Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is 6 o'clock and welcome to the planning commission meeting of uh May already May 12th, 2026. Would you please uh call the role, Miss Watson, Commissioner Mills, Commissioner Mcomes? Present. Commissioner Datsky, Commissioner Martin here, Commissioner Underwood here, and Commissioner Ohana here. Would you please join me in the pledge of allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, before we get actually started, if it's okay with the rest of the the commission, um we've got two new members. Miss Underwood was here last meeting, um but didn't get a chance to introduce herself and Mr. Ohana is brand new this meeting. So, I'm wondering if you could just if that's okay, if you could just give us a minute or two and tell us about yourself.

Sure. Um, my name is Jill and I moved to Anacortis when I was 12 and have lived here on and off uh over the years and have been here for about 10 years uh since I had my son. Um I have 17 years at working at Underwood Associates which is a architecture firm here in Anacortis and sorry and um uh really enjoy working with the planning department um on all sorts of uh buildings um mixeduse residential uh really enjoying the process of learning more about Shoreline with a lot of our projects and am excited to be here. Thank you, Mr. Ohana.

It's also a pleasure to be here everyone. Uh my name is Tarn Ohana. My family and I live here in Anacortis. Uh I was not born in Anacortis, but I'm from Scadget County. My family are farmers here and I've been involved in land use advocacy, particularly the county comprehensive plan and state level since I was 13 years old. and uh I'm very excited to work here with you all to make sure that Anacortis remains and continues to be an amazing place to live and work. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, item number three are the minutes from 4:14 2026. And um Miss Watson informed me that even if a person wasn't at the meeting that if they chose they could vote on the minutes. Um so shall we see if we have a vote on the minutes? Madam Chair, yes. I uh I move that we accept the M minutes as written. Is there a second?

I just want to confirm uh Tarn had said that he was not comfortable signing off. So is the second not needed then or we How does that happen? I I think we postpone the minutes is what we do. Okay. We'll we'll vote on them next time. So, what if I move to table the minutes until the next meeting? Uh, I'll second that motion. Okay. Move motion to table the minutes until the next meeting. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor say I. I. I. I.

Oppose. Okay. The minutes will be tabled until the next meeting. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Mcomes. Madame Vice Chair, I uh recommend or I move that we excuse Mr. Jerretzky and Mr. Mills uh for their absence at tonight's meeting. And I would second that we know where both of them are and they're not able to be here. Um I don't know if we have a discussion about that, but if you are in favor of uh uh excusing Mr. Dretzky and Mr. Mills from this meeting. Would you please signify by saying I I

I opposed. Okay. So, Mr. Dretzky and Mr. Mills are excused. All right. That brings us to item four, which is public comment time. So, this is the time when uh we welcome the public to speak about anything not related to the agenda tonight. um the agenda. We will give you opportunity to speak if you want to speak on something in the agenda because we have a public hearing. But if there's anything else that you would like to speak, we ask that you come to the podium that you state your name and your city and we will give you three minutes to um give us what say whatever you want to say to us. And I see nobody. And I'm assuming there's nobody online. Okay. All right. Hearing nothing. Um, then we will move on to item five, which is a public hearing. Before we open that public hearing, I'm sure Miss Grage has some things she would like to talk to us about. This item is the Shoreline Master Program periodic update.

Um, thank you, Vice Chair Martin, and good evening, Planning Commission, um, members of the audience and, uh, everyone else. Um, I'm Libby Grage and I'm the planning manager in the planning department and I am here to give an introduction to the uh public hearing that we're holding tonight on the proposed updates to the public participation plan for the Shoreline Master program update. Um, very briefly, um, as a reminder to everyone, we've spent the last couple of months, um, the last two meetings, um, doing an overview of the Shoreline Management Act and the, um, shoreline master program and the status of that update. Um, and so there's some detailed material as part of those packets and also um the video if anyone would like to watch those to refresh your memory or come up to speed on on things. Um, the shoreline master program is the document that regulates all uh uses and developments along the city's shorelines and the shoreline management act um requires that the city have a shoreline master program. um and requires that we review and update it at least every 10 years. Um the city began the periodic update in 2019 uh but for various reasons the adoption was delayed and so now we are reinitiating that update process and with that we are proposing an updated public participation plan which is what we're here to talk about tonight. Um just a reminder of where shoreline

jurisdiction applies in Anacortis. So it's all of the uh marine shorelines um lakes and associated wetlands. Um the draft public participation plan updates you have in your packet. Um we so the initial public participation plan for the SMP update was published back in 2019 when we initially uh began this process and um there are only very slight changes proposed within the draft in your packet. Um I have a couple of bullet points here summarizing um we added a summary of the work that was completed during 2019 through 2022. Um, we also added the S SNP update website address and updated the um, project timeline at the end of the public participation plan. Um, we have received some public comments already, some written public comments from members of the community and um, we have some additional suggested updates that I'd like to just put out there right now before um, holding the public hearing. just so everyone's aware of these. Um we would propose in addition to the changes that are in your packet also uh adding the date for the open house which we have um scheduled for June 9th which is the planning commission's next u meeting. Um and so we're still working out time details and how that will how that will work. Um it might be that we have the open house um the hour before the planning commission meeting and then hold the planning commission meeting.

