Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Calling to order the 04/20/2026 Bremerton regular planning commission meeting. The first item on the agenda is a roll call to confirm we have a quorum.

Vice Chair Peterson?

Here. Here.

Commissioner Doering? Here. Commissioner Browning?

Here.

And Chair Miller?

Here.

Commissioners Powell and Wafford are excused and Commissioner Kirksell is expected. But we do have a quorum.

Great. Thank you. Next is approval of the agenda as presented. Hearing and seeing no objections, we will approve the agenda.

Do we have a motion to approve?

We have a motion. I concur.

Second. I second the motion to approve the agenda.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Agenda is approved.

Next on the agenda is to approve the March minutes. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes of 03/16/2026?

This is Commissioner Peterson. I'll move to approve the minutes.

This is Commissioner Doering. I move to second.

We have a motion to approve the minutes from the March Planning Commission meeting. Motion by Vice Chair Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Doring. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Motion passes.

Next on the agenda is the public workshop. The public workshop tonight on comprehensive plan amendments, the Wright Creek Wetland overlay and city county equivalency table, zoning code amendments on home based businesses. Presenting tonight will be Garrett Jackson, planning manager with the city of Bremerton.

Alright. Thank you, Chair Miller. As said, we're here to review some comprehensive plan amendments and additionally, zoning code amendments. The orders of the day are for the planning commission to consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony and provide direction on one, pausing review of the Wright Creek overlay until property owner feedback is received. Two, if changes are needed to the land use equivalency table in preparation for a future public workshop.

And three, whether staff may prepare for a public hearing on home occupations per BMC twenty forty six zero three o. We started our review at a March workshop, which brought us here today for this April workshop. Dependent upon the feedback that we received from the planning commission, this could go a couple of different ways, as far as additional workshops or, public hearings, and those can be independent of each those items whether it's zoning code amendments or comprehensive plan amendments. Alright. Moving right into the Wright Creek overlay.

We began discussing this item because with the comprehensive plan amendment of of last year, a policy was added at that time where the city would prioritize the preservation of the Wright Creek wetland system. Accordingly, staff looked at ways to alter the zoning in the freeway corridor zone which allows for some industrial uses to something with less intensity adjacent to this critical area system. The original proposal was sent out with the March 9 packet and was limited to the freeway corridor zone. The original proposal you see in the image has a black tick mark around it and the freeway corridor seen in red. And there was a proposal to limit the maximum height to 35 feet and prohibit certain intense uses in that zone, and also to provide for flexible setbacks so that buildings could be closer to the road and further away from the critical area.

After reviewing the proposal with the chair and vice chair, it was revised to include a 100 and approximately 165 acre parcel in the low density residential zone, which also includes that Wright Creek wetland system. At the March 16 planning commission meeting, after hearing from property owners and the planning commission, staff was directed to work with property owners on whether they would like to be included in the Wright Creek wetland overlay or or whether they wouldn't, particularly based off of revised overlay that only included incentives. So gone were proposals to include, lowering height and and intensity of uses, but, instead would be purely incentive based. Since that planning commission workshop, we've spoken with those property owners in the freeway corridor. Their letters, were provided to the planning commission, in an email, where they, even in a purely incentive based overlay system, have elected not to participate in an overlay.

So we heard back from those property owners. They did not want to participate. We are waiting to hear, from the low density residential zone property owner for the current proposal. So after removing those freeway corridor parcels, we are now left with the current proposal seen in black dash. It's the single parcel that's approximately a 165 acres.

The property owner is international and so the representative is still trying to coordinate with that property owner on whether they would like to be included in that overlay. But until such time as they have ample opportunity to discuss the ramifications of included in an overlay, they've asked us to pause review and that's essentially where we are at on the subject is planning commission. We're, you know, at the request of the property owner, we would be pausing review on the including the singular parcel in the Wright Creek Wetland overlay until we hear back from the property owner on how they'd like to proceed. So moving into the land use equivalency table. The land use equivalency table is an annexation tool used by the city where we have an equivalent land use that the county has.

