Planning staff told the commission that unclear definitions in the Historic Preservation District code — especially the term “material change” — have led to situations where minor work triggers full planning commission review and higher permit fees.

“Repainting something to a new color costs an applicant upward of $1,000 in permit processing fees,” staff said, describing how ambiguous code language and missing definitions create unexpected requirements for property owners. Staff acknowledged the interpretation difficulties and said they will document applicant comments and emails and present compiled examples for the commission, likely in September.

Commissioners identified three code review priorities for 2025: reviewing permit fees, revising the Historic Preservation District code to reduce ambiguity, and updating the town’s sign code, which commissioners called “clunky” and lengthy. Staff also recommended a development code review that would remove items that do not require mandatory state (Department of Commerce) review from Chapter 15 (UDC), potentially moving them to a different chapter to reduce unnecessary Commerce submissions and staff workload.

Commissioners suggested practical fixes, such as publishing a short list of preapproved paint colors (sourced from recognized manufacturers such as Benjamin Moore or Sherwin‑Williams) so small repainting projects would not require full review. Staff reported an intern review from Western Washington University that identified remaining subjective language and said staff will work through those recommendations.

The commission directed staff to compile complaints and examples from applicants, prepare candidate code edits to reduce subjective language and unclear terms, and to report back with a timeline for review and public outreach.