But um detail more details to come on that. And also uh we'll be sending out um publishing notices to the community and all of the uh regular places so everyone knows that that'll be happening. Um we also would like to update the plan to better clarify how um public comments will be addressed. Uh that a couple of the comments you know requested that we provide more information on how that will be handled and we agree that it would be nice to have some some more clarity in the document around that. Um, additionally adding some more detail about the overall um, procedure of updating the SMP. Um, we recognize that there could be more detail about the planning commission role um, and the city council role in decision-making on the plan. And then finally uh the role of the department of ecology which ultimately we will submit the locally adopted plan to um for their approval. Um we'd also like to update some terminology and clarify tribal coordination procedures. um clarify the scope of the periodic update and also uh provide a link to some frequently asked questions uh document that we've developed. So those are the additional changes that we'd recommend based on what we've heard so far, but I'm sure there'll be more ideas tonight. And uh with that I will step away and we can have the public hearing unless there are any questions for me before that.

Any questions at this point? Okay, Mr. Mcomes. Uh is so the the draft that we're looking at that's with the the items for tonight. Is it will that be updated with those changes that you you were discussing like the frequent the link to the frequently asked questions and clarifying the process?

Yes. So, um the yes, it would be updated. Um there's a couple different ways we could go about it. Um what the planning commission could do after the public hearing if you liked the idea of adding that all of those things to the public participation plan, you could um recommend approval with those changes to the planning commission. Um that's uh what what staff would would recommend doing. Um but they have not been added to the plan yet. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions before we open the public meeting with the public hearing? Okay. So then we're going to actually open the public hearing and we do have one person signed up to speak. And even if you didn't sign up, we'll be happy to give you a chance to speak. But Marlene Finley, would you please come on up to the podium?

Good evening. My name is Marlene Finley. I'm with Evergreen Islands. I'm the president of the board and I live in Anacortis. Um, thank you for this opportunity this evening. I I did submit um for Evergreen Islands a little over one page of comments. It's pretty brief. Um, we really appreciate how the planning department has uh responded to comments in the past and provided rationale and explanation and so we hope you continue to do that. Um, the web page is really helpful with all the information and links since we are picking this up from um, years past. Um, one thing that isn't clear is what's an informal comment versus a formal comment because both were mentioned in the draft plan. Uh we do um it's nice that there um you're receiving public comment during the entire time and then uh but there it also mentioned some public comment periods and some reference to informal versus formal. So that was a little confusing and um I appreciate seeing the frequently asked questions in uh suggestion included this evening in Libbyy's presentation. Last and not directly um uh related to the public participation plan. We're wondering how or if the city's going to address sea level rise and storm severity since the there was state legislation passed to include that in updates to shoreline master programs, but the implementing rules haven't been uh adopted yet. The rulemakings in process. So um that's a question we have as we go forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Come on up.

My name is Mark Niheart. Um I sent comments to you, rather lengthy ones, and I'm asking for specific things, not generalities. I do appreciate that uh the planning um department have recognized there's a need for a little bit more detail, but we need to know what that detail is. And so I would like the planning commission to go through all the comments and review to make the public participation process really robust for nonprofits and for people. I'm a process person, a procedural person, and just to say, well, we're gonna have a little bit more detail doesn't cut it for me. What are the criteria that are going to be used to evaluate the comments? What's the process? How are those comments, you know, come in, acknowledged, then there's uh a response, and then there's an action. If there isn't an action, so how are you guys going to manage that? and and particularly the criteria and who who makes the decision, who's the decision maker and what's their um scientific and ecological background and knowledge about SMP and CAO. Um so we're getting informed decisions and another thing I'd like to make an uh we have you have the opportunity to draw from the public. There's a lot of smart people in Anacortis that have backgrounds in science, they have backgrounds in um shoreline master program and critical area ordinances. If you pulled from that audience, that pool of experts and had working groups that used those people with staff with

