Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Order the 03/16/2026 Bremerton Regular Planning Commission. Roll call.

Commissioner Powell? Present. Commissioner Wafford? Here. Commissioner Doring? Present. Commissioner Kirk Sell? Here. Commissioner Browning?

Here.

Vice Chair Peterson? Here. And Chair Miller? Here. We have a quorum.

Okay. Great. Item three on is the approval of the agenda. Do we have a

motion to approve?

Move to approve. Commissioner Sicksel.

Second the motion?

Agenda is approved.

Thank you. We have a motion from Commissioner Kirksell, seconded by Commissioner Wafford. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Item four, approval of the minutes for 01/26/2026 meeting. Do we have a motion to approve the meeting minutes for 01/26/2026?

Mister chairman, I move to approve the minutes as presented.

Mister Powell, I second the motion.

Okay. We have a motion to approve the minutes from 01/26/2026. Commissioner Wafford moved to approve. Commissioner Powell seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passed. One abstention, Vice Chair Peterson. Motion passes.

The public workshop. Public workshop for the comprehensive plan amendment, Wright Creek Wetland overlay, and city county equivalency table, zoning code amendments for home based businesses. Does anyone in the public have comments on this public workshop?

Alright. There are a few attendees online. If you would like to speak during this portion, please raise your hand and I will allow you to speak.

For those online, we have no apparent public in the meeting and present.

Understood.

Okay. Good evening, Planning Commission. I'm Garrett Jackson, Planning Manager for DCD. As was relayed, we're here to talk about some comprehensive plan amendments for a potential Wright Creek overlay and separately a city county equivalency table update that helps us with our potential annexations in the future. And then some associated zoning code amendments.

One for a potential Wright Creek overlay and two for home occupations. Home occupations are home based businesses that require separate permitting and are regulated by BMC twenty forty six zero three o. So the orders of the day, are for the Planning Commission to consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony, and provide direction on staff on whether to proceed to draft code sections to be presented at a future workshop. So no decisions being made today. Direction that staff needs are does the planning commission want us to proceed writing draft code sections?

This is our very basic timeline. This is the very first meeting that we're having on this subject matter. It'll be followed by an April public workshop where also no decisions would be made. It's just presenting potential legislative markup at a future workshop. But today is conceptual meeting leading to future refinements.

So the Wright Creek overlay is our first topic for our comprehensive plan amendment. We did just adopt our comprehensive plan in June 2025, but yes, it is a living document that needs updating annually. So this is our annual scope for comp plan updates. And how we arrived at the Wright Creek Overlay was when the comprehensive plan went from the planning commission recommended copy to the city council for review and approval, the city council updated one of the policies in the environmental section. So the environmental element had a tweak to one of the policies, and I'll just read it out here now.

Preserve and protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas through regulation, acquisitions, incentives, partnerships with conservation organizations such as the Great Peninsula Conservancy, and other techniques. The city identifies the preservation of the Wright Creek wetland system as a high priority, supports regional initiatives such as the Chico Creek Basin project and other salmon recovery plans and additional opportunities for environmental protection and enhancement. So with this updated policy that called out the Wright Creek wetland system, the city council asked us to review a specific geographical area for appropriate zoning so that this the zoning around this Wright Creek Wetland may be too intense and what measures could we take to lower the intensity of the zoning surrounding the Wright Creek Wetland system in order to better be a better neighbor to that environmentally sensitive area. So you'll see here on the right an image from the Kitsap County parcel search, and that shows a fish bearing stream and some wetlands, running alongside, some properties that are either in the low density residential zone or the freeway corridor. So the most notable landmark here being Pendergast Park for those folks at home that are trying to orient themselves to where these properties are located.

So the low density residential zone is one of the essentially, besides like the watershed, the lowest intensity zone that we have in the zoning code. So there wasn't so much of an emphasis on new ways of lowering the intensity of the low density residential zone. But the freeway corridor zone, which you see here in red, offers some of the more intense land use patterns that we offer in the city of Bremerton, including, potential, heavy industrial uses, outdoor uses, and a height of up to, 60 feet. And so when staff looked at what areas may need to be lowered in intensity to meet that adopted comprehensive plan policy, we settled on the areas here that you see in black dash as a potential Wright Creek overlay, that properties that are within this overlay would be prohibited from uses that are conditional in the freeway corridor zone. That includes heavy industrial manufacturing, adult businesses, and group residential facility class two, which is essentially kind of a prison.

