Good evening, Isaqua, and good evening
everyone in chambers. Uh, we'd like to
call this meeting of the Planning Policy
Commission to order, the March 12th
meeting, and it currently is 6:41.
Whoa, we're running a little bit behind,
but uh, so apologies, but 6:41 p.m.
Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The
planning policy commission is in person,
but staff or members of the public may
be attending virtually or in person.
Staff, do we have a quorum this evening?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Okay. Thank you, Amanda. And just a
note, um, Commissioner Miller Irwin will
be joining us virtually this evening.
And we also have two excused absences.
>> Correct. Commissioners Olen and
>> Zacharov and Zacharov.
>> Correct. Great. Thank you.
>> Okay, we're going to begin as we always
do with the approval of minutes. So
hopefully all of you guys were looking
through your packet. You'll notice that
there was a quite a big um packet of
minutes. So this was for the February
26th PPC meeting. Um, any questions,
concerns, or comments from our
commissioners?
Okay, great. And I don't see
Commissioner Miller Irwin. Is she
>> Oh, there she is. She's on the left.
Okay. Hi, Leslie. Um, any any concerns?
Commissioner Miller Irwin, I didn't
catch you down there on my screen.
I'm
>> ah, I just unmuted myself. Uh, no. chair
voice. Uh the minutes look great. Thank
you.
>> Wonderful. Thank you, commissioners. So
those meeting minutes are approved and
now we want to move on to our public
comment. So again, at every meeting we
hold general public comment at this time
and this is for general topics for the
good of the planning policy commission.
Staff, has anyone signed up in the room
or online to make general public
comments?
>> No, chair. There has no one signed up
today. Okay, thank you Amanda. Would
anyone in the room like to make general
public comments?
All right,
moving along. We are going to begin with
tonight's regular business. And our
first and only item on the agenda is
title 18 clarifying amendments, site
development, permit process, plat and
construction permit sequencing, and
temporary use requirements for donation
bins.
Um, so we're going to begin by
continuing to have that discussion on
these clarifying amendments that we uh
started two weeks ago. And Kate Kaney,
our principal planner, Emily Medina, our
senior planner, and Kristen Javiier
Javier, our assistant planner, will be
presenting this evening. So Kate, Emily,
and Kristen, please go ahead when you're
ready.
I hit the right button here. And
there we go.
Get the presentation
up properly. And is it on? Great. It's
on screen. Thank you. Um, thank you,
chair. And my name is Kate Kaney. I'm
principal planner here. and we have
Emily Medina and Kristen Javier who will
um be taking on the more technical part
of the review. Um tonight we will be
continuing the commission's review of
what we've been calling the clarifying
code amendments. There are those annual
amendments that we do um often call them
housekeeping amendments, more on the
minor side, but um important and very
helpful in uh in literally clarifying
code. Um tonight um just the background
consideration as always um is uh uh our
effort to help you understand what the
code says now um understand why the
amendment is proposed and um on your
side of the disast understand uh whether
their proposed changes are clear or if
additional changes are needed especially
in terms of their clarity.
So,
whoops.
Sorry about that. Um, in terms of where
we are in, uh, moving through the
clarifying amendments, um, at the last
meeting, you reviewed some of the sign
code provisions that we're looking at
amending. Um tonight um more on the
procedural side uh site development
permits um review process there uh
clarifying the sequencing of permitting
in terms of final plat recording and
construction permit issuance. Um these
are a little dense in terms of the topic
matter but really important for um
applicants who are trying to get things
on the ground. Um so uh we'll hear from
Emily on those. Um, also temporary uses.
Um, where are donation bins around? You
see them popping up? And, um, Kristen
will share information on that. So, the
last, um, review of new content for
these amendments is going to be on March
26th. Um, but at this point, we will go
ahead and I will hand off um, to Emily
Medina.
Good evening, commission. Again, I'm
Emily Medina. and the senior planner
with the city. Um so I have two
amendments to discuss tonight and the
first is site development permits. Um so
these my two amendments are heavily
procedural based. Um so in the
nitty-gritty of what we do every day in
the on the current planning side. So
when it comes to site development
permits, there's kind of three changes
that um we're proposing to make.
