Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, January 19, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. PUBLIC HEARING

Title 18 Final Draft (Parts 1-4: General Provisions, Procedures, Subdivisions, Zoning) and Shoreline Master Program

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development Public Hearing Order: Commission and DOE · packet pp.3–963

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Proposed Title 18 and Shoreline Master Program Amendments JANUARY 19, 2023 | JOINT PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION

4. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.965–966

▶ Watch from 2:56:41 Open packet at p.965 ↗

Staff report:

April

4296 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ foreign

0:08 ↗ good evening everyone let me Begin by

0:11 ↗ just saying thank you for everybody

0:12 ↗ bearing with us our incredible staff has

0:15 ↗ been trying to work through some

0:16 ↗ technical issues you may have noticed

0:19 ↗ that we have no video feed tonight

0:21 ↗ but rest assured we have talked with our

0:23 ↗ Council and we will proceed

0:26 ↗ I want to thank everybody for joining us

0:28 ↗ for tonight's

0:29 ↗ planning policy commission meeting

0:31 ↗ tonight is the first of three public

0:34 ↗ hearings we will be holding so I'd like

0:36 ↗ to begin by calling this meeting to

0:38 ↗ order at 6 54 pm

0:41 ↗ uh Stephen before we go any farther

0:43 ↗ let's make it official I believe we have

0:45 ↗ a quorum

0:48 ↗ it's your voice yes we do all right

0:50 ↗ excellent and tonight fortunately we

0:52 ↗ don't have any housekeeping so we are

0:54 ↗ just going to Jump Right In

0:56 ↗ uh we're going to start with public

0:58 ↗ comments general public comments

1:00 ↗ so for all of those who would like to

1:02 ↗ speak we ask that you speak clearly and

1:04 ↗ pause frequently please state your name

1:06 ↗ each time before you speak and if you're

1:09 ↗ attending virtually by computer or by

1:11 ↗ phone and would like to speak during

1:12 ↗ public comments in addition to the above

1:14 ↗ please mute your microphone when you're

1:17 ↗ not speaking and if you're having

1:19 ↗ technical issues try joining the meeting

1:21 ↗ using a different device such as a

1:23 ↗ smartphone or tablet you can use the

1:25 ↗ call-in information in the meeting

1:27 ↗ invite in the agenda packet to call in

1:31 ↗ just a brief word about tonight's public

1:35 ↗ general public comments we ask that for

1:37 ↗ this portion of the meeting please keep

1:39 ↗ them General you will have your time

1:41 ↗ during the public hearing to speak about

1:43 ↗ anything as far as Title 18 is concerned

1:46 ↗ but we want to make sure it gets on the

1:47 ↗ record so this portion of the meeting

1:50 ↗ really is just for the good of the order

1:51 ↗ the good of the city to get your

1:54 ↗ comments as far as Title 18 on the

1:56 ↗ record please hold off until later this

1:58 ↗ evening

1:59 ↗ public comments are an important part do

2:02 ↗ we take them seriously and we do ask

2:04 ↗ that you keep your comments for the

2:06 ↗ public hearing as well as these comments

2:08 ↗ right now to five minutes or less

2:11 ↗ Stephen do we have anyone signed up who

2:13 ↗ would like to make General Public

2:14 ↗ comments at this time

2:16 ↗ yes sure voice we have a few names

2:19 ↗ listed for public comment that I want to

2:22 ↗ just check they want to speak to Title

2:24 ↗ 18 or general comment we have Kyler

2:27 ↗ okay we have Hussein

2:31 ↗ for title 18. okay and then Brooke

2:36 ↗ okay and then

2:40 ↗ Roberta

2:42 ↗ can you hear me

2:46 ↗ I've unmuted it if you can

2:51 ↗ okay we'll come back to Roberta

2:58 ↗ and that's all the hands I see

3:01 ↗ okay

3:04 ↗ well I guess we're going to jump right

3:05 ↗ into the public hearing so tonight we're

3:08 ↗ holding the first of three public

3:10 ↗ hearings as I mentioned regarding the

3:11 ↗ proposed Title 18 and Shoreline master

3:14 ↗ program updates

3:15 ↗ staff will be presenting and PP PPC will

3:19 ↗ be deliberating policy questions but

3:21 ↗ tonight we are only concentrating on

3:23 ↗ Parts one through four

3:25 ↗ during the comment period again the

3:28 ↗ public may feel free to talk about any

3:29 ↗ part of Title 18 on all parts

3:33 ↗ and the shoreline master program

3:36 ↗ but Parts five through eight will be

3:38 ↗ presented and deliberated at next week's

3:40 ↗ public hearing on January 26th

3:43 ↗ a representative from the Department of

3:45 ↗ ecology also will be here next week and

3:47 ↗ can address any issues that come up

3:49 ↗ tonight regarding the shoreline master

3:52 ↗ plan or anything else

3:54 ↗ tonight process-wise staff will make a

3:57 ↗ presentation PPC will then ask

3:59 ↗ clarifying questions

4:01 ↗ we will open the comment period towards

4:03 ↗ the public we'll close the public

4:05 ↗ hearing for this evening and then PPC

4:07 ↗ will have the opportunity to deliberate

4:09 ↗ amongst ourselves

4:11 ↗ so we will go ahead and open the public

4:13 ↗ hearing at 6 57 pm

4:17 ↗ Minnie please go ahead and begin your

4:19 ↗ presentation

4:29 ↗ good evening Commissioners members of

4:32 ↗ the community in our room here and those

4:36 ↗ online

4:37 ↗ again like uh chair said we apologize

4:40 ↗ for the delay and technical difficulties

4:43 ↗ but hopefully everyone can hear us now I

4:47 ↗ want to take a quick minute to introduce

4:49 ↗ the folks from our team that are in the

4:51 ↗ room so we have our City attorney Rachel

4:53 ↗ Turpin here with us we have Christian

4:56 ↗ guys our planning manager and you know

4:58 ↗ Stephen Padua who's a long-range

5:01 ↗ planning manager

5:02 ↗ um and and I wanted to correct something

5:05 ↗ really quickly the representative from

5:08 ↗ Department of ecology is here Rebecca in

5:11 ↗ the in attendance she will not be able

5:14 ↗ to attend the meeting next Wednesday so

5:16 ↗ we'll capture a few things about the

5:19 ↗ changes proposed in the shoreline master

5:21 ↗ program if you have any questions for

5:22 ↗ Rebecca

5:24 ↗ um the the Nuance with the shoreline

5:27 ↗ master program is that the city council

5:29 ↗ will adopt them but the final approval

5:32 ↗ is uh through Department of ecology so

5:35 ↗ they're the final approving Authority on

5:36 ↗ our Shoreline master program

5:40 ↗ um with that I will share a quick

5:43 ↗ presentation Stephen if you can make me

5:47 ↗ um give me the sharing rights on my

5:49 ↗ screen

6:08 ↗ can it seems like uh you all can see it

6:12 ↗ um so as you know this is our big Title

6:16 ↗ 18 and Shoreline master program

6:17 ↗ amendments

6:19 ↗ um what were the purpose of the meeting

6:21 ↗ tonight is to hold the first of the

6:23 ↗ public hearing there are two additional

6:24 ↗ public meeting public hearing nights

6:27 ↗ coming up the process you've opened the

6:30 ↗ public hearing will give you a

6:31 ↗ presentation then there'll be clarifying

6:34 ↗ questions from the commission and then

6:35 ↗ you'll take the public uh testimony on

6:38 ↗ the items um on Title 18 and Shoreline

6:41 ↗ master program you'll close the public

6:43 ↗ hearing and then you will deliberate on

6:45 ↗ Parts one through four

6:47 ↗ um so a real quick uh to drive

6:50 ↗ everyone's memory of what are the four

6:53 ↗ different parts the first part is called

6:55 ↗ General provisions and what we've done

6:57 ↗ in this particular

6:59 ↗ part we've Consolidated and clarified

7:02 ↗ the definitions that were in five

7:04 ↗ different documents we've deleted

7:06 ↗ unnecessary definitions where we had

7:09 ↗ sprinkled

7:11 ↗ regulations with the definitions we've

7:14 ↗ put them in the regulations and

7:16 ↗ definitions of this the definitions and

7:19 ↗ then there's also a chapter for land use

7:22 ↗ and comprehensive plan Amendment so

7:24 ↗ we've clarified the process when public

7:27 ↗ can seek those amendments

7:29 ↗ um

7:30 ↗ the part two

7:33 ↗ is the procedures chapter so some

7:36 ↗ highlights we have a new step-by-step

7:38 ↗ process for permits we have a

7:41 ↗ Consolidated this pre-application

7:43 ↗ Community meetings we used to have

7:45 ↗ different kinds hosted by different

7:47 ↗ entities such as environmental

7:50 ↗ neighborhood meeting by staff but

7:52 ↗ Community collaboration by development

7:54 ↗ commissioner they're all called

7:55 ↗ pre-application Community meetings and

7:58 ↗ if the two were triggered we used to

7:59 ↗ deal with nuances like that

8:02 ↗ we've eliminated the administrative

8:04 ↗ adjustment of Standards but there's a

8:06 ↗ new process for deviations but it's very

8:08 ↗ specific things that you can ask for and

8:12 ↗ the criteria has been is more specific

8:14 ↗ than more broad

8:16 ↗ we have a new review of levels of review

8:19 ↗ tables there's a new process table their

8:23 ↗ new site development permit thresholds

8:25 ↗ we also have added an interim early

8:28 ↗ decision for on technical reports to

8:32 ↗ give folks an answer early on in the

8:34 ↗ design process new public notice

8:37 ↗ procedures we have a Consolidated

8:39 ↗ Capital Improvement projects permitting

8:41 ↗ there's a new chapter in development

8:43 ↗ agreements then there are other things

8:46 ↗ like developer obligations that were in

8:48 ↗ the uh

8:49 ↗ Central Issaquah Vision document and

8:52 ↗ then Talus and Highland zoning cap so

8:55 ↗ we've streamlined some of those

8:58 ↗ in this piece

9:01 ↗ then we have this division of land so

9:05 ↗ their new design standards there's a

9:07 ↗ process called Unit lot subdivision and

9:10 ↗ and the basic intent of that is not to

9:12 ↗ change anything what the zoning already

