Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

in his six o'clock.

Good evening. Let's start the September 15th Planning Commission meeting. If you're willing and able, please stand and 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. Thank you. Please go ahead and take the roll.

Mills.

Mr. Mills is not here tonight.

McCombs.

Mr. McComb's not here tonight.

Sage.

Present.

Juratsky.

Present.

Martin. Here. Underwood. Present.

Ohana.

Present. I'd like to maybe have a motion to excuse Mr. Mills and Mr. McComb from tonight's meeting, unable to be here.

I so move.

Do we have a second?

I second.

All right. All in favor of that motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed by the same sign. Motion passes. We've got the minutes from the July 14th meeting. Any questions or comments?

Mr. Chairman, I have two comments or desire to correct the record. Specifically, in the minutes, I'm cited as referring to Rocky Balls, but I was, in fact, referring to Rocky Balds, a unique ecotype here in the Puget Sound. OK. B-A-L-D, as in dog, S, bald.

Or eagle. Yes, clerk. I noted, and you had two points. Do you want them in? That's really it. That's really it. Would someone like to make a motion to accept the minutes with that one correction?

Mr. Chairman, I would so move.

Thank you.

Second.

All right. We have a motion to accept the minutes with one correction. The word bald, V-A-L-D. And all in favor, say aye. Aye. I all opposed by the same sign. Here's the motion passes. This is an opportunity for public comment. Can anybody you'd like to step forward and talk about anything that's not on the agenda for tonight? Please step forward, state your name and your your address or your where you live and please step forward. Not all at one time. Do we have any calls or comments online? All right, we'll go ahead and close the public comment. Moving on. Ms. Grange, are you ready?

Yes. Excuse me. Hi. Good evening, everyone. You hear me? Okay. My name is Libby Grage. I'm the Planning Manager in the Planning, Community, and Economic Development Department for the City of Anacortes. And I am pleased to be here this evening to introduce this package of proposed code amendments to Title 19, the City's Unified Development Code, and to give a brief-ish introduction prior to opening the public hearing that has been advertised and scheduled for this evening. So the purpose of the amendment package is to implement the Mayor's Executive Order 2026-2 to make which included directions to make development permit review more efficient and predictable and more outcomes-focused. The proposed amendment package before you is intended to... City Council Chambers, assist in in that goal by clarifying roles of the different permit types that the city administers and also responsibilities associated with land use site construction and building permit types. And the amendments also clarify how permits can be sequenced or reviewed together with the goal of improving coordination and avoiding repeated reviews between each permit that is required for a project. The proposal provides limited administrative flexibility for minor numeric adjustments and circumstances the code did not reasonably anticipate, subject to clear criteria and safeguards, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in one of the upcoming slides. And most importantly, this is primarily a procedural modernization of the code's permit review process. It doesn't broadly change what uses are allowed in the zone or the applicable standards for density, height, lock coverage, environmental protection, or public safety. So to go over the process in developing this code amendment package, the process began in April of this year with the mayor's issuance of the executive order 202602. Staff reviewed Title 19 and began preparing the proposed amendments to implement that executive order. On August 17th, the draft proposal was released for public review. August 19th, a SEPA determination of non-significance was issued. Excuse me. And the there was an associated comment period and appeal period with that dns and there were not any appeals received on that determination staff received all public and agency comments that were received um as of the we had some come in you know this week so um those should be uh have been forwarded to you um And I also believe that we have printed copies, potentially. I printed some up, and Grace is going to bring them down.

Maybe.

Yeah. Okay. So, and then tonight, of course, is the public hearing. So that's kind of what has happened procedurally following the city's legislative process and what we need to do to adopt amendments to the development regulations. So tonight's public hearing is Planning Commission's opportunity to receive testimony and consider the the record before you and recommend Recommend Approval changes approval approval changes or denial and the planning commission's recommendation does not necessarily need to include specific textual edits or the exact language that would be in an amendment package that goes forward to city council you are able to provide guidance and direction and recommendations about you know things that you would like to to see and staff would develop that for city council. And so that is an option. So before getting into the substance of the amendments, I think it is important to get an understanding of how the city's permit process operates within a detailed state law framework. so the requirements for permit processing are live within the both the growth management act and the local project review act and together these laws call for review that is fair timely clear and predictable they require the city to coordinate related permits and environmental review provide required notices, observe limits on hearings and appeals, and to issue decisions within established timeframes. State law also distinguishes procedural completeness from substantive review. And that basically means that an application is procedurally complete when it contains the materials identified for submission, but the city may still request additional information needed to determine whether the project complies with applicable standards. So that means that an application, when it's submitted, we have to look at it to see, does it include all of the documents that the city says are required to be submitted with that application type? And if it does, then the city must call the application procedurally complete. We can't do a review of the permit materials to see if, you know, is everything correct? Are there inconsistencies between reports and plans? We can't do a substantive review in determining completeness. So just wanting to clarify that. So I'm saying all this because these requirements matter because the city doesn't have unlimited discretion in the way that the city chooses to design its permit process. Title 19 must provide a process that preserves substantive standards and public participation while also avoiding unnecessary duplication, delay, and repeated review. So the amendments that we're going to talk about this evening should be evaluated not only as operational improvements to the city's permit review process and system, but also as part of the city's responsibility to maintain a permit system that complies with state law. So AMC Title 19 is our unified development code, and that is our primary tool for carrying out that state legal framework that I just talked about into the local regulations and day-to-day development review. Title 19 is a unified development code, and so that means that it brings together the city's land use and development regulations together into one huge coordinated title. The Title 19 implements the Annapurna Comprehensive Plan and applicable land use laws, state land use laws, by answering several fundamental questions. So it answers what type of development is allowed in a particular location, how much development may occur, what standards apply, and how compliance will be reviewed through a permit review system. For Title 19, Title 19 combines regulations addressing zoning and allowed uses, land division, critical areas, stormwater clearing, clearing and grading, all of the technical development regulations that go along with development proposal in the city. and then finally of course it coordinates the distinct roles of each of the types of permits land use approval site construction review and building permit understanding those separate but connected functions is central to this amendment package because many of the proposed changes are working to clarify when each type of permit review occurs, what it decides and how the reviews all fit together. So having a good understanding of how all of that works, making that clear in our code is intended to improve the overall process efficiency and make sure that staff is reviewing everything that we need to in the most efficient way that we can. Okay, so when staff began drafting the proposed updates to implement the mayor's executive order, we noticed some other things in Title 19, which are some of the things that we're going to talk about tonight. Some of the things that we noticed were that there are unclear permit rules and review boundaries. So What a permit approves, what level of detail is required to approve a certain type of permit are not extremely clear in our code. They could be improved. The code also provides limited flexibility for, oops, excuse me, Yeah, so the code as it exists right now, some of the lack of clarity in permit types and review boundaries can result in staff requesting prematurely engineering fully engineered plans where those aren't necessarily needed at the certain point in the permit process where a decision is ready to be made. And then also the something that's lacking in our code is allowance for flexibility to address unusual site conditions. And so. This is a table that is just showing kind of the full scope of the amendments and what they would and would not do. Again, as I mentioned, the proposal primarily modernizes how permits are coordinated and reviewed. It doesn't broadly change what development is allowed or the substantive standards that apply to a particular development permit. The proposed changes clarify permit rules, improve sequencing, make targeted changes concerning administrative flexibility, lot status, permit expiration, and fence exemptions. But also equally important is what the amendments won't do, and I mentioned this already, they won't change allowed uses or zoning. They won't increase permitted density, height, or lot coverage for any zone. Sorry, I'm getting warm. They won't eliminate any required public notice, hearings, or appeal rights that exist for current project permit types. They don't reduce critical area, shoreline, stormwater, or other environmental protections. They don't waive building, fire, engineering, or infrastructure life safety requirements. And they don't transfer any type 3 or type 4 decision authority to administrative staff. And I mention all this because I think in some of the public comments that we did receive made statements that some of those things were occurring through these amendments. And that is not accurate. OK. So table 1920.03.0 is where the code provides an overview of the permits and reviews that are administered through Title 19. So this is a screenshot showing within the draft code amendments that you have in your package. This is just actually an excerpt, but this is the table that you would go to if you knew that you needed a certain type of permit. It tells you what type of permit it is and what the review process is for that specific type of permit. Most of the types of permits that are listed in the table are actually project permits as defined under the state law and are therefore subject to state and local project review requirements. Other types of permits are supporting reviews or approvals that serve a different function. So you probably can't see that.