The first is to um clarify the language
in what goes um be uh what moves forward
with a site development permit. So
currently the language is for
development and the proposal is to
change it for the word structure. Um and
this is to clarify what was always the
intent of the code to just have
structures go through site development
permits and to have um projects where
there's only site improvements not have
to go through um an extra permitting
process. The second part is to create a
minimum square footage. Um so kind of a
minimum threshold of what puts a project
through a site development permit. Right
now the minimum threshold is zero square
feet of expansion. So um just wanting to
create a minimum so we don't have these
very small projects having to go through
an additional permitting process. Um and
then the third is um revising it so that
only square footage determines the STP
review level. um instead of right now it
has square footage and number of units
and that can create some conflict if um
a project falls into the square footage
say a level two but the number of units
for level four. Um so just having one
threshold determination is just making
it simpler for both applicants and
developers as well as staff to determine
what is the uh what review level a
project should go through.
So, just a little background um uh since
I'm in this every day, but I realize
everybody else is not. What is a site
development permit? So, a site
development permit is our uh most common
land use permit, and it is used to
evaluate consistency with title 18, our
land use code. Um it's required for
multif family and commercial projects,
but it is not uh required for any
detached single family or middle housing
projects. So, we see this for um some
examples recently like Milano and the
Parkland Heights subdivision up by the
Seamish border. Those are That was a bad
example. Parkland Heights went through a
preliminary plat. Um Milano and Front
Street Town Homes next to Derry Gold.
Those both had to go through site
development processes.
>> Emily, what is Milano and what is
Parkland Heights?
>> Sorry, I'm the development commission
ladies on. So this Milano is our 65 unit
apartment complex and Front Street Town
Homes is next to Dairyold and it is 32
town homes and two retail spots. So
these are larger developments that have
design aspects um architectural aspects
that should be reviewed. Thank you. Um
so there's three levels for site
development permits. Um and some of
these code amendments are to help
clarify what level a project should go
through. Level one, simplest level is
just administrative review. Staff
reviews it, staff approves it. Level
two, staff reviews and approves it, but
it gets public notice. So they put a
notice board up on site that you may see
around town. We have to mail it to
surrounding properties. It gets
published in the paper online, all that
stuff. And then level four, two projects
I was talking about, they go in front of
the development commission. So staff
reviews it, makes a recommendation to
the development commission. development
commission holds a hearing and then
issues a decision on the project. So, as
you can see with each of these levels,
more intensive project, more time or
more intensive process, more time, more
money spent by the developer to go
through these.
So, some recent examples of kind of what
triggered us the need to bring these
amendments before the commission. Um so
this project came in with a proposal uh
to convert an office building to
residential interior improvements only.
No changes to the building, no changes
to the architecture of the building,
just interior when it comes to the
structure. However, lots of parking
associated with office buildings and
they were proposing to convert over
10,000 square ft of asphalt parking into
community amenity space. Um, so they
were going to bring in ass or they're
planning to bring in asphalt turf and
create dog runs and landscaping. Um, so
this is an example of the proposed
amendment I was talking about of
changing development to structure. Um,
there's no architectural or design
elements associated with this proposal
that um, which is what development
commission reviews for. So, as it was as
it is under current code, it would have
to go to level four development
commission review, have a public hearing
just because it's having 10,000 square
ft of development. And we define
development as any manmade impacts to
land. So, super broad. Um, under the
proposed code, this would not have to go
to level four um because there's no
structures involved. So, there wouldn't
be an STP.
The second example is about creating the
minimum threshold. Um, so this is in
Isiqua Commons. They're going under a
lot of they're doing a lot of facade
updates in Isiqua Commons right now. Um,
and this one was including they were
popping out the front entrance about 100
square feet just to create um just a
little more entrance I guess. So um it
was about 100 square feet. So they had
to go through a level one SDP process
which means they had to go through the
land use process, get their land use
approval. The appeal period had to lapse
on the land use approval before they
could get their building permit. So this
is adding typically about a month if
there's revisions, sometimes up to 3
months to the timeline review. Um for a
business that wanted to just update
their facade. Um so as proposed or as
existing, they've already gone through
the STP process. They had to do it. But
under the proposed code amendments, they
would not have to get a land use permit.
They could just go straight to building
permit.
So the key questions about the the site
development permit amendments tonight is
uh first is it appropriate to create a
minimum expansion threshold where the
level one STP reviews are required and
does 100 square feet make sense as the
minimum
and any additional questions you may
have for me. So, our intent was to
present on each amendment and then pause
for any questions, any feedback for
staff and then I'll move on to the next
one and then go from there.
>> All right, that sounds wonderful. Uh,
Vice Chair Patterson,
>> start with a a softball question is how
did the staff arrive at 100 square feet?
>> That's a great question. Um, I I
personally arrived at 100 square feet.
