.
B. The standard of subsection (A) does not apply to lots after subdivision below 1,000 square feet unless
the city has a smaller allowable lot size in the zone.
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
2
Section 6 - Middle Housing Types Allowed
Subject to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.635(5), on all lots zoned predominantly for residential use the
following uses are permitted by -right, unless zoning permitting higher densities or intensities than those listed
Section 5 of this ordinance applies:
A.
Duplexes.
B.
Triplexes.
C.
Fourplexes.
D.
Fiveplexes.
E.
Sixplexes.
F.
Townhouses.
G.
Stacked flats.
H.
Courtyard apartments.
I.
Cottage housing.
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
10
Section 7 — Dimensional Standards
A. Applicability.
1. The city shall not require through development regulations any standards for middle housing that are
more restrictive than those required for detached single-family residences, but may apply any
objective development regulations that are required for detached single-family residences. This
includes, but is not limited to, the following types of dimensional standards: building height, setbacks,
lot coverage, floor area ratio, lot area and lot dimension, impervious surface, open space, and
landscaped area standards.
2. Dimensional standards invalidated by this section are replaced by the dimensional standards provided
in this section.
B. Density. Lot area requirements and unit density shall comply with Section 5 of this ordinance. Other
restrictions, such as minimum lot area per unit, or maximum number of housing units per acre, are invalid
in relationship to the minimum number of units per lot that the city must allow under RCW 36.70A.635.
C. Units per structure. Minimum and maximum numbers of dwelling units per structure for middle housing are
invalid, except as provided by the definitions of middle housing types in Section 2 of this ordinance.
D. Maximum building height: 35 feet. A maximum building height limit for middle housing of less than 35 feet
is invalid.
1. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the city's development regulations.
2. Rooftop appurtenances shall be regulated and measured in accordance with the city's development
regulations.
E. Minimum setbacks.
The minimum required setbacks are as follows. Minimum setbacks from property lines for middle
housing buildings greater than the following are invalid:
a. Street or front: 15 feet, except 10 feet for lots with a unit density of three or more.
b. Street or front, garage door (where accessed from a street): 20 feet.
c. Side street: Five feet.
d. Side interior: Five feet, and zero feet for attached units internal to the development.
e. Rear, without an alley: 20 feet.
f. Rear alley: Zero feet, and three feet for a garage door where it is accessed from the alley.
2. Setback projections.
a. Covered porches and entries may project up to five feet into required front and rear setbacks.
b. Balconies and bay windows may project up to three feet into required front and rear setbacks.
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
11
c. Required parking spaces may occupy required setbacks.
d. Other setback projections shall be regulated and measured in accordance with the city's
development regulations.
F. Maximum lot coverage.
The maximum lot coverage for middle housing is 40 percent. A maximum lot coverage limit for middle
housing of less than 40 percent is invalid.
2. Unless the city has a different pre-existing approach to measuring lot coverage, lot coverage is
measured as follows: the total area of a lot covered by buildings or structures divided by the total
amount of site area minus any required or planned dedication of public rights -of -way and/or
designation of private rights -of -way. Lot coverage does not include building overhangs such as roof
eaves, bay windows, or balconies and it does not include paved surfaces.
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
12
Section 8 — Design Standards
A. Applicability.
1. These standards apply to all middle housing types, except for the specific cottage housing and
courtyard apartment standards which apply to only those types.
2. For the purposes of this section, a "street" refers to any public or private street and does not include
alleys.
These design standards do not apply to the conversion of a structure to a middle housing type with up
to four attached units, if the floor area of the structure does not increase more than 50 percent.
B. Purpose. The purpose of these standards is to:
1. Promote compatibility of middle housing with other residential uses, including single-family houses.
2. De-emphasize garages and driveways as major visual elements along the street.
3. Provide clear and accessible pedestrian routes between buildings and streets.
4. Implement the definitions of cottage housing and courtyard apartments provided by state law.
C. Design review. The process used for reviewing compliance with middle housing design standards shall be
administrative design review.
D. Cottage housing_
1. Cottage size. Cottages shall each have no more than 1,600 square feet of net floor area, excluding
attached garages.