So a lot of areas in our urban growth areas have been zoned by Kitsap County, Urban low being one example, which the equivalent to that, and the city would be low density residential. So we have a table which provides the county city equivalent of each other, and should we annex these areas in the future, they will essentially be pre zoned by the city based off of the current zoning of Kitsap County. During the comprehensive plan update process, just after we adopted, we noticed that there were some discrepancies in this table that needed to be fixed. The full markup for legislative markup for the amended table is provided in the planning commission packet for the planning commission and the public to review. We view this as largely a housekeeping measure, but we'd be happy to hear any feedback that the public or the planning commission have to offer.

And lastly, home occupations. So these are businesses that take place in someone's home as essentially an accessory use. That the main function of someone's home would be their residence, but that sometimes for bookkeeping purposes, for a business, or there are other some small scale endeavor that you may have a home that is located in your residence. We've had quite a bit of feedback about home occupations over the years and that's why we're bringing this code section to the planning commission and the public so that people may more easily run businesses from their residences while also ensuring that neighboring properties aren't impacted by having a large scale business potentially next door. We do approximately 200 or more of these permits every year, so this affects a a fair amount of individuals in the city and that's why we're looking to make this code section work a little better for those that apply.

Proposed updates include the name. So home occupations can be a bit misleading. Home based business gets the intent across a little better with the name. We've been referring to them as home based businesses in the department for some time now and that seems to help applicants understand what the point of this code section is. Currently, exterior display of your business is prohibited and we're, suggesting some changes to that which include agricultural crops.

So that if you're growing some sort of crop, be it apples or strawberries, what have outside, that that would be considered an exterior display of your business, but we feel that in keeping with other neighboring jurisdictions that this should be a reasonable accommodation with a number of other additions like farm stands. You may be driving along the road, in the city or in the county and see, you know, fresh eggs for sale, you know, it's maybe some apples once again, very apple centric tonight. And that that seems like it might be reasonable if it's a small enough scale that it doesn't interfere with that kind of quiet of your neighborhood. Commercial vehicles that would need to be stored in a garage. So essentially, nobody wants a fleet of commercial vehicles next to their home, but that if those commercial vehicles were stored inside a garage, that they wouldn't be an exterior display and that that would be acceptable.

May utilize the garage for the business. Currently, you are prohibited from, using your garage for your business unless you meet minimum parking standards. But with the comprehensive plan update, all minimum parking standards were removed from the city. So this code section is not applicable anymore and thus is subject for deletion. We talked about some modest signage being allowed for home based businesses at the last meeting, and we currently have language in our sign code for these types of uses where two square feet would be allowed.

It's very modest size sign for a home based business, but that would be in keeping with our current code standards. And the prohibition of cargo containers. So if you have a home based business that you would not be able to utilize cargo containers and just adding some reference that any accessory structures you may have must otherwise meet the underlying standards of the zone. So all of all of that is captured in legislative markup where anything that's proposed for deletion is crossed through and anything that is proposed for new wording is underlined, and that is in the packet, we'd be happy to hear from Planning Commission and the public on ideas you have for that proposal. And this orders of the day might might make more sense now now that we've reviewed these items, that the Planning Commission should consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony, and provide direction on, one, just confirming that pausing the review of the Wright Creek overlay until we have property owner feedback is acceptable to the commission.

Two, that, if any changes are needed for the land use equivalency table in preparation for a future public workshop, that you let us know at this workshop if that's needed. And three, whether staff may prepare for a public hearing on home occupations per BMC twenty forty six zero three o. And then preparation for a hearing, that would mean doing environmental review with the Department of Commerce, SEPA, even though we wouldn't be setting that hearing date yet potentially until we get through some future business we'll discuss later.

Thank you, Garrett. At this time, does anyone in the public have comments on this public workshop?

There are no attendees online.

Okay. Seeing that no one wants to make a public comment, we'll close the public comment period. Is there any feedback from the commissioners on Garrett's presentation?

This is Commissioner Doring. For the international property owner, I know we've gotten two letters so far, right? Because we have a new one for this week, and we're just pending the last third one we are getting no response from.

That's correct. All the property owners in the freeway corridor zone, all the properties in red have elected not to participate. The one remaining property owner is for the very large low density residential zone property. We have yet to hear from them, only that they need additional time.

Okay. Did they say how long or

I believe they said they'd be traveling for the month of May and that the owner is It would be a process to get some firm confirmation on whether they wanna proceed or not. So at least through the month of May, and then I I can't say beyond that.

Okay. Copy. Thank you.

