Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call uh the April 14th meeting to order. Um if you're able, please stand and we'll do our pledge. 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. Would you like to go ahead and do the role, please? Mills, present. Mcomes, present.

Ryan Drezky, present. Martin here. Underwood here. Am I correct? We don't have any minutes.

Oh, okay. Um, any comments or questions about the minutes? Dr. Martin. Um just on the uh roll call under roll call March 10th it says chairperson Linda Martin called meeting to order. I don't think I was chair at that time. Any other comments or questions about the those minutes? Can we accept them with uh one correction needed? Yep. Anybody Anybody like to make a motion to uh accept the minutes?

Mr. Chairman, so moved. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All in favor say I. I. I.

All opposed by the same sign. The minutes are accepted. Uh time for public comments. if you uh would like to step up to the the microphone, state your name and uh what community you live in and we'd love to hear from you. Not everybody at one time. and just anything you'd like to talk about when we have we'll have opportunity for people to step up

with one note that we're having a public hearing after this. So if if you're here to speak to anything to the public hearing, please hold till we get to that public comment period. So this public comment period is for everything that's not in the public hearing.

Okay. Uh, do we have anybody online with a question or comment? All right, let's open up the public hearing. All right. Uh, good evening, um, Mr. Chair and the rest of the planning commissioners and members of the audience. Um I have a short presentation that will sort of outline um this agenda items uh the purpose of the agenda item and kind of the process that we went through to develop the proposed amendments and then um if it's all right with council then we or excuse me planning commission we could open it up to the public for public comment. Sorry, I had a last last minute malfunction of my thumb drive. So, please excuse my out of breath and lateness to the podium. Uh, and hopefully everything else will go smoothly. Okay. Um so this first agenda item is um some proposed amendments addressing vehicle and boat sales and repair in the Anacortis municipal code. Uh the proposed order of events this evening is that as I me just mentioned staff would give a brief uh briefing on the proposed amendments. Um then we could hold the public hearing and ultimately um staff is requesting planning commission deliberation and

potentially a recommendation to city council on the proposed amendments. Um so the just a quick summary of the code proposal. You have in your packet um an agenda bill and a staff report and proposed amendments that go through in detail uh what the issues are and and what is being proposed. But um just very quickly um the current the existing code excludes certain industrial support activities from locating loc located locating in the industrial zone. Um so smallcale vehicle repair and small boat sales which are both under they're combined into a general service category of our uh permitted uses table in the Anacortis municipal code. um the way that the code is currently set up, those types of uses would not be permitted in the industrial zone. And um so that came to uh staff's attention and uh so we put together these amendments for you to consider uh to potentially um change that. So um again the issue is uses certain uses not being prop allowed under our current code and then also the way that the code is currently structured makes it a bit complex and difficult to understand both for staff and for um members of the public. And so we'd like to just fix those uh incon inconsistencies uh to make things more clear for all involved. Um staff's recommendation is to amend the title 19 unified development code to allow for a broader range of vehicle repair and boat repair and sales uses in the industrial zone while prohibiting

auto oriented quick service uses uh auto repair uses in that zone. Um and then also to resolve the code consist inconsistencies and I'll get a little bit more into detail here on each of those items. So, we're primarily talking about the uh industrial zone indust industrial zone within city limits. Um, and that is located in the area sort of bounded by um our avenue, 22nd Street. So, this is a closeup of this area. Um so R Avenue to the west, 22nd Street to the north, uh approximately T Avenue, and then uh Fidalgo Bay to the east, and approximately 34th Street to the south. And so that pink area is our industrial zone. Um, prior to a major code reorganization and and rewrite that occurred in 2019, um, repair uses were a permitted use within the industrial zone. And I just took a little excerpt out of the uh, code from that uh, period of time before 2019 to show how that was set up. Um, under permitted uses, we used to have a title 17, um, where all of these things were. Uh, and you can see that permitted uses in the industrial zone included any industrial research and development, office repair, warehousing, processing, shipping terminal, and it goes on. Um, so pretty broad allowances for different types of repair and didn't specify, you know, vehicle or boat or um, anything like that. And so, you know, there are other there are um uses that have located or that did locate in that zone

under this older code uh these code provisions. Staff does not think that the reorganization and rewrite in 2019 intended to uh exclude vehicle repair, certain vehicle repair and boat repair from this zone. And so that's part of the reason we're we're bringing these uh amendments forward. So this um shows our current code our table of permitted uses in the mixed use and industrial zones. Um so across the top the all of the mixed use and industrial zones and then uh this is just an excerpt of some of the principal uses that are listed. Uh you can see under the industrial zone column here um the general service category is blank under the zone. So that typically means not permitted. So any sort of uh general service use that um uh is not heavy service or public safety facility um would not be permitted in industrial zone under our our current code. So that's the way we read that right now. I can't get this microphone right. All right. Um so the general service category and or our current code um is a category of uses whose primary activity is the provision of service, rental, repair to boats, vehicles, appliances, tools um and it and it goes on and then the code goes on to list specific uses in that

category uh which you can read here. Um but included in the category are small boat sales, rental and repair and also vehicle repair. Um and then also heavy service is is one of those uh subuses that is all grouped into this larger general service use category. Um and the definition of heavy service is important because it actually changes how uh a general service use is classified and whether it is permitted in a particular zone or not. So if um a particular general service use has any exterior service activities um or exterior storage areas that are larger than 15,000 uh gross square feet or occupying an area larger than the size of the uses principal building, then that type of use is now classified as a heavy service use. then you would need to go to this category here to see if it's a permitted use in the particular zone. Does that make sense to everybody? It's a little bit confusing, but that's what we're dealing with right now and trying to make it a little more simple. Um, so in order to address this particular issue, uh, staff included some proposed amendments in attachment A to the staff report in your packet. Um, I just took some screenshots from that, but essentially what the amendments would do is to um unbundle the vehicle repair and um boat repair from the overall general service category. uh and list them out

separately within this permitted use table so that um it's more clear that those types of uses are permitted in these particular zones. Um and we also made it clear that these uses are permitted in the industrial zone by adding a P here. We also added some cross references to the specific um uh definitions. We created some new definitions to differentiate between minor and major vehicle repair, which I'll get to here in just a minute. Um, another cleanup item that comes along with this with these proposed amendments are to rework the vehicle and boat sales category of uses. Um, which was also a little bit confusing. Um, had didn't have these clearly didn't clearly have these two uses broken out, the the boat sales and vehicle sales rental. And so it made it um hard to uh understand where these these types of uses were permitted. So we um created a separate subcategory under vehicle and boat sales for vehicle sales and rental. And we just carried down we didn't change where that type of use is permitted. Um we just carried down the permitted uh the P down to vehicle sales. And then we um noticed that we were using different terms for marine and boat sales which we think you know mean is intended to mean the same thing. So we just um narrowed down uh those terms to one and are using boat sales and rental.

and we'll get into um the specific changes here. So in 1944, some additional changes to go along with the permitted use table amendments. um are to add a clarification about the effect of um classifying a general service used as heavy service. Uh because we felt like that was something that could get easily overlooked and has in the past. And so we added this um sentence under the general service use category um that just notes that general service uses involving exterior activities that meet the definition of heavy service are classified as heavy service uses for purposes of determining whether they are permitted in a particular zone. So that's just kind of a clarification for for the reader to be aware of that. Um, we also are looking at cleaning up the the list of the different general service uses um by separating out small right now the subtype is small boat sales rental and repair. Um, and since we already had a marine um, excuse me, vehicle sales in repair, we felt that it made sense to move the boat sales down into that category instead of having it sort of hidden here under the general services. So, this change um, basically leaves small boat repair as a permitted use in that uh, general services category. Um, and Excuse me.

Okay, I see. So, and then we took the uh we added a definition. So, we said small boat repair and added the definition that is basically comprised of um this information in parenthesis here. Um, so it's basically small boats are defined as uh boats that are capable of being transported on public roadways as a standard load load without a special permit. So that's um we had to do a little bit of research to figure out why those dimensions were included in the code. Uh the uh 40t 8 and 1/2 ft wide and 14 feet tall. Um we weren't really sure why that those were the dimensions. So, we finally figured out that those are that size of boat um and less is something that you can get on like a standard boat trailer and and uh move it around without having to have like a heavy haul permit um or special trailer. So, we thought it might be useful to include that information in the in the definition to you for for future planners who had that same question. Um so this continues on in the general service category. We've created a new definition and subtypes for vehicle repair. So um under vehicle repair uh it made sense to have uh two sort of different types of repair that have different um you know characteristics and impacts on on the surrounding areas um where they're uh able to be located. Um so that we can regulate them uh you know differently depending on the zone where they're permitted and we can uh um have more uh um detail and

uh in in where those are located. So um minor vehicle repair and major vehicle repair are the new terms that were developed to uh describe the two different um types of uses. The minor vehicle repair is like your um you know your oil change your quick service oil change uh you know filter replacements um pretty uh auto inensive quick turnaround. um you know the types of uses that are typically more appropriate for commercial areas and not um you know heavier industrial areas where you don't want to have a continuous stream of traffic coming through. And then major vehicle repair is uh basically everything else. So um extensive mechanical, structural or body related repair or reconditioning of motor vehicles. In order to prohibit the quick uh minor vehicle repair type uses, we added a zone specific standard for the industrial zone that just says that um minor vehicle repair that's engaged in the rapid routine services such as oil changes, etc. is not a permitted use in in the industrial zone. Um this is a clarification that I already um sort of went over uh where we have um integrated or excuse me we changed the terminology from marine boat sales um excuse me marine sales rental to boat sales and

rental just to be consistent through the code and then um right now there is a zone specific restriction on boat sales in the CBD zone that only small boats may be um sold within within that designation. So this uh little uh sentence here just achieves that um zone specific restriction. Um that's my description of the changes. Uh as far as procedure, what has happened so far on these proposed amendments are that or is that the planning department released the proposed draft on March 25th. The SEPA responsible official issued a SEIPA determination of nonsignificance and um staff notified the department of commerce. we have to notify the state when the city is intending to amend its development regulations. So we completed that step. Um and we also published the notice of availability and written public comment period public hearing um in all the usual places. So tonight is the planning commission briefing which I've just gone through and the public hearing and potentially recommendation and then the next steps would be uh city council consideration and adoption based on depending on the planning commission's recommendation. That's all I have. So I can sit down and see if the public has anything to say. Do we have any public comments at this time? Please, please state your name and the community you live in.