It was my recommendation um based on
recent applications that I've received.
So in the last I would say 6 months I've
had about four SDP level ones that have
come through that have been under 100
square ft that when myself and the other
planners our assistant planner Kristen
Javier had one recently as well. It
seemed excessive to put them through a
land use process for what was a very
simple small expansion that we
comfortably could have reviewed as part
of the building permit.
Uh, Commissioner Dair,
>> um, would 120 maybe be a little better?
I I know this is weird, but just when I
was doing construction growing up, I
felt like always like we did six foot
intervals, but otherwise, I think all
good.
>> That's a great point. Um, another just
to add on to that, another thought is um
like building permits for detached
accessory buildings don't need a
building permit up until 200 ft. So,
that's another idea of the threshold.
That threshold was kind of the main
thing I was looking for feedback on
tonight. So, 120 is also a great idea.
>> Yeah. Great. Yes. Uh, Commissioner
Krauss,
>> uh, I I will not ask why there's no
level three, but that's the um, but I do
have a question. Uh, first of all, they
all make sense to simplify it. So, uh,
is there any down what is the potential
downside you think of this using the
I'll go back to the one that where
they're converting
um commercial to residential, taking
away parking. Um, is there any downside
because you're still doing something
significant to the overall lot or will
that be handled in some other type of
review through the city whether to make
sure they have the right level of
parking or or other things like that?
>> Yeah, that's a great question. Um, so
two-part answer. First part is if they
are doing just site improvements, no
structure, and it's one acre in size or
greater, they still have to go through
the site development permit process. So
very large sites that are still only
getting site develop that are still only
doing uh ground work kind of thing. Um,
still have to get a site development. as
far as one like that where it's say
10,000 square ft um we would review it
as part of the construction permitting.
So it would still be reviewed to meet
make sure it meets all the standards.
>> Any other questions?
>> Sure, please. Vice Chair Patterson.
>> Thank you, Chair. Um, kind of
piggybacking off of that would be a
little bit more specifically like are
there any like design or code compliance
concerns that could slip through on some
of the examples where uh the SDP review
is bypassed in favor of the building
permit? And a couple thoughts on my head
were either um kind of our overlay zones
or like ADA accessibility stuff.
>> Yeah. Um so our overlay zones which is
Oldtown and Central primarily they're um
overlay design standards are I would put
out a rough estimate 98% related to the
structure. Um so that's part of the
reason that also this amendment is
before you is because these items don't
fall within that. So um in that case no
they're 98% structure. There is in our
um design standards, we have site design
standards which do specify things on the
site. So, one of them I'm thinking of is
we have um provisions about when special
paving materials are needed. Um so, like
if there's a pedestrian crossing through
a parking lot, we like to see a
different kind of paving material, but
those would be reviewed for as part of
the building permit or the site work
permit. And that is when um there would
be a land use planning review on the
construction permit to review for those
items.
>> Commissioner Matthews,
>> you may have already answered this
question, but does this impact both
residential and commercial?
>> It impacts multifamily residential and
commercial.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah.
>> Vice Chair Patterson.
>> All right. One more. This one's a little
edge, Casey, I think. Um, but is there a
potential loophole with like repeated
small expansions over time? So, meaning
like if they did 100 square feet this
year and then another 100 square feet
next year and so on so forth like is
that I don't know if could that be
exploited? I guess
>> it could. I don't think we actually have
that closed loop for that in the code.
Um, I know there's code we can take from
our non-conforming code specifically
addresses that that you can't um it's
over the course of I think five years
that we evaluate it for. So that is code
that um we could take and plug into this
to make sure those repeated expansions
don't happen. If that's something the
commission would like to see, that's a
great point.
>> All fantastic. Yes, Commissioner
Matthews.
>> Sorry, I just have one more question
about setbacks. So if say that they want
to do 120 or 100 square ft addition but
it it butts up against a setback or it
might intrude. I I guess that's caught
during the building permit process.
>> Yep. Absolutely.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> All right. Uh ultimately like I really
like the idea of making things easier.
You know, I'm always in favor of that.
Um, and I think the 100 square feet is
probably a good starting off point. Um,
I don't know if we need to like build it
into the code, per se, but may and city
staff's already great at this, but maybe
this is an opportunity to revisit in a
year or two after this goes into effect,
like if we need to bump the 100 square
feet, you know, if we land there, like
if we need to adjust it uh at any point.
Um, just kind of a a check on that for
in a year or two or however long we we
need to reassess.