This is Commissioner Peterson. I liked your proposed changes for the second and third items. I realize this is kind of almost a side issue now that these landowners for Wright Creek have expressed interest to not be included in that overlay and this proposed overlay might not do that much good in light of that. I would argue that properties do change hands and even if this didn't have a big near term effect, seeing as how it's a totally optional proposed thing that they could participate in that I don't think there's any harm in still including that area in the overlay. There's turnover on planning commissions.

There's turnover in staff. In five years, we all might be gone and people might forget that that water resource is there. Five years in terms of geologic time, that water resource is still gonna be there. So I realize it's kind of not a big issue seeing how these current landowners have expressed interest not to have that overlay put over their properties. But I would argue maybe we would maybe keep it. Thank you.

And that's potentially one benefit of having this more extended time for review due to waiting for property owner feedback is we'll be able to get information and opinions from the public in the interim. And ultimately, the Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the city council who provides the final answer on the matter. So this isn't the end of the public process one way or the other. We have heard from the property owners, which I would imagine would the Planning Commission would consider.

Other comments? And this is chair Miller. I have one comment. Just curious, Garrett, what happens if we do not hear back from the international traveling property owner?

I believe we should address that in the future if it becomes a problem. They have been responsive thus far, and so I have no reason to believe that they won't follow-up as they've indicated. If it becomes a problem, we can bring it back to the planning commission for troubleshooting at that time. Okay. Great. Thank you.

I also have a couple of comments on the home based business. In one area, excuse me, It talks about no does not include animals, but it does include eggs. And I wonder if there needs to be language about poultry bird laying egg egg layers.

And that's a fair point. We could specify that it's chicken eggs because chickens are specifically allowed in the city of Bremerton where a lot of other barnyard type animals are not. So I think that's a good recommendation providing we have a BMC for chickens. So we should maybe provide BMC chickens as a reference. Okay. Mhmm.

And then my last comment is it says farm stands should be no more than 15 square feet. I think that's reasonable, but it's basically three by five. I'm wondering if it could be bigger, maybe three by six or three by seven, three by eight. So 15 seems a little bit small to me. That's just my comment.

I I have one actually for the for the farm stand. So the the signage seems small. Two square feet, pretty small, like, mostly just like, here's what we've got. Can they decorate the stand with stuff? I mean, what is on the stand? It does seem like you should be able to have some more markings than that.

And that's great feedback. If the if the planning commission as a whole feels that way, then we can explore some larger potential science. But that being said, it is intended that since it is likely in a neighborhood that the overall commercial presence be similar to that of a standard home. So that's the intent behind the small signage. We can provide some more examples.

Maybe maybe this isn't ready for a public hearing. We could do another workshop that provides specifically on signage size, farm stand sizes or we could decide it if at a hearing.

This is Commissioner Peterson. Can we go back to that nice little graphic you had? I don't know about my fellow commissioners here but I like the look of that and wonder how many square feet that is.

Roughly.

Can I just add, I don't think that the design might be too small as a showstopper? It's not a showstopper,

yeah. I would estimate that farm stand to be about two two by four. So it's about eight square feet.

Well, I I think your comment was reasonable. This

is commissioner Miller. I have one more comment that I forgot about in the attachment b, the ordinance for the home based business. It says home based business businesses are permitted in a residential dwelling unit subject to the following. That, to me, limits the business to be within a residential dwelling unit since we're talking about chickens and vegetables and things like that. I think it would be wise to add within a permitted in a residential dwelling unit or on a low density residential site.

And that makes sense too. And and the square footage was intended to be on the interior of the building that so that essentially, you don't have 90% of a residence be a business, the business should be accessory to the home. So that's what that square footage is intended to regulate that essentially it is a home more than a business. So we can add some clarifying language if it gets to what you're talking about that that percentage is based off of what's interior of the home as opposed to if you have flowers or crops growing, that might be something that someone might have growing anyway for subsistence. So we feel like that would likely blend in with a neighborhood and maybe wouldn't make sense to limit the amount of square footage if the planning commission agrees.

Yeah. Commissioner Miller again on sub paragraph h says no more than 50% of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit may be devoted to the home based business. Yeah. Are there any other comments from the Planning Commission?

Commissioner Miller, you're saying that you're good with the 50% or you wouldn't want it to be more or less?

