Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

shoutout 197.

Good evening and welcome 2025. I would like to call and thank you. Call to order. call it being done if you would all join me with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation indivisible for all.

Thank you so much. We have um are going through the agenda this evening as printed. There are no changes to the agenda. Excellent. Do we have any guest business? Anybody in the audience or online that would like to address anything that is not on our agenda? Hearing none, seeing none, we'll move forward. Thank you for being in our audience. We appreciate that. Our action items next are number four. Has everybody had a chance to review the minutes from our October 15th meeting? Any changes to those minutes you'd like to make for the recording? None. Do I have a motion to approve? Commissioner Morton. Do we have a second? Second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Any abstain? Excellent. We have doing this in record time. Some of us are still catching our breath. Uh we will move on to the public hearing. Do I have a motion to open the public hearing?

Do I have a second? All those in favor? Public hearing is open. We are going to review step and living code amendments. Public hearing 2025.

All right. Thank you, Chair. David Levitan, principal planner. I'm not quite sure if this is working, so I'll just go ahead and project. Uh but we are having our public hearing tonight for step housing and co-l livingiving housing and I have a PowerPoint presentation. I'm going to breeze through a number of these slides given that you've seen the commission has seen most of these and we do not have uh additional people in the audience kind of here for the step housing meeting. Um so just a quick overview of the agenda tonight. Obviously, the staff presentation, an opportunity for public comments, uh planning commission discussion and deliberation, and then a recommendation to the city council is the action that we are looking for from the planning commission this evening. So, this is a slide that you've seen before. It just goes over the what comprises step housing. So a reminder that step housing is required was is required by the growth management act as amended by house bill 1220 back in 2020 21. The S down for shelters, the T for transitional housing, the E for emergency housing, and the P for permanent supportive housing. um shown this map before, but basically the red area shows zones that the city is required by state law to allow for emergency housing and shelters, which is basically any zoning district in the city that allows for hotels. Um there are some general parameters as far as the development regulations and supplementary use regulations that you are allowed to adopt for this type of housing. Uh so whereas emergency housing and emergency shelters are only permitted in very limited areas of the city basically our sub areas uh transitional and permanent supportive housing is

permitted in most of the city basically everything except for the black areas that aren't filled in. So essentially everywhere except for our public semi-public zones and then our industrial zones up in the northeast corner of the city um required to be allowed anywhere that either hotels or residential units are allowed and similar to the last slide there can be limits on things like occupancy and spacing intensity of use and they generally need to be treated like other types of housing. basically can't implement additional design review requirements and a whole lot of other uh requirements that treat them separately from other types of housing. So just a quick overview, this is something that the commission has seen a number of times uh through the spring and summer into fall of 2025. Um so introduced back in the spring and May and June. Um and then staff introduced the first draft code language on August 18th. uh that was discussed and then it was discuss discussed again on September 17th and October 15th. Um the general approach that staff has taken and that the planning commission has expressed support for is to kind of uh kind of to split up um basically have two levels of review. Uh transitional housing and permanent supportive housing are outright permitted uses. They don't require a land use permit. they essentially would just require a building permit. Uh whereas emergency housing and emergency shelters um have a set of supplementary use regulations, they are subject to a type two land use permit, an emergency housing and sheltering per permit that is uh identified within the municipal code and then is uh further discussed within the supplementary use regulations within chapter 1444.

