Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, everybody ready? Calling the order the September 15th, 2025 Bremerton Regular Planning Commission Meeting. First item on the agenda is a roll call to confirm we have a quorum.

Yes, Chair Wefford, we have a quorum.

Thank you. Thank you. Next up is approval of the agenda as presented. Hearing and seeing no objections, approved as presented. Next up is approval of the July minutes. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes of July 21st, 2025?

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

Thank you, sir. Do I hear a second?

Do you go?

Oh, come on.

This is Mike Miller. I second.

We have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the July 21st, 2025 meeting. As presented, the motion was made by Vice Chair Tift and seconded by Commissioner Miller. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Abstain. Any nos? Any abstentions? Commissioner Doering abstain. Oh, I said yes. Oh, you weren't here at the last meeting, so you wouldn't be able to vote. Oh, yes, I abstain. Abstain, okay. So motion carries with four ayes and three abstentions. Thank you so much.

Okay, next up is public comments. There will be no public comments accepted via Zoom tonight unless prior raises were made through the project assistance by calling 360-473-5269 24 hours prior to the meeting. Does anybody in the audience care to make any comments on an item not on tonight's agenda? No. OK. Seeing and hearing none, we'll go on to the next item. We'll close the public comments. We'll now go to a public hearing. Public hearing tonight is on zoning code amendments, neighborhood scale commercials, state required shelter options, and design standards. Presenting is Mr. Garrett Jackson, planning manager with the City of Bremerton.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, CHAIR. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, CHAIR. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, CHAIR. WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO FURTHER WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO FURTHER WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO FURTHER OUR CONVERSATION ON SOME ZONING OUR CONVERSATION ON SOME ZONING OUR CONVERSATION ON SOME ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO STATE CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO STATE CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO STATE REQUIRED FACILITIES FOR RCW 3521 REQUIRED FACILITIES FOR RCW 3521 REQUIRED FACILITIES FOR RCW 3521 683 NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE 683 NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE 683 NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE COMMERCIAL AND DESIGN STANDARDS. COMMERCIAL AND THE ORDERS OF THE DAY ARE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY ARE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, RECEIVE HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, RECEIVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, AND PROVIDE A PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, RECEIVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY PUBLIC TESTIMONY, AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE ZONING CODE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, DEN All right, first we have state required facilities, which include transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, indoor emergency shelters, and indoor emergency housing. SO THIS WAS ALL COVERED IN OUR JULY MEETING BUT DEFINITIONS ARE PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO INCLUDE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, INDOOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND INDOOR EMERGENCY HOUSING INTO BMC 2042 DEFINITIONS. THESE DEFINITIONS ARE TAKEN STRAIGHT FROM THE STATE DEFINITIONS THEMSELVES. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ARE PROPOSED TO BE ALLOWED IN ALL ZONES THAT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OR HOTELS AND THAT'S STRAIGHT FROM THE RCW FOR THESE TYPES OF HOUSING. AND EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND INDOOR EMERGENCY HOUSING TO BE REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED IN ALL ZONES THAT HOTELS ARE ALLOWED IN. ONCE AGAIN THAT'S STRAIGHT FROM THE RCW. nearly a copy paste into our code. And for each of these types of housing, we would require a conditional use permit process, which includes an operations plan that's required, code of conduct, and coordination with the Bremerton Police Department. So the second item is neighborhood scale commercial. SO FOR THOSE OF YOU AT HOME, NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE COMMERCIAL WOULD BE LIKE THAT CORNER STORE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT COULD BE A MARKET OR A RESTAURANT. THERE'S A LIMITED NUMBER OF PROPOSED USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE COMMERCIAL. And here's a local example. This is CJ's. It's near Evergreen Park. This is essentially the type of use that we're proposing be allowed in residential zones throughout the city. CJ's specifically is currently in a commercial zone, but we thought that it would be a good example of commercial use that's existing in a neighborhood. PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEEDBACK IN JULY, THEY WOULD BE ONLY PERMITTED ON STREET CORNERS. INITIALLY THERE WAS A QUARTER MILE COMPONENT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDED THAT IT SHOULD REALLY JUST BE STREET CORNERS BEING THE LIMITING FACTOR. HOURS OF OPERATION LIMITED UNTIL 10 P.M. We that the based off planning commission feedback that any activities are required to be conducted indoors in an enclosed space. There's also a code provision there to as just a reminder that any use needs to excuse me needs to conform to the Bremerton noise ordinance. So that language has also been added to neighborhood scale commercial. design standards so this applies to commercial multifamily buildings throughout the city in specified zones what do you want that aesthetic appearance of design standards for the exterior portions of these buildings so proposed revisions essentially were LISTING SECTIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN SUB AREA PLAN WHICH WAS LISTING SECTIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN SUB AREA PLAN WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN JUNE. ADOPTED IN JUNE. THAT BRAND-NEW DOWNTOWN SUB AREA THAT BRAND-NEW DOWNTOWN SUB AREA PLAN. PLAN. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A NUMBER OF WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PLANNING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL, ON COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL, ON DESIGN STANDARDS AND SO WE'RE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO USE PORTIONS OF PROPOSING TO USE PORTIONS OF THAT DOWNTOWN SUB AREA PLAN THAT DOWNTOWN SUB AREA PLAN NOMINCLATURE AND BR ADDED FLEXIBILITY FOR TRANSPARENCY STANDARDS FOR FACADES FACING PRIVATE STREETS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND DEVELOPMENTS GRANTED AN INCREASED SETBACK. WITH THE PROVISION THAT YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL SECONDARY DESIGN FEATURE. SO WE HEARD FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT OUR LAST MEETING THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE SCENARIOS WHEN WHERE STRUCTURES ARE EXEMPT FROM DESIGN STANDARDS. REVISING THAT LANGUAGE, WE INSTEAD ARE PROPOSING SITUATIONS WHERE TRANSPARENCY STANDARDS SPECIFICALLY MAY BE REQUESTED TO BE DEPARTED FROM THE DIRECTOR IN SCENARIOS WHERE THOSE BUILDINGS ARE FURTHER BACK FROM THE STREET TO PROVIDE THAT PEDESTRIAN INTERACTION WITH THAT INTENDED TRANSPARENCY. and mixed use requirement or easily adaptable to commercial in the general commercial zone. SO THESE ARE THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE ARE TAKING FROM THE DOWNTOWN SUB AREA PLAN. EASILY ADAPTABLE TO A COMMERCIAL USE. MEANS THE SPACE IS CONSTRUCTED TO MEET INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND UTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR TYPE B OCCUPANCY. MIXED USE BUILDING ALSO FROM THE DOWNTOWN SUB AREA PLAN MEANS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SITE OR BUILDING WITH A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. pedestrian oriented what does that mean currently we have two definitions one in the downtown sub area plan and one in the Bremerton Municipal Code as the definition from the sub area plan has been most currently adopted that's what we're recommending be adopted into the BMC So the general commercial zone. This is the Wheaton Way corridor, typical of the general commercial zone. With our comprehensive plan update, we recognized this zone as being a mixed use zone. And accordingly, we're proposing to require mixed uses in those buildings. There are exceptions to that lined out in the code. But once again, the general commercial zone mixed use requirement proposed. design standards for consistency with downtown transparency we went through this at the july meeting but you have your hypothetical building here it's how the zoning code currently measures transparency and that's from zero to eight feet in height we require a set amount of transparency depending upon which zone you're in And that formula is the percentage of the facade from zero to eight feet. A percentage of that needs to be transparent windows or doors. In the downtown sub area plan, that measurement is from two to eight feet. So it provides for a bit more leniency in the amount of transparency that's required. At the last meeting we had, We relayed that the building code requires some specialty tempered glass for anything at very low elevations of the building. So this would be a cost saving measure for for potential development. So once again, requesting that we go from the existing zero to eight feet measurement for how transparency is calculated to two to eight feet. Design standards for flexibility for accessory structures. So once again, we heard from the Planning Commission at the last meeting that no building should be exempt from design standards. So we took a second look and thought that, well, potentially we should have some examples of structures that maybe have their transparency amount reduced. particularly in scenarios where they're not street facing. So this is an example of an accessory structure that would be behind a larger structure that's facing the right of way. So we want that transparency so that pedestrians, even motorists, can go by on the road and be able to have an interaction with what's on the inside of that store and see into it. But if you cannot see into that store and you're completely behind it, then potentially there should be some flexibility for transparency specifically. Here are two other examples of areas where we believe that providing some flexibility on transparency would be prudent for the Planning Commission to decide. On the top here, you'll see a proposed for flexibility of a building that's located completely behind another building. So there's a code section that allows you to have an increased setback. And that would be granted in a scenario where you are behind a building. Or in this second example on the bottom, where there may be some extreme topography that keeps you from building a structure up toward the street. And in a scenario like that, we should be able to grant an increased setback. Usually buildings and commercial zones are required to be built right up on the street. And in scenarios like that, the transparency that may be required should potentially have a route to be lessened while retaining all other development design standards. Now, the trade-off, as we heard from the Planning Commission the last time, that no building should be exempt from design standards, that if you do have a transparency standard that's lessened through this proposed code section, then you should provide an additional secondary design standard. So here's a list here of secondary design standards that are listed out in the code that might be multiple roof lines, which we have an example here on the bottom. You see the varying parapets that add some visual interest by changing the elevations in the building building modulation. So how much the building might go in or out. multiple facade materials, weather protection, so is there an awning that protects you from the rain that comes out from the building? Do you have a main street-facing entrance or a public amenity like artwork, street furniture, or something similar, which we also have an example here from Quincy Square of public art that might be acceptable for a secondary design standard for sure. Okay, the orders of the day are for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing, consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony, and provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve zoning code amendments, deny or approve with modifications. We're happy to answer any questions you may have.

