Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yes, Chair Wofford, we have a quorum. Noting Jack Powell, commissioner, is online. Commissioner Eric Peterson is excused. Anna Doering and Chris Browning, unexcused absences. Thank you.

Yeah, they're not.

They responded.

This is Vice Chair Tift. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mike Miller, second.

We have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the May 19, 2025 meeting. The motion was made by Vice Chair Tift and seconded by Commissioner Miller. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Sorry, Commissioner Powell, was that an aye from you as well? Thank you. Any opposed? Any abstention? Motion carries with four ayes. Thank you.

Now I'll make a call to the public, public comments on any item that is not on tonight's agenda. Seeing and hearing none, Go up to the next item. Which is... Anyway, I'll close the public comment section. We'll now have a public workshop. Tonight is on Zoning Code Amendments. Presenting is Mr. Jackson, Planning Manager with the City of Bremerton. Mr. Jackson.

All right, good evening Planning Commission. As the chair noted, we're here to discuss some potential zoning code amendments. Tonight is a workshop. Following a potential successful workshop, we would transition into an environmental review of these proposed zoning code amendments, followed by a hearing in September. The orders of the day are for Planning Commission to consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony, and provide direction on the proposed code. There is no decision or formal recommendation that's made at tonight's workshop. There's a 3 separate topics for the planning commission to consider for zoning code amendments tonight. The 1st, being neighborhood scale commercial or small commercial projects and residential zones state required facilities for 3521683 and design standards. So, the 1st, being a neighborhood scale commercial for the planning commission to consider and essentially, this is limited commercial uses that would be allowed in residential zones. This is supposed to promote walkability so that people can walk to a corner store or restaurant within their neighborhood without having to go to a more traditional commercial corridor. The planning commercial last heard about these proposed changes at the May 19th planning commission meeting. At that meeting, the planning commission requested that staff further develop kind of spacing and intensity requirements for proposed neighborhood scale commercial. So we've done that with the proposed code. It's in your packet those revisions. And those spacing requirements that are proposed would allow for neighborhood residential, excuse me, neighborhood scale commercial only on street corners and that there couldn't be other neighborhood scale commercial within a quarter mile of an approved business. So it takes two spacing requirements from separate jurisdictions and combines them for street corners and then that quarter mile distance. And then also limiting the hours of operation until 10 p.m. You'll see up here on the screen, this is the little store. It's on Stone Way. It's just outside of city limits. So on the corner of Trenton and Stone. And you'll see that this corner store that's existed there for a very long time exists both on the corner street and you see that quarter mile radius around the store indicating both requirements. Next, moving into state required facilities. So these are facility types that the city is required to permit. And that includes transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing. Definitions for each 1 of those facility types has been added to proposed to be added to BMC 20.42 definitions. And those definitions are straight out of state statute. So. No interpretation there, but that transitional housing and supportive housing are required to be allowed in all zones that allow for residential development or hotels. So, transitional housing is where this day is limited to 2 years and that there must be supportive. agencies to help persons along in transitional housing. Permanent supportive housing is what it sounds like. It is permanent, where people that require some more oversight, primarily a homeless population, would receive permanent supportive housing once again with that kind of case management assistance. Indoor emergency shelter and indoor emergency housing, the difference there being that indoor emergency shelters don't necessarily provide an overnight stay. So it could be a day shelter, whereas emergency housing is an overnight facility. Those indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing, both required to be allowed wherever hotels are allowed in the city. Each one of these facility types would require a conditional use permit and required elements of that permit would be an operations plan, a code of conduct for residents, and coordination with the Pemberton Police Department. Moving into design standards. There are a number of areas where we're proposing to revise the code. Largely, this is housekeeping measures and lessons learned that staff has taken in over a number of years of implementing this code. Number one is for consistency with the downtown subarea plan. And that's for items like calculating transparency, definitions, and