Oh, I can zoom in.

So this is, again, these are the proposed amendments, so you're seeing the track changes version. But under type one administrative, you can see that, for example, shoreline exemptions, this was kind of a bad screenshot for me to get, but a level one site plan review, sign permits, those are all type one administrative ministerial actions that are decided by the planning director. So as I mentioned, for each of the types of permits, and I'm sorry I didn't grab the full table, but for each type of permit, the rest of the table goes through and shows, you know, what the steps in each application review process are. And who has decision making authority over the permits, so the only changes that are made to this table are to add the site construction permit which you can see I highlighted here in yellow. And this is a new type of permit that essentially. formalizes a type of review that the city already does. It just doesn't have a specific permit name in our code to attach engineering reviews of detailed engineering civil construction plans. And so that is one of the amendments that's proposed is to add provisions for site construction and then add it into the table. And then also adding lot status determination into the table so that there is a clear process and appeal process for those determinations. The other changes, I mean, it looks like there's a lot changing here, but there's really not. There are a lot of, we looked at, proposed to add these code sections, these code references to the actual substantive provisions of each of these permit types. So if you clicked on each of these links, it would take you to, okay, here's what's required for the city to determine whether an application is expired. And so it's kind of a way to link the table with actual standards that apply. So we did that for all of the different types of permits and changed some wording under the pre-application conference and pre-application neighborhood meeting. And again, this is intended to be clarification. It does not change. Where a pre-application meeting was required under the current code, it would still be required under the amendments It's not changing any yeses to nos. Okay.

Libby?

Yeah.

There is one other change. Oh. We're eliminating fence permits as a permit type.

Oh, yeah. Thank you for that. And I think that the cross out Okay, so, um, So as I mentioned, this proposal clarifies or tries to clarify the three distinct permit functions. And so as I mentioned, project permits, that is actually a state under the Local Project Review Act. Project permits are defined type of permit that come along with certain requirements under state law that the city has to then in turn implement. And so that type of permit is like a other that's called a land use permit sometimes it's where the land use and environmental review occurs for a particular project and examples are a site plan review. conditional use permit, land division, critical area permits, shoreline permits, and the list goes on. And as I mentioned, site construction permit is sort of kind of the next phase in a project, overall project review, and that approves detailed civil and site construction, including grading, drainage, utilities, streets, and landscaping. So kind of the site work that's associated with a proposal. And then building permits approve building construction and reviews permits for building structural energy and life safety requirements. So some projects might require all three of these permits. Some projects may only require a building permit. A project permit on its own does not authorize construction. A project permit is implemented through a site construction permit or a building permit. Does that make sense?

So I want to pause here for a moment because a lot of the changes around this A lot of the confusion about what's happening resolves around this kind of really nuanced part of the code. Project permits are defined in the RCW. Project permits in the RCW specifically exclude certain other types of permits, including a building permit. So a lot of the changes that we're making are... uh to clarify and sort of in reaction to the rcw changes that have happened over the past few years to make sure that we're in line with those um and we're using this opportunity to draw a bright line between a project permit which sounds very generic But it's actually very specific to land use applications and entitlement type applications. And Libby pointed that out really well. I just wanted to pause and let that sink in a little bit. Whereas a site construction permit is... not just an approval to do something on the land. It is the actual approval of a construction document like site drawings for usually utilities or some sort of at ground level or below ground type of work. Dirt work is often what it's referred to as. And a building permit is pretty specific to a structure, something above the ground. Unless, of course, it's in basements or something like that. So that's why we've done a whole lot of language changes and text changes throughout the code just to clarify project permits or land use permits and entitlement type permits. And they're separate from the kind of permits that approve construction. entitlement permits generally come ahead of an approval of a construction permit, right? Like if you're doing a land subdivision, you submit your, we'll say a long plat application where you subdivide the land into different lots. That's the land use permit. During that, you don't submit construction permits that say how you're going to build the road or the utilities And from a developer's perspective, you want to get that land use entitlement out of the way first. So you want to get approval for the actual use on the land before you spend a bunch of money paying an engineer or an architect to then design the details of the underground utilities or the building itself. That's why the big change. And then some of the other confusing changes that I think Libby's going to get into is timing of those two applications. So we're going to, I think Libby's going to get into sometimes, like in general, you get that land use entitlement, the project permit approved first. Then once that's done, you go and you apply for your construction type permit, whether that's a site construction or building permit. We've changed the language in our code to clarify that there's a couple of different ways you can do that. You can do, and she's going to get into this, you can apply for both at the same time, but we need to be very clear that we can't approve or even do a whole lot of processing of a construction permit if there's a land use entitlement permit that needs to come first. But we will allow people to apply for them at the same time, but we need to make it clear that One comes before the other and for timeline purposes, I'm sure you're all well aware of once you submit like a building permit, we have statutory requirements for how long we have to before we need to approve it. If you apply concurrently that land use and the building permit at the same time, Need to do a whole bunch of procedural language in here to say that shot clock, that time doesn't start for your building permit until your land use stuff is approved. And those land use approval permits have a different timeline by which they need to be approved. trying to allow for some current concurrent application, but also make it very clear that the timelines are separated to meet the state statute requirements for timelines for the different permits. It gets a little tricky. So that's why I just want to give that basic background as Libby goes through the minutiae and details as we try to make sure that that is taken care of.

I'm sorry, would you save that question for later when we open it up for? Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I do have one question. Is there going to be code verbiage that talks about the concurrent, what is allowed to be concurrent?