Does anybody in public have any comments on this public hearing? Hearing and seeing none, we'll close the public testimony and go to the Planning Commission. Anybody have any comments or questions? Mr. Miller.

Thank you, Garth. I have a number of questions or comments that I'm not sure. I'm looking at the actual zoning codes in Attachment A, and this is Commissioner Miller. I'm just going to go ahead and go through these. Under neighborhood scale commercial, under paragraph H, hours of operation, business activities shall cease after 10 p.m., I wonder if the wording on that should be no later than 10 PM, because after 10 PM could be 11 PM, or it could be construed to be a different time. So I'm not sure that that wording couldn't be misconstrued by somebody doing a neighborhood commercial. So that's one comment. Under transitional housing, paragraph B, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing is permitted in any zone in which residential dwelling units or hotels are an allowed use. And so a residential dwelling unit could be a single family residential unit. And I'm wondering if that is supposed to read multifamily.

It is not. It's supposed to be any place where residential is allowed.

All right. Under general commercial design standard subparagraph one, it discusses the top and the base. It says a base can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern. And that would lead me to think that it has to be some sort of masonry use. And I wonder if the word masonry should be struck and substitute in material pattern. On the minimum transparency, the same general commercial. I have kind of a qualitative or quantitative question, and that is what is the situation where we're asking for transparency, so we've got windows from two feet to eight feet or however it's done, and that's fine, that's the way the building is designed, but what happens when those windows are covered with other types of placards or signage or things like that that eliminates the transparency? We see that a lot in fast food restaurants, other types of retail. So I'm just curious, you know, that seems to be at odds also with the signage ordinance because I believe window signage, has to be included in the total amount of allowed signage on a property. So that's a comment. Under mechanical equipment screening, rooftop, which is paragraph five under general commercial. Screening materials shall be architecturally similar to the primary structure, and I'm not sure about that statement, I know what you're saying, but I'm wondering, I've in my practice used a lot of different types of architectural screening for mechanical equipment and it's not at all necessary that it be the same or similar to the primary finish on the exterior wall of a building. So you could say something to the effect of the screen shall be a certain percentage of opacity to block the view of the equipment, say 75%, 80%, or 90%, or something like that. And I believe just going down through the rest of the code, it's kind of iterative through the rest of the code, some of the comments I have. So those are my comments.

Thank you. Any other comments? Mr. Peterson.

Hi, this is Commissioner Peterson. I largely agree with our neighborhood commercial change but I I I think I might be in the minority here I I kind of liked the quarter mile provision I think this isn't required of us right now I it's a step in the right direction but I kind of like the idea of us kind of dipping our toe in and seeing how it goes and so I I did like that quarter mile provision I also wonder if um we've considered if 10 o'clock was um the the best time um in the middle of a neighborhood you know people are sometimes trying to go to sleep earlier than 10 p.m and you know a place that stops business at 10 almost never is quiet right at 10 especially a bar And people trying to put kids to bed are often doing it at 7. And I know that there's a noise ordinance that we have. But the idea that the family living right next to a bar can start to have some quiet right at 10 is maybe not always realistic. Yeah, I realize I'm maybe probably in the minority here, but I would maybe like to see that quarter mile provision back, and I'd like us to at least consider dialing this back to 9 p.m.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Yeah, this is Commissioner Tift. There was a letter included from Eastside Tax Accounting talking about their concerns. um however the the particular road and so forth is already in a commercial zone isn't it the she the individual talked about the firestone store next door and i presume mcleod's and the pancake house and so forth and so um the intrusion upon the neighborhood but that's a that frontage is on Wheaton Way which is in the district center core for the Wheaton district is so I just was curious what what would change what what the proposal for change was if you is it possible for you to answer that Mr Jackson

And it appears as though I'm going to be answering all these at the end or I can answer them now whatever you prefer.

Okay. Okay, the okay that we can go to the end the other comment I had was that while 10PM. In the summer is still light at 10PM around here so I did not consider that to be. unreasonable as far as a a closing time depending on the business of course and i also had questions about somebody that has an existing structure that they they would like to um put some sort of a neighborhood business and something on the you know on a corner um come to mind is there was a store that I used to, as a kid, on the corner of Naval and 11th that is still there. It's a home. I'm not sure if it's the, but somebody I knew lived upstairs, and they had, in effect, a grocery store. It's a good place to get penny candy and other things that was there. so that particular location does not meet these standards there's not you know it's not transparent it's not so what do you do with existing buildings that somebody might want to resurrect for a business that existed 20 years ago 30 years ago and there's there's a lot of those things in in some of the areas around Naval and Marguerite and even over to where the bakery is and the high-low cafe and those, I'm not sure if they're in a neighborhood residential or not, but nevertheless, you can answer the question about existing structures. So those were my comments.

Commissioner Powell, I have a few also. So the one is in pedestrian-oriented. Sentence three, contain outdoor displays and contribute to the ground level activity of the street. Maybe we can also add indoor displays that are visible from the street or sidewalk. Because outdoor displays often be claiming real estate on the public way, which has restrictions. I also picked up on Commissioner Miller's masonry at the base comment. Also, the mechanical screening. I have a question. If the mechanical equipment is not viewable from any public way, does it have to be screened if it's not visible? let's see the other was parking if cannot be considered adaptable to a commercial and i think the Maybe the genesis of that is parking generally only has to be 7 and 1 half feet tall or 8 feet tall or something. But if the space was 13 feet tall, maybe it could be adaptable to commercial later. So maybe there is a height component to it. Those were my comments. Thanks.

This is Commissioner Wofford. Just one quick question. If you have a main structure in front that's a one story, but behind it is an auxiliary building, maybe a warehouse that is two story, what are the design requirements for that building behind the main structure? So I guess we're now open to some answers. Oh, wait.