you to make decisions and evaluate the comments. You would be involving the public in such a way that when the decisions come out, it's a shared decision. there's less likelihood of lawsuits or appeals or all that other stuff which can happen. But if you're part of the process, we meaning the public and the nonprofits are part of the decision-making process, you might avoid a lot of that. So, I would appreciate and then I'd like to see a couple of these um sessions so we can evaluate the comments that I made, Evergreen Islands made, um Smart Growth Anacortis made, and anybody else. So, we're understanding where why some comments were ignored. Right now, we don't know the criteria and who's making that decision. So I would like to see and I said my two more sessions 45 days apart where we're evaluating the basis of how this plan is going to go forward and that's on public participation. So I appreciate the time talking and just so you know I'm going to make another I'm also the vice president of smart growth Anacortis so I'll want to speak for them also. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Anybody else want to speak about the public participation plan? Okay. Is there anybody online? Well, I'd like to speak for Well, well, sir, you're you're speaking about the public participation plan and you're speaking as your name, Mr. Niheart. Now I want to speak as vice president of smart grow. Uh I that does not make sense to me but you know what we have time. Why not?

Is that okay? I concur. Okay. One concur. Why not? You have three minutes.

So I'll make this a little briefer. Smart Growth Anacortis would like to see again a really engaged public process that the uh the planning commission, the planning department, council, mayor. And part of that process is making sure that you use all the media sources that you have available. Not just publishing something in the Anacortis American and have a pull but rather have a push of when these events are happening more education on them. So we're actively engaging the public, not passively engaging the public. So we can get the most people here in meetings like this. So you get public participation which is important in the democracy if we believe we have a democracy anymore. Um so people aren't blindsided and they'll feel blindsided if they aren't actively sought off sought after. So that's my other one. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Well, we're talking about the public participation plan and we do want public participation. That's for sure. Um, so there's no nobody online, nobody else wanting to speak, then I'm going to close the public hearing for tonight. And uh we'll I think we're we need to have a conversation as planning commissioners now to you you've been able to read um what has been proposed. What would you like to say? I am curious about the uh proposed engagement with the list of stakeholders. Um what does that look like from the city? What does that engagement look like? I'm going to say we're engaging our stakeholders. What is the city doing?

Are you speaking about like the open house or something? No, in the uh public engagement opportunities, it says list of stakeholders and the city will engage the following list of stakeholders. Yes. There's not like Okay. Some of these are pretty straightforward, state government, local government, you know, you email the people who need to know and they get involved, but there's also members of publiced groups and individuals, which there are several. What does that engage with stakeholders look like?

So, I can I can respond to that. Um so typically um what's it what it's involved in the past is um initially uh sending out a notice um or an invitation to participate in the process to um the people or and the groups that are listed in this list and and others um that we are able to identify as potentially having a an interest in um shoreline management issues. Um and then uh subsequent to that, you know, typically we would um you know, if there are members of the community that would like to meet with us, um you know, at the planning department to discuss the S&P update, um you know, giving presentations potentially to groups that request it, um presentations by staff, uh um we are in we are requesting information and notifying state agencies like WDFW and ecology and um uh DNR about, you know, that we're reinitiating this process. And so there's um back and forth engagement that occurs between the city and those agencies. Um so that's there's there's not a um set schedule, but that's what it would look like uh based on past experience.

Okay. In addition, during the three plus year process, we had lots of comments and staff built a email list and so we're identifying the people in the uh anybody that submitted their email during that process. We've already uh been sending emails to um the PE anybody who signed up for the planning commission uh or uh PCED general notices are also getting the emails. Um, we've done a Facebook post on this. Um, we've done uh we did direct mailers to property owners in the shoreline jurisdiction and then we intend to do that again. Um, from what we understand, most of the organizations that are interested in shoreline activities are already in our list of people that we've been contacted and uh, you know, so and uh, so they're still in our list of people that are receiving emails from us. I'm wondering if um we could impose upon the mayor and ask him in his announcements every week that he could make an announcement that you know especially the open house coming up. That would be a great opportunity and probably a wider audience that way. Any other ideas? Can I ask a question?

Questions, Mr. Mcomes.

Uh, is there is there a an existing criteria that the city uses for adjudicating comments that are made by citizens? Um, yeah. Well, so largely it's filtered through what the state requires us to do. So that's that's first what we do is we make sure that we're following the uh the state guidelines and uh meeting the state requirements for an update and and science. Uh and then beyond that it's what's filtered through the planning commission. So the planning commission receives all of all of the comments and are discussed here and then we have a matrix. Uh so if you imagine if somebody submits you pro you may remember this from the plan from the comprehensive plan update. Uh if somebody submits a comment we'll typically assign it a number and a date and uh then list their comment or have a link to the comment that itself because sometimes it's lengthy and we don't we can only summarize so much and then a brief statement about how we addressed their comment or you know where it fits in. So that's done as part of the process already is to to address the comment and I guess respond to it publicly.

