Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, yeah. It didn't beep, but it said that it's going. So, I guess Are we done or do we wait a second? Um, Kaylin, do you mind that? I think it's recording. I feel that it's you see on the top left. Usually it beeps. Yeah. Well, we will call to order planning commission at 6:30 on February 4th, 2026. Uh, Commissioner Koulan, that right? Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Pereira here. Commissioner Bover present. And we have commissioners online or not?

We have Stephen that just joined. Hey, Commissioner Matloff is joining us online and I am Commissioner Teal. Uh, we will move on to item number two, the opportunity for public comment on non-aggenda items. So, uh, I think we have someone online. It's just if she would like to speak for public comment on something not on the agenda. I'm good. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Hearing no public comment, we will close. We will open and we will close the public comment for non-aggenda items at 6:31 and move on to item number three, the approval of minutes from December 3rd, 2025. Um, do we have any is that is that wait? Yeah, sorry. Shoot. January 21st. I'm like I'm looking at the wrong thing. We'll get that to you at your next meeting. Okay. So, we'll wait on that one. No, hang on. That's right. Yeah. February 21st, right? Right.

We're on February already. So, I was looking at the approval of minutes and instead of reading the appropriate thing off of our current agenda. So, we're looking for approval of minutes from January 21st, 2026. I apologize. Well, I am just recognizing that we actually didn't include it in the packet for you guys. So, unless you have it somewhere else. Oh, oh, yeah. No, no, no, no, no. We have the approval. We don't have the Oh. Oh, yeah. There it is. Sorry. I'm just right. This one, right? So, page two. So, the regular meeting action meeting minutes January 21st.

Oh, usually it was like in a different formatting. I think that's I know. That's why because I was reading it also thinking that it was the agenda and then I was wait December that can't be right. So yes for approval of amendments from January 21st or any changes. Brian's last name was misspelled that first line there. Thank you. Correct that. And just to note for the record, we unfortunately did not have a audio or video recording of that. So, we were in the middle of transitioning our process on here. Went from previously auto recording to no longer doing that this year and we didn't realize that. So,

we have the written minutes but not a recorded minutes or audio recording. Thank you. All right. Yeah. Do we want to do a motion? Yeah. Motion for approval of the meeting on from January 21st, 2026. And a second. Second. Okay. All in favor? I I and none oppose unless Commissioner Matlock. Okay. He's affirming as well. My microphone was off. I saw you nodding, but yes.

Thank you. We'll move on to item number four, the public hearing and possible planning commission recommendation for the amendments to the uh Northbend Municipal Code 1720, the binding site plan regulations. So, we'll turn it over to staff and then we'll have planning commission ask questions of staff and then we will open the public hearing. So,

all right. So, this is a part of the overall huge package of amendments that the state legislature has enacted to state law over the last several years. um addressing housing issues. And the overall intent of all this is to make housing easier to develop so that we can address the regional housing shortage that is really facing the the entire area. Um so the Senate passed Senate Bill 5611 in last year's legislative session and what that does with a number of things um is make binding site plans available for use by residential projects. So, previously binding site plans were available for condominiums but principally for commercial development. And the intent of a binding site plan is it's like a subdivision process but it allows for sharing of facilities. So when you have things like storm water facilities, landscape buffers, parking, those kinds of things. Uh when you do a subdivision, a classic subdivision, those have to be in separate track. If you're having shared facilities, they need to be in separate tracks or they need to all be self-contained within that lot. That lot needs to be totally self-reliant. A binding site plan on the other hand allows sharing a facility so that you can have parking here that's serving a building maybe on a different lot. Um that works well for multif family development. And so the legislature in trying to make multif family development easier to do is requiring jurisdictions to now make this same process available for um residential multifamily zoned property. So pretty straightforward amendment. That's basically all it does. And then we have a few cleanup amendments in there about the name of the community development director and making sure that that it's um clear that this title or this chapter of code is under the authority of the community development director.

All right. Thank you. Uh commissioners, do you have any questions? Was this mandated by the state? I'm just cur Yes. Yeah. So, I was curious just what this does to parking numbers or the just general requirements. Are they the same or do they get to piggy back on each other at all?