Uh my name is John Willoughby. I live in Anacortis. Uh I'm the owner of Zap Prolube and Automotive in Anacortis. Um I I guess what I was here primarily to potentially provide any additional questions that you might have about my expertise and what we do in our field. uh that that you know some of the unique challenges we have with uh the properties that are located primarily commercial avenue on the island as we're we're permitted to operate at this point. I mean even some of the rural areas that are industrial uh in the county are still governed by the industrial zone of Anacortis. So technically, if you're even on the outskirts of town, uh you still wouldn't have under the current uh zoning the permission to work in some areas where it would seem logical that that to sort of activity would be. So it really, you know, for us uh what we run into is let's say your car needs an engine and this after postcoid things are not as readily available as they were before. like if you need an engine on some of these cars, we wait uh 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 14 weeks. So, you can imagine that and the small spaces that you occupy on the commercial avenue area, there's very nowhere nowhere to store that car when when when that's going on. So, that's just a small example of some of the challenges we run into. Uh with with, you know, spaces on the commercial corridor, it's very difficult to find a space large enough to do the type of work that we do. Um you know and in our business we are we are part of the small repair. That's one aspect of our business where we do uh you know 40 to 50 cars a day that that obviously you know would greatly impact traffic in those areas. So I can understand because I've been down there. I have a boater and so I understand with the the large boats that they move around down that area that wouldn't be ideal. But we do do a lot of engine repair and there's a

lot of us that do that. You'll do engines, transmission repair. We do boat repair. We do machine work. We do rebuild boat trailers. A lot of, you know, takes up a lot of space. There's really nowhere in town to take a motor home. If you have a a motor home that needs repair, there's no property really large enough to get that bu that vehicle in and actually work on it in town. Not not reasonably anyway. It's pretty difficult. There's a couple places that are fortunate to be in the industrial zone now that have large enough large enough facilities that can do that, but it's limited. So, um, I was here primarily just to provide any any questions anybody might have and maybe that's not appropriate, but I thought I would be here to potentially lend any sort of uh input to that uh that situation. So, if there's not uh that that's all I would have to say about it.

Well, we appreciate you uh even making that offer. No problem. Uh any questions or comments from my co- planning commission members since we do have some expertise we have staff and we have expertise in the audience tonight. Mr. Mcomes, Mr. Chairman, so these changes would allow businesses to make make those types of repairs in the in the they're currently not zoned for for in the industrial, but they'd be able to do that now in the industrial area. Is that correct? One more time in the question. I'm sorry. the change the proposed changes would would allow you to make those types of repairs like an engine change or or trailer repairs in the industrial zone. Now,

the way I understand it, yes, that would be the that would be the mod we'd be allocated to be permitted to be in those zones. Now, the small quick like my oil change business, no, that's they're they're exclusively removing that portion because of the traffic impact in those areas. So the stuff we're doing like the boat trailers, engine repairs, diesel engine repairs, machine work, welding, exhaust work, any of that stuff would be done in those areas. And technically the way the the way it's written currently, the ordinance is written that you would not be able to do that.

We are not able to do that right now in any capacity, not not by the zoning. Um, and you know, just for an example, like I have two buildings in town just to run my business. I have a property on 12th Street that I rent to do my major mechanical work and then I've got the quick lube business on 23rd Street that we run both mechanical business out of and the quick lube out of there. So really uh a challenge to can maintain. It's a very difficult thing to do and to find space large enough to do what we're doing. That's at least from my perspective that's one of the great hurdles that I'm encountering. Any other comments or questions? Mr. Chair,

so we're going to close the public hearing and then have a conversation with staff and ourselves. And ourselves. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks a lot. All right. I will close the meeting, public meeting, and uh we'll allow uh planning commission members to discuss, ask questions, and uh ask the staff questions. Dr. Martin, you look like you're ready.

I have a question. Um it has to do with the definitions uh under vehicle repair. The minor vehicle repair uh includes things like the diagnos diagnostics, fluid service, tire and battery work etc. So you can with the minor vehicle repair you can do tire repair placement you can replace batteries you can rotate tires I mean replace batteries but you can't change oil because

it's a quick service yeah it just something just didn't seem quite right if when I take my car in I want the oil changed and the tires rotated did uh excuse me. No, the intent is that this would cover oil change as well. That might not have come through in the You're talking about the minor vehicle repair definition. Yeah, because because uh we're not allowing an oil change place or we're recommending an oil change place in the industrial zone, right? Am I right?

That's correct. Yeah. The the types of services like a like a quick lube oil change uh facility we are recommending not be per permitted in the industrial zone.

That's what it just seems again just for me. I don't know very much about this but I know that when I take my car in to change the oil I usually get the tires rotated. So, if I'm in the with this proposal, if I'm in the industrial zone, I can get my tires rotated and my oil changed. But if I'm in the CBD zone, I can only get my oil changed and not my tires rotated. No, the the intent is that minor min minor vehicle repair includes oil changes and tire ro tire replacement tire rotations and that those types of facilities would only be allowed to locate in commercial I think it's commercial zones is where those are permitted right now. So, we're trying to avoid establishing establishing new uh quick service high turnover like the oil change and the and the tire rotation service facilities in the industrial zone because the uh intent of the industrial zone is is more heavier um more intensive repair. there is a lot of um you know activities that are going on in the industrial zone where we don't want to have a lot of um traffic coming in to go to a quick turnover type facility. Does that

Yeah. Okay. I get that. It just it didn't uh it it seemed confusing and maybe I'm probably I'm the only one that's confused. I don't know. Okay. Well, um, would it help if we included oil change as an example in that minor vehicle repair definition? Is that what's Well, if I if I were um, Mr. Is it Willie? Willoughby.

Willoughby. If I was Mr. Willoughby, I might read that and say I'm I'm a small I'm a minor um, whatever you whatever you call it. I'm a I'm a minor vehicle repair shop. because I also do oil changes and rotate tires. So, I'm I'm a minor vehicle repair shop and and so a customer like me um could go to his Jiffy Lube kind of place in the industrial zone. Do you see what I'm saying? It seemed it it just seemed confusing. So what you're saying is the the uses such as uh tire rotation and quick oil changes currently are listed as minor vehicle repair and minor vehicle repair we are proposing to allow in the industrial zone but

correct what what we're trying to do is not have the quick places right and so there there might this might require a little tweaking yeah I I understand what you're saying now I was Not I was thinking that this Yeah, I see that there's a a P here. So, I can see how that would be confusing. Um I I understand the thought behind it and it makes perfect sense to me. It just seems confusing in in the wording or something. Seems to me confusing

the way Well, so the way around it is we allow minor vehicle repair. We're proposing to allow minor vehicle repair in the industrial zone. However, if you got to go down to the zone specific standards, which says oil changes, lube, filter replacement, and other short duration maintenance is prohibited. So that is a little bit confusing to allow it in one s in in one sentence but then have to go someplace else to see that it's actually not allowed. So I can see where that's confusing.