And that you revise the maximum height from 30 from excuse me, from the current 60 feet to a lower 35 feet and that we provide some incentive that that you can reduce the front yard setback in this area from the required 20 feet to a lower number. And that's with the intent that you're pushing development farther away from that critical area to a more developed area that is Sinclair Way right of way. When we met with the chair and the vice chair, they also provided an alternative that they would like to present to the planning commission where that Wright Creek overlay would be expanded to include the neighboring property that's located in the low density residential zone. Now, the overlay would cover all of the items that we discussed previously for the freeway corridor, but also for this area of low density residential, which is currently undeveloped, that there be some sort of incentive for the property owner if they electively increased their critical area buffers. So if the Planning Commission is interested in this expansion of the potential Wright Creek overlay.

The staff would continue to reach out to the property owners, to environmental stakeholders like the Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Suquamish Tribe, and Port Gamble, Sklallum Tribe for feedback on what those incentives might look like and what those increased buffers might be for qualifying. It's all very conceptual at this point with no written code, but there might be an incentive for a taller maximum structure height. Right now, there's a maximum structure height in the low density residential zone of 35 feet. Potentially, with a wider buffer, that maximum height could be increased. This would also require some updating to the critical areas ordinance just to recognize that in this low density residential zone that there is this additional process that's possible for widening of the potential wetland and stream buffers in this Wright Creek overlay.

Now, I've spoken with a number of property owners about these proposed amendments. The planning commission has two comments that were submitted. Those were sent to the planning commission via email and there's a printed copy in front of each of you. And I'm just going to go over which properties are within this overlay. Number one, this the property here is owned by a company called Charlie Northwest LLC.

They have already received site plan approval and they currently have site development and building permits submitted for this site that are nearing a decision. So that being said, they are vested to the development that they have permits submitted for. You're vested typically to the land use regulations that are in place at the time of a complete permit submittal. These folks are very well through the permitting process and are therefore vested to regulations in place when they had a complete permit for site plan review. DUNC oh, by the way, they are against the potential overlay as is outlined in the comments provided to the planning commission.

A Dunk Limited liability company is property two. Property 2 that's shown on this map also includes a smaller parcel that's been that's just south, but they own both of those parcels and they are, also against this overlay. These are two fairly difficult parcels to, develop. Each required a reasonable use permit because these properties are so encumbered with critical area buffers that they needed kind of a last resort exception from these code standards. It's one of the most intense permits that we have, the reasonable use permit, where we have to, essentially confer with our environmental partners, whether they're tribal or at the state, that the proposal is reasonable and that we have and we have a permit issued that their current site plan is was approved in its current state.

And so once again, this overlay wouldn't apply to that approved proposal, only any future proposals that may be different. So once again, that that property owner is against and they are also vested to the code in place at the time of their previous submittal. Buckingham Properties of the USA Incorporated. So property number three, this is the this is the very large, I believe, 165 acre property that's to the west. I spoke with their property owner representative and they said that they will be monitoring the code proposal as it moves forward.

They need to confer with the property owner which will take time for them, but that they are interested in what the planning commission eventually decides and on providing input for the planning commission to consider in the future. Property 4, the Wright Creek Business Park Owners. So all of these properties that you see here more locally in red are all part of a owners association, business owners association where some of these lands and responsibilities are owned in common, including this tract that's identified as number four and some other very small pieces also on that are essentially just small street corner pieces. These are all open space tracks that can't be developed, so there's not really a concern necessarily for limiting their development in the future. That being said, we don't have any comment from the Wright Creek Business Park Association.

And then five, the city of Bremerton owns the lot identified, as 5 and the lot just below that. 5 is a stormwater pond that's owned and operated by the city of Bremerton, and the property just south of that is essentially an undeveloped ravine, which is very unlikely to be developed in the future considering, the topography of that, of that lot. So for the Planning Commission to consider, we have this comprehensive plan policy identifying the Wright Creek Wetlands as a priority for preservation. We have a proposed overlay with a system of lowering the intensity of zoning allowed in the freeway corridor and potentially incentivizing wider buffers in the low density residential zone. A couple property owners have spoken out against this proposal, for the planning commission to discuss whether staff should move forward with, providing draft code and legislative markup.