other items that we'll get into later. that we add flexibility for accessory structures and developments that are granted an increased setback, that we limit design standards to development that's located on private streets, and mixed use requirements or easily adaptable to commercial would be required in the general commercial zone. We'll get into more depth on each one of those items. Design standards, consistency with the downtown sub-area plan. So through the downtown sub-area planning process, staff coordinated with local developers on whether our design standards that we had were achievable, whether our code was too stringent or whether it could work with actually creating the development that the comprehensive plan and sub-area plan aspires to. So the items that we have taken that are proposed to transition from the downtown sub area plan to the zoning code are to ensure that there is consistency in definitions and standards between the sub area and the zoning code. And that includes definitions. So once again, for consistency in the downtown sub area plan easily adaptable to commercial use is defined. So previously in the zoning code, we had provisions where if you have a mixed use requirement for your building. you had to build out that retail space on the bottom floor. However, we heard back from developers and financiers that the market didn't support creating that retail space, and so that was ending projects. So we had a code revision to allow that you could have that ground floor commercial space be easily convertible to commercial space, but we didn't really define what that meant. So with the downtown sub area plan update, we defined what it meant to be easily adaptable to a commercial use. Once again, this was shopped through that development group that we referenced earlier, and it's proposed to be incorporated into the zoning code so that we have consistency between the two documents. Very similar with mixed use building. It's not currently defined in the zoning code. It is defined in the sub area plan. We're proposing to bring that over from the sub area plan. To the BMC and pedestrian oriented. We currently have that defined both in the zoning code and in the sub area plan with different definitions. This is the most accurate definition that we feel and that went through the most public review the most recently because it was from the downtown sub area plan. So once again, we're proposing to bring that over to the zoning code. Design standards for transparency. So what percentage of your building frontage is required to be transparent? Meaning you can look through windows and doors for glass. So you'll see here there's these two images on the screen, both of them showing the same hypothetical building, and then you'll see a blue stripe through the building with a black ticked line. Currently in the zoning code, we require that a percentage of your building be transparent from grade zero feet up to eight feet. And then the picture on the right is of the downtown sub area plan measurement where that transparency is required to be from two feet to eight feet. So we've heard back from the development community through the downtown sub area planning process that it was too much transparency to be from grade to eight feet. This would provide for a little less transparency. And once again, this is the minimum allowed. You can go over that standard, but that it should be the measurement of the two to eight feet, one for consistency with downtown and two to make development more feasible. We've also heard back from our building official that the glass that's located from grade to I think about 18 inches would be required to be tempered safety glass, which is much more expensive to include in your building, making it once again more infeasible to develop to that standard. So to recap, the proposed amendment would change the development measurement to what matches in downtown that we would measure transparency from two feet to eight feet as opposed to existing zero feet to eight feet. Once again, for consistency downtown, that structured parking would not be considered easily convertible to a commercial use. So we brought this to the planning commission during the downtown sub area planning process. And that generally when a parking structure is built, it does not convert to other uses in the future. And so you'll see that reflected in the code that's proposed that a structured parking would not be considered easily convertible to commercial use. We have this quotation that was shared with the Planning Commission previously from a book, Shared Parking, that when detailed studies have been done showing the likely cost of conversion, most owners have concluded it would be far more cost effective to tear down all or part of a, quote, structured parking facility and build a new building if conversion is appropriate. So it doesn't seem like it pencils out for structured parking, and it seems like that structured parking remains in the future. It's for the planning commission to consider if that should be included in the code alteration. Design standards. Adding limited flexibility for accessory structures. You'll see here we've got a small site plan, hypothetical site plan, of a building that fronts on a street. Now, of course, that building