Yeah, I I can too. And um maybe a potential way to remedy that is to just say that minor vehicle repair is is not a permitted use in the industrial zone. Um, and I do think that under the major vehicle repair definition, it does allow minor repairs when they're part of another type of major repair. So that kind of covers, you know, situations where you're kind of doing the whole thing. Um, so that could be something that we can look at is just taking that pee out in the industrial zone

where Mr. Mcomes is pretty good at word smithing, too. So,

well, I think that's a mistake to because I think in the course of doing a minor vehicle repair, you're going to do all of those things like change oil, change your filter, and rotate tires. So, I think you're I don't think you want to exclude those necessarily from the M. So, I like the way it's written, actually. I think we need to be more uh I I think let me let me say this chronologically. The I think the minor vehicle repair is well written because those things probably need to happen in the course of doing a minor vehicle repair like changing the oil and all that. But I think where you need to probably focus is the um the high turnover high customer turnover vehicle repair I think needs to be spelled out that that's not allowed because of the uh I think that makes sense. It's not allowed because of the the high customer turnover, but I think you need to be I think that's where you need to be make the distinction in terms of the definition so that you're not excluding something that you probably want to be you probably want those things happening in the industrial zone and not in your commercial zone in my opinion. Does that make sense? So, I think I picked up something in what you're saying is in uh the process of doing a major vehicle repair, you're doing all sorts of minor vehicle repair. So, in the major vehicle repair section, we added a line, the last line that says minor repairs are only allowed when part of a major repair. So, does that address what you were trying to get at? No, because you because then you're saying, "Hey, you can only rotate your tires if you're going to do some body work on your car, right?" But I may send my car to the minor repair all day and I'm not pulling the engine. Um, but you know, I may have I may have so many minor repairs that I'm doing, changing

all of the fluids, just flushing the radiator, uh, changing the um, back me up, changing the catalytic converter or the, you know, I have to put a new muffler on there. And those things are minor vehicle repairs that are probably they're going to your car may be in there all day and it's not high customer turnover, right? So you're not getting the congestion that you're trying to avoid in the industrial area. But so I don't think you want to exclude those things. But I think you need to to write that. I think what you like in the that section B where you have minor repairs are only allowed when part of a major repair. I would say that the the work that you're doing in terms of the uh where you talk about where's the high customer turnover uh where you're talking about oil change, lubrication, filter replacement, tire rotation should only be done um when part of a minor vehicle repair if that makes sense. I think you could add that to the end of the part a and and now you're not you don't have you don't have the jify loop zap loop type you know setup where customers are rolling in and out every 20 minutes but you're still allowing those functions to happen as part of a a vehicle repair. So yeah, I mean it brings up a lot of question is a muffler shop where it might take them a little while. It's not high turnover.

You're talking several hours probably, right? But is that the is that that that's a really good question. Is that something that should be allowed in the industrial zone or do we want to continue to keep those types of uses in the commercial zone where there is because there's still, you know, well, a fair amount of turnover on that versus, you know, dropping off a vehicle and picking up the next day for sure when you're having a major repair done, you know, your transmission being fixed. And they might take might be done at the end of the day, might be a day and a half. So, where do we draw that line?

Say minor vehicle repair is anything you're not going to do in your own driveway. Like, most guys aren't going to do most folks aren't going to do a muffler in their own driveway, but I can easily do a oil change in my own driveway, right? So,

Dr. Martin, Mr. Dresky. Um, which also brings up the point this is Anacortis and do we have a lineup of customers coming out, you know, down the street to get oil changes in Anacortis? Yes. Do we? Yes.

Okay. Then I withdraw my question. change business understand those facilities aren't really designed I I think you I think we should have you up to the microphone because we're recording this meeting.

So those uh those services that you're talking about, the facilities are specifically designed to handle a 20minut customer. Like if you have a rack that you're lifting the car and you're doing an oil change on stuff that's getting a multi-point inspection, a tire rotation and oil change is more I would say it's it's an hour service, right? So you're going to spend about an hour on that. It's not going to be quick. you can't do that many of them a day. I think if you put a cap on a situation like that where you didn't allow more than 20 cars a day in that area or something like that might be a better way to address it as opposed to a sheer service, right? So if you said, "Okay, based on an average of 20 cars a day, we don't want any more down there than that, that would sort of remedy I think your issue." And I would say that if you're doing oil change in a tire rotation and we're checking brakes and we're doing that sort of a thing, that's not what I would classify as a quick service. An oil change is an oil change in a multi-point inspection. We wash the car, you're out of there in 25, 30 minutes. I think that's different. If that makes sense. I know what you're saying with a tire rotation. You want it every time, but it's that you're going to you can't come to Zap and get that done in a moment's notice. That's a three-hour probably a three-hour window because we have to get a rack free. It's just a little more complicated than a quick routine maintenance.

Thank you. But if you're going to do both, that forces you to have two locations. I don't want to do oil changes down there. That's that would be a cumbersome and a hassle. And the men that are there and the women that are there be too expensive to have them do those services. So, frankly, but you'd still But if you want to do any any more more serious repairs, ones that take longer, they're going to be going to the industrial area. Correct. That's right. That's where I'm going to direct.

So, that forces you to have two locations. I will have two locations anyway because my building that I'm on 23rd Street is designed to do the quick loop to rec reduplicate that and rebuild that down there is I have no interest in that. I have really well established work just for my own personal like where I'm established. I'm in a good spot. I got two locations. I draw people off Commercial Avenue. It turns them to my mechanic shop. So for me, the mechanic shop could be anywhere. It doesn't need to be, you know, frontage because I have frontage and and a a great clientele of people. So for me, it's more where do we get this big mechanical work done? Where can we do motor homes? Where can I do the engine repair in an area where we have enough space to to do what we need to do? That's sort of the challenge.

Okay. So So you're totally resigned to the fact that if you want to do both, you're going to be in two locations. Correct. If I'm going to be doing lubes, it's going to be up there.

And when lubes stop, which it someday, I guess with electric cars, that's a very good potential. I mean, it's very possible that this is a 10 15 year window and then that changes. So looking at the future, uh tires I think would be a big that's a lot of people that draws from tires too. I mean you have a you know if you look at Lew Schwab, you'll go in there in the summertime there's going to be 35 cars in their parking lot and people roaming around looking to get tires fixed and stuff. So that would be an example of where that would be probably not a great place to put that a store like that. uh but when you're doing uh the diagnostic work for instance that that can be really complex that can be really timeconuming multiple days waiting on modules waiting computers there's a lot of time you know spent trying to pin those down so that that part probably is not a small service that's probably more larger long-term storage long-term repair and and high skill level so the quick stuff is like your you know the radio flush the oil change the things like that I think are what what they're you know what they're concerned with is the volume of people. Um so you know I think if you look at the other shops down there their long-term repair facilities you're in their you know their average repairs are probably three and a half to five hours per car. That's that's where I think you'd look at that and and I would think we're going to be in the same position. We still going to need an oil change but you're there for other things. I mean, like I said, frankly, I would rather you go back actually to my other shop, get the oil changed, and then come down to the main shop and get the mechanic work done because the employees are really expensive. You can't have them doing those sorts of services. It's just not it doesn't it financially doesn't work. So, ideally, they're going where the quick loop guys are. They're getting that work done in those facilities. Uh, and and being the traffic.

Thank you. You bet. Do do we define um does not include prolonged outdoor storage. At what point does waiting for parts and I you know I hear stories about people waiting a month to get parts sent from out of the country you know waiting for a factory in Japan to send some part for a Toyota. I've been there so I know that that possible. So what's the definition of a prolonged outdoor storage? waiting for uh waiting for the shop to be able to actually do the work you want them to do. Well, we don't have that defined. We don't define it. Okay.

Um where did you see that one? I'm sorry. Made uh was that under minor under minor? It's the very last sentence under minor. So not included vehicle including repair activities defined under vehicles.

Yeah. I mean I I think it would be um difficult to put a definition on that. I mean I think it's it's better probably to leave that general. Um, but you know, as a as a characteristic of that type of use, if if it's not um, you know, if the if the car isn't getting in for service within a day or two, that's kind of what what my mind goes to, Mr.

Dr. Martin. So maybe that last sentence under minor vehicle repair um this use does not include repair activities designed under uh defined under blah blah blah or service activities such as oil change or something. The oil change isn't really a repair, it's a service activity. So maybe that would make it more clear. Would you rather use the word maintenance

or no? Because you can do maintenance under minor vehicle repair. Tire rotation is maintenance. I don't know. Just a thought to maybe maybe put the word of of service u when you're servicing a vehicle is not what we want under the vehicle repair section.

Mr. Sure. Actually, I think if you read uh 2A, the industrial zone, minor vehicle repair uses primarily engaged in rapid routine services such as oil changes, lubrication, filter replacement, it's uh it's pretty well spelled out. I think if maybe that needs to be maybe that needs to be included in section 1A, but I think it it pretty much spells out the intent. And I think it also clarifies that, hey, the what's the difference between what we're talking about with minor vehicle repair and what we're talking about with with uh rapid routine services. So, um, are would just so I can clarify, are you, um, suggesting to integrate that language into the minor vehicle repair definition to talk about the rapid routine services such as oil change, lubrication, and filter? And um that would allow us to get rid of

I think we could consider putting that as a underneath 1A. I don't know if I would you might have it as a additional subsection, right? 1 A.1 or 1 A. A however you whatever the convention is.

Okay. Um so yeah, I'm still I think that we would I still am getting a little bit hung up on what Commissioner Martin brought up with the um you know having the P in the industrial zone for the minor vehicle repair if we were to further clarify the definition to include the things that you just said and then remove the P from the industrial zone for minor vehicle repair. Would that accomplish what we're hoping? I I don't want to create a gap where we have, you know, rapid minor vehicle repair and then major vehicle repair. And there's I'm not an expert in that area. So, I don't know if there's something in the middle that we're that were missing or a gap of services that wouldn't be covered by all of those things or by those definitions. No, I think you want to include minor vehicle repair as permitted use, but you what we're saying is that the the rapid service rapid vehicle service is not part of that minor vehicle repair.