Yes. So thank you for asking that question. That is, it is one of the things that I'll talk about here in just a minute. I think maybe, yeah, right here. So yes, I'll get to it the next slide. So thank you, John, for giving me a breather and explaining those very important details. So this slide is intended to show the multiple different permit paths that are available for particular permit applications. That's one of the goals of the, one of the directives of the executive order was to allow for a site plan to be approved prior to submittal of a building permit application for a project. because it wasn't very clear in our current code that that could happen. Our site plan definition and criteria and application requirements made it sound like it was more of a combined project permit and construction permit. And so part of this process was sort of updating the site plan review permit types to clarify that a site plan review can be applied before you want to apply for a construction permit and then the site plan can It includes details about how long that site plan approval is valid for. How long do you have until you have to submit a construction permit or a building permit? And what does the project permit approve or the site plan approve? versus what does the construction permit approve so basically a construction we've we've made clarifications in the code to to say that um a construction permit that is implementing an approved site plan or an approved land of it i mean this is how it already is for land divisions but um implementing an approved project permit has to be consistent with the project permit. The approved site, the approved use, the approved layout, mitigation requirements, environmental issues, all of that has to be reviewed for consistency when the implementing permit comes in. I got off track, I'm sorry. So the available permit paths, as John was explaining, sequential review would have you going through the traditional path of getting your project and your land use permit approvals first, then stopping and getting your construction plans reviewed and approved. And that makes sense for people that maybe, you know, they want certainty and they want to make sure that they have all of the big land use issues understood and addressed before spending a lot of money on detailed engineering. Some people, well, let's see, consolidated review applies only to project permits, and that is one of the requirements in the RCW 3670B that the city provide for this process where a project requires more than one project permit that an applicant can request a consolidated review of all of the project permits together as one. So it would go, the review would go according to whatever the highest decision type was for all of the project permit types that they wanted to have reviewed together. So if they had a, I don't know, a short plat and a conditional use permit, and they wanted that to be processed at the same time together, then a CUP, I think, is a hearing examiner decision. So both the short plat and the CUP would go through that hearing examiner process. And that's a voluntary consolidated review. That option is available to applicants. um and then the concurrent review is um where site construction john mentioned this one too site construction and building plans may be reviewed while project permits are pending but it is at the risk of the project applicant because all of the land use issues haven't been decided yet which means that um There may need to be changes to the construction plants once the land use permits are approved. So responding to your question, Commissioner Underwood, that is one thing that staff is recommending to refine in the draft. So the draft that went out for public review and comment was dated August 17. So when I say the August 17 draft, that's what I'm talking about. That draft included a new section, 19-20-025, which was basically, and we talked about it, I think, at the last Planning Commission meeting, but it was basically an overview of all of the steps in a development permit review process, or all of the potential steps involved. And it wasn't intended to create any new requirements. And there were questions about it. And staff right now is recommending that we remove that section, just because there's potential for conflict between the summary and the actual substantive provisions later in the code that tell you in detail what each of the steps has to include. So staff is proposing to just remove that section and provide kind of like an overview like that was intended to be with public-facing handouts and information that we would have on our website that kind of shows overall, you know, what this process could look like. but the plan would be to replace that with an expanded section 1920-040 right now that section covers consolidated review so that was one of the types of review options that's allowed for project permits but it does not include any detailed uh discussion about the concurrent review or the sequential review. So staff's proposal would be to flesh out that section and clearly define those options. essentially adding more detail there, but removing the more policy level or kind of instructional level overview that we had previously proposed. I already sort of went over this, the site plan review approval. That was where quite a few changes were proposed. That's AMC 1930. We have that section currently, but as I mentioned, it's a little bit, It's not very clear on actually quite a few aspects on what do you actually get when you get site plan approval and how long is it good for and when do you have to do a site plan review. So all of those things, We're already a little bit unclear. The draft, August 17th draft, we proposed to expand its purpose, applicability, approval criteria, and talk in more detail about the effect of the approval. And also to clarify that there is an option to get that site plan approval before building and construction permits. Excuse me. The applicability language for the site plan review could be interpreted potentially to require a separate site plan project permit for pretty much any type of construction. So even for a single family home or an addition, any sort of construction. the way that it's written right now could be read to require that separate project permit. And so that's not the intent. And that's also not the way that staff, that's not the way that the review process works in practice. For simple permits, we are able to review the objective standards for zoning, like setbacks and building height and those types of things. Right along with the building permit application and no separate project level site plan review is necessary. So staff's recommendation would be to clean up that section, clean up the applicability to make it clear that a review of a site plan as part of a building permit does not necessarily does not necessarily mean that you are getting a land use site plan review permit. And because that is a little bit confusing, we're proposing to change the name of the site plan review to project site plan approval to kind of connote that this is a project permit. So just trying to separate further the purpose of that particular permit in the code. So recommended refinements are to rename that permit type, use a separate project site plan when an independent site decision is needed or requested. So that's like for a cottage development on a single lot where you have multiple units and you have Shared infrastructure, shared parking, shared landscaping. It makes sense to have a site plan for the overall site that shows how all of those things relate. And it makes sense to have a separate approval for that. Just for a building permit, you're just looking at one site. It's relation to property lines and setbacks. So that project level site plan, probably not necessary. OK. So the lot status and development eligibility, I'll just breeze through this really quickly. Staff had brought a proposal for that draft a few months ago. Since then, we've kind of re-looked at that and made some revisions. Again, this was intended to clarify the process for recognizing a well, for recognizing when a lot is a legal lot and then identifying eligibility for, yep.

Good question.

Libby, first of all, I want to say this is a huge job done in a short timeline and I think done well. But you're mentioning several changes. Our copy that we have must be the August 17th copy. And I'm just trying to, you went faster than I can copy anything. What exactly are the changes that you're suggesting right now to the August 17th?

Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. So for the lot status, we aren't proposing or recommending any changes from what is in the August 17th. Okay. Version. I was just kind of trying to summarize what's proposed for purpose of, you know, members of the public that are here for the public hearing, but we're not proposing any changes from a staff perspective.

But you're recommending removing 19-20-025? Yep. Okay.

I'm going to have a summary at the end too. Okay. Hopefully that'll help. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Sure. Sure. Yeah, so on these two, I guess, yeah, on the per bit coordination and sequencing, when I said recommended refinements, that is changes to the draft that you have. And same with the site plan review. the lot status and development eligibility. We don't have any proposed changes to that.

Mr. Chair. Yes. Question for Libby. Is the site plan review, I know that the staff has kind of changed names a couple of times at that. Does that also encompass like site development plans? Does all of that get switched over to the, is it the project site plan?

So I think you might be referring to the site development permit. So the term that we would use moving forward is the project site plan for the land use site plan portion. and a site construction permit would be the engineering, the construction portion. Those two could be submitted and reviewed concurrently at the same time or separate.

It's kind of being lumped into that so that it encompasses everything.

Yeah, it'll be site plan review and construction plan review is essentially what the site development permit was intended to encompass.

And the site development permit will, that name will go away.

Thanks.

OK. Should I keep going? OK. Almost there. And then the other current slide. So this is one of the mayor's executive order directives was to create, was to propose some amendments to create some tools for offering administrative flexibility in certain cases. So there was a numeric reduction so that the, Any sort of numeric standard or dimensional standard would have the ability to, or the planning director would have the ability to approve a reduction of that particular standard by five. We put a range in the draft just so there could be a range that people could comment on. I think in our recommendation document, we had recommended 10%. So it wouldn't stay 5% to 10%. It would be one of those numbers or a different number if you chose.

So we're speaking of 19-21-200 on page 16, where reductions in... reductions in objective dimensional or numeric standards not exceeding 5% or 10% up to whatever the Planning Commission would like to recommend, where modification is warranted by site-specific conditions or circumstances.

Yeah, thank you. This is what that section looks like.

So, well, that's under flexibility. I think we're talking about administrative exceptions in page 16.

So the way that it's structured in the draft, all of the flexibility options are under 1921. So that includes the numeric reduction and the administrative modifications. So yes, the administrative exceptions.

Yeah, and so right there with that yellow highlight, that's what I just read off.