2. Open space. Open space shall be provided equal to a minimum 20 percent of the lot size. This may
include common open space, private open space, setbacks, critical areas, and other open space.
3. Common open space.
a. At least one outdoor common open space is required.
b. Common open space shall be provided equal to a minimum of 300 square feet per cottage. Each
common open space shall have a minimum dimension of 15 feet on any side.
Orientation. Common open space shall be bordered by cottages on at least two sides. At least half
of cottage units in the development shall abut a common open space and have the primary entrance
facing the common open space.
d. Parking areas and vehicular areas shall not qualify as common open space.
e. Critical areas and their buffers, including steep slopes, shall not quality as common open space.
4. Entries. All cottages shall feature a roofed porch at least 60 square feet in size with a minimum
dimension of five feet on any side facing the street and/or common open space.
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
13
5. Community building.
a. A cottage housing development shall contain no more than one community building.
b. A community building shall have no more than 2,400 square feet of net floor area, excluding
attached garages.
c. A community building shall have no minimum off-street parking requirement.
E. Courtyard apartments.
1. Common open space.
a. At least one outdoor common open space is required.
b. Common open space shall be bordered by dwelling units on two or three sides.
c. Common open space shall be a minimum dimension of 15 feet on any side.
d. Parking areas and vehicular areas do not qualify as a common open space.
2. Entries. Ground -related courtyard apartments shall feature a covered pedestrian entry, such as a
covered porch or recessed entry, with minimum weather protection of three feet by three feet, facing
the street or common open space.
F. Pedestrian access. A paved pedestrian connection at least three feet wide is required between each middle
housing building and the sidewalk (or the street if there is no sidewalk). Driveways may be used to meet
this requirement.
G. Vehicle access, carports, garages, and driveways.
1. For lots abutting an improved alley that meets the city's standard for width, vehicular access shall be
taken from the alley. Lots without access to an improved alley and taking vehicular access from a
street shall meet the other standards of subsection (G)(2) through (5) below.
2. Garages, driveways, and off-street parking areas shall not be located between a building and a street,
except when either of the following conditions are met:
The combined width of all garages, driveways, and off-street parking areas does not exceed a total
of 60 percent of the length of the street frontage property line. This standard applies to buildings and
not individual units; or
b. The garage, driveway, or off-street parking area is separated from the street property line by a
dwelling; or
c. The garage, driveway, or off-street parking is located more than 100 feet from a street.
3. All detached garages and carports shall not protrude beyond the front building fagade.
4. The total width of all driveway approaches shall not exceed 32 feet per frontage, as measured at the
property line. Individual driveway approaches shall not exceed 20 feet in width.
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
IIGI
5. Local jurisdiction requirements for driveway separation and access from collector streets and arterial
streets shall apply.
Dwelling Unit
•--------
Dwelling Unit
•--------
Dwelling Unit i Dwelling Unit
---------
Dwelling Unit
I
Entry Gl
Entry G2
G3 Entry I Entry G1
Entry G2,
I
72 u
°
Individual
° Individual
�'
o I I Driveway
Driveway
I
D1
�D2�
D3� i i Dl
1
D2
Lot Frontage
Lot Frontage
Sidewalk
� �
� Sidewalk
Street Street
(Gl+G2+G3)
Lot Frontage must be no more than 60%
(D1+D2+D3) must not exceed 32 feet per frontage
Individual driveway width (any "D#") shall not exceed 20 feet
H. Landscaping_ Development regulations for landscaping and tree standards for middle housing shall be
equally or less restrictive than those required for detached single-family residences.
I. Entries. Each building shall incorporate a primary building entry or one or more private unit entries, such as
a covered porch or recessed entry. Each entry shall feature minimum weather protection of three feet by
three feet.
J. Windows and doors. A minimum of 15 percent of the area of the street -facing fagade elevation shall
include windows or doors. Facades separated from the street by a dwelling or located more than 100 feet
from a street are exempt from this standard.
Area subject to facade transparency
requirement
M Qualifying window coverage
M Qualifying door coverage
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
Section 9 - Parking Standards
A. Off-street parking for middle housing shall be subject to the following:
1. No off-street parking shall be required within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop.
2. A maximum of one off-street parking space per unit shall be required on lots smaller than 6,000
square feet, before any zero lot line subdivisions or lot splits.