Moving on to the city county land use equivalence table. In the land use element of the comprehensive plan, we have a table that provides the existing county zoning name and essentially the equivalent of what the city zoning would be. So as an example, in the county, they have urban low residential, and that the equivalency of that in the city is low density residential. And this is this equivalency table is is meant to speed annexation requests so that as properties are annexed into the city, there doesn't need to be a debate on what the zoning for that specific property should be because there's already an equivalency set up with the county within our own comprehensive plan. There's a couple of zones that are inaccurate in the table currently.

So as a housekeeping measure, we're proposing to update this table with equivalent county zones to speed along future annexation efforts. Moving on to proposed zoning code amendments for home occupations. And we're gonna start off with just the name, home occupation. That name of the zoning code section is kind of not very self explanatory and has confused people trying to make home based businesses. So a home based business is essentially if you want to have a small business from your home.

You're doing the bookkeeping for your business, maybe you have a mobile business where you go and provide landscaping or clean a house, something like that, but you need your home operations, then you and a home based business might be appropriate for you. But it's been hard for people to track in the past when we call it home occupation. So just conversationally, we've started using the term home based business and that has translated much better with applicants. It's much easier to understand. So we're proposing just that simple name change from home occupation to home based business with a couple of other cleanups that we think are necessary as we've experienced these requests for home based businesses as we've been through permitting.

And that includes a current prohibition on exterior displays for the business. If you're in a neighborhood, you don't necessarily want your neighbor to have a very bright and attention grabbing business right next to you. Home based business is supposed to be somewhat discreet business that you run from your home, and so currently, we have a prohibition on exterior displays for that business. One way that hasn't made sense is when people want to sell some kind of agricultural crop. If you wanna grow flowers and sell them from your home or you want to grow, some sort of, you know, corn or what have you, that you could do that for recreational purposes today on your own land, but once you transition to having that be a business, it's currently prohibited because it would be an exterior display of that business.

We think that that's likely, unreasonable, and that if you want to grow essentially an agricultural crop on your property and then sell the proceeds for that as opposed to being for subsistence, that that might be something the Planning Commission should consider. Planning Commission might also consider having a limited sized farm stand. So maybe, it's typical to be driving along and you'll see a sign where a small crop of apples or farm fresh eggs, something like that alongside the roadside, would advertise for on-site sales of an agricultural crop. The Planning Commission might consider allowing that type of, small farm stand as an accessory exterior display to a home based business. We have an example here of a very modestly sized farm stand.

Some jurisdictions offer much larger farm stands that you can erect outside of your home. We think that it might be more appropriate in a neighborhood to have a more modest sized farm stand. And then we currently also have a prohibition on, use of a garage for a business. And this kind of harkens back to the time where we had minimum parking standards. So, with the comprehensive plan update came an elimination citywide of minimum parking standards.

But, in the home based business code section, there still lives this prohibition that if minimum parking requirements aren't satisfied, you can't use your garage for your business. As we don't have minimum parking standards anymore, we should be removing this prohibition on using a garage for your business, particularly because that would still be in an enclosed building and there would be no exterior display of the business. So how you would choose to use your garage for a business or for parking would be up to individual property owners for the Planning Commission to consider. And lastly, commercial vehicles stored in a garage. So currently, there is a prohibition on exterior displays.

We've been through the reasoning why that in a neighborhood, you don't want necessarily allowed a loud presence of a business, but that if you have commercial vehicles, maybe you have a landscaping company and you have a lawn mower or a tractor or something of a food truck, that you don't necessarily want that loud presence of a lot of accumulated equipment on the exterior, demonstrating that there is a business on that property, but that if you provide all of that equipment in an enclosed garage, that that would be potentially acceptable additional equipment you could have for your business as long as it's in an enclosed building. So once again, that if you're driving through a neighborhood, there's not a huge presence of commercial vehicles on the outside of your home, and that's as a politeness to your neighbors that this is a residential area, but that if they are in an enclosed building, that there is no outward indication and therefore that should be allowed. That's currently how staff has been interpreting the code, but we'd like to put that into the code as a clarification measure for those applying for home based businesses. So once again, the point of this meeting today is is for the Planning Commission to consider, the proposed amendments, receive public testimony, and provide direction to staff on whether we should draft code amendments.

