Planning commission opens review of permanent rules for temporary uses, parking and single‑family exemptions draw concern

The Bridal Planning Commission on Feb. 26 held an initial briefing on proposed permanent regulations for temporary uses and structures — including outdoor dining and mobile food vendors — and heard concerns about notice, parking and how the rules would apply in single‑family zones.

Senior Planner Molly McGuire said the draft code would replace interim ordinance 24CO7 and create a new MICC section (proposed 19.06.130) to regulate temporary uses on private property. “The purpose of this meeting is an initial briefing,” McGuire said, explaining the draft would authorize short‑term activities from garage sales to markets and mobile food vendors, and allow certain low‑impact activities without a permit while subjecting all uses to the chapter’s standards.

Staff described several key provisions in the draft: a new temporary‑use permit type (proposed as a Type 1 land‑use review, decided by the code official), categories of exempt low‑impact activities, four duration categories (with a 180‑day threshold referenced to building‑code temporary‑structure rules and limited extensions in some cases), a three‑month gap rule that bars applying for another temporary permit within three months of a prior permit’s expiration, and a requirement that sites be returned to equal or better condition at removal. The draft also retains provisions for outdoor food and beverage services on public property adopted during the COVID period, aligned to Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board guidance.

Commissioners pressed staff on multiple points. Chair Dan Thompson said he was concerned about giving broad discretion to the code official and the effect of allowing temporary uses to bypass single‑family zone limits: “We’re giving this tremendous discretionary authority to the code official,” Thompson said, and warned that permanent development standards should not be substantially eroded by repeated temporary permits. Several commissioners asked whether temporary uses on public right‑of‑way are being allowed to operate indefinitely through repeated renewals; staff said right‑of‑way (commerce on public property) permits have in practice sometimes been renewed to operate on an ongoing basis.

Staff said four temporary‑use permits had been approved in the previous year — three “tennis‑bubble” structures for recreational facilities and one ice‑cream stand — and that the Mercer Island Country Club’s request for a covered tennis structure was one reason the council and staff sought interim relief while permanent regulations are drafted. Jeff Thomas of the Community Planning and Development Department told the commission that staff are not proposing changes to the current interim regulations in effect now, and reiterated that the planning commission’s input will shape the permanent rules.

Commissioners raised frequent questions that staff said could be addressed through draft amendments: whether the temporary permit should be a Type 2 review (with public notification) rather than a staff decision; whether temporary uses in single‑family zones should be exempt from underlying development standards (setbacks, height, lot‑coverage); how to define and apply an “adequate parking” standard; how renewals and cumulative durations should be handled (commenters asked whether a 30‑day limit plus renewals would effectively permit months of use); and whether the three‑month gap and the 180‑day/210‑day duration logic should be adjusted.

Staff requested written amendment suggestions and edits by March 14; McGuire said she would incorporate commissioner proposals and publish revised packet materials before the commission’s next review. The commission did not take formal action on the draft at the Feb. 26 meeting; staff emphasized this was an initial briefing intended to shape a revised draft.

Pending decisions for later hearings include whether to require public notice for more temporary‑use categories, whether to tie permit type to duration or to any exemption from development standards, and whether to cap extended or recurring temporary uses in single‑family zones.