3. A maximum of two off-street parking spaces per unit shall be required on lots greater than 6,000
square feet before any zero lot line subdivisions or lot splits.
B. The provisions of subsection (A) do not apply to:
1. Portions of the city for which the Department of Commerce has certified a parking study in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.635(7)(a), in which case off-street parking requirement shall be as
provided in the certification from the Department of Commerce.
2. Portions of the city within a one -mile radius of a commercial airport in Washington with at least
9,000,000 annual enplanements in accordance with RCW 36.70A.635(7)(b).
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
16
Section 10 — Infrastructure Standards
A. Transportation. Regulations for driveways, frontage improvements, alley improvements, and other
transportation public works and engineering standards shall not be more restrictive for middle housing
than for detached single-family residences, except as addressed by this ordinance.
B. Lot Access/Road Standards.
Private driveway access shall be permitted for middle housing development with any number of units
when a fire apparatus access road is within 150 feet of all structures on the lot and all portions of the
exterior walls of the first story of the buildings, as measured by an approved route around the exterior
of the buildings.
2. When a fire apparatus road is not within 150 feet of all structures on the lot, subsection (13)(1) does not
apply and one of the following conditions must be met:
a. The building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system meeting
International Fire Code requirements.
b. No more than two units are accessed via the same private driveway.
Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on property, topography,
waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, and an approved alternative means of
fire protection is provided.
Private driveways shall not be required to be wider than 12 feet and shall not be required to have
unobstructed vertical clearance more than 13 feet six inches except when it is determined to be in
violation of the International Fire Code or other fire, life, and safety standards, such as sight distance
requirements.
4. Private driveway access, separate from access to an existing home, shall be permitted unless it is
determined to be in violation of the Fire Code or other fire, life, safety standards, such as sight distance
requirements.
5. This subsection is not intended to limit the applicability of the adopted fire code, except as otherwise
presented in this subsection.
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
17
Section 11 - Severability
If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 12 - Authority to Make Necessary Corrections
The City/Town Clerk and the codifiers of this Ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this
Ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener's clerical errors, references, ordinance
numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any references thereto.
Section 13 - Effective Date
The ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five days after publication of the attached summary which
is hereby approved.
APPROVED
MAYOR
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY/TOWN CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY/TOWN ATTORNEY:
PASSED BY THE CITY/TOWN COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
JANUARY 23, 2024 1 TIER 3 CITIES MIDDLE HOUSING MODEL ORDINANCE
V3.1
ME
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(c) Meeting Date: April 1, 2025
Title 20 Updates: Unit Lot Prepared by: Nick Bond, AICP, Development
Subject: Subdivision Director
Issue: The City of Port Orchard proposes amendments to the Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) to
establish a new section, 20.87 Unit Lot Subdivision, and to update related sections of POMC, including
Chapters 20.22, 20.80, 20.82, 20.98, and 20.100, for consistency. These amendments are designed to
provide flexibility in land use regulations and encourage fee -simple ownership of detached houses and
middle housing types, consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and state law mandates.
The proposed POMC 20.87 Unit Lot Subdivision establishes a framework for subdividing land into unit lots
while maintaining compliance with broader zoning and development standards at the parent lot level. This
amendment supports housing diversity and aligns with the City's goals for sustainable growth and
development.
The Unit Lot Subdivision Code was presented to the Planning Commission in February for review. Since
then, staff have made several revisions, depicted in strike -through from the February version, to improve
clarity, strengthen regulations, and support housing goals.
The updated ordinance clarifies the requirements for parent lots to ensure the process is utilized on
properties which were legally created. Language has also been added to prevent the misuse of unit lot
subdivisions as a way to bypass standard subdivision rules. This change helps protect the intent and
integrity of the City's land use regulations.
Additionally, the revised code allows the use of Unit Lot Subdivisions in mixed -use districts which permit
middle housing.
Summary of Amendments related to Unit Lot Subdivisions:
Purpose and Applicability (20.87.010 & 20.87.020). The purpose of this chapter is to enable
subdivision of land for detached houses and middle housing buildings on lots where traditional
subdivisions are impractical due to dimensional standards. Summarized as follows:
• Dimensional standards apply to the parent lot rather than individual unit lots.