um a couple of the kind of the topics that were discussed probably most the last couple work sessions with the commission with the concept of buffers. Uh the initial discussion that we had was buffers between an individual uses so individual emergency housing units or individual emergency shelters. um establishing a 500 foot buffer between those individual uses. And then back in September and October, there was additional discussion about uh adopting protective buffers between these emergency housing and emergency shelters and uses such as schools and parks, uh child care centers, libraries. Um so there was some discussion at that. um at the last couple of meetings and there was not consensus on that issue but the majority of the planning commission expressed support for establishing these protective buffers. Um I did want to point out this isn't something I think we just touched on it very briefly at the last meeting. It kind of got thrown in because it's another item that needs to be adopted by the end of the year. the concept of co-l livingiving housing. Um kind of the most prominent use and prominent example would be something such as u sorry boarding houses basically defined as residential sleeping units that are indep independently rented and lockable with shared kitchen facilities. So again, another variety of housing type that the growth management act has established some requirements as far as how cities can regulate these uses. Basically, they're required to be allowed in any zone that allows for multifamily residential development on a lot with six or more units. So in the case of Lake Stevens, that's our MFR zone and then our commercial mixeduse

zones. So we've amended our permissible use uh table to allow for this use. basically within those zones. So that's included in the draft code language that's included in attachment one. Um and then really the only other item that's specifically and prescriptively called out within the legislation was on parking requirements. Basically that cities can't require more than 0.25 spaces per sleeping unit. And so that's been incorporated in our into our proposed amendments the chapter 1472 uh which outlines the parking requirements in the city. So attachment. Yeah.

Parking limited maximum. That's that's a maximum. Correct. Yeah. So you cannot require more. You cannot require more than 0.25 spaces per sleeping unit.

But they can build more. They can Yeah. the providers can build more but our zoning code cannot require more. So sorry for the confusion on that one. Uh so attachment one includes the draft code language um that we're asking the planning commission to review and deliberate and weigh in on tonight and then if there are any members of the public that would like to provide comment. So again, we talked about uh it addresses basically it amends the permissible uses chapter and the permissible uses table to specifically align our use chapter with the requirements as far as where these uses must be allowed. Uh the parking regulations within chapter 1472 have been updated for co-l livingiving housing and then also for the four types of step housing. Um kind of the most prominent change is the addition of new supplementary use regulations and chapter 1444 uh within section 1444-100 which outlines um all of the all of the additional items and the process that's required for emergency housing and shelters. And a quick overview of that is that requirement for a type two permit. Uh the requirement for a 500 foot buffer between individual uses and protected uses. Um the requirement to prepare a site management plan. Um that addresses where the providers are required to include their contact information. It's required to analyze parking requirements and how they're going to meet that. And it includes an operations and safety plan, addressing things like security, access to the site, um kind of everything that's involved with um kind of maintaining public health and safety related to individual sites. And then there's also

sections on nuisance activity and enforcement measures. So a lot of our discussion at the last meeting was related to what might be an appropriate buffer and what uses should be basically subject to that buffer. um between emergency housing and shelters. Uh so we had looked at a 300 foot buffer, a 500 foot buffer and a thousand foot buffer which is measured from anywhere along the perimeter of the parcel. Um and so when we looked at a 500 foot buffer, um the yellow areas basic the red areas are the zones where these uses are permitted and then the yellow areas are basically areas that would be affected by the buffer where these uses would not be permitted. So the most prominent impact as we discussed at previous meetings is on downtown Lake Stevens. When you look at this map, establishing a 500 foot buffer around schools, parks, child care centers, and libraries would effectively wipe out all of downtown Lake Stevens. It would take out most of the Soer Hill area, kind of a small area of the uh Lake Stevens Center Frontier Village area there in the middle of the city and then kind of primarily just the western portion and then a and then a portion of the eastern end of the 20th Street Southeast corridor. uh when we went through this and kind of when you're when staff is preparing a staff report and when it's doing its analysis for a code amendment, it's required to address the findings that are in chapter 1416C uh section 075. Um, as we went through that and we looked at that kind of one of the main things coming out of the state law that's now within the growth management act is that regulations cannot effectively prohibit the leases within zones where they're required to be

