Kirkland staff outline permit intake, review timelines, upcoming dashboard and AI exploration
Loading...
Summary
Planning & Building Department staff gave a detailed study session on permit intake and review, completeness rules, fee timing, the forthcoming permit dashboard, exploration of AI tools to reduce incomplete submittals, and the department’s 2025–27 work program including Totem Lake, Juanita and faith‑owned housing work.
Planning & Building Department staff used a study session to walk the Kirkland Planning Commission through how permits move from intake to issuance, what commonly causes delays, and tools the city is developing to increase transparency and reduce resubmittals.
Prince Cowan, administrative services manager, described administrative roles and said the PB admin team comprises eight staff who handle customer service, virtual appointments and legal noticing. Angela Haupt, plan review supervisor, described plan examiners and inspectors as mostly “combo” reviewers with construction backgrounds: “All of our plans examiners are combo reviewers, so they do the architectural, structural, mechanical, and plumbing,” she said, noting an electrical plans examiner must be a journeyman electrician under state law.
Staff explained the intake workflow on mybuildingpermit.com: applicants submit electronically, permit technicians perform a next‑day completeness check to confirm required documents are present, and departments must be satisfied before a permit is deemed complete. Staff emphasized that review does not begin until intake fees are paid, which creates a practical distinction between creating a permit record and starting the statutory review clock. Commissioners pressed staff on tracking metrics (submission date vs. deemed‑complete date); staff said the new permit dashboard will track review cycles, time in applicant hands and internal bottlenecks, and will present target and actual review times.
Staff listed frequent causes of incomplete submittals—missing geotechnical or arborist reports, wrong energy code forms, and plan formatting issues—and said the department maintains checklists and system prompts to reduce those errors. The city has waived presubmittal fees for certain small applications to encourage early review and offers virtual appointments and a counter for applicant assistance.
On technology, staff said the department is exploring AI and mapping tools to automatically flag required studies or detect meaningful plan changes before formal submittal. Adam (staff) described proof‑of‑concept tools that could compare an address to mapped environmental constraints and tell an applicant whether a wetland or steep slope study is needed prior to submission.
Angela Haupt explained how the state building codes are adopted: international model codes are updated every three years, technical advisory groups create proposed state amendments, the State Building Code Council and public hearings review them, and state law governs local implementation. Local jurisdictions cannot weaken residential occupancy provisions without state approval.
Staff also reviewed the 2025–27 work program: completed items (Juanita zoning amendments, unit lot subdivision implementation), in‑progress projects (station area density work, faith‑owned property housing options) and larger initiatives (Totem Lake subarea planning, urban forestry plan update). They noted some projects are delayed by staff turnover or require consultant funding and flagged statutory tasks (e.g., parking ratio implementation under recent state law) that the city must adopt by 2027.
Commissioners and staff agreed the permit dashboard should include defensible metrics (median/90th percentiles suggested) and track both city review time and applicant response time. Staff said they will continue to refine the dashboard and report back on implementation steps.
The session closed with calendar and packet updates and public comment.
