PORT ORCHARD, Wash.

On Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2025, the Port Orchard Land Use Committee reviewed two development-agreement amendment requests from McCormick Communities and authorized staff to begin drafting an amended agreement that could be scheduled for public hearing in January or February. The developer is seeking credit for prior park and trail dedications and several technical relaxations in the McCormick Village overlay district in exchange for new or enhanced amenities.

Nick Bond, Port Orchards community development director, told the committee McCormick had made significant prior dedications "that theyre not getting credit for" and asked that those earlier commitments count toward the citys current on-site recreation-space requirements. Bond referenced the citys Code ("Port Orchard Municipal Code section 20.1 hundred 1 3 0") as the baseline for minimum active recreation-space standards and said the developers proposal includes Saint Andrews Park (project No. 18) and other facilities the developer views as active recreation.

Why it matters: City regulations require a fixed amount of active recreation space for new subdivisions; McCormicks request would reduce the new acreage they must dedicate if the city grants credit for previously provided parks and trails. Committee members pressed staff for trade-offs that would provide public benefit if the city reduces the requirement.

What the committee asked for: Bond proposed three main categories of consideration staff would seek in exchange for relief: (1) additional tree canopy and reforestation in HOA-owned open spaces to help meet the citys NPDES stormwater and urban-forest goals; (2) a small neighborhood active-play feature near the north end of Parcel F to improve access for residents in Parcels C, D and E; and (3) other design clarifications or improvements. "If we were able to get 1 additional park, even if its smaller than the 5 acres that the code would otherwise require, maybe its an acre and a half," Bond said.

Trails and public access: Staff identified a set of trails shown in the original Kitsap County master plan that are currently HOA owned with no recorded public easement. Bond told the committee the countys permitting did not implement a mechanism to make those trails public and that reopening the issue now could require legal action. Committee members, including Jay Rose Pepe and Eric Warden, said pursuing a formal public easement or city takeover of HOA-owned trails was likely a "nonstarter" because of liability, maintenance and legal complexity. One committee member emphasized HOA maintenance obligations and insurance concerns if access were opened to the general public.

Overlay amendments requested: The committee also reviewed a series of technical changes the developer seeks for the McCormick Village overlay district:

- Pervious paving: McCormick asks that certain pervious paving for nonrequired parking not count against maximum lot-coverage. Staff noted the code currently limits hard surface but suggested an interpretation or narrow amendment could resolve this.

- ADU parking: The developer asked to allow compact parking stalls between garages for accessory dwelling units with a trench drain; the committee noted standard stalls are 9 by 20 feet and that the between-building width is roughly 10 feet, making parking compact.

- Drainage: Bond said the developers stormwater design analysis shows extra capacity to accommodate proposed hard surfaces but that detailed engineering review is required during permitting.

- Porch encroachment: Request for a one-foot additional encroachment into the setback for porches; staff flagged potential fire-rating implications for porch materials but called the change modest.

- Facade variation and materials: The developer requested easing facade-variation standards and permitting modern cement-fiber siding similar to T1-11; staff said an interpretation could allow the materials and that masonry requirements could be reconsidered in limited cases.

- Nonstandard lots and right-of-way: A few lots have nonstandard frontages (including a Woonerf with a 20-foot right-of-way) and staff recommended limited, narrow relief for those lots.

- Commercial transparency and dumpsters: Developer asked reduced storefront transparency for some four-sided buildings; staff said the proposed approach fits the village character. Committee confirmed the city requires enclosed dumpsters and that public works and the utility district have drainage/separation requirements.

Committee response and next steps: The committee signaled general support for negotiating a development agreement that would reduce the amount of new active open space required in exchange for the targeted enhancements Bond outlined. "I think its a starting point," Bond said after members indicated their comfort with staff moving forward. Bond said he would send the outline to Jennifer Robertson to draft the formal agreement, noting McCormick would pay the citys attorney fees; staff estimated a public hearing and potential action in January or February.

No formal vote was taken at the meeting; the committees direction was to have staff negotiate and return a draft agreement for formal review and public hearing. The city and developer will need to complete engineering reviews and finalize the terms before any amendment is adopted.

Whats next: Staff will draft the agreement and circulate it for negotiation; the item is likely to return to the committee and then be scheduled for a public hearing in early 2026.