I have one more comment. Sorry, this is Commissioner Browning. I was looking at the fifth paragraph of neighborhood scale commercial. It says all activities must be within an enclosed space. So I did check the enclosed space requirements. Are those, does that limit... like setting up tables things like that if it was a bar or restaurant or something like that sidewalk tables like the example for CJ's had sidewalk tables and things that's the end of my comment okay Mr Garrett

Okay, sorry if it was a mistake to address items in this order, but we'll get through it. I'm going to do this in reverse order. For an enclosed space, yes, that would limit you from being entirely indoors. So you would not be allowed to have any type of tables outside. And once again, that's to ensure that there isn't a disturbance to the neighborhood. I think that that was underscored by the Planning Commission, so we wanted to be clear by that. That's as proposed. Feel free to discuss as otherwise, but it seemed to be a concern. Two stories. So if you're a two-story building, all design standards would apply to your building with the exception of potentially transparency. uh so the transparency and that's still from only from two to eight feet as proposed so uh that second story everything else would still be subject to design standards the portion that would be the one story area would be subject to potential flexibility for transparency from two to eight feet So adaptable to commercial. So that's, from what I understood for the planning commission at the last meeting, and we'll find out if I misunderstood things. When we were going through the downtown sub area plan, the planning commission at the time didn't want parking garages to be considered easily adaptable to a commercial use. We had shown some pictures of the harborside parking lot that used to be the JC Penny's. And it's kind of an indicator that, you know, these things don't go back to retail use once they become parking. And we had some some sites sourced that it becomes economically not feasible to allow to to transition commercial parking to parking. To retail use and the code as proposed would allow for structured parking on the ground floor just not that portion that is required for 50% or whatever the percentage is there's a mixed use requirement It's generally like 50% of the facade facing the street. So that 50% of the facade Couldn't be structured parking. It doesn't mean the remainder couldn't be but and behind that retail could also be structured parking. So we can go through that issue right now. It's probably a good idea for the Planning Commission. I think by a show of hands, who is interested in having structured parking be an allowed easily convertible to a commercial use? and I'm sorry I know Andre does this much more eloquently but I'm a little so is there a show of hands for those who would like structured parking to be allowed to be easily convertible to a commercial use satisfy that ground floor commercial space Okay, so we have one, two, three, four, five. Okay, so it looks like commercial parking should be allowed as a ground floor commercial space. So noted, that'll take some gymnastics, but let's just keep working through our code here. visible from public way so there was a comment about whether mechanical screening is is not viewable from a public way as a subject those design standards they wouldn't be so these are things where if the public is seeing them from a public from from the street then that would be applied to design standards there was a question about opacity that is related so I'll just address that now also So what we mean by, let me go to that section real quick. So mechanical equipment screening. Rooftop and ground level mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from public streets. Screening materials shall be architecturally similar to the primary structure. So that's very open ended as far as what architecturally similar means. We are not implying any required opacity necessarily, just that if you're using galvanized sheet metal and that doesn't go with the remainder of the building, we just want the architect to put some thought into how they're going to be screening it. And that's very open-ended, but intentionally so, so that it's not so prescriptive. I'd be happy to hear feedback on if we need to address that more.

Yeah, Commissioner Miller. The word screening can mean, I think, different things to different people. So you can have a landscape screen that doesn't completely block the view of whatever's behind it. So you can actually see through it, and you can see part of what's there. So is it the intent that mechanical equipment is 100% not visible? And that's why I was talking about the opacity or some percentage factor, which may or may not have its own issues. But for instance, in Geek Harbor, where I've worked, I know that they were looking for 100% screening on mechanical equipment, not only from the public way, but from any direction, including residential areas that might look down on a building or something like that. So I guess when I'm thinking about the words architecturally similar to the primary structure, I can think of a lot of ways of screening a building, or excuse me, the mechanical equipment on a building with screening materials that are like corrugated, perforated metal that are architecturally a nice material. They screen about 90% of the view of the equipment, but it's not at all similar to the rest of the architecture of the building. But it does the job, and it gives actually some visual interest. So that's kind of what I'm saying about that, that the words architecturally similar to the primary structure lead me to believe that then you should have like a stucco wall. If you've got a stucco wall on your primary facade, you should have a stucco wall on bracing that's blocking the view of the equipment.

And when these design standards were adopted initially, it was with the intention that an architect will have a fair amount of leeway, that we shouldn't be deciding as a city what an attractive building would be like paint by numbers. And so some of these items are open-ended, and that's to encourage freedom of expression. So if you would like some words added for opaqueness, that we can talk about specific language. But in the end of the day, it's supposed to encourage an architect to be thoughtful in how they screen mechanical equipment and not be overly prescriptive.

I have a comment, Commissioner Powell. It says similar materials, and I think that's kind of what we're hung up on. Compatible might be a better word.

Commissioner Miller again, but to get back to that other comment, not just screened from the public way, but also screened from residential areas that might look at the building You know, there are a lot of ways of screening mechanical equipment, and some of it can be placed in a way that it's screened by stair structures or elevator overrides or parapets and things like that. So the actual need to create screening goes away if you think about it, you know, in terms of where the equipment's gonna be placed. I guess one other question I have is when there's a change of use of a building, You've already got an existing building. And I could use the example of some buildings up on Wheaton Way that were renovated a few years ago. They have very large mechanical pieces on the roof that are not screened, but they were retail and now they're office. So there was a change of use. And does that trigger the need to screen the mechanical equipment? It does not. Restating that, should that trigger the need to screen the mechanical equipment?

That's an open question for the Planning Commission. It wasn't brought up at the workshop, but I would say that typically that requiring changes to the facade may be prohibitive for filling vacancies in commercial buildings. Oftentimes you're just trying to get into a building with the least amount of alterations you can. There's a lot of startup businesses that can't afford upgrades to the building's facade. So the planning commission, if they're considering that, should consider costs passed on to maybe more mom and pop type businesses that are just trying to get a basic occupancy. Okay, so trying to stay on track. Mechanical equipment. So there are two proposals. One, that we change the word from architecturally similar to architecturally compatible. Do I have a show of hands on if the Planning Commission is interested in adopting that change? Okay, looks like we have consensus there. There's also portions that screened from public streets is a requirement. And it sounds like screened from public streets and residential properties is a proposed revision. Do we have support for that? Looks like five. well if you say residential what about office and commercial so and this is just something to think about as far as fleshing out the uh what what we should consider so is is mechanical equipment whether that's hvac or maybe you have some gas piping that's exposed on what you might consider the rear of a building where others you know you can't see it from a public street Who should that be screened from? And generally, we're concerned with the public realm when we're making regulations for the public. What does the public interact with when they're walking by on the street or motoring by? And that's primarily what the city is engaged in regulating is the public realm. Anything beyond that, at some point, I mean, you're... Are you more of an HOA or regulating what is concerned for the public? So things to consider. Where to go from here? So it sounds like we have support for viewing from residential properties. Is there a show of hands for support from just screening, period, all mechanical equipment, it sounds like, regardless of surrounding use? Should all mechanical equipment be be screened. Now keep in mind, as buildings make upgrades, we get this a lot. Maybe you're a restaurant, and you're adding some HVAC equipment. And this could be a type 2 hood, very expensive to add to convert a building to a restaurant. And that would potentially need to be screened from any angle from what the Planning Commission is directing at this point, which is an added cost. So if you're thinking about, the question was if there's an existing building, could it be converted to a commercial use? Technically, yes. Anything, it could be converted to a commercial use, but each one of these items adds expense. So if you're adding in a commercial hood for a restaurant, that is something to consider. But are you then having to add a parapet to hide that? Does the building that you are making the alterations to, is it structurally capable to handle that parapet? There's a lot of considerations for existing buildings and changing of uses and what you want to see in the city as far as ease of starting up a business, starting up a restaurant. So I'm going to come at this one question over again. Mechanical equipment. It sounds like there's consensus about architecturally compatible materials viewed from residential streets. Is there consensus on the Planning Commission that mechanical equipment should be screened regardless of the surrounding use? so a show of hands you can leave your hands down if you don't want to require screening for all uses but if you'd like to require screening from all properties just raise your hand commissioner miller i'd like to keep discussing this okay excellent and with the planning commission is fine not just with staff so