Yeah, we don't send individual responses to everybody that's emailed, but we do put it in that matrix, that spreadsheet, uh so it's available for the planning commission to review and for all the community to review. So pretty similar to then the comprehensive Mr. Alana. Oh, sorry. That's okay. Sorry. That's okay. Yes. So very similar in the matrix to the public comments at the comprehensive plan update, you know, where things were addressed. Correct. Okay.

And and if um memory serves, when we had that matrix, we spent at least one meeting that I can recall, maybe more, going over each of those comments and, you know, people had things they needed to say about it. So, sounds like similar process. Um, for those in the audience to get the word out to your friends and neighbors, it would be great to have a lot of people at these meetings and because the shoreline is important to us, all of us. So, that would be great. Uh the are there any uh questions or comments about the scope of the public participation plan? Because we're we're being asked to make a recommendation to the city council for their decision about this. And you have a in your packet, you have a sample motion that you might want to update with these additional suggestions.

Madame vice chairman, I guess as a comment, the you know, most of the heavy lifting on on the shoreline master plan was was done years ago, right? So, as far as this update goes, and so, um, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this, you know, it's a we have an 80% solution already. There's been extensive public comment on this already. And so, we're trying to kind of get this across the finish line in terms of of the requirement for the state and and other agencies for the

um and the city, right? So I think this is a bit of an abbreviated process in terms of of the shoreline master plan update because it's already a lot of the work has already been done. And so in terms of what the public comment I guess the public participation plan is um it what I see is adequate. I like these additional suggestions. I think that's good. Um but the I guess it is uh it's a We we've already hashed this out. The city has already hashed out a lot of the details for this. And so we're kind of we're giving it a a more of an abbreviated look. It's not as comprehensive as a comp comprehensive plan uh was last year, right? So I guess that that would be my comment uh for discussion.

Miss Gra, you look like you wanted to make a comment about the comment. Well, um, well, I was just going to say that, um, clarifying the scope of the periodic update, it will be important so that people know what to expect. Um, and we already do have a a third draft, a draft of the proposed updates that was released for public review in 2022. And so we're building from that point. Um and that's on the website. Um this is a periodic update uh which under ecologies requirements requires us to look at the changes that have occurred in state law and um ecologies rules since the last update. Um, and so we did a lot of that work during the earlier process with a gap analysis that identified all of the state laws that have changed and then what we needed to change in the S&P to address those things. Um, we plan on updating that gap analysis to identify any new changes that have occurred since, you know, between 2022 and now. Um we will also be reviewing the S SMP for consistency with our recently updated comprehensive plan and development regulations. Um those are the required elements of a SMP periodic update. Um and so uh that that will be the scope that that staff is proposing at this point.

Just a quick question. your um timeline shows that that gap analysis will be updated between May and June. That still doable. It's only miday. Yeah, because it would it would be nice to have that prior to the open house is my thinking. I don't know that that will that will happen. We can certainly try. Um but that that's uh um we'll see. My my thinking is that will um allow members of the public to hear what the changes of the law um

going forward would be and that that might be helpful. Yeah. And I don't um you know I don't think that there have been many uh so that part of things should not be too complicated. So I will I will try to expedite that that part of the um uh work that needs to happen. Okay. Any other comments from commissioners? Mr. Madame Vice Chair. Yes.

Thank you for recognizing me. Um I was just considering the public comments that we've received today and the submissions in writing here on the proposed public outreach plan. Thank you. Knew it knew at this and uh you know Mr. Niheart he was suggesting and uh as was the um smart growth additional public comment uh public hearings public outreach or uh open houses similar to today and I see that in the timeline here we're going to have at least one more um and I see you know we're going to have a pretty robust uh answering the comments ments that we get in from the planning department. Um it looks like some of these are uh pretty covered. There is this informal versus formal comments that I didn't understand from Evergreen Islands and I don't know what that means or how what the difference between those two things are and I would like to hear if the city has anything to say about that.

So I think that that is a great question and um I think it's confusing as well. Um, and so, uh, staff would recommend I think the mention of informal comments is in the public participation plan goals. Um, we could just remove the informal word. Um, so that we're treating all uh, comments the same. Um, because I uh, I'm not sure what the difference would be either. So, that we could add that to the list. Mhm.