Oh, thank you. Yep. So ideally, in any recommendation you were to provide, you would recommend a percentage there in your final recommendation. So... You'll see in your packets and in the public comments, we did get several comments about the proposed options for flexibility. And so there are some refinements that we're proposing. And let me get to that. I'm sorry. So based on additional staff review and some of the comments that we've received, we do understand some of the concern about Some of the modifications and waivers maybe being a little bit too open ended with not enough definition about what exactly can be modified through those through those requests. And so. Staff is recommending to take another look at those. And the first option, or not option, but the first recommendation would be to separate those two concepts. Right now, in the August 17th version, everything's lumped together. But this would separate out numeric reductions and administrative modifications. So numeric reductions are a reduction to the, objective numeric standards or dimensional standards and then the modifications or administrative waivers are to non-numeric standards. So it could be, you know, whatever. There were some proposed parameters in the draft in the August 17th draft that identified sections of the code that could be eligible for someone to request a modification. I think those could be further narrowed down to provide some more certainty on exactly what that could look like, what could be requested, what could be approved. And I don't have specific language prepared and that's why I mentioned this earlier in my presentation that the Planning Commission doesn't necessarily have to have the actual specific text of a proposed amendment if it is comfortable with recommending the concept of a refinement moving forward to the City Council process. I would want to put that out there. And then... This was a chart that was attempting to kind of show the differences between these two different tools, the numeric reduction and administrative waiver. As far as eligibility goes, the staff's recommendation would be to further narrow down the types of design standards that would be eligible for modification. And also, to kind of bring the review and approval criteria closer back to what the executive order intention was, which was that these types of modifications would be allowed to be requested when it could be shown that the code as adopted didn't reasonably anticipate a particular change situation on a property as applied to a particular project or that applying a particular development regulation would directly conflict with an adopted city policy and i think um you know kind of Honing back in on those two things would help with reducing the overall scope of what could be approved through these modification requests. And then I just had a... Whoops. So these are both proposed as a type one decision requiring written findings that would go in the project file. If the type of application... So the request would be reviewed as part of the underlying permit application, I should say. So if it was a building permit, a request for modification or numeric reduction would be reviewed along with that process. And same thing for a type 2, type 3, type 4.

Let me hear you. You said 5% to 10%, yet this says 10%. Sorry.

you recommending the 10 percent for the 10 percent yeah and the um staff report recommended the 10 percent up to 10 okay mr chair yes um in terms of it being reviewed during the building permit for these kinds of things it feels like maybe a earlier review for feedback would be helpful is that available

I mean, it could be potentially as part of a pre-application meeting, you could potentially request feedback on a proposal. I'd have to think about whether that would be something that would be appropriate as a, you know, like kind of like a legal law decision. Can you, or a law determination, could you apply for this prior to actually submitting a development permit application? That's something that you could recommend that we look at.

Well, it seems to me that that would be really helpful to have that. The example you have down below here is whether an entrance would be facing the street or outside. And before you start doing architectural drawings or laying out a floor plan, it'd be really nice to know if that's going to be allowed. Otherwise, you may or may not be revising your drawing. Right. And again, the goal would be to not have to revise the drawings if you had a green light because of certain conditions. Yeah, right.

Understood. But I think also these are only intended to address very specific circumstances. So there would need to be a certain level of effort and information that an applicant provided as part of an application, like really looking at here are all the different alternatives that we looked at, and here's why we can't make this work. And so that would be just something that would be important if it were a decision that could be made prior to, well,

I'm going to say a green light to proceed.

Yeah, yeah.

It's double-edged. Like Libby's trying to point out, you might like to have it done ahead of time, but without a lot of information for us to know the details of why, we might need the project permit application. And similar to departures, like right now we allow departures in our code, but it's specified in the code. Like you can depart from... But you still have to request that departure. You can depart from the code if this, this, and this. And that's what we're more or less trying to achieve with these. It's not meant to be a way to let people out of these dimensional standards or numerical standards from the get-go. But hey, as you're doing your project, you're finding like, we're a few, you know, within 10, five or 10% of our max, uh, building height, for example, or, uh, square footage of building on a lot, we could be like, okay, you know, you're, you're 10 square feet above your maximum. Okay. That's probably fine based on the conditions. Um,

The way that these were proposed in the draft, it would only be a reduction, not necessarily an increase.

I confuse these, you know. Reduction means smaller, doesn't mean larger, in my mind. And the example you just used is... Well, scratch mine then. Well, no, I think it's important to note whether that's allowable.

I mean, that is another option, certainly. But the way that this concept was proposed in the draft, it would have not allowed for an increase in a maximum standard, only a reduction in a minimum standard.

And you're right, spread your example.

And I feel like code does a good job of describing departures. I feel like there's a... a really clear indication of what path you need to take to get a departure approved. This has so many open-ended things that I don't know if you would be able to get that, but it would be nice to have at least a starting point where people understand what it can apply to.

And I mean, I think from a staff perspective, we definitely want to know what the parameters, understand and know what the parameters are and have that very, you know, defined in the code so that we can give good advice to applicants. And of course, members of the public also want to know exactly, you know, what this could look like. So that's why, you know, we're proposing additional refinement to these.

Thank you.

OK, I'm almost done. Sorry, members of the public. I'm almost done. OK, so just going to do a quick list of the other changes. And when I said other proposed changes, I just mean to the existing draft, August 17th draft. These aren't additional refinements. So the pre-application meetings I kind of touched on, but you'll recall in the permit application or the permit process table, there is a step for pre-application meeting conferences and pre-application neighborhood meetings. um we were not not proposing to change a yes to or a no or a no to a yes but wanting to um right now i think for one of them it says no but we don't want applicants to think that they cannot apply for a pre-application meeting so the thought was to change those to optional so that it's optional applicants option to apply for, they could do a neighborhood meeting too, if they wanted to, you know, when it wasn't necessarily required. So the thought there was to make sure that people knew that, yes, you can take this step. It's not required unless the director requires it. And we tried to add some specific criteria for when the director would require a pre-application meeting or a neighborhood meeting. And that kind of depends on the... the scope of the project, the potential impacts, the need for early coordination, and there are a couple of other ones that I'm happy to bring up if anybody has any questions, but that's what this one's talking about. And then we also updated the permit expirations. I think I touched on that a bit. Fence permits, exempting qualifying fences up to seven feet. And there's actually something that I noticed. I think the proposal includes an exemption or an amendment to the IRC. But I think we might need to do that in the IBC adoption as well. So that was something I was going to mention. I think I may have missed that. So whenever we add this exemption, we would want to put it in all of the building codes that are adopted that would apply. OK. In your packet, you had a summary of public comments and staff responses. We had a lot of public comments and a lot of really good, thoughtful people that I know spent a lot of time and thought and gave us great feedback. And I really appreciate all of that. The summary boils it down to a couple of words, but of course you'll have to read all of the public comments to get the full scope of of what thoughts people had but kind of some common themes were a concern about loss of public process loss of public hearings that this proposal may result in and i tried to clarify that that is not proposed any existing type that requires a public hearing or a neighborhood meeting or has a hearing examiner or city council decision type, none of those are changing. None of those are proposed to change. There was a concern about how these amendments may affect environmental protections, so concern about whether the streamlining or more efficient process would lead to reduced environmental review of projects. And that, again, is not proposed. We're not proposing to... change any environmental regulation that applies to any project in the city. All critical areas, regulations, stormwater requirements, I know there are more, but a floodplain, all of the environmental regulations that currently apply to development would continue to apply. There were a lot of concerns identifying potential impacts to the R1 zone resulting from this proposed amendment. And again, the proposal, as we've just gone through in detail, doesn't propose any changes to uses, intensity of development, any critical areas regulations, design standards all of those remain the same this really mostly a procedural changes excessive staff discretion was another concern which we just talked about and so of course we're proposing that we kind of take a step back and look at some additional boundaries for those numeric reductions and administrative modifications. And then just concern about terminology used in the code, permit names, applicability. And so, We have tried to clarify permit names, and I tried to explain in this staff presentation where we have chosen to continue to use a certain term like project permit. There really is a reason that we are proposing that, and that is to maintain consistency with the state law and make it so that we're consistent. We don't have different terms that have different definitions that aren't consistent because that's going to lead to confusion. okay so again um the additional recommended refinements i've listed out here and i'm i can go back to that after the public hearing i feel like i need to stop talking and let folks speak and staff's recommendation is approval uh that planning commission recommend approval of these amendments with modifications and i'm gonna Thank you for your time and listening. And I'm happy to answer any questions or we could let the public speak and I can come back after.