9:14 ↗ allows but it's really meant for fee

9:17 ↗ simple ownership so you could do a condo

9:19 ↗ development or an attach town homes

9:21 ↗ where you you're jointly uh owning it in

9:25 ↗ a condo style of ownership where the

9:27 ↗ unit lot subdivision the same

9:29 ↗ development you actually own a piece of

9:30 ↗ land with your home on it so it's it's

9:33 ↗ easier to get financing and other things

9:35 ↗ that we've learned but that's a process

9:38 ↗ that didn't exist in the code we've

9:40 ↗ increased our thresholds for short plots

9:42 ↗ from four to nine

9:44 ↗ and then the final plat which is really

9:47 ↗ a technical check of things that have

9:49 ↗ already occurred that they build the

9:51 ↗ road per standards that were approved to

9:52 ↗ the public hearing so that's an

9:54 ↗ administrative process now with the idea

9:57 ↗ that would streamline redundant

9:59 ↗ processes the timing and expiration

10:03 ↗ it's more clarity it's not open-ended

10:06 ↗ extensions forever there you know it's

10:09 ↗ aligned with the state law and and all

10:10 ↗ that

10:12 ↗ um

10:13 ↗ so part four uh is the zoning so it's

10:17 ↗ it's what's your property zoned as which

10:20 ↗ then uh factors into what are the

10:23 ↗ permitted uses in that chapter in that

10:26 ↗ zone

10:27 ↗ we had all different use tables uh

10:30 ↗ Central head standards then we had

10:32 ↗ um you know all these different use

10:34 ↗ tables those have all been Consolidated

10:36 ↗ and reformatted we've added the

10:39 ↗ descriptions for the zone and then as

10:42 ↗ far as some standards we've added some

10:44 ↗ clarification and Graphics uh staff

10:46 ↗ spend a lot of time figuring out which

10:48 ↗ is your front rear and side setbacks

10:51 ↗ there's a clear guidance that should

10:54 ↗ help

10:54 ↗ staff as well as anyone wanting to do

10:57 ↗ you know any project within the city

11:01 ↗ um

11:01 ↗ and then I think we got some questions

11:03 ↗ from some commission members about zero

11:06 ↗ lot line development so just as a

11:07 ↗ refresher what is zero lot line it's

11:10 ↗ really allowing a better use of your

11:12 ↗ side yard setback so in this graphic you

11:15 ↗ see the the house is set up on one end

11:18 ↗ of the the lot as opposed to in the

11:20 ↗ Middle with five to five yard setbacks

11:22 ↗ you get one 10 foot setback which for

11:25 ↗ smaller Lots could mean a lot you know

11:27 ↗ it becomes a more usable space than

11:29 ↗ having uh two just very narrow five foot

11:31 ↗ side setbacks so this is only allowed

11:34 ↗ where single family detached type of

11:36 ↗ housing is allowed

11:38 ↗ and we have had many conversations with

11:41 ↗ you over this topic but it's basically

11:45 ↗ allows a detached single family

11:47 ↗ residents sharing a Common Street to

11:50 ↗ shift to one side of the lot

11:52 ↗ um it doesn't change minimum lot size or

11:55 ↗ any other zoning regulations uh

11:57 ↗ generally preferred for small lot single

11:59 ↗ family Nobody Does this for larger Lots

12:01 ↗ it's different than an attached

12:04 ↗ townhouse type of development which is

12:06 ↗ the unit lot subdivision that we have

12:09 ↗ just talked about the previous policy

12:11 ↗ recommendations we went to council they

12:13 ↗ sent us back to you uh and what we

12:15 ↗ walked out getting direction from you

12:18 ↗ was to allow these in central Highlands

12:22 ↗ Talus and any single-family Zone that

12:25 ↗ have a minimum density of 7.26 dwelling

12:27 ↗ units per acre so that's where zero

12:29 ↗ outlines are permitted

12:31 ↗ um

12:32 ↗ and so then now we're going to launch

12:35 ↗ into so that's a very quick synopsis of

12:38 ↗ highlights of the changes in these four

12:40 ↗ parts and some of the um questions that

12:43 ↗ we got from you all

12:45 ↗ um

12:46 ↗ so we shared the policy questions with

12:48 ↗ you last time

12:50 ↗ um and we've picked the ones that apply

12:51 ↗ to part one through four so question

12:54 ↗ number one was how what's the

12:57 ↗ site-specific rezone process look like

12:59 ↗ for the city so the three options were

13:01 ↗ and our recommended option was that the

13:04 ↗ open record public hearing is with the

13:06 ↗ hearing examiner and the city council

13:08 ↗ makes the final decision there are two

13:10 ↗ other options where it comes to PPC and

13:13 ↗ then you make the recommendation to city

13:15 ↗ council or the city council holds up

13:18 ↗ open record public hearing under the

13:19 ↗ third options we shared some pros and

13:21 ↗ cons last time

13:23 ↗ um then the question number two was you

13:26 ↗ know we've cleaned up the approval

13:28 ↗ criteria this came to light based on the

13:31 ↗ recent um reason that you all uh

13:34 ↗ deliberated on but also in general were

13:37 ↗ making it more consistent and and

13:39 ↗ meeting the the policy guidance for the

13:41 ↗ city and comprehensive plan policy

13:44 ↗ guidance

13:45 ↗ so we're asking if do you have any other

13:48 ↗ edits uh to these procedures to these

13:51 ↗ approval criteria

13:52 ↗ the third question was on the deviations

13:55 ↗ we've assembled all these deviation

13:57 ↗ criteria and one when we shared the

13:59 ↗ policy question for you uh just checking

14:02 ↗ in to see if you agree that this covers

14:04 ↗ all the flexibility that we need to

14:06 ↗ provide that can be administratively

14:10 ↗ made decisions on every property owner

14:13 ↗ has a right to apply for a variance and

14:15 ↗ that's a separate public hearing process

14:17 ↗ but these are

14:18 ↗ smaller deviations

14:20 ↗ um and and with very specific criteria

14:23 ↗ as opposed to more vague and Broad

14:25 ↗ criteria under the administrative

14:28 ↗ adjustment of standards

14:30 ↗ so

14:32 ↗ um we've listed here some of the

14:34 ↗ deviations their total of nine that that

14:37 ↗ are sprinkled throughout all the

14:38 ↗ chapters

14:40 ↗ um

14:41 ↗ and then through the public comments

14:44 ↗ that we that we've received we

14:45 ↗ highlighted a few things in the common

14:47 ↗ Matrix

14:48 ↗ um that you can decide if that those are

14:51 ↗ things you want to add to your policy uh

14:54 ↗ discussion and they relate to a

14:56 ↗ technical document review there was a

14:59 ↗ concern about public utility exemptions

15:01 ↗ Master site plans non-conforming chapter

15:05 ↗ and site development permit thresholds

15:07 ↗ and I'll quickly go through all five of

15:10 ↗ these for you

15:12 ↗ so the first one is a technical document

15:14 ↗ review so what we've put in the code is

15:17 ↗ that you don't have to wait till

15:19 ↗ everything is in front of development

15:20 ↗ commission to find out what's the the

15:23 ↗ category of what landonia property and

15:25 ↗ which buffers apply that you can do that

15:27 ↗ kind of review and submit earlier during

15:31 ↗ your review process and the city can

15:34 ↗ then issue an actual decision that can

15:36 ↗ be appealable to the hearing examiner

15:38 ↗ early on so you know what what to design

15:41 ↗ your project for

15:43 ↗ currently it's listed as a level one

15:45 ↗ decision

15:47 ↗ um in in the review tables but there is

15:51 ↗ an option you could make it level two

15:52 ↗ which is also administrative both level

15:55 ↗ one and level two are appealable to the

15:57 ↗ hearing examiner level two will actually

15:59 ↗ require a public notice

16:01 ↗ uh in some cases that makes sense you

16:04 ↗ know if you have a larger thing that's

16:05 ↗ going to go to a development commission

16:06 ↗ we would do the public notice anyways if

16:09 ↗ a project triggers sipa we would do the

16:11 ↗ public notice anyways if you just need a

16:13 ↗ building permit and you want to know

16:15 ↗ your steep slopes what are those and

16:17 ↗ what what your buffers are J and under

16:20 ↗ the code today you we don't do a public

16:23 ↗ notice requirement for those so that's

16:25 ↗ why we put that as a level one and if

16:27 ↗ the underlying action requires a public

16:30 ↗ notice it would automatically go to but

16:32 ↗ it's not you know too much of a

16:34 ↗ difference for us if you think it should

16:36 ↗ be a level two we can make that change

16:39 ↗ um the other one I think is a public

16:41 ↗ agency utility exemption currently it's

16:44 ↗ listed as a level one but you can decide

16:48 ↗ if you want to make it a level two

16:51 ↗ um and then there's this discussion

16:54 ↗ about the master site plan

16:57 ↗ um so just for new members the master

17:00 ↗ site plan is a process that exists in

17:03 ↗ our existing code and it was generally

17:05 ↗ used for larger projects that were over

17:07 ↗ 15 Acres or more

17:09 ↗ School District got its Master site plan

17:12 ↗ approval Tibbetts Valley Park the you

17:15 ↗ know many years ago had a master site

17:17 ↗ plan approval that was issued for it

17:19 ↗ at City council's request who did not

17:23 ↗ want to be a decision maker for

17:24 ↗ quasi-judicial matters we have removed

17:26 ↗ them because it used to be going to

17:27 ↗ development commission who would make a

17:29 ↗ recommendation to council and then

17:30 ↗ Council couldn't talk to community

17:32 ↗ members but they actually were making

17:34 ↗ the decision so there were some issues

17:35 ↗ with that process and so we've

17:38 ↗ eliminated the master site plan approval

17:40 ↗ which is just now a level foresight

17:42 ↗ development permit

17:44 ↗ um there was also a criteria what is

17:46 ↗ considered a minor modification versus a

17:49 ↗ major modification it was very broad

17:51 ↗ substantive changes and not substantive

17:53 ↗ changes it depended on on the person

