Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conditional Use Rewrite topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leavenworth planners launch rewrite of conditional‑use rules, weigh administrative review and public input
Summary
Commissioners began a workshop to overhaul the city—s conditional‑use code, discussing grouping uses by impact, clearer approval criteria, whether some reviews should be administrative instead of quasi‑judicial, and a homework assignment to flag uses for reclassification.
Planning staff presented a workshop on Dec. 3 proposing a substantial rewrite of Leavenworth—s conditional‑use chapter, saying the current code is "so poorly written" that staff has recommended a fresh, more precise structure.
Why it matters: conditional‑use permits determine whether uses such as community centers, churches, preschools, breweries, bus stops or fuel storage require a hearing examiner review, an administrative review, or can be permitted outright with objective conditions. Those classifications affect how much public notice, comment and discretionary review a project receives.
Staff outlined a short MRSC‑based chart and examples from other Washington cities and suggested the commission group uses by impact categories (care, education, utilities, emissions) and adopt concise, group‑based development standards. "A lot of our conditional use permits don't even have ... definitions, there's nothing that says, like, well, if you want to build a community center, what are the list of conditional criteria?" staff said.
Commission discussion focused on whether certain uses should move to administrative review with objective checklists to reduce cost and processing time, while keeping higher‑impact items (for example, large public assembly or major utilities) in the quasi‑judicial hearing process. Commissioners raised concerns about losing public input if too many categories are moved to administrative review; staff noted that the hearing‑examiner rarely overturns staff recommendations but that hearings provide a public buffer and perceived fairness.
Staff asked commissioners to review the draft list, mark uses they believe should be removed from the CUP list or reclassified as administrative, and return feedback by the end of the month; staff will consolidate input and prepare revised wording. The commission also received a brief update that Transpo Group will prepare a scope and budget for an off‑street parking study under an existing contract to produce a cost‑per‑stall estimate and potential fee‑in‑lieu options.
Next steps: commissioners will submit suggested reclassifications and sample language; staff will return a consolidated draft and may present prioritized items at a joint January docket meeting with council.