Thank you. Any questions from up here in the dais?

yeah so trying to make sense of all these all these changes and and what that means to um like new dwelling units for example so for a new dwelling unit i mean right now we just go through a single permit process and trying to understand so would a new dwelling unit whether it be single family residence accessory dwelling unit would that be subject to all three project permits site construction permit and a building permit

That's a great question. And no, that is not the intent at all. For a simple, straightforward, single-family residence that all of those aspects can be reviewed through a building permit application, then that is what process Staff Start Committee would continue to follow.

So we would just take that through a single building permit process.

And you would include your site plan and your... whatever utility plans you have with that application, just like you do right now.

So what would be an example of a project that we would take through our project permit?

So like a cottage development, if you wanted to build a cottage development with three units, you know, that's going to have shared parking, shared open space, you know, shared utilities. And so something for that, it might make sense to or it would make sense to have an overall site plan plan. you know, that you would want to get approved to make sure that the proposal is complying with all of the design standards and environmental requirements and whatnot before you pay for your engineering, your civil construction engineering.

So then would you roll that project permit for multiple cottages then into a building permit or into a site construction permit?

It depends on the level of infrastructure that would need to be built. I think if it was just a very simple utility line being extended from the street if you already had sidewalks, you know, your stormwater wasn't complicated like a detention pond or something like that. Then it's possible that it could be all reviewed as part of the building permit. But there are some criteria under the site construction permit where it kind of defines if you're getting outside of these limits, this is when you need the separate permit type.

So if I, last question, then I'll let other people ask questions. But if I were to want to build like four cottages, for example, and I had to run these all in sequence, what should I reasonably expect to how long it would take from a start to finish until I have my building permit?

I don't know if I can answer that question for a, I mean, if you were running them all in sequence for a multi-unit development, then I, you know, you'd want to be pretty sure that you have all of the land use issues worked out if you were going to submit it all concurrently. Uh, so just to put that disclaimer on it, because, you know, if there, if there's something that, um, still needs to be decided, then there may be need to be revisions to your construction permits. Right. So that's just the disclaimer, but, uh,

I mean, the whole idea is that you get your site plan and your site construction permit approved Then your building permits, you're just getting... Once you've got all the site stuff figured out, your building permits, you're just looking at building code. And that takes... We're able to turn those around in two weeks when it's that simple. Once your stormwater and everything is already all figured out. So... a little bit of longer on the front end. It means much faster once you get to the actual construction part. And we've had positive feedback from other developers that when we've asked them to get a site development permit, they're like, oh, okay, that actually, once we get that all the way, then we can just build buildings. Getting the permits for the buildings is easy.

So it essentially allows for the development of the land to start happening while you're getting your building permits.

And yes, the, uh, I want to make sure I'm not saying it wrong. That's the, uh, not concurrently. Is that the one? Oh, the, um, the coordination sequencing.

Yeah. I mean, that's that if you had your land, your site plan review done and your, you had a site construction permit for all of the civil infrastructure, then once that was issued, yeah, there's not a reason that you couldn't start with site construction and then submit your building permits and have those being reviewed while you're doing the construction.

That's the concurrent review process. I was trying to choose my words carefully because consolidated review process is for two land use permits going together. Right. Can the... concurrent is for a land use and a construction permit going together through the process.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think at this point, I'd like to ask the public if they have any comments or questions for staff and come on forward. State your name and your address and who you're directing your question to.

I'm not sure if we need to be formal about opening the public hearing or not. We might. Did we do that already?

No. Let's state the time, please. We're opening a public hearing, so. So we're opening it at 7.13.

Is it okay for me to talk? Okay. Thank you. Janet Parajan. I'm in Ward 2 off of Whistle Lake Road, 4304 Whistle Lake Road. And I only wrote you a two-page letter. So I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I want to emphasize a couple of things. I would like to see that you withhold recommendation on moving forward with this until... staff has had more time and the public has had more time to talk and to address the comments that did come in from Smart Growth Anacortes, Evergreen Islands, and other residents. I feel like what we're doing here, it is a complicated thing. You've done a great job of trying to just map out where the issues are, but I feel it's going to dictate how Anacortes develops and also how we function as a community. So I'd like to see just a couple things differently than maybe how they've been presented. I'd really like to see stronger public participation. Having done lots of project management, I've actually found that getting people in the room early highlights things that need to get addressed before they get put in cement when it gets expensive to make changes. People also come with not only issues, but maybe ideas for solutions and having dialogue. So those neighborhood meetings are so much better than this sort of us and them situation that inevitably happens in a hearing situation where you're putting information out there and you can't really communicate on how to solve problems. So I like the informal idea of these neighborhood meetings early. I think that neighbors and Residents of the town have rights as well as the people who are developing and that working together, we can have a better outcome. As far as the R1 zone goes, and I'm, you know, I read the comprehensive plan and all the zoning stuff, and I chose to move to the R1 zone, that little peach colored 300, about 300 acres between the south end of the city and the county area. It is an ecological asset. I have friends in Boston who are area who are madly looking for how to make their areas more resilient to climate change and all kinds of other things, growth and things that are happening. And we have this already. And it is very attractive to people who've lived elsewhere who realize they've given it away. I was in Colorado. We gave it away over the last 30 years. And And now we're desperately trying to find the land back, the water back, the infrastructure, the ecological infrastructure. So it was recognized in 1993 in the Comprehensive Plan under the Growth Management Act. that this is a unique area. It has a lot of ecological benefits to water quality. You know, everything flows downhill from where my house is. I have a stream, the Happy Valley Creek, that goes through my property. And it really... Staff has even said in different places that they've had to sort of assume where some of these areas are. It hasn't really been mapped. And in my mind, until you... have a better understanding of what is the, uh, capacity for that land to, um, take more housing, more, um, impervious surfaces, fewer trees, all the things that come with development until you understand what the big picture is. You shouldn't be approving these piecemeal, um, developments because you, you run the danger of just a, I mean, I say burning the rainforest an acre at a time kind of thing, but, um, And I do think that this is an area where having public involvement, taking a step back, making sure you understand the big picture, because there's a lot of people up there with four acres and everybody wants to cash out and move somewhere else, I guess. I didn't do that. I cashed out somewhere else and I'm moving here. So I would like to see us not keep making the same mistakes that I've seen in other places. And I do think that... you know, with SEPA and some of the other requirements that come up with the R1 zone, that it is justified to have these neighborhood meetings. So slide eight that you showed that is this 19.20.030 table, where everything is discretionary, my experience is it just doesn't happen. And then the conversation doesn't happen. And then we end up in appeals and it's not healthy for anybody. It's a lose-lose. And then the last thing is, I think that the gate check model that Smart Growth and Accord has suggested, where you do have a place before you go to the next step in the process, you stop, you look and say, hey, is everything that we thought or the assumptions we made or whatever, Do they still hold true or have we learned something new or has an issue come up that should cause us to take a little rethink? So you're not reopening every decision, but you're at least checking yourself. And I do think those are places where the public should be involved as well. So I think instead of thinking that the public is a problem or slows us down, I look at it more as it's an enhancement to a better outcome. And then the very last point is there's time to do it right because this is not a mandated timeline.