No, all of the same parking regulations, landscape setbacks, building setbacks, etc. all still apply. Um, with the binding site plan though with that that you can share facilities. Um, it doesn't all have to be every lot meeting its own individual requirements. it can be shared as the development as a whole. So for example, building setbacks uh can be flexed within the binding site plan, but as long as you're meeting your exterior setbacks, that's what's essential. Okay. So like open space requirements like you could have like Central Park in New York. I'm not saying that that's what we're going to get, but that idea. Exactly. Yeah.

Um and then how does it affect any impact fees? That's not necessarily our but no that's totally remains the same. Okay. Any other Commissioner Matlock? Did you have any questions? Okay. Well, why don't we go ahead and open the public hearing on this at 6:37? There's no one present in person for this item or for this agenda. Uh is there anyone online that would like to speak for the public hearing portion? I'm good. Thank you.

Hey, thank you. So, we will close the public hearing at 6:38 and turn it back to the commission. Okay. So, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Yeah, a second. All right. Uh, all in favor? I none opposed. Sorry if I jumped the gun on the Okay. Uh item number five, this is the public hearing and possible planning commission recommendation for amendments to the northbinance code for chapter 20.08 comprehensive plan and development regulation amendment procedures.

All right. Yeah. So, there's a number of things that we're doing here and you guys have seen many of our staff reports. There's always the section that talks about cultural impacts, economic impacts, and impacts to surrounding properties. But that's basically um all that we have right now and it's not really well defined what those are. So our intent with this is to add some additional criteria and then also refine what those actually mean. So cultural impacts for example is has been a little bit vague. Does that mean somebody's out backyard of the mountain? Is that a cultural impact? Um no. We're we're clarifying specifically what those types of impacts are and then uh adding some additional criteria. So efficiency in particular, we really want to begin to think a lot about efficiency as regulations keep piling on. So the state keeps adding more and more things that cities have to do. Um they're not providing funds for additional staffing. So we have to make the most use of our time. And we also want to give an eye to whenever we're adding regulations, what can we do to streamline or simplify so that we're not just adding complexity, adding process, and adding time. We want to keep it efficient. Um fiscal impact likewise. So the decisions that the planning commission makes to or recommendations the planning commission makes up to council and decisions that council makes about land use can have long-term impacts to the city's financial future. So land uses in particular, certain land uses bring a lot of tax revenue. other you land uses really don't and maybe don't bring other benefits to the city. So, this is just a way to try to capture that as a consideration point um for decision-m. What does that do long-term to the city's financial health? Um, equity is something that we've had a

number of policies that we added in our 2020 20 24 update to our comprehensive plan and that's for considering things like displacement. Um, how is a code amendment or a municipal or a comprehensive plan policy affecting marginalized populations? So, we actually had a specific land use policy uh 4.2 two in our land use element, develop and use tools that consider equity impacts when establishing plans or policies for outcomes that might disproportionately impact marginalized populations. So that's exactly what we're doing with this. So it's adding additional criteria when we're bringing forward amendments for your consideration. Um with that said, we received a comment from the Snwami tribe. The planning commission has that um that was specifically requesting that we add an additional criteria for cultural impacts and we had some language about cultural impacts previously. It was kind of buried in a section that was addressing specifically map amendments. So we concur with their suggestion. It makes sense that you would also want to consider cultural impacts uh for broader land use decision-making. So, comprehensive plan amendments and development regulations. So, I've added a suggested um policy or criterion in yellow in the copy that you have before you uh addressing that. And that's specifically about cultural resources. So, this is not culture about like I like rock and roll music. This is culture about established cultural resources. So designated historic sites, critical cultural resources that are specifically identified by the tribe. Um something that's a little bit more concrete that we can then determine is there an impact to um with that then we um staff recommend

approval of this. We think this is a good decision-m tool that will help it help make it easier and more clear to the planning commission in making recommendations forward and then for council to make decisions on. Perfect. Um yeah, do commissioners have questions of staff?