17:55 ↗ making the decision you could come to a

17:57 ↗ different conclusion on what those

17:59 ↗ changes were so in order to provide some

18:02 ↗ predictability in decision making

18:04 ↗ the threshold of 10 was selected to say

18:09 ↗ if you have a thousand square feet of

18:12 ↗ impervious surface you could

18:15 ↗ add 100 square feet more to it and it

18:19 ↗ would be considered a minor modification

18:20 ↗ you still have to comply with all the

18:22 ↗ code criteria and you still are subject

18:24 ↗ to the same approval criteria but the

18:27 ↗ process for reviewing it is

18:29 ↗ Administrative versus going back to

18:31 ↗ development commission for it

18:34 ↗ um and you know but it's not there was

18:37 ↗ some confusion I think in terms of what

18:39 ↗ it's ten percent mean it doesn't mean 10

18:41 ↗ of your entire site it just means what

18:44 ↗ was approved before Minor Adjustments

18:47 ↗ within 10 percent would be

18:49 ↗ administrative

18:51 ↗ um

18:52 ↗ and so you still have to meet your

18:54 ↗ setbacks and your buffer requirements

18:57 ↗ um so the policy questions if you want

18:58 ↗ to add these to your list would be do

19:01 ↗ you need to add any additional changes

19:04 ↗ to this criteria for Major versus minor

19:06 ↗ we've kept the intent you know building

19:08 ↗ impervious surface Landscaping all those

19:10 ↗ things we're just defined uh what what

19:13 ↗ is minor versus major to be 10 percent

19:16 ↗ the other I think concern we've heard is

19:19 ↗ that Master site plan was used for

19:22 ↗ larger properties which generally

19:25 ↗ have a need to phase their project out

19:29 ↗ um so if you think we need to add

19:31 ↗ another criteria the property is over 15

19:33 ↗ Acres can request a phasing that can be

19:36 ↗ approved as by the development

19:37 ↗ commission we can add that line back in

19:40 ↗ the code

19:42 ↗ um there were some general comments

19:44 ↗ about the non-conforming chapter

19:47 ↗ um you know we have not made any policy

19:49 ↗ changes to the non-conforming chapter

19:51 ↗ but this is an important chapter because

19:53 ↗ it applies to existing businesses

19:55 ↗ existing folks that that are in in the

19:58 ↗ city

19:59 ↗ um you've seen some comments that came

20:01 ↗ in via email today uh related from

20:03 ↗ Lakeside primarily related to critical

20:06 ↗ uh Aquifer recharge area and that

20:10 ↗ chapter

20:11 ↗ um we've added some prohibited uses

20:13 ↗ within drinking water you know within

20:16 ↗ the well protection well heads for the

20:18 ↗ drinking protection of water drinking

20:20 ↗ water supply so there's

20:23 ↗ um some comments related to that but the

20:27 ↗ general premise of this chapter has not

20:29 ↗ changed it's been clarified

20:32 ↗ um what what's allowed and not allowed

20:35 ↗ um for those thresholds but if you want

20:38 ↗ to get into more specifics details if

20:40 ↗ you have more questions we can do that

20:43 ↗ and lastly there's been

20:46 ↗ um you know we wanted to bring to your

20:48 ↗ attention the Redevelopment definition

20:50 ↗ which is an addition alteration repair

20:53 ↗ where the construction cost is more than

20:56 ↗ 50 percent of the assessed value within

20:58 ↗ a three-year period

21:00 ↗ so what that uh where that comes into

21:03 ↗ play is

21:05 ↗ um the thresholds for site development

21:07 ↗ permit

21:08 ↗ um and generally when you're looking at

21:10 ↗ site development permit you're looking

21:11 ↗ at what's the impact to the parking how

21:14 ↗ are you changing how you know the site

21:16 ↗ design aspects of it if you're doing an

21:19 ↗ interior tenant Improvement regardless

21:21 ↗ of the cost of the project it's all

21:23 ↗ inside and so that really doesn't change

21:26 ↗ or doesn't add any value to put them

21:29 ↗ through a site development permit unless

21:31 ↗ there's parking changes and other things

21:33 ↗ which then it's no longer a site into

21:35 ↗ you know an interior remodel so just

21:39 ↗ wanted to flag that if there are any

21:41 ↗ changes that you that you feel need to

21:43 ↗ explicitly clarify that interior

21:46 ↗ improvements regardless of the

21:48 ↗ Improvement of the value a site

21:50 ↗ development permit is not required so

21:52 ↗ that pretty much concludes our

21:53 ↗ presentation I'm

21:55 ↗ if you have any questions I can bring

21:57 ↗ that particular topic up

22:02 ↗ did we want to let um yeah I guess we

22:04 ↗ could stop here and take clarifying

22:05 ↗ questions and then go on to the

22:07 ↗ Shoreline master plan

22:10 ↗ so commissioners

22:15 ↗ you have any questions

22:20 ↗ any I'm sorry that went really quickly

22:21 ↗ and thank you for going quickly over the

22:23 ↗ things we already understand but the one

22:24 ↗ that I don't understand that well is the

22:27 ↗ um

22:31 ↗ help me

22:33 ↗ um the lot line

22:37 ↗ not the zero lot line the other one unit

22:39 ↗ lot subdivision unit subdivision okay

22:41 ↗ can you just do that one one more time

22:43 ↗ sure

22:45 ↗ um so what what a unit lot subdivision

22:47 ↗ means is if you have five town homes in

22:50 ↗ a row

22:52 ↗ attached that the zoning already allows

22:55 ↗ you can create your main parent lot and

22:59 ↗ then you have these children lots that

23:01 ↗ are 15 feet wide

23:03 ↗ so the standards of you know your

23:06 ↗ buffers and setbacks and things don't

23:08 ↗ apply to that unit lot they apply to

23:11 ↗ your parent lot but it allows someone to

23:14 ↗ transfer ownership for that little

23:16 ↗ sliver of land with the building that

23:18 ↗ that their town home is situated on so

23:21 ↗ it doesn't or alternatively the Builder

23:25 ↗ would build a five lot townhome and and

23:28 ↗ the way the sales occur would be it's a

23:30 ↗ condo style ownership you own every or

23:33 ↗ the land in in condo style ownership and

23:35 ↗ you just own your building above it

23:39 ↗ so each of those unit 15 foot or

23:43 ↗ whatever wide you know your town home

23:45 ↗ sits on becomes a unit lot subdivision

23:47 ↗ so it doesn't change its zoning it

23:49 ↗ doesn't change where Townhomes are

23:51 ↗ allowed or not allowed that's under the

23:53 ↗ zoning permitted uses table

23:59 ↗ that helps a little bit I still don't

24:01 ↗ know what the parent law is and is there

24:04 ↗ something on the parent lot what is the

24:06 ↗ parent law yeah so the parent lot would

24:08 ↗ include an access easement or uh you

24:11 ↗ know if there's a park a row of guest

24:13 ↗ parking or if there's an open space

24:15 ↗ tract so you would have your one acre

24:17 ↗ lot that could have all your Landscaping

24:20 ↗ your common tracks your utilities may be

24:23 ↗ on it uh you and but then you have your

24:26 ↗ individual Lots

24:28 ↗ um within that parent Lord

24:31 ↗ and and so the parent law can uh

24:35 ↗ persists

24:37 ↗ uh and so you're not subdividing the

24:39 ↗ whole lot as per the density that's

24:43 ↗ allowed per lot

24:47 ↗ you would still need to meet your

24:48 ↗ density requirements for the parent lot

24:50 ↗ so sometimes you have requirements that

24:54 ↗ say you know

24:56 ↗ five foot side yard setback so that

24:58 ↗ won't apply to your individual Town Hall

25:02 ↗ home lot that would apply to your

25:05 ↗ overall lot

25:08 ↗ this is all very interesting and then um

25:10 ↗ I have another question after that thank

25:12 ↗ you that's about as far as my brain can

25:13 ↗ go on that

25:15 ↗ okay thank you commissioner Milligan and

25:17 ↗ I'm a big believer in constructive

25:18 ↗ criticism and some was provided to me so

25:21 ↗ I am going to ask Commissioners that you

25:22 ↗ flagged me so I can call you in rather

25:24 ↗ than just having a free-for-all with

25:26 ↗ people just speaking that way I can

25:27 ↗ actually say commissioner Patterson

25:30 ↗ commissioner Lewis because last week it

25:32 ↗ was pointed out to me that people are

25:34 ↗ talking sometimes people forget to

25:36 ↗ introduce themselves when they're

25:37 ↗ speaking so I would ask that you guys

25:40 ↗ wave me down and let me bring you in

25:42 ↗ thank you

25:44 ↗ more questions

25:47 ↗ commissioner Milligan

25:50 ↗ so about

25:52 ↗ the the

25:54 ↗ I understand this is this is under a

25:57 ↗ chapter heading that's zero lot line not

25:59 ↗ it's not a chapter about setbacks and

26:02 ↗ that's where maybe I'm getting confused

26:04 ↗ can you review that one a little bit

26:07 ↗ more for me again

26:09 ↗ uh sure so um you would you know when

26:12 ↗ you this would be this would come under

26:14 ↗ an as a plaid so you can't have one

26:17 ↗ house when in in a neighborhood

26:19 ↗ everything else is developed around it

26:21 ↗ and say I I want a zero lot line I want

26:24 ↗ to put my house at the edge of this

26:26 ↗ corner because it's not approved as a

26:28 ↗ zero lot line development so that's why

26:32 ↗ it's in the planning section because

26:33 ↗ when you come in with a new plaid this

26:36 ↗ would be a tool for you to plant it

26:38 ↗ accordingly

26:40 ↗ and uh so then it's not my neighbor

26:43 ↗ can't do that put their house right on

26:45 ↗ my um property line and then the

26:48 ↗ perimeters of this kind of plant

26:52 ↗ how is the setback on the exterior

26:55 ↗ perimeters handled

26:57 ↗ when you get to the one end and there's

27:00 ↗ uh and then there's another property

27:02 ↗ outside the

27:03 ↗ yeah so it would have to meet all the

27:05 ↗ the fire code regulations which

27:07 ↗ typically aren't you know from structure

27:10 ↗ to structure we would look at it the you

27:13 ↗ know the entire thing and and the edges

27:15 ↗ would have to kind of meet that so if