I made a mistake when I welcomed you to the podium, and that was we're going to limit how much time everybody has, okay? Yeah.

I can't see anything, so I don't know. It says 2.4 something, but it's right. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Please step forward. and keep an eye on the lights.

I'll try to keep it short. Ron Johnson, I live along Oaks Avenue, and I'm not a developer, I'm a gardener. And my challenge is all the procedures, et cetera, are geared toward developers. I've been told I need a clear and grade permit because I'm within that shoreline area and trying to fit my square peg into the round hole of a permit. One of my challenges is there's a definition for grading in the title, but nothing for clearing. It's kind of whatever somebody wants. And it's defined multiple ways. So that's a challenge for me. The other one, and this is completely different, but I was perusing the document and noticed that one change that isn't happening that's still there is about retaining walls and maximum four feet. But the little clause after that, unless supporting a surcharge, I have no idea what a surcharge is in relation to retaining walls. Sounds like I need to slip some bills to the person having authority. Anyway, anything you can do to give some flexibility to do this gardening rather than full-scale development. I mean, ripping out a plant at a time, I don't consider that clearing. So thank you.

Mr. Nyhart.

Mark Nyhart, Ward 2, speaking on behalf of SGA. So I would like to thank you for listening through all of that, and we appreciate staff's work on that. However, Smart Growth Anacortes was all about getting public involvement From the beginning and throughout the process, both the GMA, the comp plan requires that the public be involved on a continuous basis. And the other thing, when the mayor did his executive order and he allowed it to come here, he gave the opportunity for us, the residents, the owners and financiers of this city, to make comment and to make comment that might make changes. Thus, you saw a lot of process changes or process recommendations. Those process recommendations did cite the GM comp plan. They did cite GMA. They referenced other cities. It wasn't like a bunch of people were just throwing stuff at the wall to see what stuck. Again, we agree with Janet and others. I don't think this process needs to be done now. There's no date on it. There's no state recommendation. Although it's procedural, it's not procedural. The language is very important in a code because that's how you interpret how you're going to do the code. And for you guys not to be able to see the code changes before it goes to council is quite frankly insulting. So I would recommend that you do not go forward on this until 2027, where we could have more public hearings. And for the city and the planning commission and the organizations that submitted comments and the people that submitted them individually, have time to work together to come up with a better process that involves the public. And instead of having the city tell us what we want, we're able to work with the city to have a collaborative environment on how we want this city to go forward. We have something now, if we screw it up, it won't be, but a couple of 10 years from now, you won't be living in the town that you thought it, that you moved to. I grew up here and I've seen it change from 1953 and it's changed considerable and it could change more. So again, I ask you to take a step back, read all those comments, A lot of them are mine. But read them and consider what they're asking you to do. Thank you. Thank you.

We did have one person who wanted to ask a question. And I want to make sure you got a chance to get up here since you're the first question, actually.

Interrupts.

My name is Marty Evans, Ward 2, 500 Haddon Road. My experience is very brief around scanning documents and planning procedures and stuff, but in the name of streamlining and continuity and My direct involvement has been in R1 subdivision going in next door to me. And as I spoke with Libby this summer at a previous like state planning, blah, blah, blah meeting, she straight out said the criteria does not uphold the checkboxes by which city staff evaluate plans or proposals, site proposals does manifestly not uphold the stated purpose of R1 zoning in the master plan. And I just propose a very simple like stoplight system, yellow, orange, red, If any of those criteria boxes are just barely checked, then we need to refer back to the text of the master plan. It's, you know, doctrine versus scripture. And I think anyone should be able to discern that. Like, is in any zoning, like, should we do this? Should we not proceed? Let's, like, look back to the stated agreed upon master plan. Otherwise, the master plan is garbage. There is no point in all of it. And when I purchased my property, I bought R1. Like what I Google, what R1 means, that's what pops up. That's the master plan. It's not criteria that... a civil engineer can crochet each loophole and destroy the purpose of like it's the developments on a wetland it's less than half acre lots and there should be a meeting about that so that would really streamline things like it would go faster if we had a neighborhood meeting of like the neighbors i'm a stakeholder that is my property that's my surrounding i chose to be surrounded by green not by houses and that's all thank you thanks also what is the how long should a site plan Land use.

I can talk to you afterwards. Take.

I want to know, on the record, please, what is the average?

Oh, well, there's no specific average, but in RCW 3670B080, it talks about required timelines, and I can go over that with you.

It's been five months since I submitted, since we all submitted neighborhood letters, comments during the period, and we haven't heard anything. And it's been denied meetings with city planners. We did get one with the mayor, but that's all.

Mary Jo McArdle, and I live on M Avenue.

Can you speak a little closer to the mic, please?

So can you hear me now?

We hear you.

I agree with everybody who has made comments here regarding the R1, taking time, mapping it, slow down, stop. I agree with no rush on doing this. It requires a lot more work. It's worthy of a lot more work and a lot more public participation. I have one question about the administrative flexibility in numerical deviations. And I didn't find anything that says other than that the director can make that determination administratively. If it happens and it affects the neighbor's property, let's say it's a dimensional setback. They want to reduce the setback because there's something weird going on elsewhere on the property. And that puts that house five feet or 10 feet closer to my house than it would if it was having to meet a side yard setback or a front yard setback or not a front yard, but another setback requirement. The neighbors who are affected by any kind of administrative change need to be involved in that. It can't be in isolation. It shouldn't be in isolation. It should not be an administrative decision only. The neighborhood and the direct neighbors need to be involved in any administrative change. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else have any comments or questions? All right. Commission members, questions, comments? We're going to close the public hearing and move on.

Mr. Chair?

Doctor.

So I guess I have some, I guess, procedural questions. I understand that the recommendation is for the planning commission to make a decision to move this forward to the city council or not. What would happen if we delayed?

We would have another meeting at the Planning Commission. I mean, it's entirely under the Planning Commission's power. If you think that there's too many changes that you're not comfortable making a recommendation, that's fine. We'll schedule this later. I can't tell you what date that'll be. We wouldn't crank it around and turn it, bring it back next week. October, I suppose we may be in early October. I just don't know. We'd have to look at scheduling it. We have a special meeting at the end of September. It definitely would not be in there.

Okay.

I guess I'm just speaking for myself. I think wording matters, and I know you do too. I've spent my time reading this version only to hear tonight that there's recommendations for changing this version, and we don't really have to have the wording. We can just move that forward. I know I'm just speaking for myself. I don't feel comfortable just moving it forward with a lot of different changes coming up, and I don't really know what they are. I was trying to write them down. I had questions. I'm glad that you're thinking to remove that 1920-025, because I had questions about that. I had questions about some of the other language. And I do think it is a big, I think it's really important. I would feel more comfortable putting this off until the recommendations are incorporated and we see what we're going to send, especially because There's no decision-making power anymore in the Planning Commission. We're not on any of those matrices. So our one ability is to listen to the public and to make a recommendation to move it forward. I'm just speaking for myself, and maybe you don't feel the same at all, but I feel like before I... recommend moving it forward, I need to actually see what it is I'm recommending.