So, I'm looking at the the third bullet. Uh it's on page uh one of five or three of 16, depending on what you're looking at. Says, "Encourage the public to informally review and comment on the update throughout the process." So, you're suggesting just take the word informally out of there. We could Does that sit okay with the rest of the commission? It does except for that was the review. Is that also apply to comment? Sorry, could you say that again, please?

Oh, I'm just looking and it says that um that we're encou encouraging the public to informally review and comment. Um, what would the I guess yes, that would be the place that you would take informally out, but I'm just wondering if you can describe what the formal part of that would be. Well, it it would say encourage the public to review and comment on the update throughout the process.

Yeah. And then Oh, may I may I say something? Sure. Actually, I yield.

This language was taken, this informally was taken from the department of ecologies draft like recommended language for a PPP. I think what it is intended to me is like in addition to the formal process, we also encourage you to accept letters informally. Now we have formal comment periods and formal uh comment forums like this. So formal written comment period and a formal comment period at public hearings. But as we did with the comprehensive plan, we just accepted comments the whole time and put it into the record and didn't really differentiate between Well, this one came in during the didn't come in during the the formal comment period from May 16th to June 16th. So, I don't know if we should accept it. I I think that's not really what we're trying to do. We don't want to get too tripped up on this language. All we want to say is we're we're going to accept comments through the process. There will definitely be a time when we have to stop making comments when we need to actually start making decisions. So, um I think what this is trying to say is take take that formal comment period with a grain of salt and just feel free to accept comments along the way. Um but if the if the language is confusing we can just I I think if we eliminate that you know we'll we'll take comment eliminate the word informal we'll accept comments throughout the process until the official comment periods need to stop.

Okay Mr. Ohana

thank you madame vice chair and thank you thank you Mr. Coleman. Um that helps because we do have formal like defined by law public comment periods and um this this point where it says update throughout the process that indicates to me that we're our goal is to accept comments of all types during the whole process not just during the formal comment period. So, I'm okay removing this kind of informal language, but leaving in the comment process and accept those comments. Thank you. Anybody else?

Okay. So, now we're looking at a um possible motion. Madam Vice Chairman, yes, Mr. Mcomes,

I move that the planning commission recommend to the city council adopt the updated public participation plan for the shoreline master plan as presented with the changes uh to include added an additional openhouse date in June. clarifying the public uh comment process including removing the word informally from the draft. Uh increasing the details about decision-m process, updating the terminology and clarifying uh tribal coordination procedures, clarifying scope of the periodic update and providing links to frequently asked questions. Over.

Is there a second? I second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to recommend to the city council to adopt the updated public participation plan for the S&P periodic update uh with the changes listed on this slide and the striking the word uh informal under public participation goals. Any further comments? If not, uh I think we can just we don't have to do a roll call vote. Yeah. All those in favor uh say I I

I

opposed. Nobody opposed. So that passes unanimously. All right. Moving on to item 6A, proposed amendments to AMC19-2.20, application procedures, legal lot determinations and criteria for recognizing historic platted lots. And this is a discussion item only. Okay, thank you. Uh it's me again and um mentioned um or thank you for introducing this item uh the purpose of the proposed amendment. So you have a in your packet you have the um draft text that shows uh the proposed amendment language and strike through underline. Um the proposed amendment would um create a legal lot determination process um and review criteria. So the the current an anacordis municipal code um doesn't have a clear process for recognizing older platted lots as individually um buildable and um uh able to be separated from contiguous

lots that are under common ownership um without going through a subdivision process. Um, and I'll get I'll talk more about that, get get more into detail here in a minute. Um, but the but this uh the proposed amendments are intended to create that process and identify criteria for what um what would make a lot eligible to be uh recognized as separately buildable. Um so this is an existing gap in our code and um we also are following the executive order on permit streamlining which identified this particular uh problem and um directed staff to propose some code amendments to address the problem. Um so as background um there are a lot of existing parcels in the city of Anacortis um that are that consist of multiple underlying lots. So older um platted lots that were created in the 1890s and early 1900s. Um you know right around the time Anacortis was first incorporated in 1891 there was a lot of activity around um uh recording surveys and these plats in order to um sell lots. Um and so large portions of the city were platted out in this way at this time. Um the historic plats obviously because they were done in the 1890s and early 1900s um predate current zoning requirements. So today we have minimum lot sizes and

you know all kinds of different development regulations um dimensional requirements and we also have a um subdivision state subdivision law and uh local subdivision rules and regulations that we apply to proposals to um divide and develop land. So these um did not go through any of that type of review that early on. Um, so in many of these areas where the where these historic plats were recorded, um, they've since been developed with buildings and street improvements and utility infrastructure. Um, in some cases, a parcel that is made up of multiple of these underlying smaller lots, so they're usually about 3,000 square feet, 30 by 100. Um, in some cases, a parcel may not need all of the uh consecutive lots that it is made up of in in order to meet the today's minimum lot size requirement. And so we have um folks who are uh seeing that and saying, I have, you know, I have four 3,000 square foot lots. Um I would like to segregate off one of those lots and sell it separately uh for for development. um the and as I mentioned we don't have a a clear process for um somebody to apply for that determination about whether uh you know that um well we don't have a clear process or criteria for staff to review. So this this hopefully will address that need. Um, this is just showing an example of what I'm talking about when I talk about the old platted lots.