27:17 ↗ there's a corner lot you would shift it

27:19 ↗ towards the corner so there would be

27:21 ↗ some evaluation of what makes more sense

27:23 ↗ on that without impacting adjacent

27:26 ↗ properties

27:30 ↗ commissioner Lewis

27:31 ↗ thank you Minnie can you remind me on

27:34 ↗ that vein uh you had mentioned in the

27:37 ↗ policy question about where this would

27:39 ↗ apply to and you were saying that for

27:41 ↗ the density you had a specific thing do

27:43 ↗ you have an overlay for us or a map that

27:45 ↗ actually shows us where in the city that

27:48 ↗ was one thing that I was a little bit

27:49 ↗ confused about was kind of to say which

27:51 ↗ size

27:52 ↗ um plots can actually apply to be able

27:54 ↗ to do this because when we originally

27:56 ↗ talked about this we had some serious

27:58 ↗ issues about neighborhood character and

27:59 ↗ where we were going to put into the City

28:01 ↗ and I'm trying to have the recollection

28:03 ↗ of of where we had discussed and the

28:06 ↗ policy question it looked rather big

28:08 ↗ pretty broad I mean to say of where it

28:10 ↗ can go yeah so I think that the last one

28:13 ↗ we discussed we would share the zoning

28:15 ↗ map we can see if we can pull it up now

28:17 ↗ but it was the the highlands Talus

28:21 ↗ Central and any property Zone single

28:24 ↗ family small lot right so that's that

28:27 ↗ last one I guess is where I'm trying to

28:28 ↗ understand which properties are zones

28:30 ↗ single family small line and that would

28:32 ↗ be able to then do that yeah let me see

28:34 ↗ if I can pull up a zoning map on the

28:36 ↗ screen here

28:37 ↗ so that's one of one of my questions

28:39 ↗ that has to kind of how do we how do we

28:41 ↗ fine-tune the lens that we're looking at

28:43 ↗ for this planning tool of where it's

28:45 ↗ going to go

29:09 ↗ okay so let's try this I don't know if

29:12 ↗ this will be useful but I can

29:14 ↗ share my screen

29:24 ↗ so you all can see the the screen

29:27 ↗ so it's this olive green colored area so

29:32 ↗ South Cove

29:34 ↗ up in the you know probably slightly

29:38 ↗ below the

29:40 ↗ on the North side North part of the city

29:43 ↗ those are all single family small Lots

29:45 ↗ which is 7.26 dwelling units per acre

29:52 ↗ does that help

29:55 ↗ I'm curious

29:56 ↗ um so when I had spoken with staff with

30:00 ↗ Stephen about this

30:01 ↗ um I've been following council's

30:03 ↗ recommendation to PPC about this and and

30:07 ↗ their feelings about it I'm curious if

30:10 ↗ it's an option for us to consider

30:12 ↗ reducing where we put it in and see how

30:14 ↗ it goes right

30:16 ↗ um we would drastically change the

30:18 ↗ nature of South Cove with us and so by

30:21 ↗ saying let's see how this looks in

30:23 ↗ central where we want to be using it as

30:26 ↗ a tool for micro housing to be able to

30:28 ↗ be gaining a type of housing that we

30:30 ↗ don't have if we want to be using this

30:32 ↗ and specific more of a specific tool to

30:35 ↗ see how it ends up laying out is that an

30:37 ↗ option that's before us

30:39 ↗ um there's always an option of what you

30:41 ↗ know what if you want to change your

30:42 ↗ recommendation but before when we asked

30:44 ↗ this policy commission by consensus that

30:46 ↗ was the recommendation

30:48 ↗ so and it's one that right now the

30:50 ↗ administration feels is the right

30:52 ↗ um breadth for the tool yes okay thank

30:55 ↗ you

31:02 ↗ Commissioners any other follow-up

31:04 ↗ clarifying questions in regards to Parts

31:06 ↗ one through four

31:11 ↗ I just had two questions so commissioner

31:14 ↗ voice

31:15 ↗ um

31:16 ↗ if someone performs a geotechnical

31:18 ↗ report Coal Mine Hazard report critical

31:21 ↗ areas report Landslide traffic storm

31:23 ↗ water report and let's say the applicant

31:25 ↗ backs out or falls through does the city

31:27 ↗ do anything with those

31:29 ↗ the city

31:30 ↗ keep them for records or

31:34 ↗ good question I don't know what our

31:36 ↗ current practice has been I think I

31:37 ↗ think there's some value for

31:40 ↗ um the soils report because geology

31:42 ↗ doesn't change over a long period of

31:43 ↗ time I know Department of ecology at one

31:45 ↗ time was asking all the jurisdictions do

31:47 ↗ you guys have these records we want to

31:49 ↗ create an episode you know because as

31:51 ↗ new development occurs anything that's

31:53 ↗ part of comes into the city as a public

31:55 ↗ record we follow our public records you

31:58 ↗ know guidance if if a retention schedule

32:01 ↗ so if if the project never went through

32:04 ↗ you know if if the guidance from the

32:06 ↗ state is we can you know not have keep

32:09 ↗ it then we don't keep it we don't have

32:11 ↗ to keep it but so

32:19 ↗ hi Rachel Turpin City attorney I believe

32:21 ↗ it would have lower retention than a

32:24 ↗ project that would that came to fruition

32:26 ↗ but I would believe would have some

32:28 ↗ level of retention I

32:31 ↗ I'm interested in that question so I'm

32:33 ↗ going to look at the retention schedule

32:35 ↗ right now and find out

32:37 ↗ thank you and then just one other

32:40 ↗ question this is kind of a general

32:42 ↗ question but

32:43 ↗ as we see this code continue to go

32:45 ↗ through I know some of the feedback we

32:47 ↗ got tonight will be about I'm probably

32:49 ↗ going to hear about is non-conforming

32:51 ↗ uses a lot of our city structures are

32:54 ↗ quite old

32:55 ↗ so that's I would imagine is going to

32:56 ↗ put quite a few areas into

32:59 ↗ non-conformance do we have any idea of

33:02 ↗ how much or any idea at all I mean again

33:04 ↗ I can look around the city and look at

33:06 ↗ structures that are 30 40 years old all

33:08 ↗ day long

33:10 ↗ are you talking about a specific

33:12 ↗ regulation or well just as far as what

33:15 ↗ we're doing with the non-conforming uses

33:16 ↗ so how much of our city is going to

33:18 ↗ actually be affected by the code how

33:20 ↗ much of it gets grandfathered in

33:23 ↗ for um so the the uses haven't changed

33:26 ↗ you know we haven't changed the uses in

33:28 ↗ any other uh with this code update we

33:31 ↗ are allowing where things were

33:32 ↗ previously allowed uh the only thing

33:35 ↗ that has changed as far as uses go is in

33:37 ↗ the critical Aquifer recharge area uh we

33:41 ↗ have added a prohibited uses list

33:44 ↗ and and so that particular uses it you

33:48 ↗ know how many of those uses exist in the

33:50 ↗ city sure

33:51 ↗ um

33:52 ↗ there may be some but they're the you

33:55 ↗ know we don't have a large list of those

33:58 ↗ prohibited uses right I'm just thinking

34:00 ↗ about

34:01 ↗ older structures that want to do

34:03 ↗ additions things like that then they

34:05 ↗ have to start paying attention to those

34:06 ↗ percentages things like that if they

34:08 ↗ want to because again a lot of the

34:09 ↗ structures in this city are quite old

34:11 ↗ yeah none of that thresholds have

34:13 ↗ changed so um

34:15 ↗ in the code that we're using now correct

34:18 ↗ so existing to propose the thresholds

34:21 ↗ for you know if you if your place burns

34:24 ↗ down

34:25 ↗ and you you can rebuild your house I'm

34:28 ↗ thinking of the egg in us I used to love

34:31 ↗ that place yes so even though it was in

34:34 ↗ the Stream but for because it was an

34:36 ↗ accident you know it was a non uh

34:38 ↗ voluntary kind of a thing there's time

34:41 ↗ limits uh on you you just because that

34:43 ↗ happens you can't have that open-ended

34:45 ↗ it's you know within certain time period

34:46 ↗ you're allowed those are people's

34:49 ↗ grandfathers rights okay wonderful thank

34:51 ↗ you thank you Minnie

34:53 ↗ uh commissioner Lewis

34:55 ↗ thank you I have a question on something

34:57 ↗ that we kind of glossed over in Parts

34:58 ↗ one and two is we have some changes that

35:01 ↗ have happened uh in definitions and I

35:04 ↗ spoke with staff earlier today and I

35:06 ↗ think Christian and Stephen for their

35:07 ↗ time that I have some concerns right now

35:10 ↗ about definitions and for anybody who

35:12 ↗ has slogged through uh the definitions I

35:14 ↗ would suspect you've also found some

35:16 ↗ concerns we talked last meeting Minnie

35:18 ↗ about kind of the review process of kind

35:20 ↗ of how things get cleaned up but when

35:23 ↗ it's larger than a cleanup right when

35:25 ↗ it's larger than a typo and a reference

35:27 ↗ to somewhere else in a document and it's

35:29 ↗ more of a structural change

35:31 ↗ um this commission has not actually

35:34 ↗ discussed definitions and I'm curious

35:36 ↗ when that is an appropriate time if

35:39 ↗ you'd rather discuss that definitions

35:41 ↗ when we talk about it for instance if we

35:43 ↗ want to talk about the definitions of

35:44 ↗ Hazard trees various tree definitions

35:47 ↗ when we're actually discussing tree code

35:49 ↗ if you'd like to do definitions in this

35:51 ↗ part because it's part one I'm curious

35:53 ↗ what is the right time for this

35:54 ↗ commission to really kind of more get

35:56 ↗ into the Weeds about

35:58 ↗ this very important section

36:03 ↗ yeah I mean the definitions have been

36:05 ↗ shared with the kid with the commission

36:07 ↗ so my recommendation on that would be

36:09 ↗ let's pick the ones that are concerned

36:12 ↗ and then you know have a conversation

36:13 ↗ about them of what your concern is but

36:16 ↗ like I said before the the extent of the

36:18 ↗ changes the definitions were more of a

36:21 ↗ cleanup issue the regulations are not

36:24 ↗ part of the definitions they're

36:26 ↗ important from a legal perspective of