I do have a question. Um one of my concerns, not because of this review, but overall concerns is about efficiency. And so I'd glad to see that there's mentions of um measuring the efficiency of our processes. So I would like some clarification of what you will use to determine whether something adds to the burden of permit approval in terms of efficiency. And if you don't have that data right now, that's great. But I'd like to at least have that data of how you plan to make that determination.

Yeah. There's not any kind of like metric to it. It's a conversational analysis or um something that we would write a response to. But the overall idea is is this regulation truly necessary or we just adding regulation that's going to add process. Okay. So in a lot of cases it's necessary because the state's imposing it. But in other cases it it may be somebody's kind of pet issue. But is the juice or is the juice worth the squeeze is the idea.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Is this something that's in the in the front of my mind a lot in talking with people and so it's interesting for me. Is is this part of a metric that you guys are doing before you you create the staff report? Are you using these metrics as a decision on when to bring a topic to us and the council in the first place? Um well that's our planning commission work plan that's at the beginning of the year we review that with the planning commission that kind of sets the agenda and then council approves that that sets the agenda for what we're bringing to you and then

what I mean is this seems retroactive to the topic that's being brought up. This is the cyber board looks at that after it's been decided that we we talk about these and make these changes to say what are the impacts to that choice. I'm just wondering if internally do you guys use this these same metrics to decide when you come up with that work plan what what things that ultimately should be guiding our same thought processes. Okay. In most cases our work plans dictated by things that we have to do. Sure.

But there's also direction from council. There's suggestions from the public the dockets suggestions from planet commissioners. And so yeah, these criteria will become a part of our staff reports moving forward. Then did have some questions. Um clarification for me uh on this. So this was kind of an issue as a requirement from the state I think through this HB1220 that they passed which required us to include some of these policy considerations in the comp plan. Mhm.

And this proposal is more my I'm trying to figure I think what we're proposing here is an implement implementation plan which is a little bit more discretionary on our part. How we implement to cover what we've stated as an Yes. Yeah. Exactly.

Okay. Um I was just curious about why this would need to be codified as a law as opposed to more administrative. like could we achieve the same thing without having it as code but having it as like an updated template that you guys do u some of these and the reason I'm asking is for flexibility right so we're adding I think five more topics six if you include the cultural impacts my thinking is if it's not necessarily codified but it's more of an administrative requirement even if it's enforceable through a resolution specific to our commission here, we could more easily update it down the road. So, say the tribe didn't come to us tonight, but comes to us in 6 months, like, hey, we see you're implementing this and we wanted to add cultural impacts. It seems like it would be much easier to adapt to that if it were something in more administrative process. Um, so my question ultimately would be, is there a strong reason why it needs to be an updated law? um what benefits we're getting out of that as opposed to and I my

I think I guess my answer to that is transparency. So the public is it's much easier to see a municipal code than a resolution which tends to get buried through the course of history. Um a resol or or regulations are just right there as a part of what's available to the public to look at and so it provides the transparency and then also provides consistency over time. about what you're evaluating. Interesting. And I mean assume you would still have it you could have it in a means where it's transparent to the public even if it's not part of the law. I would assume

you could this is the the structure that we I mean we already have processes and criteria in our code. So it's just amending that as opposed to coming up with something entirely new.

Yeah. And again, I just kind of keep running into like this is a pretty significant tool or could be in the future that we're going to have a learning process and it's just a much bigger administrative burden to adjust it if it's in a law as opposed to achieve seemingly the same thing if we have even like a couple pieces that I was looking into is like we could have an a resolution which has some legal bearing for the commission that approves all of these reports, which I think we do anyway, plus uh a standardized reporting template from the staff which includes all of these these would go and live into that. Um we already currently have a requirement I think for the net it must provide a net benefit to the public which honestly some of these seem like they would fall under that. You would just specify in order to achieve that metric as a net benefit you have to make an assessment of the staff on each one of these items. You can add or take away based on our learnings over time. Um, it just seems like that makes it a lot more adaptable and flexible from our point as we adjust and need to in the future. I feel like we probably would still have a means to make it transparent to the public. I don't feel like you have to publish them into law to make it available to the public to be aware of. That was kind of my question into it. Is it necessary to be that? And do we lose something in terms of being able to adapt as we move through this process?

