Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Go. Alright. We'll call to order the 08/21/2025 meeting in the city of Gig Harbor Planning Commission at 05:30. Start with the roll call. Commissioner Jordan is excused. Commissioner Martin? Here. Commissioner Nassau? Here. Commissioner Snodgrass? Here. Commissioner Tessachini?

Present.

And commissioner Burkhart is here. Minutes. Does anybody have any corrections for the last minutes? Hearing none, entertain a motion to approve. Entertain that motion for the approval. You you you would like to motion to approve? Yeah. The second? Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. And opposed, minutes are approved. Public comment on nonagenda items. Do we have any? Alright.

We'll move on then to agenda items. Tonight is development code phase one. Oh, sorry. Development code phase one. And we have a staff report for that. Who's up? All yours.

Can can you hear me? Do I need to pull this a little closer? K. I have a loud voice naturally. So I am going to go ahead and share my screen for the PowerPoint presentation.

Okay. There we go. So good evening, planning commissioners. Great to see everyone again. For the record, my name is Catherine Schafer, principal planner in the department of community development. And as you can see, we have a full table here. So I'd like to also introduce Kyle Hendrix. He has he's an associate planner. He's been with us before, but here he is again. You'll probably be seeing his face as well.

And Nestor Guviera was here last time as well. And then everyone knows mister Baker to my right. So thanks for having us. And today's public hearing is of all about aligning the current regulations with the approved 2024 comprehensive plan, including map amendments and proposed changes to the development code. Staff has prepared responses to questions from our briefing on August 7 on this matter and is requesting a recommendation to counsel at the conclusion of today's meeting.

So I'm gonna go ahead and get started with some of the concerns that y'all brought up at the briefing, and then I'll get into more of the proposed changes as well. So when I was here on the seventh, these were the four main takeaways and questions that y'all wanted to talk about a little bit further. One of the questions that I received was, is a manufactured home considered a single family residence? And the answer to that is yes. It is Gig Harbor Municipal Code does consider that a single family residence.

Next, we had a question regarding levies and the increased densities. Now full disclosure, I am not a tax expert by any means, but I did do a little research into what that would mean in a general sense. So property taxes are based on the highest and best use of land. So changing the zoning alone doesn't not increase the taxes. Taxes would only change if the property is redeveloped under new zoning.

When more homes are built, the tax levy is shared among more taxpayers, which can slightly lower the rate for existing homeowners. For levies with a set tax rate, adding more housing increases the total revenue collected without raising the rate. So say you all have a neighborhood over here, and you're paying $5 a month. And then we build a neighborhood over here, we'll also be paying $5 a month. So we'll have more money, but that won't necessarily lower anything for you.

And that was the set tax rate. So that is the research that I was able to do kind of in a general sense for for the levy question. And then another question that was asked was the Henderson Heights zoning and then outreach as well. So the next slide will cover the Henderson Heights question. Okay.

So these are properties off of Burnham and 112, also known as Henderson Heights. The property's existing land use designation is residential medium, which was changed in the 2024 comprehensive plan. However, the existing zoning is b two. And as we discussed on the seventh, these are misaligned, and I'll have more examples of misaligned parcels later. So the this is a misaligned parcel.

So we proposed rezoning it to RV one, which is six dwelling units per acre. This will also allow a little bit of flexibility. It'll promote housing and then provide some flexibility by allowing limited business uses such as professional services in this zone. So I know that was a was a question previously. So so the RM was redesignated in 2024 comp plan, and then we're gonna change the zoning to have that alignment. Any questions?

Yes. So, Catherine, does that align with what council had approved with the with the comprehensive plan?

Yes. So the the existing land use designation is residential medium, and that was changed in the 2024 comprehensive plan. So now we are changing the zoning to align with that RM designation. So I know it's kind of a big circle. Yeah. Yes. Okay. At our briefing, there was also a concern about the level of outreach specifically to those impacted by map amendments. So in July, we did a mailing to property owners as well as site addresses. So if the property owner didn't live there, the property owner received one as well as the physical location.