• Individual unit lots may contain nonconforming dimensions but must meet open space and
amenity requirements for each dwelling unit.
• Existing legal structures may utilize this subdivision process without increasing nonconformity.
Decision Types and Application Requirements (20.87.040 & 20.87.050). Unit lot subdivisions are
categorized by lot count:
• 9 or fewer unit lots: Type II preliminary decision and Type I final decision.
10 or more unit lots: Type III preliminary decision and Type I or Type IV final decision,
depending on public infrastructure dedication.
Application submittal requirements align with POMC 20.86.060, Short Plat, for smaller subdivisions and
POMC 20.88.040, Preliminary Plat, for larger subdivisions, with additional documentation to
demonstrate compliance with unit lot subdivision standards.
3. Development Standards (20.87.060 & 20.87.070)
Parent lots must comply with underlying zoning dimensional standards.
Individual unit lots are exempt from minimum lot area, lot width, and other dimensional
standards but must collectively meet zoning requirements for the parent lot.
Critical area buffers, setbacks, and maintenance easements are required to ensure
functionality and accessibility.
4. Approval Criteria and Conditions (20.87.090). Approval of unit lot subdivisions require:
• Access and utility provisions for each unit lot.
• Pedestrian and vehicular access easements or shared tracts.
Compliance with parking requirements, with flexibility for shared parking arrangements
within the parent lot.
Homeowners' associations or shared maintenance agreements for common areas and
infrastructure.
5. Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval (20.87.100 & 20.87.110)
• Preliminary approval authorizes development of construction plans in compliance with the
Public Works Engineering Standards.
• Final plats must include all required easements, maintenance agreements, and notes
regarding unit lot use restrictions and a limitation on further subdivision of unit lots.
6. Modifications to Approved Subdivisions (20.87.120)
Minor modifications (Type I decisions) allow minor adjustments to lot lines or conditions
without altering the overall development.
Major modifications (Type II or III decisions) require re-evaluation of the preliminary approval
and adherence to all initial criteria.
Amendments to Related POMC Sections are required to ensure consistency. Revisions are proposed for the
following:
• POMC 20.22: Clarifies application processes for unit lot subdivisions.
• POMC 20.80, 20.82, 20.98, and 20.100: Adds references to unit lot subdivisions in zoning,
subdivision, and procedural chapters.
2
The proposed amendments establish a flexible and practical framework for unit lot subdivisions, promoting
fee -simple ownership opportunities while maintaining compliance with zoning and development standards.
These updates align with the Comprehensive Plan and state mandates to support housing diversity and
affordability.
The Planning Commission is requested to review and provide feedback on the proposed amendments. Staff
anticipates scheduling a public hearing at the May Planning Commission where after taking public
testimony, deliberating and making a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Unit Lot
Subdivision Code, the Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for
consideration in June 2025.
Attachments: Revised 20.87
3
Chapter 20.87
UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS
Sections:
20.87.010 Purpose and Applicability.
20.87.020 Applicability.
20.87.030 Preapplication conference.
20.87.040 Decision type.
20.87.050 Application Submittal Requirements
20.87.060 Minimum requirements of parent lot for unit subdivision.
20.87.070 Deviation from Dimensional Standards.
20.87.080 Subdivision of Middle Housing Units on a Single Lot.
20.87.90 Approval Criteria.
20.87.100 Effect of preliminary unit lot subdivision approval- Expiration.
20.87.110 Final Plat Approval Criteria.
20.87.120 Modifications to an Approved Unit Lot Subdivision
20.87.010 Purpose and Applicability.
Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to allow the subdivision of land for detached houses
and middle housing buildings on lots where subdivision is not otherwise possible due to conflicts
between characteristics of the development type and applicable dimensional standards in POMC
20.34 and 20.35. In such cases, the unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for fee
simple ownership of land as an alternative to condominium ownership. Unit lot subdivision applies
the dimensional standards in POMC 20.34 and 20.35 to the overall site, the "parent lot," while
allowing flexibility in the dimensional standards for the subordinate "unit lots." This section is not
intended to permit uses, unit counts, and/or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the land
use designations in which a unit lot subdivision is proposed nor is it intended to accept public
infrastructure or to allow circumvention of the preliminary plat process. The zoning and subdivision
regulations apply to Unit Lot Subdivisions except for the departures specifically allowed in this
Chapter.