Um, this is well, it doesn't matter where it is because we're not going to have specific examples, but or this isn't intended to, you know, this is just a madeup example. Um, using a real plat and a real aerial, but uh, everything else is made up. Um so in this case this is the old plat screenshot of the old plat and the 30 foot wide lots 30 by 100 um the alley platted alley and then the streets all around. Uh and then in this is what that particular block looks like today. So you can see that for instance this this house here is actually on four underlying platted lots. Um does anybody have any questions about that? Okay, good. Um, and you can also see that the surrounding, you know, the surrounding neighborhoods and and other parcels within this block and all around have been developed and they all contain these well most of them have more than one of those underlying uh platted lots. So um the the question that we get is okay if this um this land is in the R4 zone for instance where the minimum lot size is 3,000 square ft and I have 12 or excuse me yeah 12,000 square feet um four 3,000 foot lots um can I separate off Oops. excuse me, lot 20 and sell it to somebody else and and can they build on it? Um and and what what are the

criteria for determining if the city will uh approve something like that? So what we're proposing in the code to uh create a process for this review and determination is to add a lot legal lot determination process to our procedures table in uh 192030 and you'll see that in the in the um draft amendments that are in your packet. Um we are also proposing to revise the project permit eligibility criteria in 192050. Um which currently only refers to a uh lot of record. Um so lot of record is a lot that was created um in accordance with whatever regulations were in place at the time it was created. So, as long as a lot, you know, went through a subdivision process under the city's subdivision regulations or before under the county's regulations, um it would be considered a um lot of record. Where it gets a little more uh confusing is for those older platted lots that that occurred before modern-day subdivision requirements um before 1937. which I'll talk about here more in a minute. Um so the project permit eligibility. So this is the review that staff go through. Um currently when we are reviewing a new application for um a new structure or a land use permit application, we uh under the current code are required to make sure that the lot that is being proposed to be developed on is a lot of record that it

was created legally. And the city um is not able to issue permits for lots that were not created um that are not lots of record. Um so the so the code amendment would create this these additional criteria for whether a project permit is eligible. Is it a legal lot of record or excuse me is it a legal lot according to these criteria that I will talk about in just a minute. Um is it not otherwise restricted from development? So, um, for example, in in newer subdivisions, there are lots or tracks that are created that have that are NGPEs or open space tracks that um, you know, are restricted from development. Uh, so those obviously wouldn't be eligible for new per uh, development and does the lot meet the minimum lot size for the zone. So those are the kind of the three criteria uh for whether a project permit can be issued on a on a um lot. So number one um a lot is a legal lot per 192060. So now we'll get into what that criteria is for being a a legal lot. Um so the things that we're looking at here are was the lot uh created in compliance with the regulations in place at the time of its establishment which we've talked about. And there are kind of three different eras of uh subdivision regulation that we're looking for um when we're trying to make this determination. Um pre937 is uh a time when modern subdivision

Whoops. Sorry, typo. Modern subdivision standards. There were no there were no modern subdivision standards. So, uh mostly, you know, plats and surveys were recorded just for the purpose of selling lots. There was no requirement for improvements, streets, um zoning, etc. um from 1937 at 19 in 1937 um that was when the state of Washington enacted its first uh sort modern um subdivision regulations uh that first required um city or local jurisdiction approval of plat of subdivisions. So there was some um review and oversight associated with that. And then in 1953 is when Anacortis uh adopted its first um formal land division regulations. So those are kind of the the three different eras of subdivision regulations where um people, you know, we would we would be reviewing lots to make sure that they were created under one of these. If the lot was created prior to 1937, you would go to this new uh criteria section. And what we're looking for here would be that um so going back to our example of the R4 lot on our aerial photo that I was uh showing just a minute ago. Um we'd be looking for whether each lot so this this is going to apply to contiguous lots that are under the same ownership. So we'd be looking at all of the lots as as a whole um be while we're doing this evaluation of whether one can be segregated off. So um does each lot meet the minimum lot size for the zone and