allowed. Um, kind of and as we've discussed in the past, sub areas seem to be the most appropriate area for these uses given their proximity to transit and potential proximity to services. Um when we looked at the 500 foot buffer and especially within downtown Lake Stevens and the impact uh that a 500 foot buffer from North Cove Park where we're at right now would have it would that's essentially what wipes out the entirety of downtown Lake Stevens um which may run a foul of House Bill 1220 um as it amended to the Growth Management Act. Um and so within the recommendation from staff tonight was to maintain the buffers around schools and around child care centers. Um but to uh remove the buffers around uh parks and libraries. Um we had also received some feedback from the city council on September 23rd that had expressed some concerns and some reservations about the concept of buffers. uh we had kind of verified with the planning commission at their last meeting that they still wanted to move forward. So in trying to make our findings and trying to address the requirements of House Bill 1220, um this is the staff recommendation that we had come up with, but there is obviously opportunities for the planning commission to discuss, deliberate, and to amend the language that's included within attachment one if you'd like to further modify any of the code language. Um so this is showing basically that map again. Um removing North Coke Park if you look in the northeast in the eastern part of the city. It's the yellow is still over almost all of downtown Lake Stevens but the area just east of here um would allow for these uses whereas they would have been outright prohibited

basically in the entire downtown area. So there still is um you know a lot of areas that would be impacted by these buffers, but uh staff believes that it's more consistent with the state law in that there are the protective buffers, but it doesn't effectively rule out the potential sighting of emergency housing or emergency shelters um kind of within the entirety of downtown Lake Stevens. And then it would just open up a couple of additional sites. So, there was some yellow area that was kind of in the middle of the 20th Street Southeast corridor. Um, but it would have less of an impact there. But again, there would still be sites that would not be allowed to be cited with these uses, but staff believes that it's more consistent with the state regulations. Uh, so we touched on this briefly as far as the decision criteria.

Questions buffer there. west side.

Uh oh, so within like Stevens, west of Frontier Village. West of Frontier Village.

Yeah. So that's actually there's a large child care center there. So that's it's not impacted by the schools. The schools are a little bit farther south. Yeah. And then there's uh Frontier Heights, which um when you obviously take away the park, it's not impacted. But even when Frontier Heights was included, it just it barely touched it and it generally over overlapped with the buffer that exists already from that child care center there within the western part of Frontier Village. So, uh, kind of the the Lake Stevens Center was the probably the least impacted by the change because that childcare center was really what was driving, uh, that protective buffer. So, again, these are the decision criteria that are included in chapter 1416C and which are outlined within the staff report. So, um requires the uh development code amendment to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Um the comp plan that was adopted last uh November does include specific language related to step housing and other types of housing such as co-living housing. Um the code amendment is required to comply with the growth management acts. Um, the whole points of this code amendment was to comply with the GMA as amended by House Bill 1220 and House Bill 1998 over the last few legislative sessions. Um, and then the last one is that it needs to serve to enhance the public health and safety. Um, so that's the thought process behind the supplementary use regulations within chapter 1444. As we discussed, um the buffer requirements for parks and libraries might been a little bit more tenuous and they largely contributed to an overall prohibition of the use which seems to conflict with the state law. Uh so that was factored into staff's recommendation for their removal and to keep the

buffers for just schools and childcare centers. And with that, uh, staff's recommendation is, uh, for the planning commission to make a recommendation to the city council on the language within attachment one, either written as is or with any proposed amendments. Um, uh, already talked a little bit about removing the protected buffers and then there is an opportunity for public comment tonight for anyone that would like to provide those comments either online or in the audience. And following that, the planning commission is asked to make their recommendation to the city council. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Let's um ask if there are any comments from the public, either online or in person. This would be the time to make yourself known. Hearing and seeing none, I will turn the time then over to questions from the commission. Who would like to begin? Half mile rail. So think of some Yeah. So, we included that definition in there, but we do not have any transit stops or any other types of use. Any any anything that's defined in there, we do not currently have within Lake Stevens. There's a possibility that maybe we would get something that would rise to that. Probably not anywhere in the foreseeable future. Um but we wanted to make sure that our uh development code was consistent. Um we can add that in kind of a definition for major transit stop. It's already defined within the WAC and the RCW, but we can add that in to our uh to chapter 1408 if if the uh planning commission would like to make sure that we are reflecting the the proper definition for major transit stop and other uses that are other items that are defined within that chapter.