It doesn't mean that after reviewing those at a later workshop that you will decide that you don't want to go down that path, but potentially you just want to see what staff produces by way of draft code. So we're happy to receive any feedback. Thank you.

Thank you, Garrett. Does anyone in the public have comments on this public workshop? We ask that you state your name for the record, and please limit your comments to three minutes or less. A timer will be used so that everyone is treated equally. Please come well, we don't have anybody in the room, so we'll be using the the Zoom for public comments.

Alright. It looks like we have one person who would like to make a comment at this time. Alright. You are allowed to speak now.

Hello, can you hear me? Hello?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, thank you. My name is Ray Klein. I represent Dunk Limited Liability Company. I registered a letter with Garrett. Garrett's reading is very fair, represents our position on the matter.

So I just wanted to offer a couple of clarifications. The Wright Creek Business Park is also represented by us, as well as our neighbor, Mr. Murch, who has the other parcel and he registered a vote against this proposal. Between the two of us, we represent a majority of the Wright Creek Business Owners Association. So, again, with short notice, we didn't register a complaint as Wright Creek Business Park, but I think it's fair to say we are against this proposal.

As part of the suggestions, the mention was offered of incentives provided, acquisitions to be made. We we don't see that as the case. As Garrett has fairly pointed out, our property is the tiny sliver of our property, any remaining, any further encroachment reduces the economic value to essentially zero. So we have it effectively in agreement with the reasonable use exemption, we have an agreement with the city, and we would like the city to simply honor its agreement. We don't ask for anything more than for the city to honor its half of the agreement.

We understand mister Murch also has an issue with taking. If you look at the entirety of this map, the Wright Creek Business Park is very minor in its impact. The other landowner who you're trying to reach, I wish you success in reaching them and I hope you offer them the appropriative incentives. From our point of view, we see no incentive having been offered to us, just a taking. If you would like to acquire the property for public use, we are open to that discussion, but otherwise we ask that no action be taken. Thank you.

If there's anyone else at this time, raise your hand now to speak. I am not seeing anyone else raise their hand at this time.

Seeing that there is no one raising their hand, I will now close the public testimony for this. Any feedback from the commissioners? Mister Wolford commissioner Wolford.

Yep. Mister Garrett, just for clarification, Dunk LLC has an approved building permit, and this proposed legislation will have no effect on that because they've already been, quote, granted a permit. Is that true?

So it's it's not a building permit. It's a reasonable use permit. Okay. So not to split hairs, but, yeah, they are vested to that approval. If they ever change their proposal, and this is this is say this this is adopted by the city council, and then they change their proposal afterwards, then then it may apply at that time. We need to look at it. But should they ever have to change their approves approval and get a different reasonable use permit and say this was adopted, they would be vested to the code in place at the time that the permit was deemed complete. So does that help?

Yes. Thank you. K.

Other commissioners? Browning? Sorry.

Commissioner Browning. Yeah. I I sympathize with the businesses. I do think the area does need to be protected, but I also agree that the White Creek the Wright Creek Wetland overlay would severely hinder development and the use of the property. I think ultimately it would be unfair to the owners.

That being said, I, I did look at the parcel search and I did look at what they wanted under the reasonable use exception, And I looked at their designs, their current designs, provided by LDC, and I think, that the designs, are fine. I don't think they really interfere with the natural habitat or it doesn't damage the habitat from my understanding. Also, I just think maybe we could create a overlay that is conducive to their development just like we've done with Bay Vista or PSIC or something like that. Those are just my comments.

Commissioner

This is Commissioner Doring. Doring? Yeah. I'm with him. I have a question. So all the businesses are on the same page on this, or is that what you're getting, Garrett?