other development regulations? Um can each of the lots independently meet the standards of the current day sub uh development regulations? um making sure that there's been no prior uh merger of the lots. Sometimes um uh we'll have an application for boundary line adjustment that aggregates lots together and that's a legal document where um you can't un merge them without going through a subdivision process. Um, we'll want to make sure that there are adequate provisions for uh, water, sewer, and storm water management for each of the lots and that they each have um, you know, connection available and are able to manage their storm water on on their own site. and um also that the um there will not be any creation or increase of any nonconformity. So is there like in our example here if this house was built just a little bit farther to the right um to the point where it was like right on that lot line and couldn't meet the minimum setback for the zone which is 5T. We wouldn't want to uh allow segregation of that lot if it would create a non-conforming structure to the to that recognized lot line. Um ensuring that adequate access exists to the lot. And then uh the last one would be that um we wouldn't be able to approve um recognition of this individual lot if it would result in avoiding requirements that would otherwise apply as part of a

subdivision if we applied the subdivision um regulations to the lot. So looking for um are there sidewalks, street improvements, utilities, is all of that, you know, already there at the lot? They just need to connect. There's no major infrastructure improvement that needs to happen. Um, so if the lot meets all those criteria, then um it would be a legal lot for development and the city would um issue a don't know what this would look like yet, but it would be approved. Um, and then the person could take that information to the Scadget County assessor who would then assign a separate um parcel number for the lot. Oh, I should have had this up the whole time. So, this is um just an example of the that same lot that we've been looking at. Um it's a survey showing those four underlying lots. Uh the house is located far enough from the property line here that it's not going to become non-conforming if this lot is segregated off. Um, and we know from the aerial that all of the improvements are there. Uh, so I just went through all of the proposed criteria and, um, in this case, this lot 20 could be sold separately. Um, okay. So this is so that's a case where all the infrastructure is there. It's, you know, we no subdivision is required because everything's already there. There's no reason to put somebody through a full subdivision process when when uh we have that situation. Um,

here's an example of where a subdivision would be required. Going through the full uh subdivision process to look at um requirements for building a new public street for extending sewer um and extending water. So, this is the these are the platted lots, underlying lots. And then here's what it looks like today. You can see it's vacant here under the same ownership. Um, but in order to sell any of those underlying lots individually, if they did meet the minimum lot size, uh, state subdivision law and Anacortis uh, code says that we need to review the site for compliance with subdivision standards. So coordinated review of infrastructure um before uh allowing individual lots to be sold. That's all that's what I've got. Um you have the proposal. There's still you'll see in there there's still need for a little bit of refinement. Um, but I'm here mostly to get input um and questions and uh you know, planning commission's feedback on what what you think of this and whether we need to make further refinements.

Okay, commissioners. Madame Vice Chair, Miss Underwood,

um just curious, how often does this actually create permit barriers for uh residents? Um well I think that the uncertainty regarding what the criteria are and what the process are process is for this for authorizing separate sale is the barrier and it's um somewhat frequent because you know as lot as um zoning changes and minimum lot sizes change you know we we're going to see more of these kinds of requests. Um so it it it has been we have seen examples of where it has been a a barrier.

And just a a second question. Um so one of the things said that you couldn't make something more unconforming. Is that how I read that? So, if you had a lot that had a house that was uh non-conforming that you could still subdiv or you could still divide the lot up as long as you're not making that worse. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sure.

Anybody else? Madame vice chair?

Yes. I I just wanted to add that I think this is a this is right getting ahead of the curve situation for a lot of these lots that are older. I happen to live in an area that was all platted out in 1890 and then it was reaed and this and um we don't have a lot of these non-conforming lots like we do in other parts of town, but they're definitely there. I really like how um they've added in this this business with um the the criteria for recognition of these lots like there there's a I think that's going to safeguard the city from being on the hook for a lot of improvements that you know basically I see this happening as oh we can do this subdivision or this we can recognize this existing previous subdivision if all of these things are already in place and if they're not, we can't. I think it's a good safeguard. That's my comment. Thank you.

I also um I kept finding April 19th, 1978 throughout here. So, I was curious and actually went to AI to find out what is that. So, um it's it what it is is the zoning. the first time that the city council uh established foundational zoning ordinances or a sub or a foundational zoning ordinance. Um and and as I was looking I guess I understand I think I understand why you uh list the different periods you know with prior to 1937 and 1953. I wonder if somehow that monumental 1978 zoning um ordinance maybe should be in there as well, but maybe not. I kind of get it. Yeah. Um I think that that is an important date um for knowing whether uh the aggregation requirements apply to um substandard lots. So for in zones where the minimum lot size is higher than 3,000 ft² um if there are uh multiple um 3,000 foot lots under the same ownership, they're considered aggregated until it reaches the minimum lot size for for the zone. Um, if sometimes it will occur where somebody has a a non-conforming lot or a substandard lot that's 3,000 square ft

in the R2 zone and it has been under separate ownership since that 1978 date. And at that point, the city can recognize that lot as a buildable lot because it's been separately owned for, you know, since that zoning ordinance that you're talking about in 1978 that created the larger minimum lot sizes. So, I don't I'm not sure if it fits in the um in the section that's talking about uh when the lot was created um for purposes of, you know, determining if we have lots of record. Um I think about that though.