Mr. Chair, could I say something?

I agree with Dr. Martin. I could not vote to move something forward when we haven't seen the changes. It just doesn't feel right to me at all.

Your opinions? Yes.

I also agree.

Okay. Seem fairly unanimous. And we'll ask staff to do the revisions and give us a... the final version that we're going to actually approve and pass on up to the council. Again, the community seems to have spoken pretty clearly that they don't want us to rush. And again, even if they haven't said that, I agree with my co-members up here that it would be nice to see that revised or completed version clear copy of what we're passing on up the chain. So we'll let you guys work that into the schedule. I know you guys are busy, obviously. And we'll look forward to seeing that in a future meeting.

Mr. Chair.

Yes.

I do think there's a few things we still can do tonight. For example, the 5 or 10% flexibility. I think we could make a recommendation about that. We may have some other questions that could be resolved tonight.

At least that's what I think.

That would be great.

Mr. Chair. Hi, sorry. Yes, that would be great to get some direction on some of those things for staff when we're drafting the updates, but also just to ensure that the list that I have here is... what you want to see, the updates to the sections that you want to see, and if there is any other information that you think you would need in order to, at a future meeting, make a recommendation.

Mr.

Chair. Yes. Sorry. No, I'm sorry.

Personally, I think a 10% is fine. as far as flexibility, um, it's, it's, it's still very little. And there's, as long as there's big guidelines on, um, on, you know, what you're flexible on and I sounds like, and it looks like, um, it's, it's carefully worded there. Um, Also, I really like the fact that any time there is flexibility, that a written reason is entered into the whole process. I think that's correct. That's me.

Any other input on that number?

I agree. I think 10%, obviously, there's going to be a lot of feedback in terms of what that applies to. But I think 10% is a more reasonable number to go with.

I agree with that also. Up to 10%.

So Libby, as a clarifying question, would a 10% reduction apply to setbacks specifically?

The way that it's drafted right now, yes.

So we heard comment that that's concerning. Now, we could put bounds on it, like if it's at... the bottom of a slope where the neighbor wouldn't notice or something like that. If there's some physical barrier where it wouldn't actually be crowding a neighbor or something like that, or just excluding setbacks in general, I can see that being problematic. And we'll, we'll reread it with an eye on those sorts of things. But yeah, Does the planning commission feel like, you know, for setbacks specifically, would it be, do you want to put some bounds on that or just say it doesn't apply to setbacks? I've seen in the past where if there's like a physical barrier, like a slope or a railroad berm or something that where it wouldn't actually affect a neighbor, then the code would allow for something like that. Similar with heights, if like a 10% allowance for, well, I guess it wouldn't allow, this would not allow for a taller building. So that's not a good example, but.

The setback currently is a combined 15 feet on both sides, correct?

No, we don't do the combined anymore. That's been gone since 2019 or earlier. So what's the minimum now? Well, it depends on the zone, of course. Um, but it depends on whether, you know, for a single family, whether it's one story or two story, um, or more. And, uh, In the zones that allow for higher density, they're generally five foot, a little bit further for a two-story. In some place like the R1 zone, I think it's much bigger. Do we have that handy?

I'm sorry, I was thinking about something else related to this.

I'll do a quick search. But if you had a five-foot setback at 60 inches and a 10% reduction would be six inches. Correct. That seems awfully close to the property line. I mean, that's a place where I'm not sure I'd want to see the discretion used.

Well, the smallest would be five feet. So a 10% reduction would be, I haven't done the math.

Four feet, six inches. It would go from five feet to four feet. Right. But it's a matter of six inches. Right.

I guess I'm trying to understand an instance if you're designing something that you need that. Well, not only would you need it, but you wouldn't base your design off of the fact that there's a five foot setback. You wouldn't automatically go, I need to be six inches closer. You would design towards the five foot. So I don't know that setbacks need to be included because unless you can come up with an example that might speak to it. The only one that I'm thinking of is for the second story, seven and a half feet. I know that there are certain zones that that applies to and then certain zones that it doesn't. And I understand the reason for it. That's the only place that I could see there being somebody asking for it to be closer. But that's it.

Yeah, I think that where it just trying to think about potential examples. And one thing that crossed my mind was like for a lot that is constrained by critical areas or buffers, you know, in order for a project to avoid impacts, maybe it, you know, requests a reduced setback on the front yard setback or something, but it would only be a small amount. So that's kind of a, situation where I could see maybe it making some sense to make that process a little bit easier. Because I think right now in that particular case, that would be our code basically says avoid impacts, minimize impacts for critical areas. And that would be one way to avoid impacts completely if a setback reduction that isn't adversely affecting adjacent properties could be granted. But that would require a variance right now. So this, anyways, that's one example.

So most site setbacks are five feet throughout the city with the exception of the R1 is 10 feet.

Yeah. Could I make a statement?

I personally think that in keeping with the executive order, what we're looking for is flexibility in areas where we might not be able to foresee when and where this could apply. And I think the number that we're trying to settle on is a sort of overall what will not be onerous to neighbors, to the community, but will allow for this kind of flexibility without like saying, oh, well, we can't do it this, we can't do that. It's like, for me, I think settling on the number is what we're trying to decide. what is not going to be onerous to the community, what is not going to impact people negatively. And I think the 10%, like a six inch change in that setback, like you would be hard pressed, I think, to find someone who could identify a six inch difference from five feet away to a five foot setback.

Well, they have a setback on their side too, so. Exactly. But maybe, how about language where anytime that discretion is being used, the neighbors have a right for input be drawn into the discussion and the decision.

Well, the point of this is to make for simple reductions, not to open it up to public hearings over six inches between neighbors. That would be the antithesis of what the intent of these changes are trying to achieve.

And I think director decision means that he would say, no, it needs to be at five. That would be my impression. I mean, unless there was a really good reason for it, it's not just opening it up to have it be a smaller setback.

You request it, you get it. Right. And it's not part of the equation.

And like Libby had said, you're going through the exercise of showing how you got to that place and how you can't meet the code. But I don't think that, I don't want people to walk away thinking that this is, you know, an exception to an actual code standard.

And automatic. Right.

Yeah.

The number that jumps out at me as being far more of an impact, though, is if we take away 10% of the frontal, the front, which is what, 20 feet now? 20 feet. So 10% of that number is not that driveway just became 18 feet or whatever, or the setback just became 18 feet. That's a greater measurement.

The other thing to keep in mind is the current draft approval criteria talks about these requests for administrative exceptions may be approved upon finding the applicant has demonstrated that all of the following criteria are met. And number two is the requested exception is the minimum necessary to address the identified circumstance. So that just goes to, you know, they're really going to have to demonstrate how, you know, why they, what is it specifically about this project and this code as applied to this project and property that this exception is required. And also, that the proposal, even if the administrative exception is granted, that it will remain consistent with the overall purpose and intent of the title. So whatever the purpose of setback requirements are, if there's something about the request that is going to make the result inconsistent with the purpose of a setback, then that would be a grounds for, you know, denying that request. So there's some built, you know, built in approval criteria where, you know, need to go through this, this analysis to put some some guardrails on it. And there could certainly be more.