No, it's not a requirement. and it's basically trying to align with other state legislation from the last few years that exempted parking when you're adjacent or within a a half a mile of these types of uses of these types of major transit stops. So, House Bill 1110 related to middle housing, House Bill 1337 related to accessory dwelling units, they all have similar language that ex that you can require parking but you can't require it if they're within a half a mile of a major transit stop. And in the case of Lake Stevens, we don't have any, so it doesn't apply to us. But if you were say in Lynwood or Seattle or Everett, there's going to be areas along light rail or bus rapid transit that you cannot require parking because of their proximity to these major transit stops.

Any other questions? Commissioner Davis,

thank you. Commissioner Packard, want to go back to um H18. 1444 E4 uh talks about substantive substantive changes to site operations such as an increase in number of residents served for immigration stay shall require new application. I thought we had talked about that in a previous um meeting just that that seems ambiguous right if you if you go from five to seven applicants percentage wise that's a big But 20 to 22 residents maybe isn't too I didn't know. Do you see where I am? I'm on

Yeah. Just how do we how do we how do we quantify because you say such as an increase in the number of served any increase in residents served counts as a substantive change. again what is significant. Yeah. So that I don't know what that right number is. I just

Yeah. No, I do remember that discussion. So I apologize for the oversight as far as not addressing that in the revised code. Um yeah, I mean the options would be yeah we would really have to come up with some sort of definition or some sort of metric that we feel where it's appropriate to differentiate between someone having to essentially account for it in their their um you know when they renew their license versus essentially getting a whole new license. Um and I I don't know what that threshold. I mean, we could remove it and just basically rely on the renewal process or we could try to come up with a number as far as what we think is appropriate for what tips that threshold to where you need to be basically re-evaluated as a new use.

Yeah, the trick is that the number of residents is an example of a substantive change. many different things and I don't think we want to go in and quantify all of those things. So seems like best to pull out even the example right such as just take that out all together if you want to leave substantive change to site operation sh requ Yeah. And there would be an opportunity for us to um kind of further flesh that out as far as in the handouts and the materials and the applications, the ad kind of the administrative procedures part that's not codified. We could um give examples just as far as you know when somebody's coming back in for renewal just so they're not surprised and then like oh well I'm only increasing by you know I'm going from 100 to 125 residents. Um you know it probably even if it's not codified if we could at least provide guidance materials on that. Christy do you have any thoughts or I mean this lent itself to the discussion about what was happening at Everett. So um program

That's

you know

it doesn't and this is something that we um it doesn't really address that. It doesn't get into prescriptive or specific definitions and it this is one of the areas where there is some discretion. You know, obviously there there we've given examples from other cities where they just don't require any permit other than a building permit and then ones that you know kind of went the opposite direction and had half mile buffers between individual uses. So there's been a whole approach and I think the the thought from the legislature is was that this was one area where the to grant some discretion uh to local jurisdictions so we could yeah keep the substantive changes without a definition. We could get rid of that.

Yeah. Not have it in there. Yeah. Sorry.

There's a couple other places where you use substantive substanti but I don't know how the city fundamentally handles phrase substantial substantive throughout all of our code right this is this is onement stuff like that. You don't need to answer that.

No, that's a great question and we've been going through our process code and our goal is to eliminate criteria like that and actually include specific criteria within our code.