It appears with in or at least for the properties in the freeway corridor zone that they are against this proposal for the private property owners. Otherwise, city of Bremerton property that's remaining. I I do wanna add a little more context that just that the removal of a heavy industrial use, they're the both these properties, whether it's Dunk or Charlie North Northwest, neither of those approvals are for a heavy industrial use, adult entertainment use, or class two residential facility. None of the proposals are currently that we we understand to be 30 over 35 feet in height. So the intent from staff was to essentially lower the intensity of the allowed uses and development standards while not necessarily affecting their current proposals.

So we did try to keep the businesses' needs in mind. That being said, hearing from the property owners directly on how this will affect their property, is probably a better guess than, you know, staff intuiting what might work for them. But that was the intent. But sorry if, I went off a little farther than, yes, all the business owners excuse me, private property owners appear to be against the proposal in the freeway corridor zone.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. And then with that being said, I mean, we are concerned about the environment, but we also want to protect the businesses coming into our area to make sure they're able to generate income and improve, you know, Burlington as a whole. But And there has been What has that report done to make sure the areas are all safe and what's all being built? Has that

been Yeah. Were critical area reports accomplished for both development proposals. Mhmm. I should point out too that this isn't required by the state. This would be an elective process from the city. I know the planning commission has recently been through the critical area and shoreline master plan update process a lot of that being state requirements. This is more elective from the city.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that, Garrett.

Commissioner Peterson. Hi. This is Commissioner Peterson. Given this pretty intense landowner opposition, it seems like the most productive way forward might be to offer an optional incentive program, the one that allows the developments to cinch right up to the road and offer an elimination of the setback off that road in return for winning a little bit of an extra setback from the back property line near the water resource. That seems like a way we could, you know, make some potential gains in the future without, a taking as the property owners put it.

And then if they are vehemently opposed to that, then it's an optional offering anyway. And I do like the proposal for the that Western property, that residentially zoned property. I've personally been out to this property and that's where there's a lot of wetland area over there and I I spoke with Garrett. It it seems, you know, perhaps tough to find an incentive that might entice the future developer of that site but that seems like a productive way forward too if we can find that type of incentive that they might wanna take advantage of but for these properties on the East that seems like the most productive way forward is an optional incentive to me. Thank you.

Commissioner Powell.

Commissioner Powell, I fall into the camp of, you know, it's a it's a taking. These people bought this property and evaluated, did due diligence, ran pro formas and numbers, and I can build so wide, I can build so high. And property will yield, you know, this net operating income that helps justify the amount I'm paying for this property. And they come in and whack off half their height restriction. 20 feet is almost nothing.

That's from me to you. And, functionally, you need that frontage anyway for a for a building. You know, landscape requirements and things like that. So it's kind of unreasonable to think that you'll paste your building right smack dab up next to the road. So on the Wright Creek properties, think don't waste your time on on drawing something up is my opinion. Yeah. I think that you'll see lawsuits from these property owners as well.

Commissioners Kirksell.

Yeah. Is that an option to say what we like, this is not gonna work out. And is that an option for us?

It's an option for the planning commission to have staff not move forward with a Wright Creek wetland overlay. So there's a there's a few options. We'll just throw them out there for the planning commission to consider. One, move forward with the proposal that's in the packet. Two, potentially a lesson proposal where the Wright Creek Overlay would purely be incentive based.

There is no lowering of height or lessening of intense intensity of uses. It's all about, you know, essentially giving them the option to construct your building closer to the right of way if you choose. Right now, it's a requirement to be 20 feet away from the right of way. Some additional flexibility to move that development closer to the right of way as an incentive. So one, proposal as in the packet, two, change to an incentive base, or three, have staff not move forward with a Wright Creek overlay at all.

Can I ask a clarifying question? So they already have permits and plans, and so this movement towards the street, is that then a change to their plans? Know, I mean, it seems like those plans are already in place. So how would that help them?

It wouldn't help their current proposal or affect their current proposal. They are approved. So they can move forward no matter what we do. Whatever is adopted, they still have their current proposal. Should they need another reasonable use permit in the future, this an incentive might provide them additional flexibility to move their building closer to the right of way should they choose if it's if it's an elective process. So they wouldn't affect their current proposal should they need should they need a current a different use and reasonable use in the future. This might provide them with additional flexibility.