Screening mechanical equipment is pretty standard in every jurisdiction. I mean, that's a true statement, I think. And mechanical equipment Typically, it can be hidden in attics on certain types of buildings. The parapets can hide it. You can tuck it around, theoretically, stairways, elevator overrides, and things like that as well. So there are certain ways that the structure of the building can hide the mechanical equipment so you don't have to provide any kind of additive screening to it at all. But when you have mechanical equipment that is not screened, it's very visible. and you can drive on wheaton way and look at the new what was i think the kmart buildings up there And you've got mechanical equipment that's sitting up. There's probably no parapets on those buildings. They're very low parapets. So you've got this mechanical equipment looking like mushrooms up on top of those buildings. And now you've got apartments looking down on those buildings. So you see it from the parking lot. You see it from the street. You see it from the apartment buildings to the east. And as a resident, I feel that it's reasonable to have those types of things screened and it's also reasonable to assume that the building owner is going to maintain those buildings in a way that they are aesthetically pleasing and those sorts of things. I'm in favor of screening. I am not in favor of making buildings more expensive and meaning that people can't start a business. But buildings are permanent. You don't tear them down very often. And if you don't require the things that make the aesthetics of the building and the aesthetics of the neighborhood

better then you can't go back and do it easily later so that those are my comments is it go ahead greg i'm you're it's funny that's the same structure i was thinking of is where the uh is the department where the kmart was and so forth and understanding the screening from wheaton way but from elmira which is up above the elevation change i'm not sure how you would how you would screen it from in that that severe you know that much of an elevation um most of the people and that's the blue ridge apartments that are right behind there and those that are on the lower level are looking at the back side of that building those higher up i just don't know how you would screen screen that, and you're an architect and I'm not, but I'm sure there's a way to do everything, but do we need to screen it from the people that are in those apartment complexes? Presumably they're looking at the Olympics rather than the top of that building. So from the standpoint of Wheaton Way, totally agree. There probably should have been a better job of screening those mushrooms But once you go, and that could happen elsewhere, a severe elevation could make it almost, it would be very difficult to screen all the mechanical. So anyway, that's my concern is making it more expensive, not for somebody to get started and get something going, particularly with some of the buildings in Bremerton that are sitting there ready for if someone would come along and depending on what it would cost to upgrade them and turn them into something productive and profitable for our city. So elevation would is what i would have a concern for and i also agree with you um that oftentimes now's modern buildings they they put the mechanical interior to the building like st michael's all the uh mechanicals on the third floor none of it's on the roof which was uh i mean the third floor is all the mechanical structures which is actually fantastic

is it okay so nevertheless those are elevation would be my worry and those modifications they can't they're often like in movable items like he mentioned so like you said as far as affordability goes like we'd have to find something that's in the middle right to make it work for the the business owners

Well, the city wouldn't be dictating what that material should be. It would be a conversation between the property owner and the applicant. And I'm sure that cost engineering is involved in what materials are more affordable, if that's desirable for the property owner. Those are those are typical questions that the the architect will have with the property owner But the city isn't part of those isn't part of those conversations as far as cost savings are concerned The aesthetics Right, that they address the screening with their submitted plan, and that as far as cost and specific materials are concerned, that that would be for the property owner and architect to come up with a plan that meets city standard and their needs.

Thank you.

This is Commissioner Wofford. I guess this will be addressed to Mr. Miller and to Mr. Garrett. What constitutes mechanical equipment? Mr. Garrett, you talked about a gas pipe. To me, that's not mechanical equipment. Same as a downspout. Do we have to incorporate that into the building? Retrofitting would be extremely difficult.

Right. We wouldn't include such things as a downspout, but mechanical equipment, HVAC, gas piping, kind of the utilities of the building that might be on the exterior facade. We would consider that mechanical equipment.

What's the difference between a gas pipe and a water downspout?

Water downspout wouldn't be considered mechanical equipment. Mechanical is like it runs the functions of your building, like whether that's gas, electrical, air systems.

How about electrical conduit?

Yeah, likely be included, but I mean, there's ways that you can either incorporate that into the interior of the structure.

Retrofitting, not necessarily easy.

that's a fair point and that that's part of the planning commission's discussion is how much should be included to be screened I guess I would go to the architect retired or otherwise Commissioner Miller I think what we're really talking about here is rooftop mounted mechanical HVAC equipment you know maybe that's

Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning. Maybe that's what we need to then... We're not talking... And possibly on the ground, gas meters and things like that. But not piping, not downspouts, not conduit. Right. Not sprinkler mains, not fire department connection valves or anything like that. Right. What we're talking about are those things that you can see from the public realm that... you know, that are on top of the roof.

I agree with the HVAC elevator equipment, et cetera.

So, you know, listening to, you know, other comments, you know, I can see that the purpose of what we've got written is to screen from the public right of way. And I'm okay with that. So my comment about the residential, even though I think it's a good idea to screen for residential, I can see that that is problematic, especially in areas of topography where residential apartments are above the roof of the adjacent property.

This is Commissioner Peterson. Do we have any kind of sense of how common it is for other jurisdictions to go above and beyond screening from public rights of way to requiring extra screening? Is this incredibly rare? Is this pretty common? Is it a coin flip? What are we talking about here? Thank you.

I'd say that that research was likely done when the initial design standards were adopted and this wasn't flagged as This is the existing code that wasn't flagged with the workshop as being something that needed further exploration, so I don't have answers for you at this time. But I can ask if the Planning Commission, considering this conversation, it sounds like architecturally compatible is a revision that is universally supported. would we like to have further conversation about screening from residential or neighboring properties or should i i guess to limit things should the change to the mechanical equipment section be limited to making things architecturally compatible yes no Okay, so I am hearing that that would be the one change that is made to the mechanical equipment section is to make sure they're architecturally compatible as opposed to architecturally similar. okay so we'll move on from that issue excellent discussion okay so indoor display so should we add indoor display uh we can absolutely add indoor display if the planning commission likes however we are adopting this definition from the downtown sub area plan for consistency i believe that the required transparency standards for buildings facing the public right-of-way infer that there is potential for indoor display. If the Planning Commission is passionate about having the indoor display, we can add that to the definition, but it then would be different than the sub-area plan definition for pedestrian-oriented uh it doesn't mean that we can't go back and update that sub area plan definition in the future so is there support for adding indoor display to the definition of pedestrian oriented for the planning commission to discuss or should we just raise hands

i could make i brought up that issue so maybe i can make a clarification and i would say that it applies to all of them for pedestrian oriented component because often it's very hard to have things external to the building whereas you know the example of the the Quincy Square with the video screen that never works, but will someday. It's set inside the building, but it's a pedestrian friendly engagement.

And the intent is not to require that there is outdoor displays, just that that's an example of a way that you might make the argument that you are pedestrian-oriented. And that's just that you're providing an experience for those that are on the sidewalk, for those pedestrians. So an outdoor display, I mean, as part of the record, is not intended to mean that you need to have an outdoor display, just that that could be a component of a pedestrian-oriented use.

What about seasonal displays where they go in there and paint a Christmas scene or some scene on a window and basically obscures, you know?

Sure, and I think that that relates back to another planning commissioner question about maybe artwork or signage. Interrupting that required transparency and what that means. I don't think that's part of the orders of the day. I think that's a sign code issue that we can potentially talk about in the future. But that being said, a sign advertises for onsite uses and art. is not related to what you're selling. So if you have a holiday display celebrating something temporarily on your transparency, that would be public art. And if there are temporary measures like curtains that someone might use, I mean, those aren't things that the city is going to be regulating. Signage we regulate. But if there's temporary, I mean, we're not going to get into Temporary usage of obstructions of transparency like curtains and that type of thing Does that answer that question? Existing structures and flexibility so there was a question about Do existing structures get some flexibility and yes that's written into the code that if you're an existing structure potentially you can't structurally take certain amounts of transparency cutting into a building, and that there is a code provision in the existing BMC that if you're an existing building, that should be taken into consideration. That you try to meet those design standards, and you demonstrate that you attempt to meet them, but that there should be some flexibility. Ooh, and I'm having trouble reading my own handwriting. Public... I'm going to have to go back to that one. Noise at 10 p.m. There was a question about should we go back to a 9 p.m. standard for neighborhood commercial. It's pretty black and white as far as 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. We had this discussion at the workshop and landed on the 10 p.m., but I'm going to ask... For all those in favor of retaining 10 p.m., if you could raise your hand, or if you'd like discussion, please say that. Okay, raise your hand for 10 p.m. Okay, looks like it's 10 p.m. And also at the workshop, there was the quarter mile provision that was removed from the code. We've had one planning commissioner requested that be brought back. I'm going to ask for a show of hands for having the code as is no quarter mile requirement as the code is proposed today I'm not think I'm saying that very clearly no quarter mile spacing please raise your hand no quarter mile spacing okay it looks like that we're going to retain the code as it's written today with no spacing screen opacity signage material so and then lastly material pattern that I see here so top and base there's a portion that says that a base can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern and there is a proposal to have that change to material pattern and Let's see it for a show of hands of keeping the code as it is with masonry pattern. Not seeing a lot of hands. So material pattern is inferred. OK. So top and base. All right, I believe that that is all of the questions. Did anybody feel like they weren't responded to?