36:28 ↗ How It's defined and how they're used

36:30 ↗ and so that's been the focus with the

36:33 ↗ with the definitions to not Define

36:35 ↗ common terms and not Define things that

36:38 ↗ are only occur ones in your code

36:40 ↗ um and and such so if if I

36:44 ↗ did you guys discuss a specific

36:47 ↗ issue with the definitions or I'd like

36:51 ↗ Christian to answer anything specific if

36:54 ↗ you have about I'm not sure your extent

36:57 ↗ of your conversation this afternoon

37:00 ↗ we can go through specific examples if

37:02 ↗ you if you want to to clarify

37:06 ↗ the intent

37:08 ↗ um and and clean up any questions that

37:11 ↗ you have so would you guys like to do

37:12 ↗ definitions tonight with section one or

37:14 ↗ would you like to do definitions as we

37:15 ↗ get to the most applicable parts of code

37:17 ↗ an example would be Hazard trees is a

37:20 ↗ good example of something that has

37:21 ↗ changed drastically from our last draft

37:24 ↗ and from the original code right and

37:27 ↗ it's something that we've discussed as a

37:29 ↗ commission about things like having

37:31 ↗ staff having an um a recommendation to

37:34 ↗ council to budget for an arborist on

37:36 ↗ staff to do designate Hazard trees

37:40 ↗ um it's a it's been a lot of layer

37:42 ↗ discussions right and right now in the

37:44 ↗ in the current definitions I find it to

37:46 ↗ be lacking for our purposes would you

37:49 ↗ rather talk about that tonight or when

37:51 ↗ we actually talk about trees

37:53 ↗ you know does that make sense like it we

37:54 ↗ don't need to have a larger discussion

37:56 ↗ if you guys would like to piece it out

37:57 ↗ bit by bit but this commission has yet

38:00 ↗ to talk about discussions in a public

38:01 ↗ forum

38:03 ↗ thank you definition sure

38:06 ↗ um I mean if if you'd rather talk about

38:09 ↗ it when we're talking about the

38:10 ↗ substance you can do that but we're

38:12 ↗ prepared to answer any questions you

38:14 ↗ have on the definitions tonight

38:19 ↗ sure boys let me step in here real

38:21 ↗ quickly how much how much are the public

38:23 ↗ commentary have you gotten on

38:25 ↗ definitions

38:27 ↗ from a 40 000 Community member yeah

38:30 ↗ ballpark

38:31 ↗ um you know they're folks have raised

38:34 ↗ some good points

38:35 ↗ um and we've become we've tried to clean

38:37 ↗ up as we've heard so we're willing to

38:41 ↗ take a look at that but I you know I

38:43 ↗ don't know if you have the time in this

38:44 ↗ meeting to go word by word over one uh

38:48 ↗ definition so if you have please send an

38:50 ↗ email and we'll we can clean up if

38:52 ↗ there's some questions but I think

38:54 ↗ that's my point is like I said we have

38:56 ↗ three public hearings with a lot of

38:58 ↗ policy driven discussions

39:00 ↗ um I don't think it's to commissioner

39:02 ↗ Lewis's point I think if there's a

39:04 ↗ particular definition while we're

39:06 ↗ talking about a particular subject I

39:08 ↗ think let's have it but if it's just to

39:10 ↗ go through blanketly I think we want to

39:12 ↗ send those to staff through emails I

39:14 ↗ don't think we we don't I mean three

39:16 ↗ meetings We're not gonna have time to go

39:18 ↗ through

39:19 ↗ I don't even know how many definitions

39:20 ↗ there are I think that's probably easier

39:22 ↗ for you guys

39:23 ↗ I would imagine

39:25 ↗ and possibly what we can do is on the

39:27 ↗ third public hearing if there are still

39:29 ↗ definitions that are problematic we can

39:31 ↗ bring them up the third public hearing

39:33 ↗ really is basically uh capturing of what

39:35 ↗ we're going to be doing over the next

39:36 ↗ two

39:37 ↗ well tonight and next Thursday and then

39:40 ↗ we're going to basically be able to give

39:42 ↗ a recommendation so if there are

39:44 ↗ definitions that are of concern to you

39:47 ↗ guys tonight and next Thursday let's

39:49 ↗ bring them up but otherwise if they're

39:52 ↗ minute let's just send those to staff

39:55 ↗ because again we've we've got a pretty

39:57 ↗ packed next three evenings

40:00 ↗ and I want to thank staff for providing

40:02 ↗ those three evenings so

40:09 ↗ are there any further clarifying

40:10 ↗ questions from the commission

40:13 ↗ commissioner Lewis I have a question

40:15 ↗ about variances and well I have the

40:18 ↗ space I will say that um I think that

40:21 ↗ when it comes up our definition right

40:22 ↗ now of open space needs to be defined

40:24 ↗ it's something that I think is a larger

40:26 ↗ discussion for this commission and that

40:28 ↗ I've I have sent staff my comments um as

40:32 ↗ as my as I assumed my chair would want

40:34 ↗ me to do but I do think that there are

40:36 ↗ larger discussions right now that are

40:38 ↗ pretty open-ended I think trees and open

40:40 ↗ space are ones that need to be further

40:42 ↗ addressed by this commission and by

40:45 ↗ staff

40:45 ↗ um variances is there um can we limit a

40:49 ↗ number of variations are we able to tell

40:50 ↗ an applicant here's your choice

40:53 ↗ um

40:54 ↗ um I'm talking about sorry deviations

40:55 ↗ thank you very much for a request for a

40:58 ↗ deviation are we able to limit that to

40:59 ↗ an applicant here's your bucket of

41:01 ↗ choices and you're allowed to pick two

41:03 ↗ no more

41:05 ↗ you know it does

41:06 ↗ would this code change of not having the

41:09 ↗ aas's I think that will automatically

41:11 ↗ happen I think what you're referring to

41:13 ↗ is people had the choice of asking for

41:16 ↗ an administrative adjustment of

41:17 ↗ Standards which was so broad that people

41:20 ↗ could ask for 10 they could ask for

41:22 ↗ twenty or five or whatever right so

41:25 ↗ um I I think because we are already

41:27 ↗ limiting it to these are the nine things

41:29 ↗ you can ask for and if there's a

41:31 ↗ legitimate reason for someone to protect

41:34 ↗ a strand of trees and avoid that and we

41:37 ↗ want to make that happen then then

41:40 ↗ perhaps it's you're not going to get

41:42 ↗ arbitrarily picking a number saying you

41:44 ↗ only get five and not four there may be

41:47 ↗ a so I think a focus shouldn't your

41:50 ↗ worry shouldn't be how many we would

41:52 ↗ Grant out because I think that'll get

41:54 ↗ ratcheted down anyways because of the

41:56 ↗ the the the way the process is set up

41:58 ↗ differently it's more about whether

42:00 ↗ these nine make sense or do we do you

42:02 ↗ want to have

42:04 ↗ um individually or cumulatively

42:07 ↗ okay yeah

42:08 ↗ um I will say that I have concerns about

42:11 ↗ the ninth which is Force at Hillside

42:12 ↗ preservation I've talked a lot about

42:14 ↗ issues with fill and cuts we've talked a

42:17 ↗ lot about retaining walls at this point

42:19 ↗ I would strike number nine completely

42:21 ↗ um I'm looking at a page 83 of the code

42:24 ↗ not in the packet but of the code when

42:27 ↗ looking at section 18

42:30 ↗ 202.080 deviations from standards

42:33 ↗ generally and I'm I'm a I'm a little

42:36 ↗ confused and I wanted staff to talk a

42:38 ↗ little bit about uh about these nine and

42:43 ↗ some of them seem like they're ones that

42:46 ↗ have specifically been discussed that we

42:48 ↗ don't want and yet we have a deviation

42:51 ↗ that's allowing for it

42:56 ↗ do you want me to respond or yeah yeah

43:00 ↗ the question yeah

43:02 ↗ um let me try and get to the section of

43:05 ↗ the code that

43:07 ↗ um 83.

43:08 ↗ share voice

43:11 ↗ commissioner Milligan thank you I'd like

43:13 ↗ to amplify uh commissioner Lewis's or

43:16 ↗ maybe clarify what I think she might try

43:18 ↗ to get at is how did this how did these

43:20 ↗ get on this list might be one way of

43:23 ↗ saying how did how did this list get

43:25 ↗ determined and I think that commissioner

43:27 ↗ Lewis is saying especially things that

43:29 ↗ were so important to us in our standards

43:31 ↗ how would such a thing get on this list

43:35 ↗ um it seems we don't we don't know why

43:37 ↗ these things would

43:39 ↗ have deviations allowed I think I heard

43:42 ↗ somewhere that it was because these are

43:44 ↗ things that are often asked for but um

43:46 ↗ there must be another reason sure um I

43:49 ↗ think there's a balancing act of

43:51 ↗ flexibility when when it leads to a

43:53 ↗ better outcome

43:55 ↗ for everyone involved for not just for

43:57 ↗ the applicant or the community but but

43:59 ↗ it makes logical sense to do this way

44:03 ↗ but the code is so you only can do it

44:05 ↗ this way so there there needs to be that

44:07 ↗ balance of flexibility yet

44:09 ↗ predictability which was missing from

44:11 ↗ the AAS is because we could never give

44:13 ↗ people an answer and predictable this is

44:15 ↗ what you can do maybe you know but that

44:18 ↗ didn't really so this is an attempt at

44:21 ↗ providing the predictability but yet

44:23 ↗ keeping some of that flexibility on in

44:25 ↗ on situations where it makes sense some

44:27 ↗ of those are carry over from those one

44:30 ↗ aas's but those were specific things

44:32 ↗ that the existing code already allowed

44:33 ↗ those deviations so there's a lot of

44:35 ↗ legislative history for some of these

44:38 ↗ um the forested hillside chapter I did

44:41 ↗ pull it up

44:42 ↗ in that was included in the last

44:45 ↗ packet and it's really

44:49 ↗ um you know this is a new chapter and

44:51 ↗ these deviations are minimal because

44:55 ↗ it's

44:56 ↗ maybe if I can share my screen you all

44:59 ↗ can look at it rather than me reading

45:01 ↗ them out loud

45:04 ↗ um

45:05 ↗ [Music]

45:14 ↗ sorry

45:16 ↗ [Music]

45:32 ↗ let's start

45:35 ↗ [Music]