>> I definitely agree and would like to do
that.
love to come back and reassess things.
So again, I I appreciate all the
comments. I think they're all great. I
think the only thing I would pass back
to you, Emily, is maybe talk amongst
yourselves and amongst staff what maybe
whether it's 120 or 200 if there's any
benefit to it and then when you guys do
come back or put it in our packet
whether that's a conversation with it,
whether to have again. But I think
that's my only thing is again I think
the number's fine. And if you've already
seen four examples of everything coming
in at under 100, but I think
Commissioner Adair brings up a good
point and then you brought up 200. So I
think maybe just having a little bit
more conversation with your partners and
and see if uh that is the number you
truly want to land on.
>> Absolutely.
>> But I I personally like this too. Kind
of like Vice Chair Patterson said, I'm
all for it to make it easier for the
developer as well as for staff.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Should I move on to the next
one,
>> please?
>> Okay.
Okay, the next one is even more
nitty-gritty. So, the next one is about
plat and construction permit sequencing.
Um, so this two two main parts of this
amendment. The first is to clarify that
site infrastructure, so that is things
like roads and utilities must be
constructed or in very minor cases
bonded for um prior to final approval of
plat. And plat is this division of the
land. So splitting a lot into multiple
lots. Um and then secondarily, it adds
language to prevent building permits
from being issued before that final plat
or subdivision is recorded. So
essentially um it it we're closing two
loopholes um that we've seen try to be
exploited so that we have our site
infrastructure in place before
subdivisions are approved and we are not
issuing having or being asked to issue
building permits for lots that
technically do not exist yet. Uh
so the sequence that we would like to
follow that is city best practice that
we try to follow when it comes to
platting and construction is the
preliminary subdivision permit sometimes
called a preliminary plat or preliminary
short plat. That's when we review
against the land use standards and make
sure everything's in compliance. site
work permit which is all the clearing
and grading and uh ground work for the
subdivision. Um so that's uh the
infrastructure improvements and then
bonding for very small items which is
when they give the city cash and say
hold on to this and if we don't complete
this then you can use the cash to do it
for us and then recording the plat which
is when the actual document of the
subdivision is taken to King County.
They record it. It gets put on all the
maps and the lots become official and
then building permit issuance.
So, general question on this one would
be, does the commission agree with these
proposed code clarifications to um
cement our permit sequencing in code?
>> Commissioner Matthews,
>> I just had a question about um when the
site development permit is issued, is it
still open at the same time that the
building permits are issued or do they
have to close that out first? It's just
that, you know, if you have a whole
bunch of permits and you're trying to
keep track of what is closed and open,
it could be confusing. So, I just want
to know if there is a sequence for
closing things out before you go on to
the next step.
>> Um, I have a clarifying question for
you. Do you mean a site work permit or a
site development permit?
>> Sorry, I meant a site work permit. Thank
you very much.
>> Yes. No, it's okay. So, the
Okay. Will you repeat your question now
that I know which one you're talking
about?
>> Yeah. Is a site work permit closed out
and inspected before you before they go
on and get a per building permit as
well? Just you know that nothing's open.
>> So the site work permit is issued and
closed out before we will issue the
final plat or that's what the code
amendment is helping to clarify.
But they can submit for a building
permit at the same time that they can
that they submit for site work permits.
And then the second code amendment is so
that we um so that it's clear we will
not issue the building permit for them
to actually do any work until the final
plat is recorded and complete.
>> Does that make sense?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Um Commissioner Kra
>> I'm still stuck on level three.
>> I can tell you why. Do you do you want
to know why?
>> You don't. Um, this all makes total
sense. Uh, how a quick question of
course first is how different is this
from what we're doing now? And does this
add more time or is it just the same
amount of time but just we're being
clearer about what we're
>> the second one? It is exactly what we
want to see happen now. It just wasn't
uh specifically stated enough in code.
>> Okay. People were probably doing this
already, but it wasn't written down and
this is just now. It was like an
internal policy um that wasn't clarified
in code.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. They they and applicants would
push back but it doesn't work for us to
do what they wanted to do. So they would
push back and now we can actually say no
it's in our code. This is the way it
works.
>> Any question? Any other questions? And
Commissioner Miller Irwin just let me
know if you've got any. There's that
little hand. That's what I'm looking for
in case you'd like to speak as well. Uh,
Commissioner Crass kind of stole my
question, which was just did it add any
time. It it definitely makes sense for
you guys to do it this way as far as
just the the rolling way. So, um, any
other comments.
All right.