Yes. Unless it's included with other right repairs, right? In the scope of other repairs because you don't want to exclude if if you say no oil changes. Now I'm getting changing my oil pump or my water pump and I've got a or I'm changing my oil pan. and I'm doing that in one facility and then they got to drag my car over to the commercial zone to to change the oil, right? Like that's not where we want to be. So

M Mr. chair. So, um I think what I'm hearing is we can leave the table as it is, leave the definitions uh in G1A and B as they are and take the zone specific standard in 2A and um just move that up into the minor vehicle repair so it's more obvious for people that uh in the industrial zone minor vehicle repair uses primarily engaged. I think that primarily engaged is really important there because now now you it's really clear that yeah you can do oil changes in the industrial zone but you can't have an oil change shop. I might also add tire repair and replacement to that. So, we don't want a less Schwab down there, but if that's not the primary thing that they're doing, you know, they're rebalancing your tires or um doing alignments or if they're um uh you're repairing a tire while you have it in there doing other work, that's fine, but we don't want specifically a tire shop. So I by including that primarily engaged in language uh what's in currently 2A I think that really covers it pretty tightly.

Mr. Chair. Yes ma'am. Uh are there other zone specific standards that we're having to take into consideration or is that the only one for this? Oh. Um, that is the only one for vehicle repair right now. We currently don't have any uh definition or zone specific standards for that type of use. So, moving it in won't make others on their own in the category.

Say that last part again. I'm just I want to make sure that if it it sounds like we're moving it into the definition of the minor vehicle repair and if that happens we're not excluding any other zone specific standards that would be left over that that goes away.

Um correct. I think that the the format of our the current format of our code is that we have um under the definition terms and definitions are the more general this is what this use is. Um and then if we're going to add special conditions for particular zones, that's in a separate section. So to to move a standard that only applies in the industrial zone up under the def the minor definition repair would be I'd need to think about how to do that without being inconsistent with the rest of how we have our code formatted if that makes sense. Um but yeah I don't I don't think we're we're not leaving any other zone specific standards be behind there. this is the only one. Uh and also just noting that um let's see we're only keeping um so under general service right now um all vehicle repair is is permitted. So, it's already permitted in CBD, commercial, marine mixed use, CM2, commercial marine, and LM. It's just the only zone that it's not permitted in is the industrial zone. Um, you know, I I don't know if that's, you know, there might be further work, further code work to to look at um whether we have those zones right or, you know, if we need to make some some changes there. We were trying to um you know facilitate this amendment to make

it clear that in in the industrial zone yes all vehicle repair except for the quick turnover is is permitted. Um but you know um technically you know with this amendment we don't really need to separate them into the two categories. I think it will be useful in the future if we do further code amendment work um for vehicle repair to further define what zones are appropriate for for the different levels of repair. So I just I wanted to put that out there. Uh not that that helps at all, but um just explain the kind of the thinking behind behind why we uh had two different categories.

Mr. Mcomes. So, I'm just looking at the the staff memo or the attachment A there. And then general service, there's no P in the industrials. That that's part of the proposal, right? Is it general? So, currently um or is that that's a these are all that's a I guess a these are all subheaded under there.

Yeah, it gets it gets confusing. So right now they're all, you know, grouped in under the general service use and so not permitted in the industrial zone. So we're trying to clarify that those uh by splitting them out under general service. We're saying general service is not permitted in the industrial zone except for all of these uses are permitted. Okay. So the the structure of the code makes it makes it a little bit difficult to easily accomplish that. But

when you go to the next slide, maybe the one after that then okay there. Yeah. So you see G, vehicular repair G should be underlined too because right now there is no G in 1944. So that G should be blue and underlined. That is a that is new. So everything under G is new including the number two down there which is zone specific standards. So we could just like if we're not affecting the code if we get rid of that number two there and move the 2A part up into minor vehicle repair. It doesn't throw off the rest of the code. You were asking that question earlier.

Thank you. Yeah, thanks. Um it looks like that is underlined very faintly. I'm not sure why it came out like that but uh under the zone specific standards that is that is new and actually in this is in O2 right? This is in yes under general service category and so under that F there should also be capitalized by small boat repair or not capitalized uh blue and underlined. I yeah I don't know how to accomplish that but yes

I'm just I'm just putting I'm just getting that out on the record so that that the commissioners understand that those are new sections and we're not um deleting anything that was uh there before. Yeah. And these little um explainer boxes are, you know, also trying to point out where things are changed and the rationale for for changing them, but probably could have done a better job saying this is a completely new section. Yeah, those blue boxes do not appear in the code when we're done.

Yep. Mr. Chair, Dr. Martin, I move that we approve the proposed changes uh amendments to this code as discussed with the one minor structural change uh proposed by uh Mr. Coleman and that we recommend that we move that forward to the city council. Do we have a second to the motion?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mills, a second. Uh would you like to take role for uh for the motion? Mills. Wait. Can I ask one more question?

Of course. So uh just to clarify one other point on the on the permitted uses like the last part of the attachment a talks about uh boat sales and rental and then in the matrix it does not show I have a P in industrial for boat sales and rental but not for vehicle sales and rental. proposal would include a P. It' be a permitted use in industrial for for vehicle sales and rental as well, right? Um, no, it would not not as a primary use. So, that's not part of the proposal.

That's not part of the proposal. Um, the vehicle sales and rental could be an accessory use to a primary uh major vehicle repair use. But if we added a P there then that would allow a primary like a car dealership. Okay. So that's not right. And then but for but a boat sales and rental is permitted then. Correct. And it's it's currently permitted. We're not making any okay

changes there. is does definition and and C there does that exclude uh the sale of a 16 foot or less boat or is that is that the intent is to an establishment cannot sell a boat under 16 ft or as long as they're selling boats over 16 feet they could sell a 12oot boat. The the intent here is that um boats that are less than 16 feet are more like, you know, kayaks and canoes and things that are, you know, more of a retail sales use. And so that's where those types of uses are classified as as a retail use.

So is it excluding that if if I'm already selling boats over 16 feet, I can't sell anything under 16 ft? I don't think so. No. I mean, I think if it's, you know, if primarily you're engaged in selling boats that are, you know, larger than 16 feet, then that obviously you never gone crabbing in a 12T boat. No, it can be an adventure. Yeah, that was actually two questions. So, okay. Apologies. You're good.

So, for clarification, I want to make sure that we understand the motion. Uh so recommend approval of the code um as drafted with the exception that we're moving what is currently 2A up into uh one uh what is currently 52A. We're moving that text into G 1A. And in addition, we're adding tire and tire repair and replacement to that. what is uh currently under 21A.

I did I didn't want to say that we're putting it under um G1A just because um Libbyy's question about how to keep that um consistent. So I I just trust you guys can work out how you're going to make that change and still keep the intent. Okay. Yeah. So, the motion is to leave it as is, just add tire repair and replacement to 2A.

No, the the motion is to um keep the intent as is and make whatever structural changes are needed. In other words, if you want to put the 2A under the U minor vehicle repair, that's fine with me. Or however you want to do it to keep keep it um consistent with the rest of the code. Okay,

that's the motion is okay. Well, I I will just sorry to I will just say that the the current format of the code is to have the where you have a use that is permitted except in certain circumstances because of it's in a specific zone. Um the format of our code right now has all of those specific conditions and standards under zone specific standards. It wouldn't typically be included in the definition. So I if is the intent of of moving the language about minor repair engaged in rapid routine services moving it up into the minor vehicle repair definition only to make it so that it's more readily available for the user to see that in it's different in the industrial zone or are we intending to change the overall definition of minor vehicle repair? What what is intended to be accomplished.

I think the intent is to clarify what a minor vehicle repair is and isn't. Okay. So, uh minor vehicle repair is those things, but it is not a um establishment primarily engaged in rapid routine oil changes, loops, tire rotations, right? Yes.

Okay. So then um we would need to likely develop a another term to cover those types of uses if it's not minor repair or major repair. And that's something that we could do. Thus the idea of service. Yeah, we could add a uh you know vehicle service use um that incorporates this language in the uh industrial zone specific standard. I'm not wanting to add, you know, a lot of a lot more uses, but I'm not quite sure how to address this without doing that. I'm going to go back on what I said earlier, just kind of rethinking about the code from my perspective is it makes sense to have the zone specific standards listed underneath. My worry would be that somehow it got separated where a person wouldn't know to look underneath to see where that definition is. And I'm not sure I I think the intent is to try and get that language into the upper definition, but I understand that it's the intent of the or the uh the use and the zone, not the definition that we're trying to change. Is that my understanding?

Yes.

Okay. And I just realized that um one thing that we can do is in the permitted use matrix um we reference 194420 which is our new section. Um, but we could also or we should reference 1942, sorry, 4402 G2 here. In the cross reference, we would typically have like a little um a little X or a little notation that says, hey, there's something special about this particular one that you need to read about. So, we could could do that to make it more clear. We should have done that.

To me, that solves that just because you're now cross cross referencing it. Would that X be in both minor vehicle repair and major vehicle repair? Um, no. It would just be under minor vehicle repair.

Okay. So there would be we would add an X um superscript X here after the P under the industrial zone and add a reference to 1944. Add the superscript X here with the reference to 1944 O2G 2 A. So that would lead you to here's the standards in the industrial zone. That works for me. Mr. Chairman,

Mr. Mills, at the risk of mudding the waters further, are we trying to distinguish in our terminology in 1A we say fluid service and 2A we say oil changes? Are we trying to make a distinction between those two? Not intentionally. Uh, we could change that to make them consistent terms. I would. Yeah.

