Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, recording is on. All right. Well, it is 6:30, so we will call to order and we'll do a roll call for planning commission on Wednesday, March 18th, 2026. Uh, Commissioner Matlock is joining us online. Present. And we have Commissioner White present. Commissioner Kan present. Commissioner Bover. Commissioner given reser. So we will move on to item number two the opportunity for public comment on non-aggenda item. Um we will open the public hearing at 6:30 and there is no one here in person or Well, we have Sher Cooper online. Sher, do you have anything on the non-aggenda topics?

No, I'm good and I promise I won't say anything after this. It's okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we'll also close the public hearing on non-aggenda items at math 631. On to item number three, the approval of minutes from March 4th, 2026. Does the planning commission have any questions, comments, reflects changes or looking for motion?

Question. So, um, we mentioned Miss Cooper was, uh, gave a an an opinion during the meeting. Do we otherwise identify a guest or is that sufficient? I I don't care either way, but I want to make sure that Miss Cooper is enough to identify this guest. Um, yeah, we could add her full name, Sherry Cooper. Yeah. Okay. Otherwise, sorry, I'm interrupting. Finish. Go ahead. You know, as I say, I just I don't know what the right thing to do is here to make sure that we're um mentioning everything correctly. So, I wanted to ask that question.

We don't normally list guests um but if she provided comment, I think it's appropriate to provide her right full name there. Yeah. Thank you. I saw that we're recording a transcript in this. Is there a place we can access the transcripts for these meetings? Uh yes, but policy from city is not to use AI on things. So I need to ask it if that's forward the transcript here, right? Yeah, that's what I wanted to know about because then it's like a public record that is subject to all the challenges of public records required. Is it AI capturing the transcript?

It's just I think it probably is actually. Yeah, I would just say if there is a transcript, it'd be nice to see on the minutes like where we might be able to access that. So, if we're reading through the minutes, but then if you want a full transcript, you can find it on Yeah. Well, we have the full recording on the the city's website. It was just posted on the website. Thanks. So, with uh with the name, we are not doing addresses anymore. Is that correct? Correct. That was all I was going to add when I interrupted the apologize. Uh, I was just going to bring up that my name has an S on the end in three and four spots. Not a big issue. Oh, yeah. Thank you.

Okay. If there is nothing else then motion. Who wants the second? Second. All right. All in favor? and none opposed. Okay. So, we are on to item number four, the introduction, the hearing, and the recommendation of North End Municipal Code 2025, the remaining time frame amendments. And we will turn it over to Zach. We will open the public hearing after uh commission has had a chance to ask some questions.

All right. So, these are permitting time frames. It's not the most exciting topic, but it is a development regulation. So therefore, we need to bring it through the planning commission and up to council. What this comes from is the state legislature um adopted amendments to the uh the state permitting regulations. And uh previously what we had was consistent with state law was 120 days just across the board for our time frame to turn permits around. the state um with their goals of trying to speed up the ability for developers to get development done, especially with housing, um has shrunk some of those time frames, but they also lengthen some of those time frames recognizing that some of those that 120 days was not realistic in certain circumstances, um particularly with pro projects that involve a public hearing because there's a lot more time to schedule that hearing, get a hearing examiner, um receive comment, address the comment, um and then all the back and forth to close that out. So, what the state has done is shortened the time frame from 120 days to 65 days for projects um project permits that do not require any kind of public notice. So, that would be like your standard building permit, um flood plane permit, general things that are not heavily complicated. um they shrunk it from 120 days to 100 days for projects that require a public notice um but don't require a public hearing. So we've done that with our code here with what we're proposing to do. Um the state lengthened it from 120 days to 170 days for those projects that do involve both a public notice and a public hearing. Um the state also authorized local jurisdictions to extend the time frames

established under those rules in certain circumstances if you justify that. So we feel like we do need an added time frame for certain projects that involve environmental reviews. So specifically when there's an environmental impact statement under the state environmental policy act uh when there's a shoreline permit involved and when there is review of critical areas involved. So we've we feel like that added time frame is necessary because those types of reviews usually involve a lot more comment received from tribes and state agencies. So we have concern about environmental impacts. We want to make sure that we're considering those comments, providing those comments to whatever um review consultants that we have on a project, making sure that the applicant has time to address those comments and and the back and forth necessary for that. In addition, with shoreline permits in particular, the state has lengthened the amount of time for public notice. So, it's normally a 15-day notice. For trolling permits, it's a required 30-day notice. So, that just adds more time to that process. So, we've kicked those shoreline permits, critical areas reviews, and projects involving an environmental impact statement to the 170 170day time frame rather than the 100 day time frame. So, with that, um, we are consistent otherwise with the state regulations. We provided a little bit of clarification otherwise on some of our internal processes um in relation to the hearing examiner rules of procedure and uh we recommend approval on this just to make sure that we're consistent with state law.