Yeah. So even if we you know if the direction was that yeah we're kind of defeating the purpose of that effort by introducing additional kind of subjective language we could completely remove that section for now um and try to address it you know as part of our we're introducing kind of the first phase of process code amendment but we're going to be rewriting the whole chapters of 1416A 1416B just you know which we just didn't have time to do this year with all the other code amendments that we needed to do, but we do need to do a larger scrub of all that language. And so, you know, we wouldn't have any renewals within the next, you know, couple years. So, we would have some opportunities to try to refine that section and and amend it as needed. Um there's nothing that would preclude us from as part of a you know process code phase two to come back into this section and try to do some additional research or try to come up with some more clear and prescriptive language that we feel captures most situations and scenarios. So happy to, you know, whatever direction the commission provides, happy to, you know, try to get rid of all that subjective language that references substantial and substantive and kind of clean that up in this version. Commissioner Der, I think it's it's very difficult to come up with a so you know I I've always liked the phrase but not and then you throw out a couple of good examples about you know what would what would trigger it but that's not that you know this body or flexibility

com and then

uh this is uh Commissioner Jennifer Davis and I was just going to say that I'm leaning more toward the idea of removing that provision um based largely on section F which is the complaints and enforcement section um that would um subsection three allows for revoking um applications that have been misrepresented or misleading information. So that paired with the rate the renewal for years and this ability for members to say hey what's going on here isn't isn't right looking at what that application initially said people's people here's enough to let's see that they need to apply.

Yeah.

Yeah. This is Commissioner Jennifer Davis again. Before I forget, I wanted to say that I would also accept recommendation about moving schools and libraries from the danger of us. Yeah. And just to clarify, it would be parks and library schools and childcare centers stay in the

recommendation. I know Martin

I don't have much to say. And I would concur. I my concerns were parking and I think those and then the idea of I think leaving it opened um some concerns built into that. So are there any other discussion comments before we close the public hearing?

Yes. Uh yeah planning team are you asking us for a clear proposal regarding whether or not that one substantive not substantive is going to be in that is that something

yeah or at least direction. Yeah. I mean either specific code language or in incorporating into your recommendation that that be eliminated or that a portion of that be eliminated or a general direction to staff to remove any references to substantive or substantial increases or improvements. you know, in the interest of not introducing additional subjective language that would be hard to enforce. So, there's a couple different ways that you can do it. I mean, the the more specific direction you can provide, the better, just because we want this to reflect your recommendation to city council. So, if you want to word smith it, if you want to completely scrub it, um it's kind of up to you.

Right now, we're in public discussion, although we can close that and then have our own discussion. We're marrying the two tonight. So, um why don't we ask one more time if there's any public discussion online discussion in the hearing? None. Let's u move to actually I don't even need your permission. We're going to close the public discussion. How about that? All right. So, now it is our time to massage the wording. Um I will just let you And I'll start off with that I would uh prefer that we leave the 500 foot buffer downtown simply because we don't have public transit and I think that once we concede that downtown's flavor may change. However, I am not going to um hold up this process for my personal feelings. Other than that, I think that Britain with some words I think tonight with these comments that have come up which have been very insightful. uh would be u needed and uh I would uh submit recommendation. So take it from that commissioner. I know uh I recognize that I perhaps was one of the strongest advocates of uh strong language with regard to buffer zones and restrictions. Um how however on hearing the potential for litigation around this uh I would concede to the uh recommendation of staff on this matter. Uh in my personal opinion I would rather retain strong language and some buffer versus all buffer having no language post expensive.

Mr. Packard, do you want to um look at what the wording is and perhaps word smith that tonight or just simply make the recommendation that it be massage moving forward? It sounds like staff is saying that they can move forward with what has been submitted to us have it be approved um and that we've got time to adjust in the future. I don't I don't particularly care justice.

