Lake Stevens Planning Commission members on Jan. 8 reviewed staff-proposed priorities for 2025 and urged clearer communication with the City Council on capital projects, Urban Growth Area (UGA) expansion and other city actions.

David Levitan, senior planner, presented the staff report and a draft schedule of upcoming code work, saying the update to the critical areas ordinance "needs to be completed by December 31st." Levitan also said the city is operating under an interim ordinance to comply with Senate Bill 5290 regarding review timelines for land-use applications and building permits, and staff is aiming to complete associated process-code work earlier than required; he said the interim ordinance compliance period runs until Dec. 11 (a year from the ordinance's effective date).

Commissioners asked for a more substantive joint meeting with the City Council scheduled for Jan. 21. They sought clarity on which topics would be productive for joint discussion, requested a clearer definition of the council liaison role, and asked for more timely feedback when council takes actions that affect planning work. Chair Janice Huxford said she would make herself available "if needed to come into a city council meeting to actually talk" about planning commission recommendations and background.

Several commissioners pressed for better transparency on capital projects and high‑visibility land-use decisions. Commissioners raised the sale/auction of city property on Chapel Hill Road — a parcel that at one time had been discussed as a civic site and library location — as an example of poor public notice. The meeting record shows commissioners described how they and members of the public learned about major changes only after actions had been taken and said that contributed to public confusion during the comp plan process.

Commissioners also discussed the city’s long-term effort on UGA expansion. The commission heard that previous county decisions denied expansion requests and that the next opportunity to begin a new expansion request would be several years out; commissioners asked staff to find out the county’s stated reasons for previous denials so the city can address them in future submittals.

Staff and commissioners agreed on two near-term follow-ups: (1) prioritize projects with statutory deadlines (staff cited the critical areas ordinance and process-code work) so those tasks do not become time‑urgent later in the year; and (2) prepare brief training or orientation for commissioners ("planning 101") on the differences between quasi‑judicial and legislative land‑use processes and on how to find permit and project information on the city website. Russ, a city staff member, said staff could set aside a meeting for training and that the council could be asked to provide a short liaison update during commission meetings if the council is willing.

The commission asked staff to share the survey results that were used to prepare the draft work plan with the council and to limit the joint meeting to a manageable set of four or five questions so both bodies could focus on substantive topics rather than procedural formalities.

No formal legislative actions were taken at the meeting on these items; commissioners instead provided direction to staff and compiled questions for the Jan. 21 joint meeting.