So in that letter included a QR code that linked to an interactive web page with the proposed zoning and land use changes. The project has also been featured in the gigabyte four times, which has a really strong readership. We also held an open house on August 5, and then the interested parties were also notified for like like, to the meeting today and also notified of all the upcoming things associated with the project. And it was also published in the Tacoma Daily Index. And I also just wanna keep in mind that staff are available from 8AM to 5PM for anyone with questions to come walk in.

If you come into the planning counter, you will talk to someone between eight and five. So if anyone ever had any questions, we're also available via phone and email. So staff is definitely available for anyone that had those questions. So after our briefing on the seventh, I met with the new communications manager, and we discussed the outreach strategy again. And she felt that our approach was in line with the timeline and the budget and the responses showing that those were satisfied with all of our efforts.

So and we had a great website, and I think that actually and having that QR code, I think, really helps. So people don't have to, like, type in a website. They can literally just do it on their phone and and take a look. So really had a I feel like a good effort on on the outreach side. Okay.

So those were the any any questions on the questions that y'all brought up on the seventh? Okay. So this is gonna be repetitive of the or slightly repetitive of the presentation from the seventh. But for the purposes of the public hearing, I wanna make sure I go over this with everyone and answer questions that anyone from the public or y'all might have. So our map amendments in this project are really focusing on four main topics, the first being misaligned land use and zoning.

And we've talked about that briefly earlier, and I have some more examples. Parcels that have split land use and zoning, planned residential development, and city properties, updating to the PI land use designation and zoning district. Okay. The middle portion of the slide, and I know it's I know it's small. The middle portion of the slide is exhibit two dash six from the comprehensive plan.

It is the future land use areas classification. So it identifies the zoning districts that correspond to each land use designation. So it essentially connects the land use map and the zoning map. Land use designations are really broad framework for how areas in the city are intended to develop over time. For example, residential, where zoning are the regulatory tools that implement the land use designation.

So each land each zoning district has a specific standard of permitted uses, setbacks, building heights, lot coverages, densities. So staff has identified about 900 parcels that are out of alignment with the land use designation and the zoning district. And first example, this is an example of a misaligned parcel. The Henderson Heights was another example. So this parcel is off Soundview Drive just south of Judson Street, and the land use designation is residential low, but the zoning is b one.

And these are these are excerpts from exhibit two dash six in the comprehensive plan. So you can see that the residential low aligns with the r one zoning, and the commercial business really should is is aligned with that b one. So this parcel is considered out of alignment. In this case, staff proposed changing the zoning to r one to bring the the the parcel into conformity. And the other another issue we're dealing with is split zoning.

So this is 3519 56th Street. So the land use designation is split between RL and RM, and the zoning is split between r B 1 and R B 2. So being able to bring these into alignment This this particular property is a professional office. It has Edward Jones and, I think, some dental offices as well. So we evaluated the potential uses, what was there on-site, and and potential new uses.

So we ultimately proposed to make a zoning change or to land use change to RM, which matches with that R B one. So that eliminates the the split. And the real the real importance of this is if someone were to come in with this particular property and say, hey. I want I have this really great idea. I wanna do this.

It would be really hard from a zoning perspective to be like, well, are you r v one? Are you r v two? And so cleaning these up really helps with the clarity, especially at that planning counter when people come in with their hopes and dreams of an idea with their property. So it just makes things clear for staff, and it also helps the property owner understand what their zoning district is. Any questions so far?

Okay. Okay. As part of the update, the city proposed to eliminate the planned residential development, the PRD, as a stand alone zoning district. The PRD was originally established as a development process that was supposed to pair with district, not a zoning district in itself. So it was really intended to provide flexibility and creativity in residential development by allowing deviations from certain code standards such as lot size setbacks and open space while maintaining consistency with an underlying zone.

So over time, the PRD became used as a stand alone zoning district rather than a flexible process. So the PRD is not listed in our land use matrix, which defines allowed uses in each zoning district, and it's also not included in that excerpt or the exhibit two dash six that aligns land use designations and corresponding zoning districts. So, again, if someone came in and said, wanna do this on my property and they have a PRD zoning, it'd be really hard for staff to evaluate. Well, how would we do that? So yes. I saw your hand go up.

Are we going to inform that 770 parcel resumed to the owners?