20.87.020 Applicability.
1. The provisions of this Chapter apply exclusively to the unit subdivision of land for residential
development including detached houses and middle housing buildings in all zones in which these
building types are permitted, or any combination of the above types of residential development as
permitted in the applicable zones.
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.4 366922 0021
2. Individual unit lots may contain stacked units. Stacked units are not eligible for unit lot
subdivision within the structure.
3. Only sites located in the Residential;Zonh-ig Designations (Ri, R2, R3, or R4) rnay-be
subdivided into unit Lots pursuant to this Chapteit
43. The development shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit
application is vested in accordance with Chapter 20.08 POMC. As a result of the unit lot
subdivision, development on individual unit lots may be of a nonconforming size or may have
modified setbacks internally to the unit lot based on
analysis of the individual unit lot, except that any private usable open space or private amenity area
for each dwelling unit shall be provided on the same unit lot as the dwelling unit it serves.
54. This Chapter may only be utilized for the division of lots which either meet the minimum lot
size for the underlying zone or are legal lots of record which have an area of at least 1,000 square feet
that existed prior to July 1, 2025.
56. For previously developed lots, unit lot subdivision may be used to provide fee -simple
ownership, provided that any buildings or structures are legally occupied, and provided the unit lot
subdivision does not increase nonconformity to any City ordinance, or state or federal law.
Inconsistency of existing development with the provisions of this section shall not constitute
justification for a variance under Chapter 20.28 POMC.
76. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create
or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot or the unit lots.
20.87.030 Preapplication conference.
For the purpose of expediting applications and reducing subdivision and site plan design
and development costs, developers are encouraged, but not required, to request a pre -application
conference, pursuant to Chapter 20.22 POMC, to discuss land use, site design, required
improvements, and conformance with this chapter and additional applicable provisions of this title.
2. The preapplication conference is advisory only and neither the applicant nor city staff shall
be bound by any determinations made therein.
20.87.040 Decision type.
1. A preliminary unit lot subdivision, for 9 or fewer unit lots, is a Type II decision and a final unit
lot subdivision is a Type I decision. .
2. A preliminary unit lot subdivision, for 10 or more unit lots, is a Type III decision and a final
unit lot subdivision is a Type I decision where no dedication of public infrastructure occurs,
otherwise a final unit lot subdivision is a Type IV decision.
3. Unit lot subdivisions shall be processed in accordance with the procedures for such decision
types as set forth in Chapter 20.22 POMC.
20.87.050 Application Submittal Requirements
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
1897604 2.4 366922 CK-PI
Unit lot subdivisions for 9 unit lots or fewer shall include all documents and information as
set forth in POMC 20.86.060. In addition, the applicant shall provide all information necessary to
satisfy the requirements of this chapter and demonstrate that the proposal meets all requirements
for zoning and site development.
2. Unit lot subdivisions for 10 unit lots or more shall include all documents and information as set
forth in POMC 20.88.040. In addition, the applicant shall provide all information necessary to
satisfy the requirements of this chapter and demonstrate that the proposal meets all requirements
for zoning and site development.
20.87.060 Minimum requirements of parent lot for unit subdivision.
1. The overall development on the parent lot proposed for unit lot subdivision shall maintain
consistency with the development standards applicable to the zoning district and the building type
at the time the application is vested.
2. The minimum parent lot size for a unit lot subdivision shall be the minimum lot size set forth
in Chapter 20.34 POMC or 20.35 POMCcr-and are at least 1,000 square feet for a legal rta r
eonforrning4otLot of record, provided, however, that each may be divided into no more than the
number of lots equal to the maximum number of dwelling units allow on that lot under POMC
20.34$3@ or POMC 20.35 .
3. Setbacks from the perimeter property lines of the parent lot shall conform to the setbacks
for the underlying zoning district where the development is proposed.
