Sequim planners propose shift to gross density, smaller lots and new cluster‑housing and PRD options
Loading...
Summary
Staff proposed changing Sequim's residential rules: move density calculations from net to gross, relabel R48 to R49 (raising typical yield), reduce minimum lot sizes, permit greater lot coverage, and add standalone cluster housing (max ~18 units on parcels ≤2 acres) and a tiered PRD framework with optional density tradeoffs.
Sequim planning staff presented a substantive update to residential zoning on April 7, proposing several changes intended to make yield calculations repeatable, increase predictability for homeowners and developers, and provide new middle‑housing options.
The headline changes staff outlined include shifting from net‑density to gross‑density calculations (gross = allowed units per gross acre, with infrastructure set‑asides subsequently deducted), changing the primary residential zone from R48 to R49 (which staff said would increase a 10‑acre yield from about 60 units to about 70 units in an example), and tightening code language so developers and staff can consistently compute potential yields.
To facilitate more efficient site design and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), staff proposed reducing minimum single‑family lot sizes from 5,400 sq ft to 4,840 sq ft, establishing a minimum lot size of 3,630 sq ft for fee‑simple multifamily units, reducing rear setbacks to 10 ft, and allowing up to 60% lot coverage in certain circumstances.
Staff also proposed two new or revised development types: • Cluster housing (similar to cottage housing): allowed in R49 for small‑scale developments (limited to 2 acres or less) with a maximum of about 18 units (9 units/acre gross). Cluster housing can be fee‑simple small lots or commonly owned sites with alternative bulk/dimensional standards and required open space/amenities. • Planned Residential Development (PRD) revisions: staff proposed moving PRD from a largely discretionary negotiation tool to a more structured, tiered framework. Examples shown at the meeting illustrated a base tier roughly realizing 80 units on a sample 10‑acre site, a second tier achieving the 90‑unit maximum density, and an optional third tier (subject to higher open‑space and amenity requirements) that could allow up to roughly 100 units with very small lots.
Commissioners and staff discussed trade‑offs. Some commissioners urged caution to preserve neighborhood character; others encouraged modest density bonuses to encourage amenities. Staff repeatedly emphasized that gross density is a theoretical maximum and that actual yields would be reduced by required infrastructure (streets, stormwater, critical areas) and fire‑safety standards. Staff also said they will coordinate with the public‑works department and the upcoming transportation master plan to ensure street and engineering standards allow the proposed densities in practice.
Quotations from the meeting illustrate the policy intent and limits. Presenter Travis said the change would "convert density from a policy into a repeatable calculation with clear inputs and outputs," and staff noted the R49 approach was chosen so that "it's easier to understand, easier to administer, and, hopefully, it leads to a lot less questions about how many units can I build?" A public exchange on density bonuses produced differing views about whether to permit small bonuses (e.g., +1 or +2 units per acre) versus keeping the cap at 9 units per gross acre.
Next procedural steps: staff will bring draft code language to the Planning Commission at an upcoming meeting (commissioners will preview the draft before public release). The staff also plans a broader public release and comment period tied to the supplemental EIS timeline. Staff said they may revisit density bonuses and tiers depending on market response and developer interest.
The Commission did not take a formal vote on these zoning changes at the meeting; items are slated for continued review once the draft code is released.