Yes, the member of the public that wrote us a letter regarding- Thank you so much, yes.

Thank you. That is public comment. The word comment was not working. So they're remarking that their business, which is on the Wheaton Way corridor, may suffer from allowing for neighborhood commercial that that they may have a tough enough time getting tenants in their existing building without spreading the commercial uses out over the entire city. So it wasn't so much that they were concerned that that code might apply to them, because they are in a commercial district where commercial is allowed my understanding from that comment was they were concerned that spreading commercial out so much might hurt their bottom line by taking commercial businesses out of commercial corridors potentially okay So as I understand it, the only changes that are put forward from the Planning Commission would be that mechanical equipment be architecturally compatible and that the top and base have a material pattern, not masonry pattern. Does that sound correct? OK. So with that in mind, we have a motion potentially

the the screening is is it already saved from the right of way it does say currently from the right of way all right

So currently, so this is a potential motion where you could move to recommend the city council adopt the zoning code text amendments to title 20 of the BMC as modified and trust that staff would modify those two sections appropriately for the city council. So as modified by the commission and based on the staff report and findings and conclusions presented in attachment B. So if that's acceptable, we would need a motion from a planning commissioner.

Do I hear a motion?

Vice Chair Tiff, I will make the motion as stated by Mr. Jackson.

There you go, Rick. Motion B.

Move to recommend the City Council adopt the zoning code text amendments to Title 20 of the BMC as modified by the Commission and based upon the staff report and findings and conclusions presented in Attachment B.

Do I hear a second?

Commissioner Browning, I second the motion.

Call the question.

we have a motion to recommend that the city council adopt the zoning code text amendments to title 20 of the bmc as modified by the commission and based upon the staff report and findings and conclusions presented in attachment b the motion was made by vice chair tift and seconded by commissioner browning there's gonna be a roll call vote um commissioner browning aye commissioner doring aye commissioner miller aye commissioner powell COMMISSIONER PETERSEN? NAY. VICE CHAIR TIFT?

YES.

CHAIR WALFORD? YES. MOTION CARRIES WITH SIX AYES AND ONE NO.

Okay, that concludes our public hearing. Is that right, am I at the hearing? Yes. And next item on the agenda is a public workshop. Public workshop tonight is on zoning code amendments. Critical area ordinance, shoreline master program, landscaping. Presenting again is Mr. Garrett Jackson, planning manager, city of Bremerton.

ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE, ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE, PLANNING COMMISSION. PLANNING COMMISSION. AS STATED, WE'RE HERE TO TALK AS STATED, WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE CAO, SMP AND ABOUT THE CAO, SMP AND LANDSCAPING CODE. LANDSCAPING CODE. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS. UPDATE PROCESS. WE HAD STATED SEVERAL TIMES THAT WE HAD STATED SEVERAL TIMES THAT WE'LL COME BACK TO THESE CODE WE'LL COME BACK TO THESE CODE SECTIONS AFTER THE COMP PLAN IS SECTIONS AFTER THE COMP PLAN IS ADOPTED AND WE'RE COM We had several comments through the comp plan process related to these issues, and now we're opening that up for Planning Commission public comment. The orders of the day are for the Planning Commission to consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony, and provide direction on the proposed updates for a future public workshop. So we're having this is the code amendments process. We have tonight's workshop here. We'll have another workshop in October. We should have some draft legislative markup at that time for the planning commission to consider. And we'll have Department of Commerce review, SEPA review, and a Planning Commission public hearing. Those would be to be determined. So we'll bring the Planning Commission some legislative markup in October. And based off of feedback at that time, we'll either have an additional workshop or go to a public hearing. So there is a lot that's required by the state. As often when we come before the Planning Commission, we're here because the state requires it. So the Growth Management Act requires that all counties and cities identify, designate, and protect critical areas. There's provisions to ensure no net loss. So it's kind of a snapshot in time of what environmental functions there are today. And that essentially the state is saying it can't get worse. You need to at least maintain the environmental function that we have today. No net loss. and best available science. So provisions for best available science that any decisions that we make based off of the critical area code or for the Shoreline Master Program need to be rooted in best available science. And there are provisions for shorelines of the state. That's why we have our SMP, Shoreline Master Program, is because it is required by the Shoreline Management Act. There was a bevy of policies that were updated to inform the Planning Commission with this Comprehensive Plan update. I'm going to read out some of those policies now. Support the continued planning of Bremerton's urban forest with a diverse mix of native and non-native trees, shrubs, and ground covers, which line our streets and shade and beautify our homes, businesses, parks, and natural areas. Maintain and improve the city's tree canopy. Consider proper vegetation selection, taking into consideration potential conflicts, such as sidewalks and overhead utilities. Protect natural resources that sequester and store carbon, such as wetlands, estuaries, stream buffers, and urban tree canopy. Protect critical areas, habitat and the natural environment through land use plans, surface water and storm water management plans and programs, comprehensive park plans, development regulations and site specific project review. So these are all policies adopted with the comprehensive plan that might help guide the decision making that the Planning Commission will be reviewing. Just for those at home and the Planning Commission, we have existing city resources. The city is a Tree City USA, meaning we're a city recognized by the Arbor Day Foundation for valuing our urban trees. The city has a tree committee that was formed in 1996, and it is an advisory group to help protect urban trees. And we actually have a city street tree list that was updated in 2025 that has a list of any street tree that's allowed in the city of Bremerton right of way. So moving into the CAO, Critical Area Ordinance. And this is located in Bremerton Municipal Code BMC 21-4. And these are a selection of items that we're bringing forward to the Planning Commission that are detailed in your packet. This isn't intended to be a large overhaul of the CAO. We're here to account for the changes made with the comprehensive plan, at which time we did receive comment from the Suquamish tribe that they would appreciate increased tribal notification. So we have tribal notification written into a number of our Critical area sections, but we currently do not for public agency exceptions reasonable use exceptions Wetland reports and for floodplain habitat management assessments so our current practice is sending copies of these reports to the Suquamish tribe and any other inquiring tribe and And primarily that's to assure that any cultural resources aren't disturbed in the process. But this would be codifying that existing relationship. update definitions for consistency between the cao and smp that we have definitions between the two documents that aren't necessarily in in concert and there's a request by the suquamish tribe that we look at those definitions Public agency exception. So if a new road needs to be built, there is a Type 3 permit that's required, meaning that it goes to a hearings examiner. If a new road would have to be built through a critical area or its buffer, that would be a hearings examiner level decision. We're proposing to take that to a type two decision, which is an administrative decision, but at the same time require additional outreach to affected tribes, Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife. These are what this is once again codifying our existing practice. We always do this type of environmental outreach But having it in the code would be easier for the public to understand that that process is taking place Tree removal so add potential fines for unauthorized tree removal in critical areas or their buffers and So this is pretty typical of other jurisdictions also. And when we provide in a future workshop, we can provide links to specific code sections in other jurisdictions. But there are issues from time to time where people know that they shouldn't be clear cutting trees in their critical area or their buffer, and they do it anyway. And that is likely a part of that decision-making process is that there is no kind of punitive recourse. We make you replant trees, but those trees that are established are gone. And so having some sort of monetary fine may act as a deterrent for removing trees from your critical areas or buffers. Critical aquifers, a proposed added exemption for single family homes. Kitsap County currently exempts single family homes from requiring a hydrogeologic report. If you're in a critical aquifer, it's standard practice in other jurisdictions. Currently, our code requires a hydrogeological report for any development of 2,500 square feet of impervious surface or more. So that is a threshold that's very easily tripped, and it is likely an expense that isn't necessary considering best practices on other jurisdictions. We have retained the services of Facet Environmental, and they'll be producing for us a gap analysis, which will provide an analysis of both the critical area code and shoreline master program for consistency with best available science and state standards. It's very common when you're doing an update for critical area codes that you have this type of analysis done. We have a qualified consultant to provide that for us. And they may come up with additional items. So previously, these are items that staff has identified in the code for improvement. Facet may come up with additional items that would be presented to the planning commission. The large change in our critical area ordinance that's required from the state is for riparian buffers. So this is the vegetated area surrounding a stream channel. You'll see the little illustration here up front. They have the stream and the vegetated area on the sides. And that's the riparian zone where this riparian buffer would be required. Now, we currently have buffers required for streams. We have a table listed there on the screen of our existing buffers. For a fish bearing stream, currently the buffer is 150 feet. This would increase that buffer to 200 feet. um there's a guiding document from the department of fish and wildlife listed there up on the screen riparian ecosystems volume 2 management recommendations where they provide that for a fish bearing stream you should either use that you should use potential tree height potential tree height as their recommendation you would do a site specific investigation in each instance where a biologist would determine the tallest tree that could grow on that site. Typically, that's a conifer that grows to 200 feet. So you could either have a site-specific tree height analysis done in every instance, or what most jurisdictions are proposing to do as an alternative is just increase that buffer to 200 feet. It's what Kitsap County has done, and they've taken their critical area ordinance through adoption. So there's always that value in having what your neighboring jurisdictions do in your own county, trying to have similar regulations so that you're not reinventing the wheel if you're a biologist or a project applicant and trying to find out, starting at zero and trying to understand regulations. So once again, type F streams, fish bearing streams, is proposed to change to a buffer from 150 feet to 200 feet, and all other stream types would change from a 35 foot to 50 foot buffer to the new proposed 100 foot buffer, which is what the Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined is the minimum necessary to filter out pollutants entering into the stream. Once again, this is what all other jurisdictions are processing currently. This is what Kitsap County has adopted for all other stream types. Kitsap County also has provisions for reductions in that overall buffer width of 25%. And it comes with a number of criteria that include that you demonstrate no net loss, that development isn't any further waterward than existing development and other items like maintaining, not being able to cut down trees on the site for proposed development. So for that jurisdictional comparison, we're likely going to be presenting to the Planning Commission a very similar code as was approved by Kitsap County. The Shoreline Master Program. So once again, this isn't a large overhaul. It's mostly to address items that were brought up with the Comprehensive Plan Update. And that includes comments from the Suquamish Tribe about cultural resources. So we've been working with the Suquamish tribe for at least a year and a half now, where we've been sending them all notices that we receive of shoreline development in order to protect cultural resources. So these are items or artifacts that may be important to tribal entities, and that we have a code that currently addresses that section. But we would be proposing to add language to once again codify that existing practice of sending notification to tribes. Once again, update definitions for consistency between the CAO and SMP and shoreline mapping to account for new housing types. You'll see here under the heading of SMP Map Current Example, this is a page out of our Shoreline Master Program. I've made the legend larger, so hopefully it's a little more legible. But this lists shoreline designations. And much like the zoning code, the shoreline designation dictates what type of development can be installed along these specific shoreline designations. Currently, one of those designations is called single family residential. With the allowance of additional housing types, middle housing, multifamily housing, we're proposing to change that name from single family residential to low density residential. So you're allowing those additional housing types as identified in the zoning code and adopted by the city council, but no material change beyond that. allowed uses to account for those new housing types also. In SMP 7090, there's a giant chart of allowed uses and individual shoreline designations. And once again, this would just update that chart to allow for housing types that were adopted by the city council with that comprehensive plan process. Potential enhancement. So this is very open-ended and somewhat vague. But you'll see here on the picture, Washington State Department of Ecology, no net loss. So this is an image taken from the ecology web page where it illustrates a buffer, the shoreline jurisdiction, and development that's occurring outside of the buffer. So per the Department of Ecology, if you develop outside of the buffer, you have no impact. There's no net loss. You've met your criteria. There's nothing left to be done. We are, as far as expanding the urban tree canopy and protecting critical areas, we are asking you if you would like staff to investigate potential enhancement of the buffer even if development is outside of the buffer. Specifically, if there are no trees currently along your shoreline, should there be a provision to add some trees along the shoreline? It doesn't need to be a full buffer enhancement. Just should you add some trees if you're developing on the shoreline, that would be considered enhancement. Because if you're developing outside of the buffer, you've already met no net loss. So if you add trees in the buffer, While not developing in it, it is considered enhancement. Would the Planning Commission be interested in staff providing a few recommendations for enhancement? And once again, Facet Environmental will be looking through our Shoreline Master Program and providing a gap analysis that may provide additional items for the Planning Commission to consider. In a future workshop packet, we'll be sure to line item out additional recommendations from Facet for the Planning Commission to consider. Moving on to the landscaping code. So we're going to discuss a few items here, including the basic intent of the landscaping code. Street trees potentially required for single family homes. That plan, excuse me, that comprehensive plan guidance for expanding the urban tree canopy. Currently, if you construct a new single family home, you're not required to provide any street trees. Should that be a requirement to provide some level of street tree enhancement? Alternative street tree requirements. Got another slide for this later, but if you have a tree that grows at a fast growth rate and is taller than most street trees, should you be required to have less street trees? Currently, street trees are required one per 25 linear feet of frontage, and that kind of packs them in so tightly that you might not be able to have some larger variety of trees should we have an alternative route available. Alternative interior landscaping requirements. Once again, if you're providing a tree that grows at a fast rate and that grows to a larger size, should we have internal landscaping standards that are more flexible? critical root zone we've gotten comments in the past that we should have some provisions to protect critical root zone so that maybe in your plan you identify that you're retaining existing vegetation but if you take a bulldozer through your site and you damage the roots of all of your trees they're going to have to be removed so having landscape architects consider protection of critical root zone with their submitted plan. Consistency with BMC 1504 stormwater. So you'll find that in this code we're not proposing any kind of requirement for retaining existing trees and vegetation we encourage that in the landscaping code that exists but there isn't a requirement our public works department is currently updating our in the process of updating our stormwater code to meet 2025 stormwater code requirements So that will include retention of existing trees and vegetation. And that is our position that it is better to regulate that through the stormwater code than through the landscaping code. implementing landscaping plan. So currently, staff can have some issues from time to time getting the landscaping installed that is illustrated on a plan. um it's not uncommon that a developer will want to have occupancy of a building or a site without having installed their required landscaping this is a request that staff have a tool available that we can require a letter from the project landscape architect stating that the landscaping has been installed per plan the consultant for landscaping knows this business labored to construct this plan and it would be a time-saving exercise for staff and to ensure that the plan was implemented as planned by the landscape architect and landscaping surrounding city parks so per BMC 2050-040D IF YOU DEVELOP ALONG A CITY PARK OR OPEN SPACE, YOU'RE CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO SCREEN ALL ALONG YOUR PROPERTY SO THAT YOU EFFECTIVELY CAN'T SEE INTO THE CITY PARK OR OPEN SPACE. IT SEEMS LIKE COUNTER INTUITIVE TO WHY YOU WOULD BUY PROPERTY NEXT TO A CITY PARK OR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. We've consulted with the parks director, who also recommends the removal of this section. Something to consider when it comes to regulating landscaping, we have for the critical area ordinance proposed fines for removing trees in your critical area or its buffer. And we have provisions for expanding the urban tree canopy, but there are some very potent realities when it comes to wildfires and other threats to your property and so that we are not proposing fines for removing trees on your own property outside of critical areas and Primarily, that's for best practices per the National Fire Protection Association, who recommends limiting trees within 200 feet of your structure. So canopy spacing at 200 feet that becomes less dense at 100 feet, not having trees within 30 feet of your property, all to protect your structure from wildfires. This picture here is of the Bear Gulch fire, which I believe, as of last week, was 9% contained. The state of Washington is currently juggling new requirements from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for Wildlife Urban Interface, or WUI, which not only could dictate the materials that your structure be made of, but then also the vegetation surrounding that structure. So it's a moving target that is evolving as far as vegetation surrounding either your home or other proposed structure. And just wanted to bring to the Planning Commission's attention that this is primarily the reason staff isn't proposing fines and penalties for removing trees on your own property. And once again, that that would be a stormwater issue. And that there's a number of items to contend with, whether that's electrical lines, underground utilities, the effect on your neighboring properties that should be considered when we're going through the landscaping code. So moving on to the intent. So I'll explain here in these underlined and bolded areas specific portions of the intent that we'd like the Planning Commission to focus on. The intent of this chapter is to establish landscaping standards that contribute to a quality urban environment by connecting open spaces, maintaining native drought-resistant vegetation, replacing non-native and invasive species, increasing privacy for residential areas, providing visual relief of parking lots, providing habitat for fish and wildlife, retaining significant trees, and reducing erosion and stormwater runoff while providing on-site filtration to protect groundwater resources from pollutants and flooding. So the section of the code that we've underlined here are portions that may not be appropriate for the landscaping code. Replacing non-native and invasive species, we require that in the critical area ordinance and shoreline master program. we tip we have never required that someone not plant roses or a magnolia tree which are non-native to this area how much policing is the city interested in when it comes to non-native plants outside of critical areas and so potentially we should remove that non-native and invasive species section outside of the critical areas code. Providing habitat for fish and wildlife. Once again, that's in our critical area code and our shoreline master program. There aren't Regulations in the remainder of the landscaping code that address fish and wildlife. There are in the CAO and SMP. Reducing erosion and stormwater runoff. Clearly, that would be an item that is reviewed under the stormwater code. There aren't provisions in the landscaping code that relate. Providing on-site filtration to protect groundwater resources from pollutants and flooding Groundwater resources would be a critical aquifer which is once again in the critical area code and flooding we have a We have sections in the critical area ordinance to address flooding also not in the landscaping code and There are a few examples that Planning Commission might consider. The city of Bellingham reads, this section is intended to provide the minimum landscaping requirements for all uses. Additional requirements and provisions may be required for certain uses and within urban village areas. city of shoreline states that the purposes of this subchapter are to enhance the visual continuity within and between neighborhoods to establish at an herb excuse me to establish an urban tree canopy through landscaping and street trees to screen areas of low visual interest and buffer potentially incompatible developments and to complement the site and building design with landscaping so either of those last two intense sections i think would line up with the way that our landscaping section is currently written something for the planning commission to consider So here are a few illustrations for what I was referencing earlier, street trees for single family homes. So currently, if you have a formal plat, meaning a subdivision or 10 or more single family homes, then you are required to have street trees. If you are a development of less than that, then you are not. As we are considering ways to expand our urban tree canopy, should single family homes in some limited fashion, not necessarily the same standards that would apply to a commercial structure, be required to have street trees? alternative street tree requirements so as i was saying earlier should the city provide flexibility that if a developer elects to provide for faster growing taller trees should there be a provision to provide fewer of them There's a picture here in the middle. Some of our street trees that are allowed in our right of way, they grow to a mature height of six feet. And that is completely acceptable. There are some instances where overhead power lines, the proximity of your building to the street may be very close. This may call for tree varieties that are smaller. But if a developer elects to have a larger street tree, should there be some flexibility there to encourage that? And once again, alternative interior landscaping requirements. Would the Planning Commission be interested in staff providing some code potential for relaxed landscaping standards in a parking lot, essentially? So I know at the Planning Commission meetings previously, with the reduction or elimination of parking, the Planning Commission indicated we would like to see increased landscaping to account for that. If you are providing a fast-growing, which is typically defined as a tree that grows two feet or more per year, a fast-growing tree that grows to a larger size, should we have relaxed standards for what that interior landscaping might require? So if you have a large tree in your parking lot, currently we would require shrubs, ground cover, and trees in every planter bed. Should we have some relaxed standards for a larger tree where maybe you just have a beauty bark or other maybe a landscaping rock instead of shrubs and ground cover? We are often. Struggling with development over time to maintain those ground covers and shrubs. If you're going to be providing an extended tree canopy over that heat island area, then potentially we would be more flexible with maybe not requiring those ground covers or shrubs if you're willing to have larger tree canopy. once again that critical root zone is just the area around a tree that protects its roots and that we've had comments in the past that we should implement that into our landscaping code to protect that critical root zone so what you see here up on the screen As mentioned previously, the Public Works Department is updating the stormwater code, which would require retention of existing trees and vegetation. That implementation of landscaping plan, staff being able to request from a project consultant a letter that says that their landscaping has been installed to the submitted plan. AND LANDSCAPING SURROUNDING CITY PARKS WHICH WE'VE DESCRIBED EARLIER IS SUPPORTED BY THE PARKS DIRECTOR FOR THE REMOVAL OF THAT REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO SCREEN A PUBLIC PARK, VIEW OF A PUBLIC PARK FROM YOUR PROPERTY. ONCE AGAIN, IT SEEMS SOMEWHAT COUNTERINTUITIVE AND LIKELY AFFECTS THAT EYES ON THE STREET. IF YOU'RE A PROPERTY OWNER LOOKING INTO THAT PARK, YOU'RE LIKELY GOING TO BE ENSURING SAFE CONDITIONS AS IF YOU'RE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO LOOK INTO THAT PARK. THIS IS A VERY PRELIMINARY CONVERSATION. THESE ARE JUST ITEMS THAT STAFF WANTS TO KNOW SHOULD WE INVEST TIME IN LOOKING IN OTHER CODES? ARE YOU INTERESTED IN US EXPLORING THESE AREAS? ORDERS OF THE DAY ARE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, RECEIVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR A FUTURE PUBLIC WORKSHOP.

