Leavenworth planning commission reviews draft comp plan; commissioners press for stronger housing targets and aspirational vision

Leavenworth’s planning commission spent its March 4 meeting reviewing draft chapters of the city’s 2026 comprehensive plan, hearing a presentation from consultant Katie Cody of BHC Consultants and pressing for clearer goals on housing and a stronger aspirational vision.

Cody summarized the update, saying the Growth Management Act requires cities to outline 20 years of growth and supporting infrastructure and to include mandatory elements such as land use, housing, capital facilities and transportation. “The GMA requires cities that are fully planning cities to create long range plans, basically to outline 20 years of growth,” Cody told the commission, and she described the outreach the consultant team has done, including visioning workshops, community engagement nights, pop-up events and tribal and historic-society consultations.

Commissioners focused much of their discussion on the draft vision statement and the housing element. One commissioner called the draft vision “a little…anemic” and asked the commission to “stretch the vision statement,” arguing it should do more to drive future policy choices. Celeste Berry, who identified herself in the meeting, responded that the vision was developed through community workshops and cautioned against wholesale changes without returning to the public: “The vision statement actually came from the community. We created that by talking to the residents of the city of Leavenworth,” she said.

On housing, Cody noted the plan’s 2046 population projection of about 3,539 people and a corresponding growth target of roughly 361 housing units. She said county-provided allocations and existing capacity — including a large development referred to in the presentation as the Meadows project — show the city can technically meet its required allocation, but she and commissioners warned that capacity does not equal affordability or the right unit types.

Commissioners raised two persistent concerns: a high local rate of second-homeownership and the effect of short-term rentals on the available stock for local workers. One commissioner asked whether the plan could include policy steps to address second homes; Cody said such policies are challenging because data on second-home ownership can be variable and the zoning and code toolbox may carry some of the remedies (for example, addressing short-term rentals in the zoning code).

Several commissioners asked staff and the consultant to produce alternate visuals: in addition to the state/county allocation chart (which shows required targets and capacity), they requested a second graphic that would layer in commission-driven targets and assumptions — for example, adjusting the allocation upward to reflect a likely share of new units becoming second homes and laying out a separate workforce-housing target (commissioners discussed a figure on the order of several hundred units needed to house local workers). The commission said those graphics would help when the plan is presented to city council and to the public.

Cody also pointed to new and revised policies in the draft: modest changes to the future land use map but added policies to enable higher-density residential designations in places that fit existing patterns, cross-references to a new climate resilience element, and newly drafted policies addressing environmental justice, wildfire risk, stormwater and a public-requested “dark skies” policy to limit glare and preserve night-sky character.

Next steps outlined in the meeting: completion of the remaining elements (climate and transportation) in April, a joint session with council in June (with a potential public hearing), and subsequent zoning code work to implement any adopted policies. Cody said the state now requires a five-year progress report after plan adoption and the consultant team will provide revised redlines and alternative graphics for commission review.

The commission agreed to continue review at the April meeting and discussed scheduling additional Zoom-only sessions to deep-dive into elements. No formal vote or recommendation on the draft was taken at the March meeting; the commission’s role remains to comment and recommend a course to council.