>> Wonderful. Thank you for your input. I
will pass it over to Kristen now.
>> Wonderful. Thank you.
>> Donation B.
>> Hi, good evening. I'm Kristen Javier,
assistant planner. Um this evening I'll
be presenting our proposal for temporary
use requirements for donation bins. So
this is meant to clarify uh where and
how we allow donation bins on private
property.
Um so uh the reason we're bringing this
up is we had a business uh reach out
requesting um some information on what
our permitting process is for something
like a really large furniture donation
bin. And while our current temporary use
code allows donation bins, it's not
specific uh into what the standards for
that would be.
Um so, uh thinking about what these
standards should be, uh we did some
research to see what other cities are
doing, but we honestly couldn't find um
a whole lot that was super specific to
donation bins. Um, so a lot of this
comes from our current code, what we
allow for things like other uh temporary
uses like food trucks and then um some
conversation uh between us and our uh
code enforcement officer. Um so uh the
first of those standards could be uh
parking requirements. So, um, in this
first, uh, image at the top, that was
sent to us by, uh, one of those
businesses that was interested, and that
takes up about two spots, but they said,
uh, sometimes they can take up to six
spots. So, we would just want to make
sure that the minimum parking
requirements, um, are still being
provided for, um, for whichever property
this would be on. Um, and we would want
the normal business operations to remain
unimpacted. So things like uh garbage
collection, um dry vials remaining
clear, uh fire lanes remaining clear. Uh
we would also want to make sure that
trash accumulation around the receptacle
is prohibited or any other kind of
unaccepted items.
uh there would need to be uh permission
uh from the property owner to have this
here and the responsibility for
maintaining this would need to be a
formal agreement between the property
owner and the um owner of the uh
donation bin. Uh and finally, we would
want the contact information um for
whoever is responsible for maintaining
the area to be clearly marked so that um
if issues do pop up, they're quickly
resolved. These images at the bottom
were sent to our code enforcement
officer by a resident um and they were
able to contact that number and this was
cleared up within 24 hours. So it sounds
like uh these issues don't pop up often,
but when they do they're able to be
pretty quickly resolved.
And my question for you is we are
thinking about having a 365day
time limit uh for this use uh because
that's what we currently allow for our
food trucks which is um a common
temporary use. So we wanted to know if
you thought this was something that made
sense or if you had any other
suggestions and if you had any other
questions about this in general.
>> Perfect. Thank you Kristen.
All right. And I know some commissioners
have comments or questions about this.
Come on.
Oh, that's okay. Commissioner Crass, we
know you'd like to go first.
Commissioner Adair, I think she beat you
to it.
>> Can I go?
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Um, have we discussed So, obviously you
have a limit of how much parking it can
take up, but do you have a max size for
the dumpster the bin overall that we've
thought about yet?
>> That's a good question. Um, and
something that we should discuss. Yes,
>> Commissioner Grass. So does just quick
question on background. Um does the
property owners do this as a they charge
the drop offs? Like what is why do
property owners want to have this on
their property?
>> Um what's the is there an economic
reason why they're doing this?
>> Um I'm actually not sure as to why uh
the property owner would be interested
>> because understanding that may
understand motives too of what they're
going to ask for and want. Um, and then
the other one is, um, 365 days doesn't
seem like temporary. It seems like it's
permanent then. So, I'm curious, is
this, is this really temporary when you
say it's for a full year and has is it
renewed every year or
>> I believe you would have to renew it
every year? Yes, that's what we do for
our food trucks currently.
>> Okay. Is there a downside of this having
essentially it's permanent then?
>> Uh, it would be temporary.
>> Well, it's a year is a long time. I was
I'm just I just wonder whether that
seems like a long time for these things
or if because then they're there all the
time.
>> I'll play devil's advocate. I think part
of it is, you know, these people need to
know where it's located. It's moving on
wheels every couple.
>> That's a good point. That's a very good
point.
>> Might be harder to find.
>> Um but understanding the the dynamics of
why
>> will also help you understand what the
asks are going to be of
>> um if there if this is a profit type
thing or if it's just goodwill, no pun
intended, type thing. I uh can I ask a
question? If uh 365 days seems too long,
do you have a idea of what could work
better?
>> Oh, I I'm not against that. I was just
curious when we called it temporary. It
just seems like a year is a long time
for temporary. And then um Jason had a
good point of understand having people
know where things are is is super
useful, especially I have a bag of
clothes in the trunk of our car now,
which I need to take. It reminds me. Um
so I think that's that was just some of
the background questions. That's all.