Um I wasn't necessarily volunteering myself to go do that word sniffing. Uh I was going Well, may I propose that we try and reach a resolution on the buffer issue first and resolve that make sure we're all

So the buffer being 500 ft um except for parks and libraries. So, um, do I have approval? I don't know if I need a motion for that. How do we feel about that? Let's see. I miss Conor Davis, Commissioner Der, Commissioner, Commissioner Jennifer, and I am begrudgingly yes. So, Okay, on the other topic. So you have proposal to potential proposal to say including but not limited to right. take out and take out all of section four al together versus just taking out the example of such as commissioner Jav connection And so

I would argue I believe And secondly, I guess that's something. No, I appreciate clarify someone could get a new application and immediately then make a substantive change and they would have one year and 11 months of no impact before they would have to reapply. before that time they could sell the business or whatever the the entity is and then whoever's buying it then is stuck with the bag.

In the meantime, the neighbors are stuck with what's going on and that could neighborhood is initiated in the city. Yeah, that was the very last unless the time.

Yeah, I mean there we we don't have a um kind of a monitoring and and specific enforcement program. That's something that we could do potentially administratively if desired. It's bring up an extreme example.

So I'm going to add another wrinkle then as another option. If you say substantive change to the site operation shall require application. Essentially need to add something that says uh an application is required prior to making the change or within 30 days of the change or something like that to avoid this twoyear gap. It doesn't actually solve your problem, but it prohibits somebody from saying, "Oh yeah, I just f The right answer to your interesting discussion. Other thoughts? Sure. How do you feel?

So if somebody does somebody misrepresents then that's a whole another section after an issue. I would I understand the concerns about stand by that

you like the limited examples for example but not limited to not limited to this is How is the application we're not allowed to consistent? So

yeah, I mean it's it's intended to be as as you know as as quick and easy as possible assuming that the operations are going to be continuing as originally applied for. Um, you know, I think if there's potentially some language that needs to be in there that could replace this language, it could be be, you know, whether it's part of the renewal application or especially if it's prior to when the renewal application is due that maybe B4 could be replaced. Any request to increase occupancy prior to uh the necessity of a renewal application will require additional review by the planning development department for um you know some additional language. But if we we want to not include kind of the subjective language and more just throw it, hey, if you want to change your operations prior to the expiration of your initial two-year approval, then it needs to be reviewed for compliance against the, you know, the supplemental use supplementary use criteria within this chapter or something along those lines. Trying to think of kind of the best way to do that. they would potentially get rid of the subjective language, but at least maybe address some of these situations where there's concern that somebody's just going to get approved and then I mean be like, okay, well, we can bump it up by 20 or 25 30% and just hope that nobody, you know, submits a code enforcement complaint because that's generally how we're going to find out about these things. So that doesn't mean that necessarily they're going to go through that process, but that's the that's the case for pretty much any us within the city is that we are generally for a smaller city with one code enforcement. I'm concerned, we rely on the community to report back on these things. So could it be as simple as saying that

changes if there are changes to the site management plan as defined in page require a uh a new application.

Yeah, but I mean we have our itemized list here. Are you adding more people? Are you changing your background screen or dropping it? Are you seeing providing more services? Those are the I mean, no change, right?

I think that one year too restrictive. It's too included. Um, so a two-year I would agree with, but I like the idea of just putting in that caveat so they know we know they know. Yeah, these are the things that we're looking at.

Then yeah, if you're changing them, then you need to rely specific language. Any changes that require that involves an update to the site management plan or what commissioner did you have? Happy back to

I know that this go So any any changes any material changes will be subject prior to prior to

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Make that kind of make it pretty. Would you? Okay. So, change for to that wording simplified simplified that word. Is that how we're comfortable? Takes out substantive substantiative, right? I just created a new word, so let's take that down right now. It addresses, I think, transportation parking issues. It addresses free permitting. It addresses, we've already talked about the buffers. Are we good? Do we have um a motion to approve as amended?

We have a second on that. All in favor? Any opposed? Any of Thank you. I love our discussions. We're very good. All right, moving on.