45:38 ↗ okay

45:40 ↗ um

45:41 ↗ is it legible on your screens

45:44 ↗ um

45:45 ↗ so from the forested hillside you can

45:48 ↗ request for these

45:50 ↗ um

45:52 ↗ fill fill and cut limits May request a

45:55 ↗ deviation

45:57 ↗ of 10 feet and under so it's not huge

46:00 ↗ cut and fill but 10 feet and under if

46:04 ↗ the existing grade is unnatural

46:06 ↗ uh for multi-family mixed and

46:09 ↗ non-residential buildings additional cut

46:11 ↗ as supported by the applicant's Geotech

46:13 ↗ engineer may be permitted

46:15 ↗ if you need an Elevator Shaft so you

46:19 ↗ know really thinking about some

46:21 ↗ practical applications because you have

46:22 ↗ to go down below the ground for those

46:25 ↗ elevator shafts and do we really want to

46:27 ↗ prevent that and have some more fill put

46:29 ↗ up so that's sort of the justification

46:31 ↗ for that one and the criteria really is

46:34 ↗ you're gonna you still have to show that

46:37 ↗ you're you're keeping the disturbance to

46:40 ↗ a minimum you're demonstrating that

46:43 ↗ there's not going to be you know

46:45 ↗ minimizing your truck traffic and storm

46:48 ↗ water and runoff isn't impacted and it's

46:51 ↗ not a huge eyesore and so some examples

46:54 ↗ for Elevator Shaft that was shown in

46:57 ↗ here are some practical applications of

47:00 ↗ when some of these things if they are

47:02 ↗ this is how you're going to do it don't

47:04 ↗ can can be problematic

47:07 ↗ um number two was the distance between

47:09 ↗ the retaining walls may be reduced if

47:13 ↗ the applicant can demonstrate that the

47:15 ↗ change would increase tree protection

47:16 ↗ and preservation so there's a tie-in if

47:19 ↗ you're trying to save a tree and just

47:21 ↗ you know keep your retaining wall a

47:24 ↗ little further away then it then will

47:25 ↗ grant you a deviation not just because

47:27 ↗ you're trying to squeeze in more or

47:29 ↗ whatever you know so there's a there's a

47:31 ↗ specific criteria for that the third one

47:34 ↗ we say when streets have limited right

47:36 ↗ away the applicant May request a

47:38 ↗ deviation for a retaining wall

47:41 ↗ and you know sometimes if you if you

47:44 ↗ have that chase the hillside for

47:46 ↗ retaining wall you're going to clear cut

47:48 ↗ all your Hillside so just trying to to

47:51 ↗ have some flexibility where we can make

47:53 ↗ some of those

47:54 ↗ um decisions yet meet the intent of what

47:57 ↗ we're trying to do with this forested

47:58 ↗ hillsides that's sort of the context of

48:00 ↗ why it was produced so as we move away

48:04 ↗ from the adjustment of administrative

48:05 ↗ standards and we start to have this

48:08 ↗ criteria where the intent is to be able

48:11 ↗ to have more flexibility to be able to

48:13 ↗ have the code and are working together

48:14 ↗ but when there's when the decision maker

48:18 ↗ doesn't have to adhere to any kind of

48:20 ↗ daylight right now there's really no

48:23 ↗ provision for the public to have more

48:25 ↗ awareness of these deviations so it kind

48:29 ↗ of mimics the AAS is in a similar way

48:32 ↗ because with level one and two there's

48:34 ↗ no there's no rule for the public so

48:37 ↗ right now though we've limited and we've

48:40 ↗ defined and we've we're linking in the

48:42 ↗ code right these are awesome progress

48:44 ↗ moves from where we've been at

48:47 ↗ I'm not seeing where there's anything

48:49 ↗ that says when you apply for a variance

48:52 ↗ this is the way for the public to be

48:54 ↗ able to weigh in on these night things

48:56 ↗ I'm not seeing anything that says hey

48:58 ↗ you need to fit these particular

49:00 ↗ categories right now it's all

49:02 ↗ um still up to the director to be able

49:04 ↗ to deem if it is or isn't without any

49:07 ↗ kind of review

49:08 ↗ as I'm reading it

49:10 ↗ okay let me

49:13 ↗ is it level two yeah it's a level two

49:16 ↗ decision so deviations are a level two

49:18 ↗ that require a public notice

49:20 ↗ level two has a required a public but

49:23 ↗ there's no public hearing right correct

49:24 ↗ you can't have a public hearing on every

49:26 ↗ project I mean that then it becomes a

49:28 ↗ variance

49:30 ↗ um variance requires the public hearing

49:31 ↗ these are smaller things with very

49:35 ↗ specific criteria that is being debated

49:38 ↗ publicly and and the policy makers are

49:41 ↗ agreeing to yes if you're saving trees

49:43 ↗ you can have less distance between your

49:46 ↗ retaining walls so by having more public

49:49 ↗ process at that end

49:51 ↗ will won't bring any more value to it

49:54 ↗ it's just will slow the process down

49:57 ↗ with the same outcome

49:58 ↗ would you find that a tracking mechanism

50:01 ↗ would be helpful for the public to be

50:03 ↗ able to say how often we're having

50:06 ↗ deviations from standards happening so

50:08 ↗ that there's a way to have an Avenue for

50:10 ↗ public awareness of how many times

50:13 ↗ for instance one through nine is how we

50:15 ↗ can run a report on the deviations

50:17 ↗ issued in the year absolutely okay I

50:20 ↗ think that's what I'm trying to figure

50:21 ↗ out right now is I'm I'm not

50:23 ↗ understanding

50:25 ↗ how we get the kind of The Last Mile

50:27 ↗ we've done a lot of work to get away

50:28 ↗ from the aas's which has been really a

50:30 ↗ lot of progress but a lot of the

50:33 ↗ deviations I'm seeing here are ones that

50:34 ↗ we've specifically said but these are

50:36 ↗ things we don't want so it may be this

50:39 ↗ back and forth in a give and take but we

50:41 ↗ may also be getting things that we're

50:43 ↗ not wanting and how do we have an

50:45 ↗ awareness of them so that we can then

50:47 ↗ make changes and modifications now I

50:49 ↗ understand the concern is because of the

50:51 ↗ legacy of you know the perception that

50:53 ↗ these were handed like candy and they

50:56 ↗ weren't you know there wasn't any

50:57 ↗ accountability but but they were also

50:59 ↗ very vague and arbitrary criteria so

51:02 ↗ different people could come to different

51:04 ↗ conclusions on that so I think that in

51:06 ↗ itself will solve the concern that you

51:08 ↗ have but

51:09 ↗ um if you know if it brings some

51:11 ↗ transparency to how many of these were

51:13 ↗ issued where we can absolutely you know

51:17 ↗ create a report from a permitting system

51:19 ↗ thank you many

51:22 ↗ I want to thank commissioner Lewis and

51:23 ↗ commissioner Milligan to getting that to

51:26 ↗ a question

51:28 ↗ so we we've got a lot of time to

51:30 ↗ deliberate but do we have any other

51:32 ↗ clarifying questions from the commission

51:36 ↗ [Music]

51:37 ↗ commissioner Patterson

51:39 ↗ thank you hopefully this is a rather

51:41 ↗ quick one looking at policy question two

51:45 ↗ regarding the approval criteria for the

51:47 ↗ site specific reasons

51:50 ↗ um I wanted to ask on the first criteria

51:54 ↗ reads out the rezone demonstrates a

51:57 ↗ public benefit and enhances public

51:58 ↗ health safety and Welfare for my

52:01 ↗ clarification can you help me understand

52:03 ↗ how that's evaluated

52:10 ↗ yeah you know this is a pretty General

52:13 ↗ thing that you'll see in

52:15 ↗ cities I don't know if there's a legal

52:17 ↗ term of evaluating public benefit health

52:21 ↗ and safety obviously we want you know

52:23 ↗ approve something that endangers public

52:26 ↗ health safety but it has broad but I

52:30 ↗ don't know Rachel do you want to help

52:32 ↗ answer that question

52:34 ↗ yeah it is correct

52:37 ↗ [Music]