would be subject to design standards. As people are passing it on the driving by or on the sidewalk, they're going to interact with that building, and it makes sense that the design standards would be reflected in that public-facing building. However, we do get requests from time to time that you have an accessory structure, whether that's a storage building or some other accessory use to the site, that it would be located behind a building. And would that need to be subject to design standards? The proposed code has written in flexibility that a project can request relief from design standards for an accessory structure that is screened and when landscape standards are met, something for the Planning Commission to consider. Another scenario that we sometimes see Currently, there's a code provision where developers may request an increased setback from the director. So in our commercial zones, typically there is a maximum front yard setback. In residential zones, there's generally a minimum setback. You must be far away from the street. But in a commercial zone, you want those buildings close to the street so that pedestrians can interact with that building. that promotes walkability and bikeability, and that's something that the city's been building toward for some time. However, there are scenarios where that isn't feasible. You'll see two site plans up on the screen here. One, you'll see a hypothetical building that is already constructed that meets design standards. Well, if you're building a building behind that and you can't see that from the public right of way, should there be relief from design standards for a building that the public will not interact with on that street level experience. In other scenarios you'll see in the site hidden below that, that there are sometimes extreme topography that requires a separation from the public right-of-way to a building. So an increased setback would be required to account for potential topography. Also a right-of-way dedication. Sometimes a project may be required to dedicate right-of-way and that would set a project back quite a distance potentially from the streetscape. So in scenarios like this, staff is proposing that there be a code provision where a developer may ask for flexibility for design standards when you are granted an increased setback for your commercial building. So design standards on a private street, and this would be for an exemption So this is another hypothetical site map. That green line might not be showing up, but you see if you're on a private street or you're separated potentially from the right of way by another parcel, it makes sense to have strict adherence to our design standards for, once again, a building that may not interact with the public in that public realm on the sidewalk or on the street. So it might not show up very well, but there is supposed to be a green property line that shows up segmenting those two properties, those two grass fields, and that if you are completely separated from the right-of-way by another parcel or you're on a private street, not a public street, should you have strict adherence to those design standards. Now, this is for the Planning Commission to debate whether that should be added. Right now, it's written as an exemption. You would be exempt from design standards. Would the Planning Commission prefer that that be added flexibility that could be requested from the director, as were the other code provisions mentioned earlier? So, it's a very important distinction. Should this be exempt from design standards, or should there be flexible design standards applied? Once again, design standards, but for general commercial zone mixed use. So, with the comprehensive plan update, the general commercial zone was identified as a mixed use zone. And in other mixed use zones, there are requirements for that ground floor commercial. Or that it be easily adaptable to a future. Commercial use, so we've written that into the code to account for that comprehensive planning process. where that mixed use requirement would be added to the general commercial zone with that added provision that it be easily convertible to a commercial use if the market won't currently support those pedestrian-oriented uses on the ground floor. So the direction that we're seeking from the Planning Commission, of course you can come up with any questions, direction that you would like, but staff has singled out a couple of items. For neighborhood scale commercial, should the code retain both spacing requirements for businesses in residential zones? As proposed, the code would require businesses to be located on street corners and that no other business approved under the neighborhood scale commercial code be within a quarter mile. Secondly, for design standards, should development on private streets be exempt from design standards or that flexibility be available to adjust prescriptive standards? Are there any other edits that the Planning Commission feels necessary? And last, that may staff proceed with required environmental permitting for the Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 15? The orders of the day are for the Planning Commission to consider public comment received at the workshop, provide staff with direction on the proposed amendments. Thank you.