So that was part of our outreach efforts. So we did a mailing, and then we were in the gigabyte, and we had the open house. So we had those outreach efforts through that mailing and the open house. So

Thank you.

Yes. Okay. Okay. So, as part of this effort, we're gonna we're gonna rezone and redesignate their these parcels to to what they were originally recorded as when at the time of recording. So, for example, some of these were recorded as r one, like, in the early two thousands, and then somehow or another got to be a PRD.

So it's gonna go back to the original underlying zoning district at the time it was developed. So we've got that. And included in in the map amendment package are 15 city owned parks properties proposed for redesignating and rezoning to the public institutional. These proposed changes primarily involve three key areas. It's the Gig Harbor, Sports Complex, Crescent Creek Park, and Wilkinson Farm Park And Farmhouse.

So most of these parks are in the single family residence or business park uses, which restrict development standards and hinder the existing or intended public recreational functions. Changing to PI allows for development standards that are more compatible with operational needs of the public parks. Okay. So here are the new or here are the proposed land use changes and the proposed zoning changes. You can see it's not like the full map.

It's where the the proposed changes that should have been in your packet. So as you could see, much many more zoning changes and then a smattering of of land use changes as well. And and I don't know how well people can see that, so sorry if it doesn't show up too good. Okay. Now let's talk about the development code.

So the adopted 2024 comprehensive plan included increased residential densities for most zoning districts. So these updated density targets are shown on the right hand of the column of the accompanying chart, and the middle reflects what's actually in code right now. And as you can see, the two columns don't match. So to address this discrepancy, staff are proposing the following changes to the development code to ensure that the codified residential density is aligned with the density in the comprehensive plan. This effort represents the implementation of the approved 2024 comprehensive plan, and it's considered phase one of the development code update.

Phase two is coming up next. We are working on that right now. We will be bringing it to y'all probably in 2026, the 2026. It includes looking at setbacks, building heights, and other potential barriers to increasing housing diversity. So the proposed changes focus on that increased residential density.

However, our code did not have a have a definition for density or net buildable land area in 17 0 four, which is our definition section, but it described density in 1705, which is called density in residential zones. So to improve clarity and consistency across these chapters, we've added official definitions to for density, maximum density, minimum density, and net buildable land area in seventeen o four. That way, there's one place to go to to get the to get the official definition, and it's you don't have to, like, go to another chapter. It's it's in the definitions chapter. Okay.

So after adding the density related definitions in 17 0 four, changes to 17 o five, density and residential zones were needed. So 17 O five zero two explains how and when to use the formula to calculate minimum and maximum residential units. The zones on the left hand side, yeah, I think it's your left hand side, are the zones that now have established minimum and maximum densities. So to calculate minimum density, you multiply the net buildable land area by the low range of the established of the established zoning district. And if it results in a fraction, you need to be rounded to the nearest whole number.

So if it's point five or higher, you go to the nearest whole number. If it's point four nine, you go lower. So when you do when you so when you do that multiplication, you get that low range. And so when you want the maximum zoning, you'll multiply that high number by the net buildable land area. And I have an example on the next next slide.

I know I'm talking a lot about conceptual math, which is hard to follow. So here is our fictitious R 2 property. So this property is 0.75 and has a net buildable land area of 0.42. And I wanna remind y'all that the net buildable land area is where you're subtracting tidelands, right of ways, and critical areas and getting it down to kind of, like, the raw buildable area. So we've got 0.42.

So the minimum density in the R 2 zone is six. So we're gonna take that net buildable land area, and we're gonna multiply it by six, and we get 2.52. So as I mentioned earlier, we're gonna round up. So we're gonna get three units in the for as a minimum density. And then we've got maximum density.

So, again, taking that point four two, and then we're gonna multiply it by 12 because it's the upper range. So we've got point or five point o four, so we're gonna run down. So five would be the maximum units. So we've got a density range of three and a half units here. So and I also wanna emphasize that this would apply the the minimum density would apply if you're doing multifamily or subdividing.

Because we understand that there might be some folks out there that have an r two property that have been sitting on it, maybe waiting for prices to go down or whatnot, that would like to construct a single family residence. So enforcing the minimum density would be kind of devastating for for situations like that. So if her proposal would be for multifamily, then we would enforce that minimum density or if it was a subdivision. So just wanted to clarify that. Okay.