And economics is not necessarily an influence where someone's like, well, I, you know, if I can make my house six inches longer all along that Eastern frontage, um, you know, then that makes for a better product that, you know, like anybody can make something up saying like, oh, well that's in the city's best interest because it's, you know, a more valuable home and brings more tax revenue or whatever. Like, That's not the purpose of this. The purpose is if there's some minor hardship on a lot that makes sense. And it says in here that doesn't cause something about still follows the intent of the rules. This isn't a way to just allow people to make slight variances just because it's going to be more valuable of a product to them. It's where there's a unique circumstance, and we just don't want to be at loggerheads over somebody being able to issue someone a permit for a house, which housing is a priority to have places for people to live. we don't want to lose it over five or 10%.

It seems to me that if we were discussing 10% barriers in any of our calculations, meaning increases also, you would get a lot more requests. I'm still trying to get comfortable with how many requests you're going to get for reductions. It seems to me that it's going to be, if someone said, well, I'd like to increase the, I'd like to increase the, whatever the maximum lot coverage is by 10% because I want to build a bigger house. It seems to me that request would be, you could count on that one coming in. I'm trying to figure out how many.

That would not be eligible under this.

Right. That's an increase, not a reduction. So I'm kind of wondering how many people are going to say, your code's too generous. I want to reduce that number for whatever reason.

But yeah, we might see a reduction in the length of the driveway or the setback. There's actually not that many numerical criteria in the code.

Yeah, there's one that would come up like for cottage housing, like the front porch has a dimensional standard of a minimum of seven feet. And what if you ask to make it not seven feet? Like there's those kinds as well as like, you know, open space requirements have a certain number of feet, like 10 feet that you have to have. Those kinds of things where if your lot is small and, you know, the city's trying to promote cottage development, that would be one area where you're like, okay, I've met all of these things, but this one area, this one open space is not practical enough. Yeah.

And, and sorry, another example that I could think of is yeah, the, the open space for cottage development or other multifamily development, there's a minimum, you know, dimensional requirement for that as well. So if it was a, you know, uniquely shaped lot or, you know, they're, they were trying to, this was an infill lot and they're trying to incorporate, integrate an existing structure into the overall design, but they can't quite meet the minimum 15 foot dimension for open space. But, you know, like that might be a situation where this could be used as well. You know, maybe they're providing, you know, it necks down to 10% in one place and then goes back out to 15%. But that's a good example of, I think, what I envision the intent of this being.

And we've actually had some proposals like that where the required amount of personal open space for cottage units made it really hard to arrange the maximum number of units. So this wouldn't, it would have, they would have lost, they would have lost the ability to build one cottage unit just because of, you know, the, the requirements for like a square 400 square foot usable open space. That's personal to that cottage. Whereas, you know, if we were to say, well, okay, you know, it's 10% less than that. You're able to like, change that enough where you can get another unit, another cottage unit on there. That meets all of the other requirements. It's really just more of a arranging of the pieces and the lot shape. These are the sorts of things that we're envisioning, not just because it's easier to get a 10% reduction.

And I think we're looking at it too from the point of the setback part of it, is obviously going to impact neighbors because you're coming closer to their property line. And to me, that's the one that I would have issue with is not having a say in somebody encroaching on that. But I don't think that's the intent or the purpose of any of this either.

I just kind of wonder how often the intent isn't where the problem popped up instead.

Mr. Chair.

Yes, doctor.

So just putting that flexibility part to bed for a second. The other thing that I hear tonight and definitely is in the written comments is about public participation in the processes. And this is the one that I don't really know what we should do because by minimizing the public participation, we're speeding up the processes for sure. And yet, as a neighbor, I would be interested in having input about building in my neighborhood as well. I know that we have... purposely moved away from that. And I guess I'm just putting it out. I am feeling conflicted about that whole thing. And maybe you can, Mr. Coleman, maybe you can shed some light on the conflict. I feel like there's a conflict in how much participation. I'm looking at the chart and really the only The only required neighborhood meeting is in a type four city council decision. All the rest are optional.

And none of those are changes.

Right.

Right. We're not, we are, we're not, there is nothing in this that reduces the public's input in the permitting procedures.

Understood.

Yeah.

Those changes happened with the comprehensive plan, I think.

Or years earlier, years and years earlier.

That's true.

So, yes, there is nothing in this proposal that is reducing the public's ability to participate in these permitting processes.

Agreed. but I'm also hearing people wanting more participation.

So the participation outlined in our code is not different than most jurisdictions. So if you're thinking of adding layers of public participation to simple permits, that's well outside the scope of what we have advertised this as. We have advertised this as making some changes to code to clarify things and making some changes to code that doesn't reduce any public participation. So I don't see where adding public participation to simple permits is in line with what the intent of this these amendments are or what we've advertised for the public to review.

Agreed completely. And actually it, it goes against that executive order in some ways, because the point of the exec, one of the points of the executive order is to streamline the process that that would not streamline the process. I understand. I'm just personally kind of conflicted about it.

Thank you. I think. Any other comments or questions from our staff or things to discuss amongst ourselves? No. So I guess we will eagerly await to See this down the road.

Mr. Chair, thank you.

Did you get a sense for the direction, the couple of points we'd like to?

Yes, I think so. I think what I'm going to assume, I don't think anybody specifically mentioned it during this last part of our conversation, but I'm going to assume that the staff recommended changes, we would move forward with bringing you revised text to affect those recommendations.

I see a lot of confirmations to that thought, so...

And then also 10% for the numeric reduction and kind of fleshing out the numeric reduction and the other tool for modification, making sure there are clear guardrails and parameters for what exactly can be applied for and approved. Yeah, I think I got it.

All right, Mr. Coleman. Other business? Planning Department update?

Thank you. Did we close the public hearing?

Yes.

Thank you. Okay. And so are we done with this agenda item and moving on? Is that what I understand? I'd say.

I think the public hearing was closed at 731. I don't think anyone took note of that time, but I did. Two of you did.

all right so moving on to there's no other business so moving on to the planning department update so uh at your last planning commission meeting we the planning commission didn't make any recommendations it was sort of um just feeding information to the Planning Commission and the public. So when we get to the Shoreline Master Program updates and the critical area regulation updates, that information is out for the public to be aware of. So related to that, on September 29, the Planning Commission is having a special meeting to review the critical area regulation draft amendments. We'll be getting those draft amendments out shortly so that they'll have time for public review. That'll be a time for us to introduce it. And we'll be taking You know, we'll allow public, I think we should allow public to come up and give us feedback. It's not an official public hearing, but, you know, we just kind of have a standard of letting public get up and comment, as does the city council. So the official public hearing will be on October 13th for those draft amendments, and that'll be at the regular planning commission meeting on October 13th. Uh, so no, no planning commission items have gone to the city council lately. So nothing to report back about, uh, the fate of anything that you've reviewed recently and sent to the city council. Um, with the exception of the. The Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations, which you approved back in October or so, November, made a recommendation to the City Council late last year, and the City Council approved in December of 2025 for our 2025 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations. At the last meeting, we reported that those had been appealed back in January and went through the Growth Management Hearings Board. The Growth Management Hearings Board denied the appeal. It was by Ian Muntz and found that it upheld our comprehensive plan and development regulations. Mr. Muntz has since appealed that Growth Management Hearings decision, and so that will be going to the next step. information about that that's fairly new, but wanted you to know that the project you were heavily involved in was appealed again to the next highest authority. And that's all I have to report in our Planning Department update.

If there's no other comments or questions, I guess we'll call the meeting over at 8.02. Thank you all. Thank you all that are remaining in the audience.