is anybody uh in the audience that would like to comment on the presentation no seeing and hearing none any commissioner wish to comment yes okay i've got a few comments um

Regarding the transparency question, I understand the idea of raising that for all the reasons that you talked about. Curious though about the maintenance of transparency relative to businesses covering their windows with advertising and that sort of thing and how that is handled in the zoning code or even if it is handled in the zoning code. I think it's part of the signage ordinance if I'm not mistaken.

It is in the sign code. So as far as advertising from transparency, it might be a matter for code enforcement in certain instances. But if anything, we're ensuring that those structures, when they are developed, are not only suited for the uses that will be there at that moment, but then in the future also. So sometimes the pedestrian-oriented construction is about providing transparency for future uses even if it's maybe not utilized to the fullest in the currently okay thank you Mike Miller again so so the the answer is that that really is a

enforcement issue on windows that are covered with advertising in excess of what is allowed by the signage. Relief from design standards if the building cannot be seen from the street or if it's set back from the street. I guess my comment there is that I don't believe buildings should be exempt from design standards if they can be seen by anybody in any realm. I think good design is important and that the fact that a building is set back because of grade or other physical limitations or that it simply can't be seen because there's another building in front of it is not a good reason for the building to not come up to standard in terms of the design standards that we have in place.

Thank you. Go ahead.

This is Vice Chair Tift. A few questions from me. Type of business. You talk about grocery stores, music facilities, things like that. What about child care? facility, an in-home child care, is that considered a commercial business within a neighborhood?

So the city council recently adopted the planning commission recommendation for allowing child care throughout all zones. So that would be a separate commercial use that would be allowed throughout all zones already.

The other one is something Something like, oh, go ahead.

Additionally, we currently have a home-based business. In addition to at-home child care, there's a home-based business code in our existing zoning code that allows for businesses out of your home. If you only have one patron coming to your home at a time or no patrons visiting your home at all.

Okay, so that would cover something like a mail order facility, somebody selling, you know, through a mail order facility, selling through Amazon where you've got trucks.

Typically we'll get businesses like maybe you have like a bookkeeping business is very typical. We have businesses that like they're home-based, like really just their bookkeeping is out there, but their services they provide are elsewhere. So they will drive, there'll be like a mobile service, that type of thing.

Okay, but I could see someone with having an outbuilding with some additional, having a mail order facility. Frankly, I worked for an in-home mail order facility through college, and it had the stock on hand. Neighbors complained about the UPS trucks coming and going all day. So it's not I agree with you. Typically, it's a maybe a barbershop or a bookkeeping facility, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility to be in full blown isn't more mail order facility in a location. Would that that be covered?

So just to clarify, so we understand what your question is there. We already have provisions in our code for having either home based businesses through what we call a home home occupation, home occupancy for businesses. So that's different than what the orders of what we're talking about today. And we also there is state requirements that we had to accommodate in-home child care providers. So that's covered. So this new provision, what we're talking about is somebody wants to open up a yarn shop, or somebody wants to do a small little grocer, and it's on the corner. That's what these new provisions are targeted towards. So you could have a daycare facility that's more like a kinder care that's located on a corner and doing this kind of thing. But the typical, I just want to make it clear, we won't be prohibiting home based daycares because that's our we already have special provisions in the code for that. We have provisions for home based businesses already. This is in addition to all of that that allows this kind of if you wanted to have a small coffee shop on the corner, you would be allowed to do it under these new provisions. So I just want to get clarity about what your question is just to make sure we're not mixing the two because we've got different code provisions for each of those.

Okay. On a street corner seemed a little restrictive to me, but I don't know how the rest of the commissioners feel about that. That makes some sense, but it's pretty restrictive to be limited to a street corner. And let's see. And then accessories, structures, I agree with Mike. There should be some design standards. Otherwise, you could find a conics box or something else plopped down on the property that represents an accessory structure that is used for one reason or another, whatever that might be. So anyway, those are my comments. Thanks.

Do we have any other comments?

Sorry, I just thought that I should add that Commissioner Peterson wasn't able to come today, but he did write to us and he voiced that he supported neighborhood scale commercial being restricted to street corners and within the quarter mile radius. So he wanted to let the commission know that he thought that was a good compromise.

Yeah, this is Commissioner Miller again. Regarding the street corner, regarding the street corner, location for neighborhood businesses, it seems to me that you know, street corners often or intersections often have four corners or three corners and that it might be beneficial to have more than one business at that intersection, appropriate business at that intersection. And I wonder if there might be a little bit of study done or research done to see how other cities have dealt with that. so that you could possibly have any example you had with the little store there. You could have a coffee shop across the street or a kitty corner or something like that still within that quarter mile radius. And that might make some sense to me as long as it's appropriate business. The thing I do worry about are restaurants and bars and drinking establishments in neighborhoods, primarily because of the potential for disturbing noise in a neighborhood. But things that are more retail oriented to me seem a more appropriate use.