So, is the R4 that that's the only zone I think that allows 3,000 square foot lots? Um the R4 and the R4A zones um allow for 3,000 square foot lots, but um you know, we also see situations um which we process under a boundary line adjustment right now where in other zones like the R 2A zone where the minimum lot size is 6,000 square ft, somebody will own um you know 12,000 square ft all contiguous and they'll want to u be able to sell off the other uh 2 3,000 square foot lots. Um and in those cases we're we're doing a boundary line adjustment because those lots are being merged to meet the minimum lot size. That makes sense.

Um I'm not sure if I answered your question. I think I went off track there. I'm sorry. No, I No, I I do understand that um what we're talking about is lots versus zoning. So, that makes sense to me. Yeah. Right.

Any other comments? H what what what's the next step in the process? Um so the next step in the process is going to be to take the any feedback that we get from you um and refine the draft amendments. You could see that we still have a little bit more work to do there. Um, in addition, and we'll develop the final draft amendments that we'll put out for public formal public comment and um schedule a public hearing with the planning commission so that members of the public can um uh give input to you on these code amendments. Uh we haven't so um putting out the final draft for public comment, scheduling a public hearing, and then a planning commission recommendation to city council.

Okay. Madame vice chair. Yes. Uh one more question. Um under the recognition of the historic platted lots on number four, it said that uh adequate provisions are made for water supply uh uh sewer service and storm water. Is there like a a qualifier that says what that what needs to be met for that? Um who determines adequate I guess is my question.

Yeah. No, that's a that's a great question that um we probably need to have a little bit better detail. Um either in the code or well probably in the code. Um I think the the main point is that um for this one we're looking at okay the water service or the water man doesn't have to be extended or the you know sewer main doesn't have to be extended. It's it's available right there and they just need to you know bring it from the pipe to the to the new house.

That makes sense. Um, also something that comes up with these particular situations is you'll have uh utility lines, private utility lines that are crossing the lots that somebody wants to um segregate off and sell. And so part of this review process is making sure that those are identified and um if needed that you know private easements are are granted so that we don't end up you know with people at the counter in 10 years asking you know what happened here. So it's for you know trying to uh streamline the process and also um ensure that there are you know public improvements consistent with the um subdivision requirements and you know protecting future property owners too just to make sure that when their lot was established all of that was looked at.

Thank you. Okay. No chair, just I was looking at the zoning since you asked like what zones. R3A also is 3,000 square feet. Good job. Good job, lady. So, R3A, R4, R48. Very good. So, if you look at your zoning map, it it's fair amount.

Yeah. All right. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Item number seven, I'm moving on to planning department update. Good evening, planning commission, members of the public. I'm John Coleman, the director of planning, community, and economic development. Um, I am not recalling any recent planning commission items that have gone to the city council. Uh, I think the last time we met, um, it is it is possible that maybe I'm repeating myself, but planning commission fairly recently um did make recommendations what for the vehicle repair and the industrial zone and some of those uh other changes related to that and that did go to the city council and uh make its way through pretty cleanly without any changes. So, um thank you for getting that one processed quickly and city council was able to review it and change the code uh really quick. That happened so quick that I forgot about it already because it went to planning commission or it went to planning commission a month ago and I think city council approved it um like two weeks after that. So it's already been a couple of weeks, two, three weeks ago. Um and then just welcome to yet another new uh planning commission member. You already introduced yourself. Um, we

did receive uh another resignation notice from uh a planning commission member. So, we are again looking for a new planning commission member. We're going to have a whole new look here pretty quick. But Paul Ryan has submitted a resignation. He's uh just got a lot going on at home and new job and stuff. So, uh thanks to Mr. Brian for his service and uh we'll see if we can have a new planning commission sooner than new planning commissioner sooner than later and we don't have any additional uh like extra planning commission meetings scheduled this month. So our next regular meeting is going to be uh June 9th I believe.

Okay. Well, thank you Mr. Coleman. And anything else for the good of the order? If not, I don't think it's a record, but we are adjourned. 712