Any questions? Wanna make sure okay. I will keep going. So this slide represents the changes to the land use matrix reflecting approved uses in the 2024 comprehensive plan. For example, in the exhibit two dash six, the comp plan allowed duplexes in the R 1 zone and the r and the r B 1 zone, which it previously did not allow.

So I know it's small, but there are underlined p's that now allow for those uses. The n the PCD NB zoning district was also struck as a cleanup, and the PCDC was the revised zoning district to better meet the requirements of development developers agreements and community in interests. So footnote six was also struck. It limited development in the R 3 zone zoning district to no more than eight attached dwelling units per structure. And with the increased density, this could be a huge site design issue.

So say, for example, you wanted 40 units on an r three zoned property. You'd have to have five buildings under this. And that's just a really that's a big constraint for site design, especially if, you know, one building might be a little bit more efficient for land. So we struck that. And in place of it, we added a density we reintroduced a density bonus for senior living facilities.

This bonus was actually previously in the definition of dwelling unit. But when we aligned the definition of dwelling unit with the state's definition during the ADU update earlier this year, that bonus was taken out of the definition. So this is a reintroduction for density bonuses for those uses. And then footnote 14 is an existing footnote that denotes a mixed use option. However, the language was revised to allow flexibility in placement of residential units and not requiring in them to necessarily be located above a commercial use.

So this footnote currently only applies to the B 1 and CBD zoning district, but the comp plan expanded those mixed use opportunities. So now that footnote has been added to C 1 and B two and the MUD overlay. So since our last meeting, we've added duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes as permitted uses in the R B 1 zoning district. So this change actually came from a conversation at the planning counter. I had someone come in and with an acre and a half in the R B 1 zone, and we were looking at the densities and and the use table, and only in the r B 1 zone was only duplexes.

So with such a large property, you know, you could get a lot of units on there. However, they would be then limited to that duplex. So we were looking at it kinda together, and I thought, well, in order to achieve those densities with with good site design, it can't just be duplexes. So we're proposing triplexes and fourplexes as well for that use. And and that's why it really pays to come into the planning counter because, you know, this is how we think about things when it's when it's really specific. So that that was a good good conversation. Yes. Yes.

As in the you you strike out PCD and B neighborhood business, and, we are emphasized a lot about the walkable area for the residence. Is it US right on this one? Are you this one similar to the d one that you're going to use it? Or if somebody apply for that neighborhood business, are we going to look at in which regulation we are going to look at, which match we are going to do with that?

Sure. There was actually only one parcel in the whole city that was PCD NB. And through this effort, we actually changed the zoning on that property. So there there aren't any properties zoned that. To do that. So yeah. So if someone comes in and says, I have a PCD and b that we've we've re we've changed all those. So so that won't happen. Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah. So quick question. I was wondering, I think when, you know, during the last year, we were you had a bounce around on the parking piece.

Mhmm.

And I don't know what where did that wind up going or not going? Or

As it relates to just generally? Or

Well, there was there was an element where depending on the size of the property and how many dadus and whatnot that you had to have x amount of square footage for a parking space that was off street. And if it was if it was on the street, it had to be x distance away from you know, depending on where, you know, like, where a public transit stop would you know, all that. Is that

somewhere? So most likely, I think what you're talking about will be in phase two. We are looking at parking standards and size of parkings size of parking spaces. And do we really need some of these uses? Because I think our parking table was written a long time ago.

So do we really need that many spaces with the options available now? So that will be coming in 2026. So, yeah, that'll that'll be a really great conversation as well. But, no, it's it's not part of this right here. So there is a use that says parking for commercial in in the land use matrix. We're not touching it in this project, but it is there. It's existing. Yeah. Yep. Okay.

Any more questions on the land use mace matrix? Okay. I will continue. So on the left hand side are all the chapters that this project is amending to, again, implement that approved 2024 comprehensive plan. The proposed changes do span multiple code chapters but are limited to density related updates, and all detailed proposed changes are included in the study session packet.