Okay.
Uh, Vice Chair Patterson,
>> I'll bite on your question. Um, I don't
think necessarily 365 days is bad, but I
do think like because of the food truck
comparison since that's our typical
temporary use permit. Um, I think it's
kind of a um an odd comparison only
because a food truck is an operating
business that there's a lot of movement
there. You know, like I'm thinking about
the food trucks we have in town here.
You know, they're open different hours.
Like there's people there. They're
coming and going. Um whereas this is
almost more of like a sign in a way like
it's a stationary. There's not it's not
an open business so to speak. It's just
kind of a a receptacle. Um so in my mind
I would kind of like the idea of a
shorter time frame, maybe 180 days.
>> And the reason being that it gives the
city the opportunity to check on a
shorter time frame, like a check-in
period almost, where it's like, "All
right, it's been half a year. How's it
going?" Like, "Have we had 12 code
compliance complaints of people dumping
garbage outside of it?" Um, and then we
can kind of shut it down at that point
or at least not renew or whatever. Um,
it just kind of lends an opportunity to
that. Uh, I guess one consideration
there would be the volume of it. You
know, are we getting like dozens of
these or is it like a handful? Like if
it's manageable and it's a handful where
if they continue to renew at a shorter,
you know, time frame, maybe it's not
that big of a deal, but then we're doing
this administrative burden of, you know,
there's 50 of them and we're renewing
them every, you know, six months, that
might be a different story. But um I
think 180 days is kind of what I might
propose as a potential alternative.
>> Okay,
>> Commissioner Dair.
>> Um yeah, I would I Whoops. Sorry. I
agree with 180 days for exactly the same
reason. And I also would like some more
context as crass kind of mentioned of
who's asking for it because sometimes
you know you think about Kid Vantage
which is over and they're over by Nick's
Magnificent in that kind of warehouse
district and I would be supportive of
them having a donation bin out for
example but you maybe don't want
something in like the parking lot of the
Dollar General. So if we could kind of
look at the regions and the areas where
people want to put them, that would also
be a factor. It's a good point,
>> Commissioner Grass.
>> So one other made me think, um, does the
city, if someone's violating the use of
this, can the city revoke it even before
the end of that term?
>> I believe so. Yes.
>> Okay. So then I feel more comfortable on
on different time frames as long as the
city if code compliance finds hey this
is not working you can pull the permit
>> right I think it would be a code code
compliance thing and they're you know
they get a letter then they get another
letter and then they are given a certain
amount of time to correct their issues
and then if not yes then I think it
could be revoked
>> I I think those are my two concerns is
you know inevitably I do think you know
these one to commissioner adar's point I
mean if you have a bin like picture
number one that's sitting at the Dollar
General. So, is there something like
square footage of the the property? I
don't know if there's some type of
tiein. Um, again, it's one thing if it's
in the parking lot of Home Depot. It's
one thing if it's in the parking lot of
the dollar store. I mean, and again, you
have two large bins. So, I don't know if
there's some type of scale there. And
then I do think the other thing too is
that first picture
um when you're taking into consideration
how many parking lots it's using, are we
also looking at you know we're expecting
people to park one to two parking spots
to actually put their items in the bin?
Is that being taken into account? Uh
just seeing that one picture they had
little A-frame signs out there. It says
two spots, but if you're actually
thinking about it with people coming and
going, you're actually talking about
more like four spots. So, I don't know
that those would be my concerns. And
then I did like uh Vice Chair
Patterson's just checking in with code
compliance. I feel like what Kristen
just said seems a little that seems like
it could be very long drawn out process.
A letter, a letter, and then a a
timeline of like a month to get, you
know, fix it. I mean, if I'm your
neighbor, I'm buming. I'm buming hard.
So, that would be my concerns. So,
again, kind of the size of the structure
in relation to the building.
I do think inevitably these things do
attract I mean people will be lazy.
They're not going to put the furniture
in the bin. They'll just drop it
literally right there. I mean that's
just going to happen.
>> Um trash I I'd like to think that most
isquans are a little bit better than
that. I don't know. But I think when it
comes to like furniture and certain
donations, it's just it's going to
happen. So I'm interested to hear what
you guys have to think about forcing
compliance and things like that.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. You guys can have as many
questions as you want.
>> How How many of these in the city are
there now?
>> Um I'm actually not sure. Do you
>> Is this like a handful or is this like
We have a hundred of these things that
are going to be
>> uh for the giant bins specifically.