So we did see that other jurisdictions did limit these stores in either way, either a quarter mile or on street corners. The Planning Commission could choose either or. Or both. It's up to the Planning Commission. That's how other jurisdictions have carried it out. If it was just for street corners, there could be a business on each corner of that four-way intersection, potentially. We did research for hours of operation, and it seemed like different jurisdictions were around that 9 and 10 o'clock cutoff. Some of them going longer. We did research for locally based businesses to see if you're located in a residential area, what is that natural cutoff time? And it seemed like there was approximately around that 9 to 10 o'clock, though there are some local bars, that would be open on weekends to 2 a.m in the morning but uh it seemed as though the planning commission was asking staff to find ways to limit intensity and um and the number of properties uh that could be affected and so that's what we've tried to propose this with this code is hours of operation and uh potentially a heavy hand on the number of properties that could be regulated in single two it's for the planning commission to debate uh what would be appropriate there

And just to remind you, when we had the public hearing in May, that was the reaction from the commission was, how do we limit these greatly? So we tried to come up with the most prohibitive that we could think of. So you can certainly give us direction that you've gone too far for prohibitions and open it up a little bit more to maybe it's just street corners and we... jettison the quarter-mile business or you know I don't know how you feel about the hours that we've proposed either so if you had feedback about that we can modify that before we bring it back for public hearing mr. Powell you recognize please turn on your mic we're we're not hearing you

I think it's at this end. Try it again.

Commissioner Powell, if you can just do the chat. Thank you.

You could try to turn the captioning on.

Commissioner Powell, can you try to say something again?

Can you hear me now?

Yes. Loud and clear. Absolutely.

Okay. I'm a really slow typer. So yes to the design standards for setback buildings. I agree with the discussion there. The quarter mile restriction, I think, is too restrictive. I liked Commissioner Miller's idea about, you know, the corners that's, you know, that synergy with multiple businesses often occur. And then I wonder if there's multiple businesses, if they were linked, you know, sometimes there's a, you know, a pizza place, a little pizza hole in the wall shop and a barbershop and a flower shop or something like that. Just some discussion there if there's some optionality for if they're sequentially linked on a facade, if that would be possible. And then thirdly, in the Uh, the parking garage and. Conversion to commercial yes, you showed the, you know, the city garage there and the trying to convert that to commercial would be, you know. Impossible task, but sometimes I think in a mixed use building, I would maybe allow for a parking. on the ground floor if it's transparent glazing that's tinted or frosted glazing and there's parking behind while the retail catches up and then a demising wall can be built in the back and the parking can be reduced. But in the meantime, have that parking function inside the ground floor of a mixed use building. Those were my 3 comments.

All right. Thank you. Mr. Garrett.

So, just to just to add to the conversation about the structured parking, we're not saying that structured parking couldn't be allowed on the ground floor completely. Usually there's a percentage of the facade. I think. Sometimes 50% of the ground floor facade would need to be for pedestrian oriented use or easily convertible. So the remaining area could be dedicated to structured parking. It's just that provision that would be either for commercial oriented or or convertible to the future. So I just thought that I'd add that to the conversation, that it's not that no structured parking could be on the ground floor, just the portion that's reserved for pedestrian-oriented uses where proposing could not be. But for the Planning Commission to discuss.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Yeah, Mike Miller again. Just to comment on structured parking and actually the height that you need on the ground floor for commercial use is a little bit higher than you would need for residential use. Typically you'd have about 13 to 14 feet from floor to floor in a structure. for a commercial use to get the mechanical electrical stuff in and also if it's a residential building to get the plumbing out above that space from the residences. When you relate that back to a parking structure, most parking structures have a floor-to-floor height of around 10 feet. But if the parking structure were going to have the ability to convert to the ground floor to retail, you would want to have a higher floor-to-floor. So that would be the only comment I have regarding that. And obviously, existing parking, like the one you showed, And as Jack just mentioned, it is pretty much impossible to change into retail, given the depth of the beams and floor-to-floor heights that they have there. Back to the commercial and residential zones, and I agree with what Jack said, too. I think what he was alluding to was the fact that one building could have more than one business in it. It could be two or three side-by-side businesses if a developer were to develop a small commercial building. Even if it was up to 2,500 square feet, I think is what the code talks about. I do have a concern, and I've expressed it before, about noise in residential neighborhoods from drinking establishments. that are open late or that even are open in the afternoon on a Friday or Saturday where there may be loud things going on that are disturbing the quiet nature of a neighborhood. So I've mentioned that two or three times. I think you know what I'm talking about, but that's the concern I have about That is my biggest concern about this idea of codifying the ability to put businesses in residential neighborhoods.