52:44 ↗ ly hello again Rachel Turpin I do think

52:46 ↗ it's a very Broad and kind of vague

52:48 ↗ criteria to be quite honest

52:52 ↗ um there are many cases that do discuss

52:55 ↗ what the Health and Welfare are like

52:58 ↗ many said it is a legal term of art so I

53:00 ↗ do think it is something that you you

53:02 ↗ can

53:03 ↗ um you can define a new can actually you

53:07 ↗ know put your finger on but it is it is

53:09 ↗ tricky

53:10 ↗ um so I I do think that it it it's not a

53:14 ↗ criteria that I would be sad to see go I

53:17 ↗ do think that it is one that is uh

53:20 ↗ that is difficult to deal with in

53:23 ↗ practicality

53:26 ↗ good yeah thank you and just to add a

53:28 ↗ little bit of context is

53:30 ↗ um that's kind of why I was asking is

53:31 ↗ because looking at the rest of these

53:33 ↗ being a quasi-judicial manner seems like

53:36 ↗ there's a lot more like it has or hasn't

53:37 ↗ or it does or does meet certain criteria

53:40 ↗ whereas that one seems a little bit more

53:42 ↗ broad especially looking at from a legal

53:44 ↗ lens right yeah if we were to go in that

53:47 ↗ more quasi I mean it is a quasi-judicial

53:49 ↗ process then I would anticipate the

53:52 ↗ criteria should kind of line up from a

53:54 ↗ legal perspective to be a little bit

53:55 ↗ more clearly defined it would certainly

53:57 ↗ be nice to get policy Direction on what

54:01 ↗ what that means I guess what uh what the

54:05 ↗ policy makers you know see as

54:08 ↗ as providing that benefit or

54:13 ↗ that detriment I guess

54:18 ↗ Patterson is there anyone else who has a

54:20 ↗ clarifying question commissioner

54:22 ↗ Milligan

54:23 ↗ thank you uh this is about these um

54:30 ↗ public the public hearings going to a

54:33 ↗ hearing examiner are is there an

54:37 ↗ assumption of the operating hours of the

54:40 ↗ hearing examiner if we have them holding

54:43 ↗ public hearings currently we hold public

54:46 ↗ hearings after work when the public it's

54:49 ↗ convenient for the public to attend how

54:51 ↗ has it happened with a hearing examiner

54:52 ↗ yeah so our contract with them can

54:54 ↗ stipulate the evening meeting so I think

54:57 ↗ I think depending on the nature of the

54:59 ↗ project and the amount of community

55:03 ↗ interest or you know simple things like

55:06 ↗ an appeal goes to them when it's only

55:08 ↗ the appellant and the hearing examiner

55:10 ↗ those things probably don't need to be

55:12 ↗ scheduled in the evening or there's a

55:15 ↗ Code Enforcement appeal or something

55:16 ↗ like that but for General land use

55:18 ↗ applications and decisions we can work

55:21 ↗ work on you know those can be in the

55:23 ↗ evenings there's no requirement that the

55:26 ↗ hearing examiner has to hold them just

55:27 ↗ during the day work hours

55:30 ↗ and thank you and then I have uh

55:33 ↗ possibly the final light-hearted

55:35 ↗ question on page 124 of 946

55:40 ↗ 18.216.030 section c

55:44 ↗ I'll let you get there

55:47 ↗ I thought that's one of our policy

55:48 ↗ questions is that a little bit of a cart

55:50 ↗ before the horse thing

55:54 ↗ I'm still trying to get to did you get

55:57 ↗ to it

56:00 ↗ what happened to my

56:03 ↗ foreign

56:13 ↗ has to do with this site-specific

56:15 ↗ rezones and it goes to the hearing

56:17 ↗ Examiner

56:19 ↗ oh yeah so

56:27 ↗ when administration had a recommendation

56:29 ↗ we didn't put blanks in the draft so

56:32 ↗ administration's recommendation is in

56:34 ↗ the draft you'll see but we've flagged

56:37 ↗ that for policy discussion and we can

56:38 ↗ change it yeah I did I just thought it

56:40 ↗ was funny like I said just the

56:41 ↗ lighthearted question that's all okay

56:44 ↗ uh do we have any other clarifying

56:46 ↗ questions going once going twice

56:50 ↗ all right

56:52 ↗ I now would like to open the floor for

56:55 ↗ public comments concerning title 18. so

56:58 ↗ Stephen if you could uh list off who

57:01 ↗ signed up first we'll get going I do ask

57:04 ↗ that people keep their comments to five

57:05 ↗ minutes or less thank you

57:18 ↗ yes chair voice we have Kyler

57:27 ↗ okay whoa

57:30 ↗ um I'm Kyler Danielson I'm with Lakeside

57:33 ↗ Industries

57:34 ↗ um thank you for all of your hard work

57:36 ↗ on this I've been following it for quite

57:38 ↗ a while it's a lot and you've put a lot

57:40 ↗ of time and effort into it

57:43 ↗ um we submitted a letter today about

57:45 ↗ some of the changes that are proposed

57:47 ↗ for this particular meeting in this

57:49 ↗ section so I'm just going to summarize

57:51 ↗ those really quickly the first is the

57:54 ↗ process concerns

57:57 ↗ um there are some extensive policy

57:59 ↗ changes in this packet of the

58:02 ↗ 707 pages of it and

58:06 ↗ um we're hopeful that we can maybe spend

58:09 ↗ more time on some of those we didn't

58:11 ↗ feel like there was

58:13 ↗ um like everything has really been

58:15 ↗ addressed in the public sphere there

58:19 ↗ have been a lot of large changes with

58:21 ↗ the short deadline

58:22 ↗ and we are concerned about transparency

58:25 ↗ I know commissioner Lewis mentioned the

58:27 ↗ definition section the meeting that was

58:30 ↗ specifically

58:31 ↗ brought up to discuss definitions there

58:34 ↗ was no discussion of definitions and

58:36 ↗ there hasn't been a red line or anything

58:38 ↗ on definitions so that's one example of

58:42 ↗ a few other things that have been

58:44 ↗ changed without really providing

58:46 ↗ information about those changes we also

58:49 ↗ had some substantive comments I know

58:51 ↗ that many brought up our concern about

58:54 ↗ non-conforming uses the biggest issue

58:58 ↗ there that I have in the Lakeside has is

59:01 ↗ we want to be able to improve our

59:03 ↗ operations we want to be able to change

59:05 ↗ with the

59:08 ↗ um the environmental improvements and

59:10 ↗ the advancements in technology and

59:12 ↗ becoming a non-conforming use can make

59:14 ↗ that very difficult or impossible and so

59:17 ↗ we hope that the commission will

59:20 ↗ consider the impact of that and

59:25 ↗ um read our comment so thank you

59:35 ↗ next we have Hussein

59:45 ↗ okay there we go hi my name is Hussein

59:49 ↗ koram I'm a East Side developer

59:52 ↗ multi-family I've been here before I see

59:55 ↗ some new faces thank you for having me

59:58 ↗ at charm boys uh uh Commissioners lovely

1:00:03 ↗ staff honor for me to be here I'm here

1:00:05 ↗ to talk about the vesting relating to

1:00:08 ↗ the title 18 here I started the project

1:00:12 ↗ at 2018 and been working on it since

1:00:16 ↗ then

1:00:17 ↗ with the code changes that I've learned

1:00:19 ↗ roughly about six months ago we would we

1:00:22 ↗ rushed in to turn in for the building

1:00:24 ↗ permit which we did just last for the 65

1:00:27 ↗ unit apartment complex which we just

1:00:29 ↗ this did November and

1:00:33 ↗ um but and I'll tell you the building

1:00:35 ↗ permit I brought some examples so you

1:00:37 ↗ know our submittal was

1:00:39 ↗ roughly about 1000 pages

1:00:42 ↗ off tax this size all the electronic

1:00:46 ↗ though so a lot has changed and we had

1:00:49 ↗ 324 pages of plans which is basically

1:00:54 ↗ this is like a couple of sheets 324

1:00:57 ↗ would be roughly by that size so uh

1:01:00 ↗ there's a very high level of threshold

1:01:03 ↗ for your building permit to be accepted

1:01:06 ↗ and wood made some mistakes that didn't

1:01:09 ↗ happen so we were submitting later this

1:01:12 ↗ month and hopefully we get accepted but

1:01:15 ↗ what I'm here before you is this that

1:01:17 ↗ um I know the last time the the

1:01:20 ↗ Commissioners were not keen on making a

1:01:22 ↗ recommendation to the council as far as

1:01:25 ↗ besting for the building permit uh there

1:01:28 ↗ were disagreements uh and and I but I

1:01:31 ↗ hope that you you consider that this

1:01:34 ↗ time that uh once a project spend a

1:01:37 ↗ million dollars on Consulting fees and

1:01:40 ↗ all kinds of things and go through these

1:01:42 ↗ elaborate process a code change it could

1:01:46 ↗ be dramatic and as as early as we try to

1:01:50 ↗ get it in

1:01:51 ↗ um what if you turn it in and then

1:01:53 ↗ there's another mistake and they kick it

1:01:56 ↗ back each revision takes

1:01:58 ↗ two to six months two three four five

1:02:01 ↗ six months so it's it's very difficult

1:02:04 ↗ very scary and you have a million dollar

1:02:07 ↗ or more on the line so I hope you

1:02:09 ↗ consider this I think we're gonna make

1:02:11 ↗ it this time the staff for helping doing

1:02:13 ↗ a good job but the point I'm trying to

1:02:16 ↗ make is it just it's scary and if I have

1:02:19 ↗ to do it again we're going to provide

1:02:21 ↗ Public Service we're making new housing

1:02:24 ↗ then you as a developer I would consider

1:02:26 ↗ that what happened to me the last time

1:02:29 ↗ would I want to put myself a risk again

1:02:31 ↗ do I want to invest in Issaquah I'm

1:02:34 ↗ build more housing so these are the

1:02:36 ↗ things that urge you to consider be

1:02:38 ↗ compassionate

1:02:39 ↗ and and hopefully uh I would not need it

1:02:44 ↗ but I urge you to vote for vesting to be

1:02:48 ↗ embedded with submittal of the building

1:02:51 ↗ permit not necessarily being accepted

1:02:54 ↗ thank you very much

1:03:00 ↗ [Applause]