Thank you. Commissioners have questions. I do have some questions but if anyone if anyone wants to ask the questions before me that's great. I have about four questions. I think you're up. Go for it. Okay. So, I want to go through some of the questions I had on page one of four. When there is a change to exparte communications in 20.05.003 with this changes in the strikeout, does this limit who is um considered part of the official city communication/ business or is this just simply taking away the specifications here? So anyone who's connected with this process,

yeah, that's taking away the specifications because whoever is the the city is ultimately responsible for a city permit regarding um any approvals under the city's authority regardless of whether it's the council, the planning commission, the board of commissions or whatever. So therefore, we struck that just so that it doesn't leave somebody out. Okay, that's great. So, so for example, that section there, the city council, planning commission, zoning board of adjustments or shoreline board didn't include the hearing examiner, who's one of our most important decision-making authorities. So, without having spec specificity, it's everything that the city does. Okay,

great. Thank you. That's what I wanted to hear. Um, on page uh 204 under 20.05.005, 005 way down in section C. Um numbers one and two. The applicant receives notice of decision by mail, email or in person, but any person who prior to the decision requested noticed um will be provided to that person. Do we need to specify the method there as well or do we just post this public notice on the website or how do we we provide notice to those who would fall under C2?

I think it would just be under the same procedures as C1. Um on page three of four uh just I want to clarify in section section E that it provides written notice of this fact to the applicant and not to anyone else. So, we're specifically not including anyone who's who's asked for information about this. This is just a a notice to the applicant if there's a decision on development permit. Is that correct? It's just the applicant and the interested parties. Yeah. That would that would just be the applicant and then once the decision is issued, it goes out broadly to all parties of record.

Okay. And then under 2005.006 006 under uh A3 A and B it talks about 90 calendar days and 60 calendar days that is not business days that is calendar days so from it could be from a Friday Saturday Sunday Monday would be considered four days correct yeah Saturdays and Sundays are not considered um or I'm sorry calendar days yes those include every day of the week okay business days don't include Saturday and Okay, that's just just clarifications for me. I'm done with my questions. Thank you for answering those. Yep. Thank you.

What else did you read? 20.5.003. The first sentence of that here. It seems like it didn't make sense to me. There's a lot of comments. So, read it out loud.

The decision. Oh, sorry. The decision uh the city including any decision-making body of the city or office of the city may not communicate directly or indirectly regarding any issue in a proceeding before it on a development permit application other than to participate in a communications necessary procedural aspects of maintaining an orderly process unless it provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate except that the aforementioned bodies may receive advice from legal counsel and and from staff members except where the proceeding relates to a code enforcement investigation or prosecution. Well, that's a doozy. It is that it's a legal ease there.

Well, my big question was really the new input here says regarding any issue in a proceeding before it on a develop Oh, proceeding before it on a development. Okay, I did the same thing. I think it like three times. I was like, "Oh, wait. No, that works."

All right. Um, okay. Page I guess this would be three or four there is I was curious if we want to clarify the process through which an agreement might be reached to extend time periods. So it says let's see we were establishing these time limits and somewhere in here it says if both yeah right here so below uh 20.5.06 of 06 below one two and three the final sentence the parties may agree to extend these periods and I wasn't sure do we want to include what that how that process works is that a formal process do they have to submit a request in writing to extend

I was curious are the same is that a number four or is that included under number three or something different or was it meant to be deleted no it's not meant to be deleted Um, but overarching ball three.

So I think that just came for Yeah, that was the same language that we previously had down toward the bottom of the page in a previous section and we've just relocated it. So we haven't had a a challenge before on that. So I think just however you choose to agree to extend those time periods, it would probably be just written written communication back and forth. Okay. Informal process. And then I was curious maybe abstract from this as a member of the public, can they request status updates during these limitations? Certainly. That's something that we regularly would.

Sure. I had a couple comments. Uh page 10420.05.001. Uh this wasn't a change but I would like to suggest the change. The director of community services or his her designates I'd like to change his her to their t h e. Okay. That way it's more general. And then um going all the way to page three or four in that 20.05.006 006 section uh a2. Um I don't I don't know if we need that trailing and and then same thing with in section in 3 a. I don't know if we need that the and sort of logically implies that both need to be fulfilled. And I don't think that's what we're doing here. I think it's similar to the you know where you're just listing options. So

and those are all the comments I thank

and I would like to add a comment for the record that the uh state has done this in the sake of trying to increase permitting time frame turnaround. very loudable goal, but if the state truly wants to do that, the thing that they need to do is reduce required regulation. So, we're still required to address the same number of state standards and mandates within the left kind. So, it's just very frustrating from a staff perspective. I actually had this conversation with my husband recently and how how much Washington requires you to check the boxes on which is like it's a good goal but it makes your life so difficult.