I have a couple of comments, mister commissioner Miller. This overlay idea came out of a city council request, I guess, or or something. Can you speak to that a little bit more in detail?

Absolutely. So occasionally, the city council will give the DCD some homework to work with the planning commission on where they may want to make a zoning change, but they're not the appropriate body to do that. Zoning code changes begin with the planning commission. So if there is a zoning change the city council is interested in, they will direct staff to take that to the planning commission. So with the comprehensive plan update, this policy was revised and that was followed by instruction from the planning commission excuse me, from the city council to take this issue to the planning commission for consideration.

It doesn't mean that there was consensus with the city council that this zoning change should take place. It means that they wanted the planning commission to do the work to make a recommendation to them.

So just to commissioner Miller, again, just to clarify that in my mind, there is no mandate that we make a change to the zoning for the right this this particular area. Is that correct? That's correct. Could you also give a little bit more detail about what is in, off the top of your head, the high intensity industrial uses? Like, these examples.

Absolutely. So a heavy industrial use essentially means you will have impacts on your neighbors. So that there will be sights, sounds, smells. Classic example is a sriracha factory that you may smell that for several blocks around, and that would be considered a heavy industrial use because you will have effects typically on your surrounding properties. So considering the proximity to the critical area, that there wasn't a current heavy industrial use proposed by either business, that seemed reasonable.

Now that being said, what is reasonable for these lots that require a reasonable use permit is dictated on a proposal by proposal basis. So it's not as though I don't know. I I feel like it might be confusing things, but that would be a heavy industrial use.

Right. And then the other comment I have is that the bigger parcel to the west is low intensity or low low density residential, and the parcels to the south are already developed as low density residential. So there's a definite residential development happening kinda geographically around this particular site, which I think might be one of the I'm I'm just making a supposition here, reasons for thinking about limiting the amount of of heavy industrial use, which would have those sounds, sights, and smells potentially as part of the overlay.

Correct. Are

there any other comments from the planning commission?

I'll just offer one more bit of feedback before the planning commission makes some provides direction to staff that we could potentially with this I'm just reading the room here. It looks like nobody likes the idea of necessarily lowering land use intensity or height. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But that we could continue to work with the property owners to see if an incentive based overlay would be suitable for them. And if so, they would have the opportunity at the next planning commission meeting to report back that, yes, we are interested or no, we are still opposed.

So just throwing that out there that we can continue to work with property owners to provide updated feedback from them to the planning commission based off of what we've heard here today.

Well, just to move the meeting along then, gonna take a straw poll. Is that a process that we would find appealing? Everybody's heads going up and down. So I think that's a a good next step.

Commissioner Peterson. Hi. This is commissioner Peterson. I these landowners are strongly in opposition of this, and they've they've used the word taking. I'm not I haven't read up on on what happens if that kind of thing goes to court and and I don't think we're any of us proposing to try to to take anything, but I I I would like to say I think it's regrettable that we've we have this heavy industrial zone directly abutting a fish bearing stream like that.

I I would like that to be said out loud in this meeting. I think that that was a mistake at at some point. So I think it's a good thing that we are considering what we can do to lessen the intensity of that zoning. And I like the idea that staff had of lowering the zoning to what the land owner's current proposals are. What would happen if, well, I'm asking you about hypotheticals.

What happens when a jurisdiction has a taking in down zones? I'm curious about what that process looks like. We've never considered this while I've been on planning commission and I'm squeamish about it. I think we all are. Jeez. This they're in opposition of this. But I would like to repeat, I think it's regrettable that that zoning is what it is and this will come up again in the future. So I just for my own info, I am curious about what what happens there in in that type of situation. Thank you.

So I'm not a lawyer, But that being said, these parcels, these two parcels owned by Dunk are so encumbered by critical areas that they need a reasonable use permit to avoid a constitutional taking. And a reasonable use permit is for a limited use on-site. The the smallest use essentially that you can make use of your site that might be, you know, enjoyed by your neighboring properties. So a constitutional taking would more be decided through the reasonable use permit exception than any change in zoning. Once we could consult our legal department for something more finite in the future.

