Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port Orchard reviews parking code changes as state bill moves through legislature
Summary
City planners presented a draft parking code that would reduce required parking for middle‑housing, remove EV parking rules from land‑use code (relying on the state building code), and consider whether to set parking maximums; members noted a companion state bill (Senate Bill 5184) had passed a chamber and the committee will monitor legislation.
The Port Orchard Land Use Committee on Feb. 19 reviewed draft changes to local parking standards and discussed how pending state legislation could affect the city’s rules.
Nick Bond, community development director, said staff’s draft removes locally required electric‑vehicle parking standards from the land‑use code because the state building code incorporated EV requirements about three years ago and the city intends to rely on the building code going forward.
"We're just going to rely on the building code going forward," Bond said, noting the city previously had overlapping EV requirements in both codes. He also said the draft reduces off‑street parking requirements for middle‑housing types to align with middle‑housing law and suggested treating on‑street parking as a public works matter rather than a land‑use requirement.
Bond said the current draft moves away from the prior approach that increased required parking when on‑street parking was not provided, and that in some cases the code would reduce required parking to make middle‑housing more viable. He said the planning commission reviewed the draft in February and provided few comments.
Committee members discussed whether the city should consider parking maximums. Bond said he has been cautious because many Port Orchard streets lack on‑street parking; Council member Scott Deener cited examples of jurisdictions that cap parking or require a variance if a developer wants more than a set percentage above required parking. Deener told the committee he heard on his commute that a parking bill had substantial bipartisan support and that the vote tally he saw was 40‑8.
Bond said the senate companion is numbered 5184 and that records showed it had passed a chamber; staff said they would continue to monitor the legislature and could incorporate any enacted state changes into the city code rather than redoing the work later.
The committee asked staff to collect example ordinances that use parking maximums and to consult absent committee member Jim about whether exceeding parking maximums should require a variance. No formal action was taken on parking standards at the meeting.
Ending: Staff will watch the legislative process and may revise the local draft to align with any signed state law; the planning commission has already reviewed the draft and the city will consider local public‑works standards for on‑street parking.
