Planning commission advances omnibus housing rules, narrows parking variances for homes

The Hydrant Planning Commission on Sept. 24 continued a public hearing on an omnibus ordinance intended to convert several interim housing and permit‑streamlining rules into permanent city code, approved a package of non‑substantive edits and placed more complex changes in a planning “parking lot” for later review. Commissioners also directed staff to reconcile three parking‑reduction provisions so the reductions would not apply to residentially zoned parcels while remaining available in Town Center, PBZ, B and CO zones.

The commission’s action followed a staff presentation and one public commenter. Principal Planner Adam Zack told commissioners the project bundles multiple interim ordinances adopted since 2021 to keep the city in compliance with recent Washington State legislation and to end the six‑month renewal cycle for those interim rules. “They’re temporary in nature. So every six months, they do need to be renewed,” Zack said, explaining the purpose of creating a single permanent omnibus ordinance.

Why it matters: the omnibus package is intended to remove the administrative burden of repeatedly renewing interim regulations and to put the city’s development code into a stable, legally reviewed state before the end of the year. Commissioners said several items deserve more time and targeted review — especially rules that create wide administrative discretion to reduce required parking — and chose to hold those items apart from the bulk of the non‑substantive edits.

What the commission did: after staff presented a comment matrix (104 comments total: 30 questions, 47 non‑substantive suggested edits and 27 substantive proposals), commissioners voted to incorporate the non‑substantive amendments into the draft ordinance and to continue the public hearing to a special meeting on Oct. 8, when the public will have another opportunity to comment. The commission also placed substantive amendments in a staff‑maintained parking lot for later consideration and for possible docketing next year. The votes were unanimous.

Parking reductions and residential zones: a central point of debate was several code sections that allow administrative reductions or variances from parking minimums. Chair Jared Thompson said his concern was that the draft shifts discretion (from design commission or code official) but does not eliminate broad discretion, which he believes could be applied to residential zones in ways the commission did not intend. After debate, commissioners voted to have staff reconcile log numbers 68, 70 and 71 so that any variances or reductions in parking minimums would not apply to residentially zoned parcels but would remain available in Town Center, PBZ, B and CO zones. Commissioners approved that direction by roll call vote.

Public comment: Terry Long, a resident who said she is building an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a roughly 2,500‑square‑foot home, urged the commission to reconsider specific ADU provisions in the draft. Long told commissioners that new parking requirements for ADUs, when combined with unchanged lot‑coverage rules, make meeting code harder: “Meaning, you’re making it more difficult for people to meet the existing code,” she said, and asked that staff consider either a modest lot‑coverage allowance or a fixed square‑foot credit (she suggested about 200 square feet) for required parking. Long also pointed out that the draft’s 5 percent gross‑floor‑area allowance applies only to attached ADUs, not detached ADUs, and asked the commission to clarify whether that distinction was intentional.

Discussion vs. decisions: the commission was careful to separate items it formally approved (non‑substantive edits), items it directed staff to prepare (e.g., reconciling the parking provisions and incorporating non‑substantive edits into the next draft), and items it placed for later review (the substantive parking and other policy changes in the parking lot). Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized that legal review would be required before any ordinance is forwarded to the council to ensure compliance with state law.

Next steps and timeline: the public hearing was formally continued to the special Planning Commission meeting on Oct. 8 at approximately 6 p.m. Staff told the commission that if it concludes its recommendation on Oct. 8 the item will go to the city council in November with the goal of adoption before year’s end, which would remove the need for continued six‑month renewals of interim regulations. Staff also warned commissioners that the annual docket window for proposing future code amendments closes Sept. 30 and that the department’s 2026 work plan is heavily booked; staff recommended that commissioners, if they want changes adopted sooner rather than later, act on them now while the omnibus ordinance is before the commission.

Other business: the commission unanimously approved minutes from a Sept. 10 special meeting earlier in the evening. Staff briefly reviewed upcoming meetings — Oct. 8 (continued public hearing) and Oct. 22 (docket review) — and said the November regular meeting will be rescheduled because it falls the day before Thanksgiving.

What remains undecided: a set of substantive amendments, including those tied to design‑review discretion and certain parking variances in residential settings, remain in the commission’s parking lot for later analysis and possible docketing. Staff warned that items placed in the parking lot are not automatically docketed or guaranteed placement on the next work program and that legal review and council direction will be required before any final code amendments are adopted.

A copy of the comment matrix and the draft ordinance was available on the meeting agenda; the public hearing record will reopen on Oct. 8.