THANK YOU, MR. GUERRIT. Does anybody in the public have any comments on workshop presentation? Seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comments and go to the commission for any comments. Mr. Miller. Oh, go ahead.

my comment has to do with um a vacant lot that someone wants to develop uh put a home on are those uh street trees and and whatnot all applicable to that particular it may not be a spot for a street tree and like a Soundview Estates for example has was built with know sidewalks and planters that have street trees um so that came with that came with the plat but somebody that might develop an individual you know it could be a fair-sized parcel of property um but may or may not they probably have some landscaping but not necessarily what you would characterize as a street tree So how does that work? How does an individual homeowner parcel work with this particular code as proposed?

And I think I'll take these one by one. That if the Public Works Department installs street trees as part of a capital project like they would in a plat, then that would count toward your street tree requirement. But that... If you're saying there may not be room to have a street tree, and we would say that if, you know, this is all very open-ended at this point and preliminary, but that the presumption would be that there is room. That, you know, some trees grow to a mature height of six feet, and it's no wider than six feet wide. So if that's the only street tree that you may feel would fit on your property, that we would assume that you could make that provision. Yeah.

But are you saying that an individual homeowner that wants to develop, right now the site plan includes foundation, elevation, presumably, and so forth, and now the landscaping plan is required as a part of that permit?

I'm assuming that we would allow that as to be submitted with the general site plan. Well, I'm saying is it required?

Is a landscaping plan required to get a permit

um for a single family home it is not today but under this provision we're asking the planning commission if you would like to require street trees to some level with a single family home and yes you'd be required to show that you know the variety of tree and um a basic watering plan and then that that that's what would be required okay all right thank you

yeah this is commissioner miller i first want to say that in regarding the shoreline master program i live on a piece of property that is entirely within the 200 foot buffer because it's a point of land that sticks out into a bay of water and i'm not sure whether i should recuse myself from this or whether i can make comments

I don't think it's a conflict of interest at all. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Wofford. with street trees would there have to be because in a new development right now I'm seeing sidewalks right at the curb and if you're going to have a street tree then you're going to have to have some planting barrier or planting strip and then are you going to require sidewalks

So I think this is an either or situation. If there is a street tree that's planted like a municipal street tree, like right by the sidewalk that's in a planter bed that the city would maintain, then the private property owner wouldn't have to worry about providing a street tree because the city has done it for them but in scenarios where there aren't that municipal street tree then that potentially required street tree would go in the front yard of that single family home it wouldn't be maintained by the city by the sidewalk it would be maintained by the property owner in front of their home AND THIS MAY BE, THIS IS A PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE, BUT AS WE'RE GRAPPLING WITH WAYS TO EXPAND THE URBAN TREE CANOPY, THIS IS ONE ITEM FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER.

BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ALLOW, I THINK, ANY TYPE OF TREE, AND THEN YOU'RE SUBJECT TO SIDEWALK LIFT, interference with any underground utilities and what have you. I think this really is going to take some investigation of how it's going to interfere because you also presented you want to protect your home, you want 200 foot barrier, but now we want to put street trees in. I'm all for street trees, but I'd like to keep my house intact too.