So, we could come back at any time to change a municipal code. There's no limitation on time to do that. Like a comprehensive plan, you can only change one max minimum or maximum of once a year. Yeah. Um with a development regulation, you can change that any time to be changing needs. So well, I was going to say does it I think it requires the city council actually to approve a change in code. Whereas if we do it more administratively, we could keep it even below that level. It would be more of administrative through the commission. like we could discuss and come up with changes to the staff template that are report.

The council really decides anything I mean process-wise even if it's something that's recommended by the planning commission the council's going to want to know what those criteria are. So

I think too where it is in the code, you know, you're talking about transparency and efficiency for staff. It's going to be a lot easier for yourself and future planners to be able to look at the code and the code's history to be able to implement efficiency a little bit better than having to dig through resolutions. Like it's just it's pretty straightforward that it's in the code. You can look at it and even looking at these these are there is wiggle room in all of these these are like yes we need to check this and we need to check this and we need to check this but it's not specifying further requirements in that it's just saying these are things that we need to look at

um thanks that actually brings up another topic I was going to hit afterwards is more as a clinician we evaluate These these are a little vague. How are we evaluating? Is it just based on kind of our judgments as we go through the reports? There's not really a clear threshold of like what what surpasses this gets a thumbs up, this gets a thumbs down, right? Yeah. There's a discretion to it. And uh again, I think it's good to not have too much specificity because everything's going to be a little bit different, but it's it's brings a talking point to the table. Do you have more to think about it for a minute?

Um, no. I mean, I think I I'm personally still not convinced. I think as an administrative thing, I like the flexibility that it gives us um to change it. And uh I don't know. I mean, I understand we can always change multiple times a year the code. It just doesn't seem it seems like except like something that's not necessary at this point. I'm not making this comment to say like, hey, let's subvert take the council out of it. But I think everything needs to go up to them. Uh depending on, you know, what we're here to do, I want to be clear, this isn't limiting to your discussion. Um you can consider anything in making your recommendation. This just establishes what goes into the staff report to present to you for your discussion.

And I don't think I'm changing in my suggestion the content of that staff report. My suggestion is still we include all of this. I think this is great. And I think my suggestion is more uh making it adaptable if we want to change those requirements in the future, making it easier to do that. Would would that look like a striking of the entire section of 28080?

Yeah, we wouldn't have these my suggestion is it wouldn't go into 2808. This what we're discussing. It would go into if we chose how to implement. I mean it could be a var various ways to implement it but administratively it could be through the the resolution at the committee level here would be or the commission level would be just simply we have a requirement and a legal burden to review all reports before they go to city council. Then you would have an approval of the staff format for the reports that they write and that's where we modify the reports that they generate. Right now I think it has four or a couple of points. One of those was the must provide the net benefit to community was one of those points. This paper suggests adding I think the five more plus six if we include the cultural um that would still all happen. It would just happen in the administrative framework that we're asking the staff to go through before they present it to us. And the requirement then will be in that form through our resolution to review it as opposed to written in 2808. And the reason you don't like it in the code is because why does I guess I'm I'm not following why that feels like extra you know if if you're saying oh we can do these things in a resolution how does it being in a code like how how does that

so the resolution the only thing a resolution would do for us here is requal barrier for the commission to review reports it doesn't by itself as a resolution that I would propose would not actually cover these topics. The topics then are actually discussed administratively and what's included in that staff report. So we're getting to the same end state. We want to add things that are very important to the staff report and we want to achieve what we've said we will in the comp plan. My push on having it codified is if we ever want to change it. So the tribe has come with us and has asked us to add this additional one. If we have it in my way that would be a simple that would be super quick, right? It would be a staff revision of their formatting. They do it maybe they review with us to add something like that. Um if it's codified and they want to add an additional point in here that'll have to then get through us and then ultimately up to city council to approve it to change the code to have an additional one or maybe they remove one like environmental impacts. Maybe we decide it's not worth it because we already have a separate SEPA. Well, the the commission by itself doesn't have the discretion to be decision-m and so this is laying out the public process by which decisions can be made. So it's important for the public to understand what those procedures to bring through decisions and or recommendations and ultimately council decisions are.