>> Just donation bins. I mean, this is this
>> Yeah, that's something I would need to
research. I'm not
>> Yeah, we don't we don't require permits
for them right now. So Oh, I don't know.
>> Right now it's like the wild west.
>> Yeah. Just it be interesting to see what
the current state is on this. And so the
ones that don't
that don't have permits, they just stuck
them there. Are they going to have to
then get a permit? The ones that are
already existing or are they
grandfathered? How's that work?
>> That's a good question. We'll have to
look into that. Yeah. I don't know.
>> I mean, what happens? I mean, even with
would uh City Hall Northwest have to get
a permit for their bin?
>> Does it have City Hall Northwest? Well,
yeah. The election uh the voter bin.
>> Oh, you mean city hall?
>> Yeah, city hall.
>> Oh,
>> city hall. So, do they get have to get a
permit?
>> Are they exempt?
>> I think they're exempt.
>> Okay.
>> It also is there a fee for the permit
for this?
>> I believe so.
>> It' have to be at least be like a filing
fee.
>> I'm just curious of the I mean because
especially if you go back and the ones
that that's why I asked the question,
how many are there now? And if you have
to go back to all of those thing, all of
those, are they going to stay or
disappear once they have to?
>> They'd probably get grand permanent,
right?
>> I don't know.
>> Could you repeat that?
>> They'd probably get grandfathered in.
>> I don't know. Depends on that depends on
their Well, that's recommendation of
what they want to do.
>> There'd be like a date certain where you
either remove it or you get a permit.
>> That should be part of the discussion.
>> Um, currently, right now, they have to
get a business license, but not a
permit. So when their business license
was due up again, their business license
would get to submit it to the city and
at that point we would have them get a
permit.
>> Oh yes, Commissioner Matthews,
>> I just have one suggestion is that um
you basically tell them certain areas
that they cannot put them. So like at an
entrance or near the store. So, they
have to be certain locations on the
property that it will be allowed
>> just so they don't cause a backup. Not
that there's a big run on those bins,
but you never know. Somebody could have
a big truck and be blocking up an
entrance.
>> Yeah, that's a great point.
>> Yeah. No, that is a great point.
Would anything like to add anything for
Kristen? Did you get everything you
needed?
>> I believe so.
>> Okay. So, some suggestions, but uh yeah,
it's kind of hard to believe they're not
permitted. out there in the wind at the
Wild West. So, thank you.
>> Okay. Well, thank you, Kristen. Thank
you, Emily.
>> And it looks like Kate's coming back up.
>> Got it on the right slide. Little bit of
musical chairs. Um uh one thing I would
like to add is um it has been really um
a great partnership because my main
focus is on long range strategic
planning and we have development review
staff who are having these conversations
with applicants and it's like both sides
of the brain come together as we're
moving through these code amendments and
throughout the the rest of this year and
I think the end product's much stronger.
Um anyway, so um so what are the next
steps for our clarifying code
amendments? Um you've seen this schedule
before. Um we do have the one meeting uh
or sorry the uh one other batch of
amendments uh to present to you next
week for your input and then uh chance
at your first meeting in April to go
through everything. We'll come back with
some of the uh information that you've
asked for tonight and at other meetings
and then we will move through um into
the public hearing and uh your
recommendation council review process um
as I said in Q2 um the state reviews um
SEPA uh state environmental review as
well as department of commerce uh that
you require sometimes a 60-day review
for kind of intensive code amendments.
we may ask them for an expedited review
in this case with council action um
aimed at June. So that's the process. Um
one last chance in case you all had any
other questions um you wanted us to take
back um take a look at
>> No, I think again I appreciate all of
you guys coming up and speaking. Again,
it makes sense. I mean, you guys hear
from the developers, as Emily pointed
out, every day, and obviously, the idea
is to make it easier for all of us to
work through these codes, and they can
be quite technical and quite in the
weeds. So, the more we can do to help
everybody, I think, is appropriate.
>> Anything else?
All right.
>> Okay. Well, that's all we had and thank
you so much for your input. It's really
been helpful tonight.
>> All right. Well, thank you, Kate again.
Thank you, Emily, and thank you,
Kristen.
That was the only bit of business we
had.
So, it's not going to be a late one
tonight.
Reports. I think I'm looking at Kristen
Le
>> or council reports. I do want to note
that uh poor um Commissioner Milaner
Irwin. It appears that the audio went
out. So, um I asked her to I just sent
her a message. I just found out. So, I
just sent her a message saying if she
has any other comments or questions to
send those to me and we can uh we'll
bring those back to the next meeting.