I agree with what's written in this proposed zoning language. So 50%, it should not exceed 50% of the area of the residential

dwelling stand the 15 square feet is a little too small.

Let me clarify for a second. So I think we're we're talking about two separate things. One is the size, the square footage of the farm stand, which is currently proposed to be 15 square feet. The other is the zoning regulation that says that a home based business cannot exceed 50% of the area of the home that it's in. Is that Yes. That's correct. And my comment was 15 square feet for the farm stand seemed reasonable to me, but I wondered if it should be a little bit bigger. But now that I'm looking at the photograph, 15 square feet seems pretty reasonable to me.

Copy. Thank you.

Any other comments?

And then there's no this is commissioner Doring. There's no minimum requirement on how many signs they can have. Like, obviously, if they have more than 10 square feet signs, that's fine. I'm sure that neighbors would oppose. And

it would be one sign is permitted One sign. Of two square feet. So after you know, I'll wait for the question and answer period and then maybe troubleshoot on on signage a little more.

Copy. Thank you, Garrett.

Okay. Any other comments? Okay. With that, I'm gonna close the public portion of the meeting. It's now closed and now on to new business.

Oh, sorry. I just wanted to say, when we're getting back to those orders of the day on whether we can proceed for environmental permitting and setting us a public hearing for the home based businesses. We can proceed with that information while coming back to a public hearing. It sounds like the only outline issue here might be signage, so we could provide the planning commission with a little menu of options potentially for signage at that public hearing and include your final decision in that recommendation to the city council if that sounds reasonable.

Yeah. That sounds reasonable to me. This is commissioner Selle. And can you include something about how the the the stand itself, like, should be decorated? I I think, you know, what the image here is someone would put the name of their home based business along and they'd paint it along the top or something like that, which I think should be allowed. Think through the options of how that's gonna work as well as part of part of the signage.

And we can reference back to our sign code, which what you can decorate however you please. We consider it public art. You cross the the threshold into being a sign if your art is advertising for on-site business. So if you sell eggs and you have a giant egg as public public art, that would count as signage. So but if you just like to decorate, then, of course, that's that's reasonable and and public art, but we can provide a reference also to our sign code and maybe provide some educational language in there about that too.

Okay. So one last thing that occurs to me. This is commissioner Miller. Let's say it's January and farming season is over and egg season is over, you don't leave your eggs out to freeze, is it allowed to have the farm stand sit out while it's not in use?

That's a fair point. And if, the majority of planning commissioners think it's an issue, we could add language that if operations of the business cease, maybe the business closes and the farm stand is no longer needed and or it's off season that the farm stand be put away when not in use.

Commissioner Miller again, think it would be reasonable to language that says that when the farm stand ceases operation for whatever reason, it should be moved to a side yard or rear yard or or some other non visible area from the street.

I'm seeing a lot of nodding heads. Understood. Okay. One

more time. So if there's no more discussion, the public portion of this meeting is now closed, and we'll move to new business the business meeting. Business meeting agenda item one is the chair report. I don't have a report. Item two is the commissioner's report for any commissioners to provide a report on anything.

Item three, item c is the director's report with Andrea Spencer. Garrett, I believe you're taking her

place today. Right. And for the director's report, happy to report for director Spencer. Our shoreline master program, critical area ordinance, and landscaping are are currently pending still with the city council. The Department of Ecology is is reviewing two of those documents, and then we'll take it to a public hearing with city council. So if there's any members in the public that would still like to engage on that subject, please feel free. You can email the city council directly. That information is available on the web page. Great.

Item d, old business. No. No. No old business. And item e is new business.

And we do have a new business item. As of this morning, all fees were paid for an application for zoning code amendments from the Burlington Housing Authority who is seeking to update our temporary encampment code per BMC twenty forty six zero nine o. So we anticipate sharing that with that application with the planning commission at the May at the May workshop. So we will likely not include the items from tonight in May so that the Planning Commission has ample time to revoke review that zoning code amendment for the public to offer feedback. Okay.

So just we're so we're clear, the May meeting will not have any of tonight's agenda items in the meeting agenda, and we'll go straight to that zoning?

That is what we're anticipating. So we're still reviewing the application, but that's what what we're looking for, at this point. Okay. Great. Thank you.

Anything else from staff? No. Thank you. Okay. With that, we'll close the meeting.