Right? like we we as a commission we are a recommending body to the city council and so we are recommending issues relating to land use. So I think that it's helpful for for public or even for us if we're looking through the code to say okay we know that when we're reviewing this we're going to be assessing these readings and when the public reviews it then they say okay we know that those things are going to come up. It's not saying it has to be this way or it has to be that way. If there's not environmental impacts on a certain project, then that's not something that like, you know, staff would say nonapplicable, you know, it's just something that would come up in the staff report. And so then if something else does come up, I mean, there's kind of a catchall here too and other relevant documents. So, so it kind of allows some wiggle room. Um, I mean, honestly, like I was a little stuck just with the um I want the tribe to weigh in and they do and I I'm grateful for that. But when they're saying that they need 60 days, that was a concern as far as timing and and our process as a city.

Yeah. I didn't include anything about subprocess in that. That's something that can be then determined separately. Um this is just about criteria that we consider. So just going back to the transparency piece, does the staff format for these reports, is that publicly available?

Yeah, that's a part of the plan commission packet that goes out on notify me to anybody that requests it. It goes on our city website. I think small towns especially get so much like I don't know a bad reputation for like behind the scenes dealing and so personally I really support as much transparency as possible so that people know that like we're not we're not being sneaky about the things that we're approving. We're actually trying to, you know, get the community to be the community that we want it to be in a very legal and reasonable way.

It sounds like it it is barely there, right? We're not hiding anything. Everything I think if I'm saying like if it is available and transparent, we send it out proactively to the public. Just it is all of it is. And this is just establishing through the public process also what those discussion points are to be in the staff report.

And does this uh open up in terms of creating any kind of legal exposure if we fail to do if it's codified and we fail to do or do a substandard piece in any of these parts of the review. Does it create more exposure for someone trying to get around it like in a development or something to push back against it. I'm not an attorney. I don't want to speak to legal risk, but um the staff would certainly amend or create our staff reports based on this criteria and evaluate each uh particular criterion in presenting to the commission.

I mean, I think you bring up good points. I'm glad that we're having this conversation about it. Yeah. I think that was all the comments I had. Yeah. Other commissioners. Yeah. So, if there's no other comments or questions about this, I think we are looking for a motion. I think we need to open the hearing. Oh, yeah. Do that. No.

Thank Thank you. Okay. Uh yes. So uh we will open the public hearing at 6:59. Um there is no one present for public comment here in person. So if there's anyone that would like to speak for the hearing online, this is your chance. Now to um reaffirm what you just said, I appreciate the conversation. It was great listening to Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Cooper. Okay, then hearing no public um comment needs or desires, we will close the public hearing at 7 o'clock and turn it back to the commission. I apologize we didn't open that earlier. I just was thinking we were on the last one. Yep. So I think we just need a motion if anybody's ready or or we can continue if you need to think about it further.

Have we looked up um as much like the overhead burden that this increases for the staff? Has there been any impact assessment on like what that's going to change for your guys'? You mean adding more to the staff reports?

Yeah. Yeah, that certainly does add a little bit to our time, but I think the longer term impacts to efficiency by considering, you know, with the commission and the council then viewing these issues. I think long term I think makes a much bigger difference. I I'll make a motion to approve it as written. We have a second. Yeah. Second. Okay. Um I guess I will go around. Uh Commissioner Matlock. Uh I vote yes to approve. Sorry.

I didn't hear a call for a vote. I know. Sorry. I'm not communicating very well here. Yes. So you support and I'm in favor as well. So all in favor and it is approved onto uh city council. Um and with that commissioner Koulan is that something that you would like you know your perspective on it. Would you like to comment when they present this to the city council or you just discussed it here? I think this is the appropriate level part. So solid recommendation.