The table again, I've shown this table before. The tape everything on the right is the approved 2024 comprehensive plan. In the middle is the current code. So then we want the current code to then match that the column all the way on the right. And then these are all the chapters that it touches. I know it's a lot, but, again, it just it just touches on the density related subjects of those chapters. So this time, happy to answer any additional questions that y'all might have and respectfully requesting a recommendation to counsel at the conclusion of this meeting. So thank you.

Go ahead.

Catherine, just to clarify that, again, for everybody who's listening, which is so many people out there, the densities are per acre. Correct. And that is exclusive of any current setbacks, and I know we're gonna look at that later. That doesn't have to deal with this right now. It's exclusive of if SIPA is required, if there's water or anything like that.

It is just saying if everything was in a perfect world and we have this nice bright shiny piece of land with no trees, no issues, or whatever on it, the column on the right is what could occur Correct. But likely will not occur because there's so many other factors that go into building a housing structure.

Correct. Yeah. And I just wanna reemphasize that net buildable land area. So there are a lot of properties in the city that remain that have wetlands that would have that deduction from like, it it would be deducted so that we when we calculated maximum and minimum density, it would be actually be a smaller number. And the the densities are also the upper limit if it doesn't have a range. So keep in mind, it could go lower. It just can't go higher. Anyone

else?

Questions? I guess if that's it, we can, move on to, any public comment? Do we have any public comment? Let me, okay. Let's see. I guess we have a name, and, any member of the public that is not signed up would be allowed to once we get through the list. Is there anybody online, Michelle? Or

okay. Here.

Alright. So we'll just have you state your name and address on the sign up sheet. And as you speak or before you speak let's see here. You can give comments by pressing raise your hand button at the bottom of the Zoom window. If you're calling in to the Zoom meeting by phone, you can oh, wait. You can raise your hand by pressing 9 on your phone. When using your phone to call in, you may need to press 6 to unmute yourself. Your name or the last three digits of your phone number will be called out when it is your turn to speak. When commenting, please provide your name and limit your comments to three minutes. Comments should relate to the specific project being reviewed here tonight.

If you have questions or comments on the project that are not specific to the items being reviewed tonight, please contact staff at the end of the meeting or during work hours in the planning division. The city desires to allow maximum opportunity for public comment. However, business of the planning commission must proceed in an orderly manner orderly, timely manner. The purpose of a planning commission meeting is to advise on subjects prescribed by the city council. It is not a public forum. Comments shall be made first giving the speaker's name and address. Anyone making out of order comments may be subject to removal from the meeting. City desires to allow maximum opportunity for public comment. However, business of oh, we'll see. Did I reread that?

I already read that part. Alright. I think that's it. Alright. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Can you hear me? My name is Mike Shipman. I think I've chatted with y'all before. I'm like a bad coin. I keep showing up, and I won't apologize for that. I'm passionate about what we're going through in the harbor, and I think we're making some great progress. Appreciate the work that y'all did with the ADU work, and I think we have made progress. But I'm here. I've been here before.

On August 7, was here, and I wanna reiterate my concern about frankly, if you look at the maps, if you look at the r one property in Gig Harbor, I would say 80% of the residential property in Gig Harbor is r one. I do not think we'll meet the targets, and I think the state and Department of Commerce, Pierce County is gonna be a little more involved in watching how we're making progress. And so I will tell you that I did do some research, and I am concerned that at least at minimum on the bus route, bus route 100 where the public transportation is, where people that might wanna buy a smaller cottage style, duplex style, townhouse style home on some of these r one, r two lots would serve a lot of those people in our community that we don't serve today. So I'm pretty passionate about balanced growth, not big box Chicago project style apartments. I'm concerned about that.

I think we have to balance this r one, r two growth. And so I'll say it again. I think this is the third or fourth time I've said it. I would like to see in phase one a recommendation from the planning commission to say, let's change all the R one lots that are within three blocks of the bus route to R 2 lots. Because today, I can put two ADUs on an r one lot, but I cannot build a duplex on a lot. I gotta have a quarter of an acre, basically. So that's a concern of mine. I appreciate all the work you've done and especially what the city's done in the past six months. It's amazing. They've done great work.

