Oak Harbor planners propose zoning edits: eaves/exemptions, childcare standards, project‑review timelines and consolidated clearing/grading review

Oak Harbor planning staff presented a coordinated set of zoning and permitting amendments intended to clarify definitions, align local rules with recent state law and streamline land‑disturbing permits.

Senior planner Ray Lindbergh proposed amending the city’s definition of "building line" to explicitly allow certain architectural projections and to reduce the allowed projection distance into a setback from 3 feet to 2 feet. Lindbergh said the change would add “architectural features such as cornices, sills, fireplaces, chimneys and flues, open beams, trellises” to the list of features that may project into the setback; of those, "only fireplaces, chimneys, and flues can be extended down to the ground," he said. Staff recommended 2 feet so adjacent projections would still leave at least six feet between opposing features on neighboring houses.

On child‑care facility standards, Lindbergh proposed removing a local square‑footage requirement for outdoor play area and instead deferring that measurement to the state agency that regulates child care, noting the state performs related inspections and sets staffing and space standards.

Associate planner Nolan Grunska summarized code changes required by state law. He said Senate Bill 5290 (amending the Local Project Review Act, chapter 36.70B RCW) requires local jurisdictions to set clearer review timelines. Staff proposed replacing a flat 120‑day review window for many permit types with calendar‑day timeframes that mirror the new statute: 65 days for projects that do not require public notice (type 1), 100 days for projects that require public notice (type 2), and 170 days for projects that require a public hearing (type 3). Grunska told the commission the updated rules would also remove obsolete references to older local permit processes and “counter complete” procedures no longer used since the city moved to digital submissions.

Separately, staff proposed consolidating land‑clearing and grading rules (Oak Harbor Municipal Code chapter 19.47) so the city engineer (or designee) would review combined clearing and grading permits. The change is intended to reduce duplicate review by development services and public works staff; staff said typical review concerns—vegetation retention, erosion protection and stormwater—often overlap and are already coordinated by engineering when state permits are needed.

What was not decided: Commissioners discussed practical edge cases—A‑frame houses and long eaves, on‑site generators and the potential need for carve‑outs—but no ordinance vote was taken at the meeting. Staff said they would return with draft text for Planning Commission review and that some vestigial code references would be removed if the package moves forward.