All right. Thank you, Chair Hexford. And this is just going to be a really quick uh discussion. We just want to introduce it. Over the course of the last couple years, we've checked in somewhat infrequently on what we're calling the process code. basically trying to um comply with the variety of different state legislation that's come out over the last few years. The most prominent being our permit review timeline. Um so that was something that came out of Senate Senate Bill 5290 a couple years ago. It basically changed the way that cities and the timelines that they need to abide by for different types of permits. So type one permits which are fully administrative with no public comment, type two which are administrative with public comment and then type three which are quasi judicial with public comment at public hearing. Um this was a change that was required by the end of 2024. Um so what we ended up doing was adopting an interim ordinance to adopt these timelines and then that gave us another year to incorporate that into our process code. Uh we had hoped to get a little bit further on the process code, but just with everything else that we did in 2025, we didn't quite get as far along. So we did need to adopt a permanent ordinance to permanently include that language related to the review timeline. So that's what's included within attachment one. It's basically the interim ordinance um that would become permanent. So that's something um that would be incorporated into the public hearing and into your recommendation to keep that language on a permanent basis. And then we just wanted to address some other regulatory requirements and some other lowhanging fruit. Um there was House Bill 1293 that addresses the use of clear and objective language uh specifically related to design review. So, we went through

several different chapters within the municipal code and tried to remove some of that subjective language like substantative and substantial as much as we could. Um, so there are some sections that have been that are included within attachment two that try to address that. Um, there also were some um we wanted to align the definitions and our different permit application types. uh we wanted better alignment with between the municipal code and our fees resolution. So we wanted to standardize terms such as plat versus subdivision just to make sure that there's consistency and everybody is aware. So we went through and made some of those changes. Um and then there were a couple things specifically related to uh design review. Um that was always a type one process. Um, it's listed as a type one permit. The way that, uh, House Bill 1293 describes design review is it really needs to be an associated land use permit that's completely integrated into either the building permit process or something like a PRD subdivision, which requires design review. You just you really need to fold it in. It shouldn't be its own land use application. So we one we shifted that to an associated land use determination just so that it is fully integrated into the larger permit review process and not its own standalone permit requirements. Um and then for site plan review which is something that occurs primarily for commercial development and really is essentially just requires um applicants to demonstrate how they comply with clear and objective development standards. things like setbacks and landscaping. That's always been a type two land use permit. And it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense because when you're dealing with clear

and objective development standards, um it doesn't really make sense to be requiring public comments and public notice for something that's essentially if they can show that they comply with the code, it's going to be approved. So, it almost gives false hope to the community that they can comment on something to the point that it's going to get changed. I think there's, you know, potentially the opportunity to still provide comment, but we really want to focus on establishing clear and objective both design standards and development standards that if you can meet these, it's you're going to be approved. And that's that's the whole intent with a lot of the legislation that's come out of Olympia in the last few years. So, we are proposing to shift site plan review from a type two permit to a type one permit. just I look back through all of the site plan reviews and Chrissy can probably speak to her projects as well. I don't think I've ever gotten a comment on a a site plan review before. Um yeah, and generally a lot of these applications they include another permit besides site plan review. Um, and if they're not, so if you say had a new school and it meets all the setbacks, it meets the height, it meets the circulation, the queueing for buses, it meets the landscaping requirements, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be requiring them to go through a type two process when they've already demonstrated compliance with the code. So, that was our thought on that. Um, there were a couple other items that seemed to be remnants from several codes past, including plat alterations that were still listed as a type five um, permit, even though a preliminary plat is a type three. So, it doesn't make sense for a alteration for a plat to be