I wouldn't wanna put anybody on the spot tonight. But that it seems unlikely that this would constitute a constitutional taking in my amateur opinion, but that that's what the reasonable use permit process is for. So I hope that answers your question.

Perhaps some, like, reading homework in the future. I I'm just curious about this this

Oh, absolutely. I can send out to the planning commission some more information on constitutional takings, reasonable use process.

Thank you. Yeah.

Yeah. To me, it seems like, Garrett, they've already done the legwork. Instead of us having to modify the zoning. They went out of their way to get the risk reasonable permit to already limit what you guys or what they've discussed with the city. I don't think us tying their hands completely would would be beneficial, but that's just what I'm thinking right now.

And that makes sense. And I I think previously, we'd heard from the planning commission and gotten kind of nods that, you know, we can continue to talk to the property owners about something that might work with them, work for them. And if that and and provide that resolution or disagreement to the planning commission at the next meeting. But that we're hearing that, you know, the concerns over a taking or lessening the value of their property is is hitting home with the planning commission and that is not what their intent is. So message received from from staff and we'll work for a more amicable outcome for the property owners.

I just wanted to clarify from my own understanding what we were talking about with the heavy industrial use in adult businesses. And you were saying that the reasonable use exemption is really how they're doing anything at all. So to do one of those things, which is different than they've already planned, they would have to get another reasonable use exemption, which would possibly, given the feelings in the room, probably not really be approved. So we're really arguing over really no change, how the no change is put in place?

I think that's a fair assumption. We do not provide decisions before we've received an application, but if you are asking for a heavy industrial use to you know, as a reasonable use exception, it would we would need to get feedback from the Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Suquamish Tribe, and Port Gamble, Skollum Tribe on whether they believe that that would be an appropriate use into such proximity to environmentally sensitive lands like these.

Commissioner Wolford. Mister Garrett, I read some place today that the the owners of the lot, Dunk LLC, in their application indicated that they were this is in 2024. We're ready to proceed with construction upon issuance of a permit. And, apparently, they have redecided that they don't wanna build what they had in mind and what they applied for the reasonable use. So when you talk to them, just for clarification, what is it they want to build now that if we left all the restrictions in place, you know, could they really do that?

Is that too much?

So I think that we can review the code. Planning commission can review code for potential changes, but the the private plans of property owners is kind of outside of the purview of the planning commission, and really kind of outside of the tea leaves of DCD staff as far as what financing is available, potential changes that they need to take their project. I think that our focus is better on, you know, the the potential draft code and that legislative process.

I I guess what I'm asking is they asked for a reasonable use permit, and they had an idea of what they were gonna build. And the idea was as soon as the permit was issued, they would commence construction. Apparently, that idea has changed now for a variety of reasons. Financing may be one. But if they wanna change the plan or the reasonable use permit that they got, what is it they want?

We don't have any No.

Just need wouldn't you discuss it with them? You know, if they wanted to bolster, that's

fine. And it's my understanding that they're not they're not interested in a future project beyond what they have approved, but that for their long term property rights that they don't want those to be infringed upon. Okay. So it has less to do with a specific project than they purchased the property with an understanding that you could build so high and etcetera, and that they would like to maintain that.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other comments from the commission? Okay. Then I'm gonna close this portion of the meeting.

Can we go I'm gonna one question about the home based.

Oh. Well, the we have the other yeah. Well, I'm gonna close this portion of the meeting for the the overlay. Okay. Then we can go to the other parts of the meeting. So we've got the home based business portion. And remind me the other one there,

Garrett. Oh, equivalency table.

Yeah. The equivalency table, the zoning table.

Yes. Thank you, chair. The equivalency table for a comprehensive plan, which should streamline the annexation process and then home based businesses.

Yeah. So, missionary Wolford.

Just because I don't know where to look in the code, a home based business in a neighborhood, is there any advertising sign size? Why you know, can I put in a 10 foot by 10 foot sign in my front yard?

It's very minimal. I think it's like a we we could provide an update and then in an email, but I believe it's two square feet. Like, a very minimal size sign would be allowed for a home based business.

Okay. Thank you.

Are there any other comments from the commission? Commissioner?