20.87.070 Deviation from Dimensional Standards.
1. Development on individual unit lots within the unit lot subdivision need not conform to the
minimum lot area, minimum width, maximum lot coverage or other dimensional requirements;
provided, however, that any building located upon a unit lot shall comply with the maximum
building height requirements of the underlying zoning designation. In addition, the lot coverage
maximum for the underlying zone shall apply collectively to all properties within the unit lot
subdivision and the parent lot.
2. Subsequent additions or modification to the structure(s) shall not create any nonconformity
of the parent lot.
3. Structures on unit lots and structures divided by unit lots that conform to a recorded unit
lot subdivision will not be considered nonconforming under POMC 20.54.
20.87.080 Subdivision of Middle Housing Units on a Single Lot.
Each building shall be subject to the design standards referred to in POMC 20.32 except
where they conflict with the provisions of this section.
2. Subdivision of zero -lot -line developments shall provide a five-foot wide building
maintenance easement on adjacent unit lots for external walls, eaves, chimneys, and other
architectural features that rest directly on or within five feet of a lot line.
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.4 366922 0021
3. Each unit lot shall be entirely outside of a critical area buffers, and building setbacks shall
be required from any critical area buffer consistent with POMC 20.162.
20.87.090 Approval Criteria.
1. In addition to any other standards and approval criteria applicable to a unit lot subdivision
proposal, including but not limited to criteria in POMC 20.32, POMC 20.34, POMC 20.35, POMC
20.86.080, 20.88.040 and this chapter, proposals shall be subject to the following:
a. Each unit lot shall have access and service as required by utility and emergency service
providers.
b. Each unit lot shall have perpetual access to any shared amenity space required per the
applicable development standards for the underlying zoning district for the development type.
c. Each unit lot shall have pedestrian access to an adjacent right-of-way, with a minimum
five -foot -wide access easement.
d. A separate tract for common areas, access, and utilities may be required in lieu of
multiple easements.
e. Off-street parking shall be calculated and designed for each unit lot in compliance with
POMC 20.124 within the parent lot. Required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a
different unit lot, within the parent lot, than the lot with the dwelling unit, provided the right to use
that parking is formalized by an easement on the face of the final plat, as recorded with the Kitsap
County Auditor.
f. Existing Structures. Existing legal non -conforming structures proposed for inclusion in a
unit lot subdivision and created prior to July 1, 2025 are not required to correct non -conformity, but
the unit lot subdivision may not result in an increase in the degree of non -conformity. Approval of
departure requests from the standards herein may be granted by the decision -making authority
when an applicant adequately demonstrates that an existing legal non -conformity, as described
above, creates an inability to satisfy all approval criteria of this section,
20.87.100 Effect of preliminary unit lot subdivision approval— Expiration.
1. Approval of the preliminary unit lot subdivision by the city shall constitute direction to the
applicant to develop construction plans and specifications for the required public facilities, in strict
conformance with the approved preliminary unit lot subdivision, the adopted Public Works
Engineering Standards and Specifications and any special conditions imposed on the approval.
2. Permission shall not be granted for installation of required public facilities until all construction
plans and specifications have been approved in writing by the city, pursuant to POMC 20.140.
3. Preliminary unit lot subdivision approval shall expire if a final unit lot subdivision application has
not been submitted pursuant to the deadlines established in POMC 20.86.130.
20.87.110 Final Unit Lot Subdivision Approval Criteria.
1. All unit lot subdivisions shall comply with Conditions imposed as part of the preliminary
unit lot subdivision decision.
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.4 366922 0021
2. The final unit lot subdivision (plat) map shall contain all required elements for final plat in
POMC 20.90. In addition, the plat shall include the following:
a. The areas and locations of all public and private streets and ways, parcel and lot lines,
utilities, public and private street improvements, open spaces, and other items specified by POMC
20.90.030.
b. The site development, driveways, parking layout, landscaping, lighting, signs, building
perimeters and elevations.
c. The use and type of proposed buildings.
d. Maintenance easements shall be shown on the face of the plat.
e. All access and utility easements, joint use and maintenance agreements, and covenants,
conditions, and restrictions identifying the rights and responsibilities of property owners and/or the
homeowners association or other legally binding perpetual shared use and maintenance
agreements shall be executed for use and maintenance of common facilities and/or appurtenances
shall be recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor on the face of the final plat.