>> Yeah. I apologize. Uh
>> yeah,
>> I apologize.
Yeah, there's a Simpson button. And I
think she has, right?
>> A what?
>> A Simpson hand.
>> That's what I That's what I usually look
for is the little Simpson hand.
>> Uh I think so. Yes. But yes.
>> So I Yeah.
>> Um so two reports. I have a few things.
One, you recall the traffic impact fee
waiver that went to council two Mondays
ago, Monday after I saw you. City
council did pass it. They passed it to
allow both an 80% and 100% fee waiver.
and we have an applicant already taking
us up on that. So, we are working
through that process.
Second, on Monday night, we went to we
had we had a council uh committee the
whole meeting, our special council
meeting on Monday night and we were
talking about the work plan that I've
been talking to you all about for so
long. It was a very long deep discussion
and um
anyway we we now have a new work plan
with 17 items. 14 will be coming to you
all and they start to get rather hefty.
I'm going to bring two of the
easier ones to you all next week as a
part of this. But we will have
amendments coming to you all every 3
months for the next to get approved by
council every 3 months for the next five
quarters. So lots going on and I'm going
there will be a presentation next week
and we'll go into more depth. We'll
essentially give the same presentation
to you all that we've g gave to council
and we'll talk about those upcoming
amendments.
Lastly for a council update is that
former council president Barb de
Michelle has had some has had an illness
and is going to take her has had some
health issues and it's going to take her
longer to heal than she thought. So she
has resigned from the council.
Uh, new council president is Total
Mart's uh, deputy vice whatever the vice
deputy council president. That's what it
is. Deputy council president. Um, is
uh, who is it? Oh, it's council member
Jiang is the deputy whatever. Um, and
they will be filling that role. They
will be appointing a new council member.
The applications open on Monday, this
coming Monday. And that role will be to
fill council member D. Michelle's role
and it will run through November of
2028. So if you know anyone who's
interested doing it again. Um okay,
that's all I have for council.
>> A lot of recent appointments,
>> but we also um definitely want to send
our best wishes to Barbara D. Michelle
and hope she recovers a speedy recovery,
a full recovery. So again, best to
Barbara
>> and thank you for all her service and
hard work.
>> Okay, that takes care of council
reports. Any other business or
announcements?
>> Yes. Uh Commissioner um
Malbero is uh resigning from PPC. So we
are currently going through interview
the interview process anyway. And so we
are we will be interviewing to find
someone to fill that position as well.
That's all.
>> And likewise, we also want to thank
Ellen for her service this past year.
Um, and wish her well.
>> All right. I believe that's other
business and announcements. Any calendar
items we should be aware of other than
just a lot of work coming our way?
>> Nope, that's it.
>> Okay.
>> Uh,
no. I was thinking that there might be
that we might some might be canceled
because of cultural things, but no,
we're we're on schedule for a while.
>> All right.
>> Okay. Great. Anything
from the commissioners as far as uh go
to the order?
>> All right. Please, Vice Chair Patterson,
>> any light rail updates?
>> No. There you go.
>> No, no light rail updates. No, just just
keep getting your voice out there. Yes.
>> Keep sending those letters. And again,
the handwritten letters or your own
voice, that actually works a lot better.
Um, so yes, keep sending them in. Okay.
Well, again, thank you everybody for
>> Oh, but I do have one that just reminded
me. I apologize. Um, so
>> almost a journ but at any
>> I know. I'm sorry. So close. Um, Thomas
Valdz, I don't know if I announced that
he's leaving.
>> No.
>> Yes, he is. Light rail brought that up.
Yes, he is leaving. Tomorrow is his last
day. Steven Padua took him. He's going
to Kirkland. Yeah.
>> Wow.
>> So, um, so anyway, that, um, that is my
other piece of news. So, we will be
looking for someone else there, too.
>> Yeah. I'm starting to feel like that
city is like the the Voldemort, right?
We just don't say that city's name.
>> We did a trade about about seven years
ago. We took about seven people from
Kirkland. So, it's just they're getting
back at us.
>> Yeah, like I said, it's it's been
painful. But, uh we wish Thomas the
best. And uh are are you guys looking to
fill that position? I would imagine.
>> I I would assume so, but I have not
heard anything yet.
>> Okay. Okay. Well, again, if there's no
any other no other announcements, we are
going to adjourn this meeting, the
Planning Policy Commission, at 7:26 p.m.
Good night.