Thank you. Okay, we are on to item number six, the sign regulation amendments. And there's no public hearing on this one, so I'm not going to open the public hearing on this one. I'll turn this over to stop. All right. Good evening, commissioners. It's great to see you all. Unfortunately, I do not have any sign regulations for you to review today. Um, instead, I am briefing you on the sign business survey results that we received. Um, this happened in the fall over two different surveying periods. We received a total of 37 responses. Just over 13% of the city's businesses. Not bad. Um, in your packet tonight, I have included the survey summary, which basically just outlines all the responses that we received uh throughout the survey periods. Um, overall I felt like there were some helpful things to consider with regard to upcoming regulations um for sign code amendments for commercial zones. Um, in general, one big takeaway that I found in the survey was that greater resources and information to businesses are really needed. Um, a lot of folks haven't applied for a sign permit recently. Um, weren't very aware of what the sign code currently allows or doesn't allow and overall expressed that they had dealt with some challenges with permitting and with code enforcement. Um, with regards to signs, um, only about a quarter uh, survey respondents said that they had an issue with sign code enforcement, but nevertheless, it seems like some greater resources and information on our website could be really handy once we do updates. Um, other things that I took away from survey results, um, businesses really

cared about their sizing limitations as well as their design allowances and how visible signs were from the road. All of these were things that they wanted to see more flexibilities with regards to. Um, which I think is something that we can absolutely evaluate and consider. Um, businesses were also neutral or satisfied with current regulations. So hopefully with amendments being made, things become easier and more transparent to understand the sign code and use the sign code and feel like they can have a better understanding of what is and isn't allowed. Um, so the only complaints that were really received were feelings around regulations being unclear, um, permitting being a challenge, and then just a desire for more flexibilities. Um, so overall, I was fairly satisfied with the results of the survey. I'm glad that we reopened it for a second round. Um, the feedback we received in the second round really just reemphasized what some of the initial takeaways were from the first round of survey review. Thank you for getting back to us with this. Commissioners, do you have any thoughts, questions?

What was uh what was your biggest surprise from this? I didn't feel like there were really any surprises.

Do you think that the changes you've made have have addressed a lot of this already? I think some of the changes that I've started working on for general science standards have addressed some of this specifically with regard to design regulations. I think that having a more flexible program with innovative design being encouraged and having real standards associating associated with it makes it a little bit more of a transparent process to ask for greater flexibilities and deviations from our code. Um, I think overall thoughts with things that I haven't touched yet haven't really changed. Um, I feel very affirmed in the approach that I'm taking right now.

Yeah. A question. Go ahead. Um, when you get this feedback, do you find that some of the feedback is either not actionable or would go against the principles of our sign design itself? And if so, are you highlighting those or would you highlight those? I have an example of that. One example is the the request to have a sign visible from the freeway. I'm not

I mean I'm not sure that's something that we want to allow and yet it's something that is wanted by the business population. So I I'm I'm hoping that as we work through this we don't have it as a default of everything that's asked for we will do um to their satisfaction. So I I'd like to know there's some limits

that that is accurate. I believe that the state has certain regulations with regard to signs facing I90. So we would be limited by outside factors um as well as things that would impact the general character and aesthetic of our community. Um there was a comment that was received in the survey that did stand out to me which is not everybody's going to be happy. Um and that I mean it rings very true. We're going to do our best to accommodate some of these general buckets of requests. Um, especially ones that were pretty popular. Um, but in general, it's not going to be at the detriment of our own community.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thanks for that comment. And I guess that brings me to ask, is there anything that commissioners seeing this that you want staff to focus on or not focus on? Not really. So far, I've been happy. Thank you for your work. Over half of people who responded to this had never encountered the sign code. So, they don't know what they like and don't like. Anyway, they're just putting up signs. Yeah,

we did receive one response that requested greater flexibilities on every kind of aspect that you could ask for and to have signs of all types allowed on their property simultaneously, which I think is maybe the only surprising or more amusing thing that I saw in the survey results. Awesome. Well, good work. And any other thoughts? Okay, then we will go on to item seven, which is adjournment at 7:09. Thanks, guys. All right. Thanks, guys. Thanks, everybody. Bye. Bye. Bye.