So I agree with you. So wanted to put that on the record. Yeah. Other states don't require nearly as much but they have a different perspective on growth too. Yeah. any other parents.

Yeah, I felt the same. I think you did a great job. There's like basic little thing of numbering. I actually didn't notice it at first, but when I think it was mentioned on page 204, he said C and then I noticed the previous Yeah, there was two C's there. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, that was great.

So everything pass public hearing the state law public hearing each other and the shoreline is that's something that we have added. We is there is was a 170 a something other cities are doing or are saying there's risk of yeah we no we've followed kind of Belle's lead on that. I don't know what other jurisdictions have done that, but our attorney suggested we look at Belleviews and they're doing the very same thing. Just I think would assume that if they're trying to hurry it up and they allow you to make a change, they might say 170 is too much for individuals enforcing all they want, you know, I doubt that would be an issue.

And the truth of the matter is we always our goal is always to get a project out the door as quickly as possible. We don't want it to sit on our desk because that's not doing the city or the applicant any good. This these extended time frames are just so that we're not overtime. Yeah, I think it's helpful to have it in the code too where anybody can look at it and say, "Okay, this is I can expect that it's going to take this long." And hopefully it's faster, but at least there's that expectation.

Why don't we open the public hearing on this? It is 6:48 and there's no one here in person. But does Miss Cooper want to speak on this? Maybe she was on mute. Sorry, I was on mute. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. So also at 6:48 we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the convention to discuss further or we're looking for a motion for recommendation and approval for city council to approve with changes. You have a second.

I'll second. And all in favor I none opposed. We are recommending that to city council. And there is nothing else on our agenda. So

I wanted to add one thing just as a heads up of something. So this is just a heads up for something that we anticipate bringing to you. Um currently we have you recall in our downtown commercial zone uh we do not allow single family homes as a permitted use. So the intent of that that council was very specific on is they wanted to see transition over time to higher density uses. Um however that you know we certainly don't want to see somebody tear down existing homes and building new big homes. But there's the case where you have existing homeowners who are trying to make an addition to their home. And within the city's non-conforming use regulations you have a limitation of no more than 20% addition. And that's in a number of circumstances made it difficult for people or impossible to do a project that they want to do. So staff supports bringing forward amendments to make it easier to do a remodel as opposed to a tear down. Tear down's not going to count. Um you can't do a new single family home in the downtown. But we feel like maybe up to 50% addition for existing homes in that DC zone. So that would be an amendment to the legal non-conforming use regulations. So just wanted to let you know about that, get your initial thoughts on that. We'd also want to take that to the CED council committee to get their buy off on that and then we bring that forward as a proposed amendment.

Yeah. I mean, I'm calling the public hearing for the I can't remember the number, but the B tree project. Um and a lot of people were talking about they wanted to make adjustments to their house and they were limited. So, I think that will make people very very happy. Um, but I would also argue that if you make that non-conforming use exception in the downtown corridor, it should be broadened out because 20% like yeah, it's like you can add one room. That's like for a lot of the houses that we have here. So, I think that's a just something to consider as we embark on that amendment. Yeah, it's not generally a problem in most other areas because in our other residential zones, a single family home is permitted use.

Um, it could be in the multif family residential for example. So, we'll have to think about that as we bring the amendments forward. Yeah, I think it's a it's a good call and I think it gives people the flexibility because not everyone wants to sell their house to they want to do their own thing and they have a space for their children, their grandparents, you know. So, I think that's great. Am I remembering a conflict with the ADU requirements with that though? Yeah, we actually amended our ADU regulations to say that an ADU was not increasing the degree of non-conformity. So that didn't address the house itself. I think it's fantastic because then you do get some of the historic character,

the sense of place stays, but it's a lot better maintenance possibly. So I think it's great. Okay. Yeah. Well, we will probably add that to the overall planning commission work plan then. I know you've been so bored, nothing to do. Yeah, it's it's like this um trying to drink from a fire hose thing where it's it's not a matter of the amount of stuff to do. It's the limited hose size to get through the process. Do you guys have any other thoughts on that or staff? Commissioner Matt Luck, do you have any thoughts for staff?

No, that was great. Okay. All right. Well, we can adjourn at 652. Thank you all. Thanks. We still have a meeting April 15th for now. Yes. I'm not. Okay.