Thank you. Any other additional comments?

Yes, I have an additional comment on that also, and I'm concerned. As well as commissioner Miller about that. There's law about peaceful enjoyment of your. private property um but maybe there can be restrictions you know time restrictions but also like no outdoor decks uh where their business is you know outside you know four walls and a ceiling um just a thought there to you know contain noise and contain you know the time

So is there agreement about 10 p.m. or do you want it to be sooner? The code that we reviewed from other jurisdictions ranged from 9 to 10 p.m. Do you want it to be set back to 9 p.m. instead of 10 and to make it fully contained indoors? So those are two provisions we can add to the proposed code.

I'm good with 10.

Yeah, yeah, 10 PM makes sense to me the, you know, on a summertime evening, though, restricting it to indoors. It won't be a problem probably in the winter, but in the summer, it would probably restrict the. The viability of the business, if they were really trying to attract the crowd.

There are design solutions to this. You can have a patio that has glass walls and still has the ability to be cool, have shade, and things like that. I think 10 o'clock is OK. I just feel like our residential neighborhoods need to have the ability to have peace and quiet weekends when we're home from work. Well, I'm retired, but when people are home from work and trying to relax. So that maybe the code can allude to the fact that we've had issues with noise in certain areas of the city where there are drinking establishments and restaurants. We know that. And it disturbs the residential neighborhood around them. And we know that. But maybe there's a way to have the zoning code address the acoustics of how noise is dealt with and how it should be mitigated in a way that it doesn't escape the property or something like that. I'm okay with 10 o'clock as well. I don't know how you do that.

Commissioner Powell here. I too am good with 10 and also another way to look at it is that, you know, like a neighborhood pub or something can be a real asset to the neighborhood. Especially it's a walk to location. It's a get to know your neighbors. It can foster community and neighborhood building. So, you know, there's some really good pieces to that too, besides just having a loud drinking establishment in your neighborhood.

Mr. Garrett, there was a facility on Kitsap Way that a couple years back had a noise problem due to bands and what have you. Brother Don's is looking for it. Was there any legislative action to prevent that? Or do you know the outcome of that?

The city up the city noise ordinance was updated and also we've gotten pretty clear direction from the Planning Commission. It seems like that you'd like some criteria added about noise and we can we can work on that and bring that back to the Planning Commission to take a look at either at a hearing or at a further workshop. Seems like a small matter to clear up, but we might be able to do that.

Thank you.

Well, this is Commissioner Tift. One more comment. Are we even required to do this? I mean, you've already covered the things that I think would be valuable in a neighborhood, childcare, home-based business. Is there something requiring this? There's provision in the code, and it's not a state law or anything, right? It's just something that we in Bremerton believe would be valuable in neighborhoods. Let's go back to the very foundation here.

Absolutely. So we're not required. The state had pending legislation last year that failed. There's a number of cities that have adopted similar ordinances. And we've had outreach from the community. We've had community members, planning commissioners, city council members asking about adding these code provisions in in order to promote pedestrian activity and walkability so that you don't need to get in your car to go to um to get a cup of coffee etc so that's where this is coming from is more of a grassroots push and that's why the planning commission is considering that a recommendation to the city council

And I should add, when we see state legislation related to zoning regulations, just because it failed this year doesn't mean it's going to fail in the future. It will be back, and it would be kind of nice to have something already in the code, because oftentimes that's a way to grandfather yourself because you've already adopted provisions. So kind of setting the stage and being ready for it, because I do believe it's coming.