f. A homeowners association or other form of legally binding perpetual shared use and
maintenance agreement, which complies with the requirements of the utilities serving the property
shall be required when utilizing shared facilities.
g. Portions of the parent lot not subdivided for individual unit lots shall be owned in
common by the owners of the individual unit lots, or by a homeowners' association comprised of
the owners of the individual unit lots
h. A note on the face of the final unit lot subdivision which provides all conditions of
approval of the preliminary unit lot subdivision Decision.
i. A note on the face of the final unit lot subdivision which states: A unit lot is not a separate
buildable lot and additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the
application of development standards to the parent lot. Additional development of the
individual unit lots, including but not limited to reconstruction, remodel, maintenance, and
addition, shall comply with conditions of approval of the unit lot subdivision and may be limited as
a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot or other applicable
regulations.
j. A note on the face of the final unit lot subdivision which states: Unit lots may not be
further subdivided.
20.87.120 Modifications to an Approved Unit Lot Subdivision
An application for a modification to an approved preliminary unit lot subdivision and may be
submitted before a final unit lot subdivision application is submitted, as follows:
1.Minor Modifications to an Approved Preliminary Unit Lot Subdivision. The director is authorized to
make the determination on a minor modification to an approved unit lot subdivision.
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.4 366922 0021
a. Defined. Minor modifications to an approved preliminary unit lot subdivision are those
which do not change:
i. The outer boundaries of the parent lot (other than for survey discrepancies);
ii. The dimension of lot lines within the unit lot subdivision by more than two
percent;
iii. The conditions of preliminary unit lot subdivision approval;
iv. Road alignments or connections and/or do not increase the number of unit lots.
b. Application. A complete application for a preliminary unit lot subdivision modification
shall consist of the following:
i. Application form and filing fee;
ii. Site plan showing the proposed modification, using the same plan format as in
the original approval;
iii. Explanation in narrative form of the requested modification.
c. Processing. An application for a minor modification to an approved preliminary unit lot
subdivision is a Type I decision and shall be subject to the requirements of and processed in
accordance with the procedures for such applications and decisions as set forth in Chapter 20.22
POMC.
d. Criteria for Approval. The director shall approve or approve with conditions a proposed
preliminary unit lot subdivision modification application, as long as the applicant demonstrates
that all of the following criteria are satisfied:
i. The proposed modification meets the criteria in POMC 20.87.090;
ii. The modification will not be inconsistent with, or cause the unit lot subdivision to
be inconsistent with, the findings, conclusions or decision made by the city in its approval
of the preliminary unit lot subdivision; and
iii. Approval of the modification will not affect the ability of the collective lots in the
property included in the preliminary unit lot subdivision to function as one site with respect
to, but not limited to, lot access, interior circulation, open space, landscaping, drainage
facilities, facility maintenance and parking.
iv. Time Limitation for Final Decision. A minor preliminary unit lot subdivision
modification shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied consistent with the
requirements of POMC 20.22.030.
e. Deadline for Submission of Final Unit Lot Subdivision Not Extended. Approval of a minor
preliminary unit lot subdivision modification shall not extend the deadline set forth in POMC
20.87.100 for submission of a final unit lot subdivision application to the city.
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.4 366922 0021
2. Major Modifications to an Approved Unit Lot Subdivision. Major modifications to an approved
preliminary unit lot subdivision are defined and processed as follows:
a. Defined. A major preliminary unit lot subdivision modification is any application for a
modification of a preliminary unit lot subdivision that does not meet the definition of a minor
preliminary unit lot subdivision modification.
b. Application. An application for a major preliminary unit lot subdivision modification shall
include all of the elements of a complete preliminary unit lot subdivision application.
Criteria for Approval, Time Limitation for Final Decision. The criteria for approval and the
time limitation for a final decision of a major preliminary unit lot subdivision modification shall be
the same as those for a preliminary unit lot subdivision application.
d. Deadline for Submission of Final Unit Lot Subdivision Not Extended. Approval of a major
preliminary unit lot subdivision revision shall not extend the deadline set forth in POMC 20.87.100
for submission of a final unit lot subdivision application to the city.
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.5 - 366922 - 0021
10976042.4 366922 0021