We have a motion on the table. Shall we take the role? Motion and a second. You should restate it. Good for you. Restate it. Uh, yeah. Maybe we'll have Dr. Martin restated the motion.

Okay. I recommend that we um move forward to the city council the proposed amendments to the vehicle repair and um sales. as as presented with again a minor structural change to in this case now to the the table.

Do we need to have a second again? I don't know. Well, let's have a second again, please. So moved or so seconded. Okay, I think we're ready for roll call. Mills, yes. Mcomes, yes. Dreadsky, yes. Martin, yes. Underwood, yes.

Great. Thank you. All right, moving right along.

Yeah. Um, so the the next agenda item um is uh the shoreline master program. Let's see if I can just pull up the agenda. Okay. Item 6A, other business, uh, Shoreline Master program update, review of proposed amendments and project status. So, uh you may recall at the last meeting staff provided an overview of the um just generally the shoreline management act uh and the um purpose of that our requirements under the shoreline management act to have a shoreline master program for the city that regulates development within shoreline jurisdiction. So, that was kind of just a a um overview of that body of legislation and the requirements for the city. Um, tonight we wanted to get a little bit into more detail and talk about um the periodic update uh that was started in 2019 um and has been delayed for a bit. Um but I would like to let's see all right here's the purpose um to provide a status update of the shoreline master program periodic update. So the one that was begun in in 2019 and um still still continues adoption has been

delayed. We'll summarize the work that's been completed to date as part of that process and um do an overview of what the actual proposed amendments are within the last public draft that was released in 2022 and then um talk briefly about the next steps in the uh update process. Um so just quick recap that the shoreline master program is required by the shoreline management act which is a state law. Um the anacortis uh SMP must be reviewed and updated at least every 10 years. Um the purpose of that review and update is to ensure that our plan is consistent with state law. Um changes and guidance in state law. Um to and also looking at um changed local conditions, priorities, uh new and improved data or information and um you know changes in city regulations and and plans. just looking at kind of the overall um you know plans and regulations of the city and making sure that the shoreline master program is consistent with all of the changes that have occurred since the last update which was in 2010. Um the state law shoreline management act contains the procedural review rules for shoreline master program amendment. So, it's a little bit different than the comprehensive plan update and development regulation updates under the growth management act for the shoreline master program. Um the city coordinates with the department of ecology uh throughout the process um on the proposed amendments and then ultimately uh the department of ecology um reviews the locally adopted shoreline

master program and provides the final approval of the of the plan and only then is it effective. So that's a a final step that is involved in the S&P update that is not um in our GMA comprehensive plan update process. Um and there are a couple of different review processes that a local jurisdiction can choose to follow. Um, in 2019 when we be initially began the periodic update of the SMP, the city followed the joint um, review process that's provided for in the um, statute that allows sort of a concurrent review by local jurisdiction and ecology. Um, so that we're doing a joint um, public comment period and a joint public hearing with planning commission and um, the department of ecology. Whereas the other option is to go through the full local process adoption process then the plan goes to ecology and they have a separate um public comment period. So it's it's can be a little bit longer process but the city chose to do the the joint process um as part of the most recent work on the SMP update. Um, substantial progress was made toward completing the periodic update from 2019 to 2022. And I mentioned last time that uh adoption of the update was delayed for various reasons um including appeals of a of the critical areas regulations which were intended to be um integrated into the S&P. So, the last time we updated our critical areas regulations, an appeal of that affected our ability

to adopt the SMP because they were connected. Excuse me. Um, yeah. So, just a reminder of where the shoreline master program applies within Anacortis. Um this is a map showing the shoreline environment designations for all of the different shoreline reaches they're called. Um so all marine shorelines are subject to the SMP um including inwater areas which have an aquatic designation and then um landward 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. So those shoreland areas are also included in shoreline jurisdiction. Uh so marine shorelines and then we have uh we also have some lakes that are subject to the SMP as well as some associated wetlands. So just to summarize some of the the work that has been completed between the period of 2019 and and 2022. Um there was u significant public outreach that occurred um consistent with the public participation plan that was adopted to um help us engage the public through uh throughout the process. There were open houses um several open houses. One of them was in person, the other was online because we hit the um COVID pandemic halfway through this process as well. Um there was also uh coordination between the city city staff and um different agencies that have comment or

you know have a have an interest or jurisdiction over different um work in shoreline areas. Uh and then um tribal coordination and outreach also occurred as part of the update process. In 2019, the city hired a consultant um to help us with the update. The consultant developed a uh what's called a gap analysis where they um looked at the SMP update state requirements. So, Department of Ecology came up with a checklist uh that identified all of the changes that have occurred to state law since the last time the S&P was updated. And then they also do the consultants. So that looked at that looked at where there are gaps in our current regulation shoreline regulations and policies and identified um you know changes that need to be made based on on those. And then also looked at, as I mentioned, all of our local plans and regulations and um uh other conditions that may have changed since the last update and made recommendations or suggestions for updates to address those those things. Um and so the amendments that were proposed were based on the gap analysis findings and the um input that we got from the public and agencies over the course of the openhouse and and multiple drafts of the S&P that were put out for public review. Oh, and I already talked about that public agency public and agency input. So, um the city city staff did coordinate with

the department of ecology through the joint review process and submitted um the second draft of the proposed updates to ecology for what's called an initial determination. So, um, the Department of Ecology takes a look at the record that's been developed, um, the public comments, the city's responses, the proposed amendments, and makes a initial determination on whether the proposal complies with the um, uh, shoreline management act and ecology guidance for the update. And ecology did issue an initial determination back in 2021. I won't go through this in detail, but this is just to kind of put some dates to all of the items that I just talked about. In case you're interested, you can go back and and take a look at all of the work that has occurred on the on the update. So, um, the most recent version of the SMP proposed amendments that was released for public review and comment was the third draft. Um, and that was released back in this is the public notice for that uh release that was in September 21st, 2022. and the comment period on that ended October 12th, 2022. Um, this page is showing the first, excuse me, this slide is showing the first page of draft 3 just to show you what it looks like um of the development regulations and then the um shoreline element of the comprehensive plan, which is where all of the goals and policies from the uh SMP will go.

Okay, I already talked about that. Um, so just I I know that you were probably looking forward to the 85 slides in the PowerPoint presentation in your packet. Um, but I had some second thoughts and I think I'm going to try and not go through each and every one, but they're there in case we need to we we need to go to a specific amendment, but I'm trying to just summarize the key the key amendments. So, I've made some changes to the to my PowerPoint. Um, so, as I mentioned, there are a couple of different categories of amendments that are proposed within the draft. And kind of my point with going through these are to bring everybody up to speed with what's already happened um and what is in the current draft SMP which is kind of what our um baseline or what we're working from moving forward. So so everybody kind of has a common understanding of what's happened and where we're at right now before we move forward. So the um types of amendments that are proposed within the draft include a structural reorganization of the goals and policies and the uh regulations that are within the S&P and I'll get a little more detailed with that in a minute. Uh they address consistency with state law, other issues for consideration um and integration of critical areas regulations. So all of these items are addressed in the gap analysis that I mentioned already uh that our consultants uh prepared back in 2020. They were called the watershed company back then. They have a different name now. Um but that document is available on our website and kind of goes through uh

here's all of the changes to state law. here's where the SMP is has some gaps. Here's what the change needs to be to address and be consistent with state law. And then also, as I mentioned, identifying other areas for for consideration to uh just make improvements to um administration of the SMP um clarifications and and other things like that. So, the first big um change that you'll see with the draft is that it proposes to move from a standalone shoreline master program document which is um one big PDF that that lives on the on the website and it includes um you know all the information about the shoreline management act. It includes all of the goals and policies for the different elements and it includes the development regulations for for all of the different elements. So with this update um we propose to uh reorganize the goals and policies from the standalone document into a new element within the comprehensive plan. Um so it would be a new shoreline element. So, basically just relocating all of the policies uh into the comp plan, new shoreline element, and relocating all of the development regulations from the S&P into our Title 19 development regulations within the um Anacortis Municipal Code, excuse me. And the intent with doing that or proposing that was to put all of um

the city's policies about growth and development and shorelines um all within one document, the comprehensive plan. Technically, the shoreline master program goals and policies are a part of our comprehensive plan. They just don't live in that plan right now. So, it would relocate all of those goals and policies into the comp plan along with um all of the other elements of the comprehensive plan and then um the regulations which are the actual rules for what can happen on the ground in shoreline jurisdiction would be moved to title 19. Um there it used to be a reserved section, but there's a I think it's 1972 um is reserved specially for shoreline regulations. So, all of the um rules and regulations that a person would need to know for developing or um establishing a use on their property and shoreline jurisdiction would now all be within one document, which I think is super helpful. It's helpful for staff and I I think makes makes more sense for applicants and the public um when they go looking for the rules that apply to their property, not to have to look at multiple documents. Um and that reorganization is consistent with uh the regulatory reform act that the legislature adopted way back in 1995. And this is just a graph from or a a illustration from the shoreline master program handbook that the department of ecology puts out just showing um that SMPS are part of the local comprehensive plan and development regulations. So this will just facilitate that integration further and uh make it

easier for property owners, public and staff to use. This is another document that is available on the website, but I'm not going to go through it. Um, but something can that can get a little bit confusing and kind of tracking the different iterations of the um draft amendments are that uh the first two um amendment proposals that were put out were put out in the format of the standalone SMP. So that same numbering scheme and that same uh format. So we wanted to figure out what all the changes were going to be before we converted uh the goals and policies into the shoreline element of the comp plan in that format and the um development regulations numbering scheme which is the 1972 you know the code uh numbering scheme. So this is a cross a crosswalk that shows uh the existing shoreline master program standalone document and all of its chapters and um sections. And then it shows the proposed new location organization under the comp plan or the development regulations. So that's kind of the major structural reorganization. Are there any questions about that?