But I really wanna emphasize the simple fact that we got a bus route, bus route 100. There's a lot of r one lots on there that over time, and I'm talking ten or twenty years, there ought to be some smaller cottage style, townhouse style, duplex style, fishing village style homes there. If we can accommodate those and balance the community, we're just gonna see a bunch of large growth in the community. And my wife said to me, you know, you need to tell them why you're passionate about this. And and I wrote a paragraph, and it basically says, we're all talking about the culture of this community.

The culture of this community is small town community. You can't accomplish that unless you have small town homes. K? And that's what I'm asking for. It'll be safer. It'll be less traffic, and it'll be better for homeowners and seniors. So thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. Anyone else, Michelle?

They don't have a basic plan.

Should be well on that.

Alright. Well then. We'll move on with discussion if do you have any other questions for staff or

discussion on something? Go ahead. Kathleen, could could you please explain about the, PCD dash c that wasn't exist in the or plan, CD plan, but now we have that with the 32, 36 number of the unit. Could you explain it a little bit why we didn't have that, why we are going to have it?

Oh, yeah. Do you mind taking that one? Yeah. Yeah. Eric's saying.

Yeah. The area that was PCD NB that now is PCDC, we always had PCDC. That was a a zoning that surrounded a a certain amount of land. The N B zone only applied to the a portion of the village at Harbor Hills. That property has actually grown in time and has a series of development proposals.

In taking a look at the comprehensive plan policies, the the PCDC zone is actually more permissive of, employment type uses, retail type uses, multifamily type uses. It allows you to maximize the entirety of that property. Also, as, Catherine mentioned, it would have been a split zone, so you would have had one big property, but only a little piece of it would be zoned this way and another piece would be zoned the other way. It was of interest to counsel that we are able to maximize and provide as much flexibility on that property so a developer can come in and provide a mix of where people can live, shop, and work potentially all in the same property. The NB zone had some particular characteristics to it that was gonna confound that goal.

Thus, the council, when they made the land use designation, pretty much indicated that the NINB zone was no longer necessary, that the PCDC zone served the greater intensity of use that we're looking for in the center, which is which is that Gig Harbor North area. Did that answer the question, or did I miss?

No. That's fine. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Just to confirm, we believe that the the comprehensive plan that council approved and what you're proposing for alignment today with land use and zoning will meet the obligations from the statute for Washington State and what Department of Commerce is requesting in Pierce County of us in regards to the 892 units. I know we've already had some of those. I think we're down below 600 now. Most of those being, really driven at that lower income based on AMI, but we do we believe that the plan put forward today can meet those goals. Is that correct?

Correct. And in a perfect world, we would have done this in tandem with the comprehensive plan with the development regulations. So this is kind of coming afterwards. But you are correct. This is the what what is proposed right here is the implementation of that approved 2024 comprehensive plan that will then get us to our goal for increased residential density. Correct. Thank you.

Is there any accounting on already permitted projects that were permitted under the old that would be a I mean, I would they would already be permitted. So they do they does there a timeline on that when they would run out, or is there any idea how many projects we're talking about?

We have had a few final plats come in that will then require building permits and then obviously be be built for residential units. So those are coming in after the approved 2024 comprehensive plan. So I can imagine that we would be counting those towards that that final 892 units. But that's something that we keep track of through our permitting system. So we're able to pull reports and things like that to keep keep us on track.

Okay. I sorry. I guess I wasn't completely clear. As far as our zoning changes with this, are there approved approved projects already that will be grandfathered in, or how many we're talking about on that end that would be potentially grandfathered under the old zoning and land use?

Okay. So a project will vest to a certain code Mhmm. At the building permit stage. So for example, if you say we get this approved at the October and you come in in November. Right. But you're gonna be under that new code. But say you come in today, so you're gonna be under what we have at at the moment.

Right. I understand. And I I guess my question was how many projects are are already approved or vested at this point on with any of these properties that we're changing the zoning on.

Okay. Sorry. You're saying curious. Like, things that are under review right now?

Yeah. Okay. Already vested.

Okay. I'm not sure exactly. I'd have to pull a report, but I'd be happy to look into it. Yeah.