OK, last call. OK, that concludes the public portion of the meeting. It's now closed. And we'll go on to our business meeting. First item is the chair report. And more on a personal note, please vote, folks. The primary is one of your main choices of figuring out who's going to be your next elected representative. And you also vote on levies and what have you. So primaries are pretty important. So spend five minutes. The ballot here in Bremerton is pretty short for the primary. That's it. So I'll now pass it to the director, Ms. Spencer.

I didn't get a chance to celebrate with you in June because we skipped that meeting and we skipped that meeting because we were so busy with the city council and I'm pleased to report to all of you that the comprehensive plan and two different implementing zoning code ordinances were passed. So congratulations and thank you to all of you for your work over the last couple years for this update process. It was quite an effort and Garrett did a great job getting us through everything and we're not quite done yet. The stuff we're working on now is kind of the last pieces and he'll talk about this in a minute but we have our next tranche of requirements that we have to do related to our critical areas ordinance update. So there's still more to come, but it's really, I wanted to take this chance to celebrate and to say thank you to you, thank you to Garrett for all the hard work that was done to make that accomplishment in June. So round of applause or snaps for everyone. And then the other thing, because we didn't meet in June, we always have a delegate to the community development block grant review committee. It's the project review committee who reviews all the grant applications that come into the city and we make a recommendation to the city council. And we made the executive decision to continue Rick's role as the representative from the planning commission to the committee because there's some materials that had to come out so i didn't think any of you would be upset that rick would continue to represent the planning commission in that role on the prc and we can pull it back if we need to but i didn't think you'd be too upset with us for doing that i just wanted to report that out and thanks to rick for doing that and i know nick you've done it as well yep how was the uh building permit

No running are we still increasing we used to play.

We're kind of holding pat right now and because I think the challenge that we're seeing is and certainly commissioner Powell can talk more about this. The financing world is tough and so we're seeing projects that are kind of holding steady and not moving forward because they're having challenges with financing.

Thank you. Is there any old business for the commission?

This is Commissioner Tift. Back to permitting. How do we, are we better or worse than the county?

And tell me what you mean by that question.

Time from application to permit issue to turning dirt.

And I would actually ask some of my friends in the development community to share their perspective because, of course, we are biased on this side that we think we're doing a really great job. So it's hard to pit one jurisdiction against another. We certainly have our faults and our places that we need to improve, but we think we do a pretty good job. And we've heard good feedback from people when they're in the pre-submittal stages of an application about how helpful we are to get them through the process, etc. So we think we're doing a great job. We know we have room for improvement. There always is.

From my perspective, yes, Bremerton is great to work with. The county has been going through changes to improve their process and they've hired some third-party consultants and so they're upping their timelines and responses as well. I think there's going to be a change in the county. But it's hard, you know, it takes years, you know, to get from, you know, concept to even breaking ground. So.

All right, thank you. Under new business, Mr. Garrett, you want to give a preview here?

Right. Well, it seems like for new business that we'd be set to go to a public hearing in September with proposed alterations that Planning Commission gave staff for the workshop today. And that also for a workshop in September, we have added the introduction for the critical areas ordinance and shoreline master program. Those documents both need to be updated to be consistent with the changes we made in our comprehensive plan. and coordination that we've had through other tribal governments in the area. And then also our landscaping code. There's a large change for the state's stormwater code that needs to be filtered through our landscape code to protect urban trees and other items referenced in our comp plan. So that is all the new business items that you could expect to see in September.

Thank you. There will be no Planning Commission meeting in August. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on September 15th, 2025. Thank you. Remember to vote and meetings adjourned.

Thank you.