a type five. So, we changed that to a type two to better align it um, with uh, our administrative modification section. So where um you know for a short plat which is nine units or less can be approved as a type two permit. So it doesn't require a public hearing. A long plat which is 10 or more lots is a type three. So it just obviously doesn't make sense if someone wants to alter their plot that they would need to go through a more rigorous process than the initial approval. So those are a couple of the the major highlights within what we're calling phase one of the process code. So, just wanted to share that with you. Um, so we can meet our requirements. Uh, we we do need to have the um the code language specifically related to the permit review timelines that needs to be adopted by city council by December 9th. So, we were proposing to bring forward this whole package uh to the planning commission at your next meeting on November 19th for the public hearing. uh we feel like it's a pretty limited set of proposed amendments and that would allow us to go to the city council three weeks later on December 9th so that we can get that permanent code language adopted before the interim ordinance interim ordinance expires. Um so those are just some of the highlights. I didn't want to go through every specific section. I'm happy to answer any questions about uh code amendments that are proposed within their their within attachment two um or any other questions or comments. So, thank you.

Thank you for the overview. Are there any questions this evening knowing that we're going to be discussing further?

I'd like to just make one comment. I addressed it last week as part of the commissioner notes just uh yeah talking to people who are looking to either start or move businesses and burden of moving is so substantial they either don't want to or can't because it's financial they want their business to grow they want to expand they want to bring value to the city but the imposed burden criteria landscaping impact fees and all this stuff at least consider that as we thank you for reiterating that. I remember that from our last meeting. Sure. Jennifer Davis reports. Sure. Jennifer Davis, let's begin with you. I just I wanted to make a comment on the city's citizen. Um we had this week and the city responded within one day and one and it was great. So I encourage anybody who has an issue they want to bring attention to that

Well, thank you everybody. We are real quick. This is Jennifer Davis. I I'm just making you think of the high school football team entering the playoffs. Um, and what a great group of kids and I have pause to really love and appreciate Ted Hub lineman. So, um, I will be following the and so excited for our home team.

Uh I appreciate the congratulations but it looks favorable. Uh I intend to participate in planning commission but and that was a beautiful segue in that I am asking two things actually. one um if we have an idea of when we're going to schedule interviews for one and perhaps two I'd like to be a part of those interviews and I would need ample notice to make sure that I'm involved in that

point noted and we do have two applications per director right and so under the director report I can get okay um with the potential of having a second opening would that um invitation to apply be then reissued so that they know that they have two openings or would it be and we're being preemptive at this point but um would it stand or would we say that we now have two openings? There would be two openings. Yes. But would we re would we revertise that as two openings? We would revert.

Okay. I'll make myself as available as possible and I will enlist U Commissioner Jennifer Davis to stand in and find my because she would love to do that. And then the other um just housekeeping, we have a meeting on the 19th. Can we ensure that we get the packet the Friday before? Thank you so much. No, no. I just want to make sure a lot of us use that weekend to uh uh peruse the uh packet and I just want to make sure that that is on your calendar. Thank you so much. We cannot have a meeting on the 19th because Commissioner Morton is unavailable. No, thank you for letting us know. All right, with that said, with no other comments from the commissioners, we'll turn it over to the planning. Okay, Christy Schmidt on behalf of Russ Wright here, planning manager. There are a couple items I want you to make aware of for your 19th meeting. It's going to be a double header for a public hearing because I will be bringing back to the planning commission also the traffic impact fee along with the concurrency management systems. So that will be being noticed also. We'll do a double notice and it'll be coming back to the planning commission for a hearing. In addition, we'll be providing our third quarter report to you along with our 2026 work program. And then we do want to make sure we have a forum for that meeting since we have two public hearings. So I don't know if planning commission or if it's best if Dawn sends out a poll to the planning commission just to verify that we'll have a form. So we know that we are already down to um is there anybody else that feels like they would be unavailable? I think that we are okay but certainly let us know early. Thank you. Perfect. That is it for the director's report.

Okay. Thank you very much. Moving on. Our last agenda item is number nine. Ajour. Who would like to make a motion? And we have a second. Um Commissioner Morton, Commissioner Conor Davis. All those in favor? No one ever opposes. Thank you.