Okay. Um, so next I'll get into the actual proposed Hang on. Yeah, just one quick question. Um, so the goals and policies going into the comp plan, the development regulations into title 19, 1972. What about the environment designations? Is that also in um the environment designations will be a a map similar to the zoning map that um is referenced in the in the code. So it'll be a it'll be within the development regulations. Okay. We have the capability to do that now with our new

with our um uh code revisor um abilities of putting illustrations directly into the online code.

Okay. Thanks. So the proposed amendments to the goals, policies and regulations. So um again the gap analysis goes through all of these in detail. You can look at the third draft of the SMP the full document update and you'll find um the regular format that we use with strike through underline showing what the changes are. It's in the new format with the new um code numbering system and um but it's the same text and content so you can kind of you can track what's proposed to be changed um versus what is existing. So just a summary of the amendments that are proposed for consistency with state law. So these are the different laws that have changed since the last time the periodic update was undertaken. Um the the last update was adopted in 2010. Uh the review of state law updates currently the gap analysis looked at 2007 through 2019. Um obviously there have there are some years that have happened uh between 2019 and now. So, we'll be taking a look at um what what has changed since the gap analysis was completed and and um addressing the any changes there as part of this update process. But um this just lists out uh all of the changes that are proposed responding to the state law changes through 2019. And I don't think I'll read them unless you'd like me to. Okay. Uh so there are quite a few. The gap analysis shows um what all of the changes were to the state law. It shows what um whether the current 2010 S&P is

consistent and then it has a column that says here's what's recommended to be changed to compi to be consistent with the changes or you know there's no change necessary or um you know some response like that. So I mentioned the ecologies initial determination of the consistency with the proposed amendments. So um all I've done is taken that document and uh cut pasted a screenshot of the document because it does a really good job of summarizing all of the proposed changes. Um so chapters 1 2 3 and four of the SMP are primarily addressing uh administration introduction scope jurisdictions, excuse me, exemptions. Uh and so this kind of summarizes what changes are proposed within each of those sections. Most of them are addressing changes in state law. So, um, I won't go through all those. There are some proposed changes to the shoreline environment designation map. Uh, and I can just go quickly through those right now. Um, I I'll have a better quality version of this later, but um, the first one is Where's that one? That's one. Yeah. In the ship harbor area. So, um, Edward's Way comes down to Gwimish Channel here. There's the culde-sac that people park in to to use the Gimus Channel Trail and the Ship Harbor um, boardwalk area to the west. So, this yellow area here is you can kind of see

the faint outline of the culde-sac here. Um but it is currently designated as urban. Um and that was a remnant of older comprehensive plan and shoreline plans that um anticipated some different uses for that area than uh what actually occurred and ultimately you know what it can really support. And so the proposal with the change here is to change the designation from urban to uh sorry the CD segment is now zoned R2A.

Also I'm I'm refreshing my memory about all of this. Yes. So this yeah so that is proposed to be changed to um conserancy. This says is now zoned R2A which is not consistent with the urban designation. So um the the proposal is to change this designation from urban to conservancy. I'm not seeing where it says that on here. So, I might need to update that that map, but um that would be uh oh, I'm sorry, consery along the first 100 ft, which is consistent with what's happening to the east of the culde-sac. And that has some more um uh you know, is more restrictive in terms of what can be uh allowed within that first 100 ft. And then shoreline residential would be the second 100 ft. So it would match what is um currently designated to the east of the the culde-sac to be consistent with the future land use designation for that area and um actual uses that have been developed in the area. The second change is to this area along channel. Um the shoreline environment designation. The yellow again is urban and then the red is shoreline residential. And so the proposed change is to change the urban which go which extends to the ordinary high water mark. It doesn't go out into the aquatic designation below the ordinary high water. Um but it would change urban to shoreline residential

which is um right now there's a conflict between the future land use designation for that section which is um it's a residential designation. and I don't remember which one. I think R2 or R2A. So, it would change that yellow strip to shoreline residential to be consistent with um existing land use designation. And that was a definitely a um we can get into it another time, but a conversation with the uh Department of Ecology who did have concerns about that change and how it would affect the ability of the caneries over the um you know aquatic uh the the overwater caneries and ability to continue um or establish uh you know marine water dependent related uses there. They wanted to make sure that they're changing this to residential wasn't going to, you know, preclude future potential use of of those um of those caneries.

Uh the other Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mills question on the previous the proposed change. I want to move it down. Can you bring There we go. in the Canary section section two that's along a territory where we've been trying for years to complete the Gimis Channel Trail. Would this proposed change impact that effort positively or negatively?

Uh I don't believe that it would impact that. Um, I haven't looked at that recent that issue recently, but a trail or recreational use is a is permitted in either one of those shoreline environment designations. I know last Thursday at the uh chamber lunchon for the state of the city. The mayor said that's one of his priorities is to continue trying to successfully complete that trail. Yeah. I just didn't want us to make a change that would make that more difficult.

Yeah. that I that I remember that that is something that we looked at during the update process, but I'm not remembering all the details of things, but we'll make sure to look at that again with fresh eyes and and make sure that um everything is consistent. Uh so the other area that is proposed for a change is just this area down right along the northeast um portion of Lake Erie. Um there's just a couple of private properties down there to the south of the forest lands where a few years ago we had a permit application that came in to develop a house and we realized, oh, this doesn't actually have a a shoreline environment designation. Um and so there is there are procedures for how you deal with that um in the SMP, but uh this change would just address that and and formally designate the um properties that are missing a designation as consery. I guess it's just one property.

Is that inside the city limits? Yes. Oh, okay. Yeah. I realized they extended that far south. Okay. Yeah, Mr. Chair. Yes, Dr. Martin, the um that lake area um that you are designating there, is that where they have a camp? Not that I'm aware of. Uh unless it's something that's occurred after the per there was a permit for a a single family home, which is uh you know maybe like eight years ago now and that's when we realized that um the designation was missing. not aware of a camp

there. There is a camp along that shore, but it might be just outside of the city. I don't know. I'm not sure. Okay. Well, that's good. That's good information that we will look into. Um, okay. So, that's that's really the extent of the changes. The last one isn't really a change. It's just a clarification um that all of the marine waters below the ordinary high water mark do have a um aquatic shoreline environment designation, but that just really wasn't very clear on the map itself. So we're just making that clear so that people that are proposing um development within you know below ordinary high water mark that they are aware that there are specific development standards for that um designation. Um so continuing with the summary of the text amendments moving to chapter five which is that's the old numbering scheme again um the in the shoreline master program um but that covers shoreline environments and associated policies. So, these um proposed changes here are all ones that were identified um to just clarify and also address some of them are to address um state law changes, but let me just read these really quick to make sure there's nothing I want to There was some changes in state law to aquaculture

uh allowances and so there were some changes we needed to make to the S&P uh to be consistent with that. think um since 2010 um fish pens were have been um prohibited I believe. Um and so we had to update our S&P to be consistent with the new state law that governs fish fish pen um and aquaculture type uses. So those are changes in the aquatic designation. The conservancy designation had a couple of changes um including the the map amendment that we just talked about uh from urban to conserancy and then lake area um legal description for small area of shorelines previously undesated. So, those are the two map amendments that we're talking about. So, in this section of the S&P under conservancy, there are actually they're not really legal descriptions, but I guess they are, but they're a way of describing um in addition to the map, the areas that are that have these uh different shoreline environment designation. So, it's not like a legal description that you'd see on a survey, but it um uses like parcel numbers and intersections of parcels to actually describe in words the extent of these designations. So, when we make a change on the map, we have to make a change to those um descriptions as well. So, that's kind of what this is talking about. Um in the shoreline residential designation um there were some clarifications proposed to how lot calculations should be made. So there in the past um in reviewing

building permits for new homes in shoreline the shoreline residential environment there are some maximum impervious surface coverage limitations and we found that um that could be a little bit confusing for folks on how to do those calculations. So we tried to make some changes there to to clarify how how those calculations are are done. And then these other two items are the the map amendments again that we already talked about changing the descriptions. Um this is a so I talked about the department of ecology initial determination of consistency and this comes from that document. Um, I mentioned that they had well, Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Ecology um had some concerns about the change to shoreline residential right along the shoreline adjacent to the um Caneries and the aquatic designation because that is a uh constit state constitutionally established harbor area which has some uh special um restrictions and and allowances. is under state law um that kind of you know go go beyond what we can regulate under the SMP, but we want to make sure that changes that we're making to our SMP aren't going to be inconsistent with the um harbor area requirements. Uh so the this was a change to the text that would go along with the change to the map designation and it basically is um ensuring that uses that are accessory to the overwater