I just wanna say I think the suggestions make a lot of sense. So I think it I wanted to say I think that you guys have done a good job figuring out ways around some of these issues.

Yeah. Commissioner Powell. Commissioner Powell.

I agree both on the table and the home based business. Reasonable requests and housekeeping and I'm in favor of those.

This is Commissioner Doring. I agree as well. And I like how you guys are accommodating to the businesses. Yeah. And I do have a question, though, Garrett. As far as, like, the crops go, there's restrictions on what they can and cannot grow. Correct? Just from ecology.

It would be typical agricultural crops. Right. And so fruits, vegetables, flowers. I mean, we could further define that in potential code update.

Thank you. Garrett?

This is commissioner Miller. I have a couple of comments that maybe you could address, Garrett. The use of the garage, I understand the use of the garage is that that if if a person has a home based business and you use the example of landscaping or tree tree type of business and they have equipment, that that equipment must be not parked on their property but within the garage. Is that a correct interpretation? That's correct.

Should we say in their garage or off at an a third location outside of the neighborhood or something like that? Or is it because the the verb the wording, I think, needs to be clear that they can't park on their their their big trailers or equipment like a backhoe or something like that on their driveway or in their front parking area. The other comment I have is the use of storage sheds or cargo containers. And I know that there's a prohibition against cargo containers, but people do seem to get past it in certain ways. And I think that it would be reasonable to put language in this with those to clarify that you can't have cargo containers in your front yard area for storage of equipment or or however that would happen to work.

And if people are not gonna be able to put their equipment in their garage and then they build a shed or a gazebo or something like that, Again, it has to meet code. I mean, I'm stating the obvious, but there are examples around town where it doesn't happen.

We can consider that when drafting code for the planning commission to consider. Okay.

Sure. Yeah.

I just I guess I did have one concern about people who have their vehicle that they use basically for their own purposes with a wrap or something like that. And if they don't have a garage, what are they to do?

Typically, the way we've enforced that with the current code is if you have one one vehicle that's, like, essentially your daily driver and you have a wrap on it, then we consider that your own personal vehicle. But once you start acquiring a fleet or equipment, then that's that's kind of the line in the sand. So we can consider providing specific language to address that concern in any code update. Thanks.

Yeah. Because there is a lot of street parking in the city. Like, everyone said, I have noticed, you know, you might own the house down the street, but you park across the street with your, you know, your tree cutting vehicle, and it's obvious that it's yours. So that does, yeah, like, what question that she said. Like, what do we do about that?

So there is a current, prohibition on, parking trailers, heavy equipment, things like in the right of way. We can reference that code section in the home based business for concerns about parking equipment in the right of way. But when we are reviewing individual home based businesses, we ask what will be on the site. And I'll just say that it's hard to legislate people being dishonest. So if there if we get an application, it's expected that accurate information is being provided to the department, and that's what we review for.

If there is any kind of dishonesty, that's not necessarily something that we can plan around. So we can provide expectations and and enforce those results.

Copy, Garrett. Thank you.

Are there any further comments? Okay. So now I'm gonna close this portion of the meeting and move on to the business meeting. Chair report. I don't have a report, but I would like to welcome doctor Tara Kirksell since I was not here last month, I'm sorry about that, but welcome. Thank you. You're welcome. Commissioner's report, there is not one, unless anybody has anything to offer. Director's report. I have one thing. Mister commissioner Wolford.

This is a request to the public to apply for various commissions, panels, etcetera, in the city. We always have a need, and a lot of people have some spare time. Like the planning commission, you know, it's we meet months and months, and it takes two to three hours to review the packet and answer questions and talk to people. But we need, volunteers out there. So go to the city website and fill out an application. Thank you.

Director's report? Director

I'd like to, you know, report for director Andre Spencer. Just letting the public know that on March 25, we the city council has a study session to consider proposed zoning code amendments for the shoreline master program, critical area ordinance, and landscaping code followed by a public hearing on April 1. Anyone would like to participate, please send any of your comments to the city council email address or contact me directly for further instruction.

Okay. Old business and none. New business? No. Okay. I'm gonna call this meeting adjourned. The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on 04/20/2026.