I was just kinda curious

about it. Eric says he can answer it. Oh, okay.

Yeah. At at this

time, we're unaware of any projects that are currently in review. Obviously, the changes to the PRD zone, that is a series of approved projects, approved building permits, those are all in place. But we're unaware of any projects that are currently in the mix that our proposed zoning is going to, confound the issue. Obviously, some of the changes where you have an existing, commercial use located in what is currently a residential zone, that would be a nonconforming use. The majority of the work that is being done here is actually increasing that conformity, and we should not be impacting any projects that are currently in process.

Great. Thanks.

And just to add to that, I'm really curious if any projects are going to come in in November, like waiting for these code changes. Because we have had some pre application meetings with larger densities, and we're telling them, hey. Wait for the code change in November. So we might see an influx of permits in that November time frame.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Anyone else? I guess now we'll, entertain a motion for a recommendation on the, development code phase one.

I'll go for it.

Okay. So, you are So I'm recommending that it goes forward to council. Recommending that we

Is that correct?

Yes. Yeah. Yes.

Thank you. You had to do that?

I I had it here. Now I can't find the sheet.

So Jeremy said that. You don't do the ordinance. I have a written title. Oh, phase one development.

So I like the motion to approve the proposal. I move that the city of Gig Harbor Planning Commission recommend approval of the of the

Phase one development code.

Phase code as presented by staff at this evening's hearing and is moved on to city council for approval. I also do I do the revisions as well?

So it's all part of one package.

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Is there a is there a second?

I move to second it.

Okay. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion, passes.

Well, thank you so much. We really appreciate all the effort. I know it was a lot, and it was very technical. So thank you.

Anything else from

Yeah. From you all? Do you have anything?

Just a basic update. You did raise the parking question earlier. We are doing a parking study for the downtown. I think you heard me talk about it a few months back. That parking study is underway.

We are actually doing surveys in concert with the community right now, both, I think it was today and Saturday, to determine not just, how many spots are consumed in the downtown area, but also how long those spots are consumed, trying to get at the who might be parking in these spots, is it customers, is it employees. The idea of this parking study is to provide near term and long term recommendations for parking in the downtown area. There will be two sets of recommendations in this document, the first of which will focus on the Finholm area, pretty much everything on that side of the harbor on, I guess, what do we call the North Side of the harbor, and then a separate set for Millville moving down to the downtown area. So the idea being is that the council will then have information on is there isn't there a parking problem in the downtown and potentially some, recommendations on how to address that both on public and private lots, located in the downtown parking area. That is intended, to be going in concert with, the phase two code development, which will be covering parking not just in the downtown, but the entirety of the city and we'll be looking at off street parking requirements likely making some significant reductions to the amount of off street parking that we are requiring.

I think getting to what the Commissioner was mentioning earlier. That's part of our housing goals, but it's also part of our climate change goals. We currently have a draft climate change element that has been developed. It will be going through public comment and eventually coming to the planning commission for insertion into the comprehensive plan. But parking is another aspect where it just is extra impervious surface.

It is extra heat generation. It's extra a lot of things. So we need to make sure we're rightsizing at least what we're requiring in regards to parking to ensure that we are meeting our climate change and also not creating a artificial requirement for parking beyond what the market is looking for. That's something that's very important to counsel, and we are moving forward in tandem yet won't be coming to the planning commission. I the parking study is something that's independent, but, again, has tentacles into the various work that we'll be asking you folks to do over the course of the next year. And, again, we wanna thank you for all your time.

Just so they say thank you. You guys are doing amazing job. Thank you. Great job.

A great team, and we're super happy to have a full team. Michelle is very happy to have other people to talk to rather than just talking to herself and Diane and and Jeremy and, unfortunately, me.

Welcome to the new faces. Okay. Next meeting then, we're looking at, I guess, not

December 18, we'll be introducing a new commissioner and doing election of chair and vice chair.

Okay. We are gonna be missing one commissioner for that. Commissioner

Yep.

Nassau will be absent, so I guess we can still proceed forward. Alright. September 18 then. Anything else? I guess we'll entertain a motion for adjournment.

I move that we adjourn. Second. Second.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Everyone.