um use of the those historic struct canary structures. Um it's it's making sure that accessory uses can occur within the landlord area um that would now be designated shoreline residential. So if that that makes sense, making sure we're not precluding different types of support or accessory uses that can help those canery structures future uses of those um continue. And there's some, you know, bookends on, uh, what those types of uses can be. Um, so these are just some more changes to the urban shoreline environment designation. you know, as we're administering the SMP on different um projects, development projects and permits, we find mistakes. Um we find, you know, inconsistencies between the map and the legal descriptions. Um and so these are just fixing some of those discrepancies. Chapter five has we're still in the shoreline environments and associated policies. So ch uh table 5.12 is is uh the shoreline use and modification matrix and development standards. So, it's kind of like our permitted use table that we have in the zoning code, but it's for um shoreline uh the different shoreline designations and uses that are allowed within each of those. And uh this is proposing some changes to

that to address above water aquaculture projects um being allowed as a conditional use in some limited circumstances. I think there's some uh uses that are occurring and I don't know if they are anymore, but there was a sea cucumber some sort of sea cucumber um use that was occurring in one of those canaries and um you know we so we thought it would be good to address that type of use in in the S&P and make it clear that above water aquaculture isn't the same as inwater aquaculture and and create some special rules and procedures for allowing that type of use on existing overwater structures. Um, we're almost done. Uh, the so chapter six includes all of the environmental protection general regulations for uh properties in shoreline jurisdiction. Um, 6.5 includes our vegetation conservation standards. So these are regulations that apply to uh every new development within shoreline jurisdiction. Um there are requirements for uh um preserving retaining existing vegetation that is you know close to the ordinary high water mark which is the most beneficial for those uh um shoreline resources and and functions. Um and that's those are in our existing SMP. So it talks about conserving and replanting and um maintaining newly planted shoreline vegetation to improve um functions and values. The changes

that are proposed are uh for consistency just referencing the um consistent um height of new trees that are planted. There were some inconsistencies there. Um and then also a requirement that subdivision of land not require significant vegetation removal. And then we also um updated our allowances for tree ve tree and vegetation trimming within the shoreline setback. um clarified those and um added some restrictions and clarifications that um new vegetation removal within the shoreline setback is not allowed to create views. Um maintenance of existing views is is permitted um but not to create new views. And so we clarified that in the SMP and then also um added some new um if I'm recalling correctly some new submittal requirements so that when people want to propose uh vegetation maintenance within Shoreline um it identifies what is required to be submitted as part of a um application.

Dr. Martin um regarding that um tree and vegetation trimming that was a a pretty big issue. I think it was last year on the Gimus Trail where some pretty major trimming if you want to call it that took place. Um, are there teeth to that reg is there teeth to that regulation because because they really did a number on that trail.

Yeah. Um, that that was not a great outcome. Um, and yes, there are teeth. There are uh, you know, the permitting and review provisions are there to make sure that what's being proposed is consistent with SMP. Um, and then yes, there are follow-up inspections to make sure that what was actually done was consistent with the uh what was permitted. Um, and the SMP actually has its own um, enforcement provisions as well that do reference the code, I believe, but also they are um, enforcement provisions that go kind of above and beyond what the um, code enforcement in title 20 includes. But yes, there are teeth and and in that particular situation, we did work with the uh that particular situation to ensure that um things were remedied.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mills. Yeah, I think I know or I'm familiar with what you're alluding to and my my understanding is that that was part of a three-year cycle in a three-way agreement between the homeowners association uh easements on individual properties along there and the city that the planned work was approved by all parties, but the execution of what was approved was where the failure occurred. So,

I won't disagree. Yeah. I mean, it it was reviewed. It complied with the requirements. Um and yes, there are certain areas within town where um prior to the current SMP projects were approved with a different legal agreement um private or um native growth protection easement agreement that um allows for the different property owners in certain areas to manage and maintain. it kind of spells out what they're what is allowed and on what timetable and and um so those still apply in those situations. This um also applies to those situations as well as um you know any any new uh applications that aren't covered by those um NGP easements. Those are only in a couple different areas of town. Yeah, that that's one of my overriding concerns is we seem to have a hodgepodge along the channel that's kind of developed individually or organically to excuse the pun so that we have a real inconsistency as we go along the channel. So I hope that what we're doing here is trying to as we evolve moving forward get better consistency.

Yes. I mean, I think that what's what's intended with the amendment is to clearly identify what is required for somebody that wants to conduct that type of maintenance. and um you know requires um we can we'll get into more detail about specifically what the changes were, but it it was intended to say yes, a permit is required or an authorization from the city is required to do this type of specific type of work. Even if you're not clearing, if you're just trimming trees, that still has an impact on um functions and values of the shoreline. So, it requires review for consistency with the SMP. Um and so we also wanted to make sure that the types of um you know techniques that are used are um those that will maintain the health of the tree and there are certain requirements for the amount of limbs that can be removed within a certain amount of time. It gets very detailed and it's very it's it's complicated to administer. Um but it's important you know to get that right.

The problem with vegetation is once you cut down a tree it's pretty hard to put it back. Y and so it's almost requires in this example we were talking about it was an execution problem. All the parties agreed and then the execution failed and they did come back and try to uh remedy the damage. Uh but it almost takes real time supervision on the execution end because like I said if you cut down a 75 foot tree y you can't put back a 75 foot tree. So

yeah it's it's that's a tough one. Um so I'm sure we'll have more discussions about that that particular area of the amendments in the future. Um the other thing that I wanted to talk about was just integration of the um critical areas regulations into the shoreline master program. Um so in the current SMP and the 2010 SMP the uh critical areas that are located within shorelines. So shorelines in themselves are not designated as critical areas um technically um unless they contain um certain features like uh you know salmon spawning habitat uh kelp um forage fish spawning areas. Um but just having a shoreline itself is not always considered to be a critical area. So we have to look further and see what else is there um to determine um applicability of of the critical areas regulations. Uh so anyways, the current SMP has an appendex at the very end of that standalone document that has all of our crit all of the regulations that apply to critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. So these are different from our critical areas regulations in in title 19 that apply to uh land that is outside of shoreline jurisdiction. they're generally kind of the same um in terms of uh you know what what is allowed and and um buffers and and that sort of thing. that um there are some differences under

the shoreline management act um uh goals and policies and also procedures that don't allow us to directly take from our critical areas regulations in title 19 and just copy paste them into the S&P or even directly cross reference them. um the so so it gets a little bit complicated and it's kind of it's always been difficult to figure out what the best way to integrate um those critical area protections into the SMP uh is and that's still something that we're looking at but anyways the 2010 S&P has a just a separate standalone appendix that governs critical areas within shoreline so wetlands geologically hazardous areas um fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. So if a property includes any of those features, you go to appendex A of the SMP to determine what applies. Um when we updated our critical areas regulations in 20 in the 2021 time period um as part of our periodic update of the comp plan and development regulations um that was going on at the same time as our initial work on the SMP update. And so the plan was to um integrate or excuse me take the updated critical areas regulations and reference them in the SMP. So adopt sort of incorporate by reference. Um that plan didn't work um very well because there were appeals of the critical areas regulation. So we couldn't accomplish that um cross referencing Um so now we are um at a point where we

need to you know again figure out what the best way to um integrate those critical areas regulations into the S&P is. We're work we're going to be um updating our critical areas regulations again um because it's time to do that. And so, um, as these two processes move forward, we'll we'll be figuring out how to harmonize those and and, um, how to best protect critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. So, that'll be a a conversation to be continued, but the way that it's drafted right now in the S&P um, is is probably going to change. So I didn't spend a lot of time in this presentation talking about that. Okay. Um I already tal I already covered these. So chapter 8 and chapter 9 are the specific use policies and development regulations. So um different uh uses that are permitted in the shoreline jurisdiction have additional regulations depending on the use type. We talked about aquaculture. Um and then there are some clarifications for docks, peers and floats. Uh so we see a lot of maintenance and repair and replacement proposals for um docks, peers and floats. So like an example is the skyline area. You know there are tons of um existing docks and that all need you know maintenance and repair from time to time. And also, you know, our people are trying to um replace piling um that are um creasso coated with uh more environmentally

friendly um options, steel. Um and so those types of proposals come in a lot. And so we're proposing some changes in the SMP to make it more straightforward what exactly is allowed with what level of um uh detail in an application to encourage people to continue to make environmental improvements to those docks and peers and pilings. um but also you know not making things so uh difficult to get through the permitting process so that people avoid it um or don't make those improvements. So anyways, there are some proposed changes to those uh sections that are intended to ease the ease the process and make things more clear. Okay, so that's my that's my quick summary um without going through 85 slides of all of the kind of key changes that are currently proposed in the most recent draft of the S&P. So what's next? So, now that everybody's up to speed and we all know what's happened and what is proposed right now and sort of what we need to do moving forward, um we will be staff will be uh determining a timeline for adoption um which we'll be publishing in the future and um pro most likely what the process will include is updating a public participation plan. So, the original process had a public participation plan and we would update that to make sure that folks know what the um you know, we're re kind of restarting this process. Here's what to expect moving forward through adoption.