And those are certainly issues for the Planning Commission to consider. I know the Public Works Department requires if you're going to plant a tree within five feet of the sidewalk that you put in a root barrier to avoid those conflicts with the sidewalk. We do have a street tree list with the city of Bremerton that has a variety of tree sizes and that are selected for their ability to coexist with utilities. So I understand that there, I mean, we're getting similar conflicting information from the state. Create an incredible amount of housing because there's a housing shortage. Don't cut down any trees. It's really tough to try to meet those two standards at the same time and So we're proposing this is one proposal for the Planning Commission to consider I can if we can have a raise of hands on if this is not something that the Planning Commission would like to consider or you can see what we come up with with a potential code and Decide at that time whether to implement and

Commissioner Miller, I am very much in favor of trees and enhancing the tree canopy. I'm having trouble with the idea of requiring it for a single family, especially one-off single family where you've got a lot and somebody wants to put a house on it and the street may already be developed there, or somebody developing kind of off in a off a gravel street or an unimproved street where they're going to need to do that. I think I would like to see the city look at other options for enhancing the tree canopy, looking at the options of, you know, parking lot and heat island where we were just discussing bigger trees and maybe less shrub. I think I would like to look at enhancing that aspect of it. I would like the city to look at change of use again. And I'll use the Wheaton Way example that I used earlier. The Kmart parking lot has zero trees in it, I believe. There was a change of use done from retail to office space for those state offices and no trees were planted because I'm sure that the requirement wasn't there for that. So if you were to think about how are you gonna actually increase the tree canopy, the change of use, the developers getting all the option, all of the benefit of putting occupancy in those buildings, the owner of those buildings getting that benefit, I would like to see them give back the benefit to planting trees in the parking lot to reduce the heat island. In regards to the potential enhancement, I'm kind of curious. It says staff would like to gauge Planning Commission interest in potential criteria for limited enhancement of development areas in cases where trees along the shoreline are not present. I'm not sure what that means. I think what it means is that where if it's just a shoreline site and it has no or very limited number of trees on it, you would require them to enhance that by planting trees on that part of the site that doesn't have trees. But in our area, due to the way the geology works, many shorelines are critical areas. They're steep slopes. They're not lawns that go down to the shore necessarily or anything like that. So it's going to be very difficult to plant trees there, I think. So I'm kind of curious about that particular idea. But anyway, back to my point, I think that I would rather see the city push on trees and parking lots. I don't know where this falls into this, but I would also like to see the city be more forward with trees and plantings in the right of way of our streets where we have roundabouts and where we have bulb outs and where we have things like that. If you go to other jurisdictions like Lake Lacey in Olympia or Bend, Oregon, for example, which is a really good example, roundabouts have a huge amount of vegetation in them, sculpture, artwork and things like that. And what we tend to get are pink concrete and signs. So if we want to be serious about enhancing our tree canopy, I think we could look at a lot of different ways of doing that that would be more aesthetic, would calm traffic, it would reduce carbon or sequestration in carbon, and it would just enhance the beauty of this community.

Okay, in the spirit of taking these one by one, so we don't lose track. As far as change of use is concerned, we don't currently have code provisions that trigger improvements with a change of use. But we do have code provisions where if you're investing a certain amount of money, usually a percentage of the assessed value of the building, that that would trigger some additional investment. It could be landscaping. um just by looking around at the planning commission are you interested in requiring additional landscaping if a commercial or multi-family property is investing a certain amount in their building or would you prefer not to require additional landscaping if that investment is made So I'm not Andrea. She has a magical ability to look at you and know how you feel. So if you are interested in code that would trigger additional landscaping based off investment, would you raise your hand, please? OK. Would you like to voice your opinion or move on, Commissioner Tift?

My opinion is I don't know that I have enough knowledge to raise my hand or not. I'm concerned about Bremerton's stock of buildings and making it even more expensive for someone to develop a parcel or a building or something like that. That's my worry. Whether it be a

yeah potentially so i really don't know i really don't have enough information and it's a workshop and that's great yeah we can provide a proposed code at the next workshop and make sure that we reach out to the kids at building association yeah to let them know that this is an item the planning commission is considering so that all voices are heard

Okay, that would be valuable to me. I'm not objecting to it, but I just don't feel like I have enough information to make an informed decision. Okay, and the item, does that satisfy that?

Commissioner Miller, are you still interested in the actual change of use, or is this alternative proposal acceptable?

No, the alternatives.

Just making sure that I'm OK. And as far as trees on slopes on the shoreline are concerned, there's a lot of tree varieties that provide slope stability. I know that native tree. Vine maples, they only grow to about 15 to 20 feet in height, which are good for not obstructing views. They're known for slope retention, and they're drought tolerant. So there are varieties of trees that are very suitable to sloped areas. And once again, this is enhancement. It's very similar to should street trees be required for single family homes. and that this is a way for the Planning Commission to provide increased urban tree canopy in a way that would not otherwise be required. I suppose we should, if it's acceptable, have a quick raising of hands on both of those items. And once again, this is the Planning Commission just telling staff to come up with proposed code. You can decide not to adopt or recommend that later. So I'm just going to ask for a quick raising of hands, unless you'd like more discussion. Would the planning commission like staff to come up with requirements for street trees for single family homes? If you would like us to do that, please raise your hand. I see two planning commissioners out of the seven, so we will not do that. And then moving on to on the shoreline enhancement, should we require some enhancement uh adding trees along shorelines where there currently aren't any with development yes raise your hand okay and we have one planning commissioner there so that is not something we'll follow up on all right so i've uh we've addressed those two items we're happy to move on to any other planning commissioner uh feedback

Hi, this is Commissioner Peterson. I found myself agreeing with Mr. Tift there. This is a city. We need to provide a lot of housing for a lot of people. It's a housing crisis right now. BUT WE ALSO NEED A BUNCH OF TREES. LIKE MR. JACKSON SAID. BUT NOT ALL TREES ARE THE SAME. ONE TREE ON THE SHORELINE IS PROBABLY WORTH 100 IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN. SO I'M A LITTLE MORE FOCUSED ON THE INCREASED BUFFERS. I SAY HECK YES, I WOULD LIKE INCREASED BUFFERS. see examples of what other jurisdictions have done with uh... uh... shoreline enhancements uh... uh... without fines for uh... tree removal within critical areas ordinances uh... over the years the seattle times has had a lot of good reporting on on the subject uh... in many instances uh... landowners will look at what their uh... current property value is behind a bunch of trees and what the fine might be from a jurisdiction if they clear cut those trees. And it's just a math problem, and they'll cut them down. And some jurisdictions have to ratchet up those penalties to triple damages for them to have any effect. Any fine versus zero I think would be great. I say yes to parking parking lot tree requirements and I had one wordsmithing notes the the intent language I'm very much in favor of you getting rid of the the term non-native plants. Cities are full of non-native plants. That's some of the best things about a city are the gardening you can do, and those are all non-natives. Maybe discouraging, continue to say discouragement of invasive species might be nice. Requiring that type of thing. No city doesn't have staff to go wag wag their finger at people planting Ivy but the state just I think the state just banned the sale of Ivy those things do tend to get out into nearby nature areas and they can cause tons and tons of problems over the years so I would I would just encourage us to keep that wording about discouraging invasive species thank you

Any additional comments? OK, that concludes this public portion of the meeting. It's now closed. And we'll go to the business meeting. First item is chair report. I WOULD REMIND PEOPLE THAT COMING UP IN NOVEMBER, WE HAVE ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THAT, LET YOUR WISHES BE KNOWN. NOW WE'LL GO TO THE COMMISSIONER HAVE A REPORT? NO? NO? OKAY. WE'LL GO TO THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, AND I THINK MR. GARRETT'S GOING TO HANDLE THAT.

Yep. On behalf of Director Spencer, there is no report.

Thank you. You did well. Any old business? Any new business? You're up again, Mr. Garrett.

Oh, there's no new business. We'll be following up with shoreline, critical area, and landscaping code at the next workshop. So looking forward to it.

THANK YOU. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 2025. THANK YOU. AND THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.