Um we'll be looking at that gap analysis that was completed in 2020 and identifying um changes to state law and um local policies and regulations since then and identifying if any updates need to be made based on those changes. uh staff is working on coordinating with ecology to determine um the next steps forward for the state review process. And ultimately um this would all lead to a another draft an updated SMP draft for public that would be published for public review and comment including integration of the critical areas regulations. So that's what's coming. We don't know exact timelines right now or exactly, you know, how things are going to look, but we'll be providing that information soon, I'm sure. Um just for planning commission and members of the public, there is um there was a web page specific to the SMP update that was developed um back in 2019 when this process was started and there are um all of the documents that were produced associated with that process are accessible on that web page. Um, there's the address. If anybody has questions or comments or wants to talk, has problems accessing anything, please contact me. And there's my email address and phone number. And that that's all I have on that topic. Thank you for bearing with me.

Quick question. Were all the legal challenges back uh five, six years ago, have they all been resolved? The challenges to the critical areas regulations have been resolved. Yes. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Libby. Thank you. We do have a question. Um, if we're going to update that gap analysis, are we planning on hiring a consultant again? Uh, I we believe that staff can probably do that work in in house. So I at this time that's not the plan.

Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Planning Department update.

Good evening, Planning Commission. Um, first I'd like to welcome Jill Underwood. I don't know if anybody's mentioned that yet. We have a brand new planning commissioner that sat down with us today. Thank you very much for joining us. I hope you enjoyed our detailed discussions today. Um, I'd like to say it's not always like this, but sometimes it is. Uh, thank you, Libby, for uh explaining the the restart of the uh shoreline master program update process. This has been something that we've been looking forward to taking care of after getting through with the uh comprehensive plan process which of course we finished at the end of the year and um we are now um working with appellants uh through the growth management hearings board appeal of the comprehensive plan and the development regulations that were that the city adopted. So that's something that um Libby and I are working a lot on, not nearly as much as our legal department is working on this working on that topic quite a bit as well as se several other appeals brought by the the same individuals of our uh shoreline, I'm sorry, our storm water plan. uh they've appealed to SEPHA for that and um other things that I'm forgetting at the at the moment there there's several uh so moving on the other things going on in in our department is uh hopefully you had a chance to watch the city council meeting last night uh last night uh all of the departments except for the library department which was library was not available to present gave a uh

update of what's been going on for the past quarter and what they we anticipate going on for the next year. So went a little long, you know, when it's 10 to 15 minutes for every department. And uh so if you fast forward, we're the the second to last department to present. I think that was somewhere in the 8:00 hour, I I'm sure. Uh but if you don't want to watch it, I'll give you a quick little update about uh what's going on in our department. Um the week before, if you watched the city at the city council meeting, the mayor uh gave his state of the city uh presentation and one of the things that he mentioned was he was going to be issuing an executive order around permit streamlining. So he did uh issue that executive order. the uh the next day, so about a week ago. And so in that executive order, it's uh requiring the planning department to take over some functions that are currently performed by public works such as processing vacations, such as processing um uh clearing grade permits and giving and also moving the fire plan review to the building department. Um so a lot of little structural changes like that. Uh moving around things mostly to the planning department and then also um asking that the planning department take over storm water uh processing not doing the review ourselves. That's an that's a third party. So a lot of uh new tasks have been moved to the the planning department. And so we're going to be adjusting to that and coming up with procedures and making uh the whole idea

of that is to make those processes work a little faster with the idea of like in the permitting world you know the planning and building departments do permits all day long all the time at least you know what you see here you see the long range planning part uh where we discuss our long range plans and code updates. We also have our whole permitting department that uh does land use applications and uh site plan for other projects such as building permits. So that department that part of the planning department is uh going to be u putting on a full court press to get some of these things done in the next uh 30 to 90 days as uh put in the executive order. Other things include making code amendments to make certain process certain permits and processes move a little faster. So those sorts of things will be coming to the planning commission when uh for making code changes largely unless they're procedural code ch like uh code changes that affect procedure. Those don't necessarily go to the planning commission. Um, but if it's uh related to land use, like the things that we talked about at the public hearing today, those would come to the planning commission. I encourage you to go to the the website and look up the executive order uh on the website if you go to um under mayor. So, under governing governing tab to mayor and he's got a couple of ex of executive orders there. And this is the 20262. So that's what we're doing. So I spoke a little bit about that at the the city council last night. I also spoke a little bit about um you know

some of the things that the permitting department's already been doing to improve uh permitting streamlining. And largely what we've been uh able to achieve over the past several months is building up the the internal permitting process uh of Smart Gov. So what our departments see when interacting with our our permitting software, it's not really software, it's an application, but uh how it works internally and making sure that all of the functions are there uh that we need to make the system flow properly. Now we're now we've got that mostly tightened up, staff's moving on to working on the external facing things. So, in particular, they're working on checklists for all the different permitting types. Uh, and those will be documents that when an applicant submits uh the for their permit, they'll have a checklist that they that they can go through before they actually enter the portal and start checking boxes and filling in fields and uploading documents. So it it helps people understand what they're going to be submitting before they actually go into the portal and start having to do things online. In addition, it just makes it a little more understandable process. We'll also be making improvements to our outward facing web page and uh as possible improving the user interface of the portal as well as the the steps to get there to making documents available for people that are applying. So improving the user experience is the end goal of that. Um so that's largely what's been going on. I do encourage you to look at um my presentation from last night. I talked

about permitting volumes and uh it has some interesting uh data about you know how many per you know showing how many permits we've gotten each year over the past 20 years since 2020 since 2006 we've gone back to then um and the we have a slide showing the types of housing units. So you know these are these these permits are all based on housing units. So you can see back in you know 2006 a lot of single family homes and then that number tapered down a little bit while the and we had a spike in permits where we were seeing more town homes and cottage type uses and apartments. And then uh a few years ago everything once uh once interest rates started to climb rapidly you can see a a a very stark correlation between interest rates and the number of permits that we've received. And that's uh that's Scadget County as well. So uh there's a nice graph showing the inverse relationship between uh building permits for units uh follows the same inverse path of the interest rates. It picture is worth a thousand words in this case but as as those interest rates go up and down so do so the permits generally follow that. So, I encourage you to look at that. And that is uh that is all I have for you tonight.

Any any questions for staff? Mr. Mills? probably could be answered by looking at the video from last night, but uh I know your group is working on processes to do more with less and improve productivity, but you also have cited new work coming in as a result of the executive order. Was there any resources that that followed those tasks as they came from other departments to your department? They were not identified in the executive order. No. In real life, are there going to be any?

Well, I mean, it's it's kind of shifting work. Um, a lot of the things don't necessarily cause uh, you know, cost much, but I think, you know, we're keeping an eye on the additive effect of, you know, having more work in the planning department. Does that require additional staffing in the department? And so we're definitely uh aware of that uh and keeping an eye on how that's going to affect our ability to continue to offer um services. One other thing that the executive order I can't um I apologize I forgot uh asks us to do is to examine our fee structure, what we're charging and how much it costs for us to actually run the permitting center. uh with the end goal of uh having the permitting center pay its own way. So uh you know all of the wages for people that do permitting that are involved in permitting being paid for by the fees that we receive through permits. That gets a little complicated. It sounds pretty simple, but it gets a little complicated pretty quick, especially when permit volumes are down. you know, we're not, you know, does that mean we start increasing fees for permits because we're getting lower lower volumes of permits? You know, that might have the opposite effect and cause people to do uh to to submit less permits. So, we it's a little bit more complicated than that. And so, we'll be doing some averaging and we're just starting that work. We've got 90 days to do it.

You could be saved by really high interest rates, huh? rhetorical.

No, no. Higher interest rates uh not as as as the the as the chart shows, high interest rate rates are not good for uh permit volumes and we need housing. I mean, the you hear the city council talk about this a lot and that's what our 2025 comp plan update attempted to make rules easier for uh for housing to be built. and uh encourage more housing for people on uh especially in in lower income brackets. So, we're not just doing that uh for lip service. We'd actually like to see things change and see more housing being built to so people can live and work in Anacortis. May the mayor did point out that uh it's sure nice to get sales tax on construction and when construction isn't happening it's it's also measurable in the in the revenue rolling in. So not only the permits but the sales tax that it generates

to the extent we're successful in having the permit fees cover the cost of processing the permits then

yeah but the city would like that sales tax for all the other things it does also. Yeah, Commissioner Dresky is exactly right. Um, traditionally sales tax received for uh from building materials from the processes people actually building and buying materials in town um delivered to town because the sales tax is a point of delivery. So if it's delivered to Anacortis, that's where the sales tax is collected. So the city does see uh an increase in sales tax and that's really one of the one of the more significant uh sales tax is one of the more significant drivers of our uh general fund which funds most of the portions of the city. Not to say that you know the the planning commission or the planning department is tasked with increasing sales tax by but it is a nice benefit and it is something that is necessary to um to to sustain the uh government services.

On that happy note um maybe we'll we'll call it an evening. Excuse me. We need to address Ryan not being here today. I'm sorry. Oh, Ryan being absent. We need to vote on that. Did um did anybody know where he is or did he ask for an excuse? We haven't heard from him. So, I I guess we're not not we're not being asked to excuse him. Can we excuse him after the fact a month from now in the next meeting?

Okay. In that case, his absence is noted and he's not excused. Thank you for bringing that up. All right, so we're adjourned at 8 uh 8:22. Thank you everybody. Nice to have you here. It's probably the longest meeting we've had in quite a while. I was going to be