1:03:01 ↗ next we have Brooke

1:03:07 ↗ good evening planning and policy

1:03:09 ↗ commission uh I was here last week and

1:03:11 ↗ so we have some updates and

1:03:12 ↗ clarification

1:03:14 ↗ on what we're doing I I may not be able

1:03:16 ↗ to be here next week I know this is one

1:03:17 ↗ through four but you can make comments

1:03:19 ↗ at any time but then as I'm realizing

1:03:21 ↗ there's some respect for what I'm saying

1:03:22 ↗ that has to actually do with I think one

1:03:24 ↗ through four anyway

1:03:25 ↗ as you know for anyone that's listening

1:03:27 ↗ or online or listen to this later uh

1:03:30 ↗ this this started back in April in the

1:03:32 ↗ process so your title 18 has been out a

1:03:34 ↗ long long time there's been tons of

1:03:36 ↗ public notice I know lots of people that

1:03:37 ↗ know this is going on and so this

1:03:40 ↗ particular item that I'm spoken about

1:03:41 ↗ that I spoke about last week could just

1:03:43 ↗ remind everybody that's online or hasn't

1:03:44 ↗ seen before these comments were made

1:03:46 ↗ back in April uh April May time frame so

1:03:49 ↗ they know the item that I'm speaking

1:03:51 ↗ about here in the Adu which will which

1:03:53 ↗ we're going to tie in to relate to lot

1:03:54 ↗ size has been out in the public for a

1:03:56 ↗ long time

1:03:58 ↗ um so this is kind of a small item

1:04:00 ↗ really that we're talking about that we

1:04:02 ↗ go from you know a thousand to 1200

1:04:04 ↗ square feet it's only 200 square feet

1:04:05 ↗ more so this is not a giant item that we

1:04:08 ↗ see that should not be handled in this

1:04:10 ↗ process here like its own two-year

1:04:12 ↗ separate process because we're only

1:04:13 ↗ talking about 200 square feet and we

1:04:15 ↗ think that the solution here can

1:04:17 ↗ definitely easily be handled within this

1:04:19 ↗ Title 18 redo that that you were all

1:04:22 ↗ working on here

1:04:25 ↗ um let's see so uh we clarified last

1:04:28 ↗ week that you know the size we were

1:04:30 ↗ looking at that we're talking about is

1:04:31 ↗ only 1200 square feet not a thousand

1:04:33 ↗ square feet that it is today under Title

1:04:36 ↗ 18 and that you know many many cities

1:04:38 ↗ don't have the exact percentage but

1:04:40 ↗ certainly I think people would call 1200

1:04:42 ↗ square feet is as a maximum standard for

1:04:44 ↗ an Adu is one of the standards that's

1:04:47 ↗ used around the country in in cities and

1:04:49 ↗ this and we're currently at a thousand

1:04:51 ↗ uh square feet and as we said last time

1:04:54 ↗ I just want to reiterate again for

1:04:56 ↗ people who aren't here that the goal of

1:04:57 ↗ moving this to 1200 is the idea that

1:04:59 ↗ people can stay in their properties we

1:05:01 ↗ gave the example of uh elderly couple

1:05:03 ↗ you need a separate bedrooms separate

1:05:06 ↗ bathrooms and 24-hour nursing care which

1:05:07 ↗ could even be a third bathroom and then

1:05:09 ↗ going maybe from one house to another

1:05:11 ↗ and to continue the life that they

1:05:13 ↗ currently leave but for reasons to be

1:05:16 ↗ able to stay on their property they need

1:05:17 ↗ to be in an Adu to make that happen and

1:05:20 ↗ so that's one example and I'm sure many

1:05:23 ↗ people would have other examples about

1:05:24 ↗ why they may think that 1200 square feet

1:05:27 ↗ is is better to go to So speaking

1:05:29 ↗ tonight that what we're looking at on

1:05:31 ↗ this current lot size we did some work

1:05:34 ↗ with the City of Issaquah and many of

1:05:37 ↗ you probably know which I think is some

1:05:38 ↗ relevant to today through and before is

1:05:40 ↗ the city has four essentially lot sizes

1:05:42 ↗ in the single family where we're talking

1:05:44 ↗ about we're not talking about commercial

1:05:45 ↗ you don't put an Adu on a commercial

1:05:46 ↗ property I don't think but so the sizes

1:05:49 ↗ today that are in the city which I don't

1:05:51 ↗ think anybody's talking about changing

1:05:52 ↗ these sizes is six thousand square feet

1:05:55 ↗ 9 600 square feet 3 500 square feet and

1:05:59 ↗ five acres and for anybody listening an

1:06:01 ↗ acre is uh what is it forty three

1:06:03 ↗ thousand five hundred sixty square feet

1:06:05 ↗ so it gives you an idea of the size so

1:06:08 ↗ we looked at this and we said you know

1:06:10 ↗ what probably makes sense for the City

1:06:11 ↗ of Issaquah is if somebody feels they

1:06:15 ↗ can stay in their property if they have

1:06:17 ↗ a 1200 Adu simply another 200 square

1:06:21 ↗ feet maybe we required that the law lot

1:06:24 ↗ size is larger so if the planning policy

1:06:26 ↗ commission is taking notes I'll just

1:06:27 ↗ give you four numbers here that is the

1:06:29 ↗ suggestion and interested in in what

1:06:32 ↗ everyone thinks uh when you start

1:06:34 ↗ talking about this and that is I started

1:06:37 ↗ out and and keeping some idea of the

1:06:40 ↗ size relevance the same so a one to ten

1:06:43 ↗ ratio and the one to ten ratio the first

1:06:45 ↗ number to write down is two thousand

1:06:47 ↗ more squee square feet so the smallest

1:06:50 ↗ is probably the biggest one that you're

1:06:51 ↗ planning policy commission will talk

1:06:53 ↗ about the smallest lot size and say this

1:06:54 ↗ costs six thousand square feet you can

1:06:56 ↗ have a thousand square foot Adu on it so

1:06:59 ↗ if someone wants to go that extra 200

1:07:01 ↗ square feet so that they can stay in

1:07:03 ↗ their property

1:07:04 ↗ then their property size would need to

1:07:06 ↗ be 8 000 instead of six thousand so two

1:07:09 ↗ hundred to two thousand is a one to ten

1:07:11 ↗ bomb so the number I'd like you to write

1:07:13 ↗ down is you know a two thousand square

1:07:15 ↗ feet more on the property size now on

1:07:17 ↗ the 9600 in order to tape things the

1:07:21 ↗ same same relative scale that the city

1:07:24 ↗ currently has today is my number to you

1:07:26 ↗ is three thousand so instead of ninety

1:07:28 ↗ six hundred you'd have to go up to

1:07:30 ↗ twelve thousand six hundred if you

1:07:32 ↗ wanted to be over the thousand and and

1:07:35 ↗ so we keep it nice and simple it's just

1:07:37 ↗ if you got a six thousand square foot

1:07:39 ↗ zoning area to go one square foot over a

1:07:43 ↗ thousand then you gotta have you know

1:07:45 ↗ the eight thousand the extra two

1:07:46 ↗ thousand if you're in the ninety six

1:07:48 ↗ hundred and you want to go one square

1:07:49 ↗ foot over a thousand then you got to

1:07:51 ↗ have twelve thousand six hundred and so

1:07:54 ↗ the scales are kind of the same so the

1:07:56 ↗ third number I'll give you is five

1:07:57 ↗ thousand so if you're in the thirty five

1:07:59 ↗ thousand square foot uh lot size then

1:08:03 ↗ you got to go to forty thousand square

1:08:04 ↗ foot and you can see it starts to get a

1:08:06 ↗ little bit random and like who cares at

1:08:08 ↗ 35 000 square feet and then I just

1:08:10 ↗ thought well if you're at five acres you

1:08:11 ↗ got to go to six acres I broke so so

1:08:14 ↗ your five minute timer is okay gone off

1:08:15 ↗ could you wrap up please yeah I can wrap

1:08:17 ↗ up so I think you see the numbers the

1:08:18 ↗ number is two thousand three thousand

1:08:21 ↗ five thousand and an acre

1:08:23 ↗ over above your lot sizes uh if you want

1:08:26 ↗ to use that extra 200 square feet to

1:08:28 ↗ match what many other cities are at

1:08:30 ↗ thank you I look forward to hearing what

1:08:32 ↗ the planning policy commission thinks

1:08:34 ↗ about that in us working so that people

1:08:35 ↗ can stay on their properties thank you

1:08:37 ↗ very much

1:08:41 ↗ chair voice we don't have anybody signed

1:08:43 ↗ up but uh just checking the room to see

1:08:46 ↗ if there's anybody else Connie

1:08:48 ↗ come on up

1:08:57 ↗ okay my name is Connie Marsh I live up

1:09:00 ↗ on squawk

1:09:02 ↗ uh so I'm gonna pop straight in with no

1:09:06 ↗ particular further introduction

1:09:10 ↗ so the technical review

1:09:14 ↗ if you look at technical review it's

1:09:15 ↗ level one level one means it gets no

1:09:19 ↗ public notice and when it goes to level

1:09:22 ↗ one that also means it doesn't get a

1:09:24 ↗ community meeting and so technical

1:09:26 ↗ reviews

1:09:28 ↗ currently are supposed to kick into the

1:09:32 ↗ community meetings because that is where

1:09:34 ↗ we have the environmental review of

1:09:37 ↗ environmental impacts and the community

1:09:39 ↗ gets to see what those are and then

1:09:41 ↗ those Community meetings then feed into

1:09:44 ↗ the environmental board's tracking of

1:09:47 ↗ how we're doing on protecting our

1:09:49 ↗ environment so if you take the technical

1:09:51 ↗ reviews and some of those other level

1:09:53 ↗ ones and you say this is a level one

1:09:56 ↗ that means it won't get the community

1:09:58 ↗ meeting and so you are going to break

1:10:01 ↗ that tracking of the environmental

1:10:03 ↗ impacts now does every single technical

1:10:07 ↗ review no matter how small necessarily

1:10:09 ↗ need to go to a community meeting you

1:10:13 ↗ know probably not but we need to have a

1:10:15 ↗ discussion of what does it can't just be

1:10:18 ↗ that okay that would be a public utility

1:10:21 ↗ exemption level one

1:10:23 ↗ so they're impacting a critical area it

1:10:26 ↗ would not go to a community meeting

1:10:27 ↗ right and it should if they're impacting

1:10:30 ↗ a critical area in public property the

1:10:32 ↗ public should know

1:10:34 ↗ and it's part of this transparency so

1:10:37 ↗ those those little level ones and twos

1:10:40 ↗ and threes actually have significant

1:10:43 ↗ impact so if you would look at those

1:10:44 ↗ pretty carefully to see if it makes

1:10:46 ↗ sense for those the um there's a weird

1:10:50 ↗ little

1:10:51 ↗ snippet where technical review is level

1:10:55 ↗ one but many tells me if it's attached

1:10:58 ↗ to something that is a higher level of

1:11:00 ↗ review then it would Echo that higher

1:11:02 ↗ level of review but that's not clear in

1:11:04 ↗ the table so if somebody's looking at

1:11:06 ↗ that table thinking this is what I have

1:11:08 ↗ to do

1:11:09 ↗ you wouldn't know that by looking at the

1:11:11 ↗ table so that's also difficult for

1:11:14 ↗ someone to follow if if they're trying

1:11:17 ↗ to figure out what my process is right

1:11:19 ↗ so I think that needs to be

1:11:21 ↗ tidied up Master site plans for example

1:11:25 ↗ um Central Park is a quite a new uh

1:11:29 ↗ Master site plan that the parks

1:11:31 ↗ department did and so

1:11:34 ↗ um

1:11:35 ↗ when you talk about doing modifications

1:11:39 ↗ to Central Park and you say 10 percent I

1:11:42 ↗ go well 10 percent of what if you want

1:11:45 ↗ to look at 10 percent of a pervious

1:11:48 ↗ surface well you have ball fields you

1:11:50 ↗ have parking lots so

1:11:53 ↗ 10 percent of what's allowed 10 percent

1:11:57 ↗ of and I still didn't really understand

1:11:59 ↗ from what many said

1:12:02 ↗ I I still don't understand so if you

1:12:04 ↗ could ask for clarification on that and

1:12:07 ↗ then the parks department didn't know

1:12:09 ↗ about the change for the master site

1:12:11 ↗ plan and so I think they're going to

1:12:14 ↗ have a conversation about what they

1:12:16 ↗ think the process should be for planning

1:12:19 ↗ parks at their park board meeting so I

1:12:22 ↗ would be interested in hearing what they

1:12:24 ↗ think the right answer is for master

1:12:26 ↗ site plans because I really don't

1:12:27 ↗ understand if taking it to a level four

1:12:30 ↗ site development permit answers the mail

1:12:33 ↗ especially if they need a lot of years

1:12:35 ↗ to get a lot of money because some of

1:12:37 ↗ these parks are massively expensive you

1:12:39 ↗ might need 15 years in order to get the

1:12:42 ↗ money to do what you want to on a very

1:12:43 ↗ large Park

1:12:45 ↗ so

1:12:47 ↗ um forested hillsides it seems to me

1:12:50 ↗ there isn't the question of if you're

1:12:51 ↗ gonna impact the forested hillsides what

1:12:54 ↗ are the very large ways you could you

1:12:57 ↗ could not impact those could you shrink

1:12:59 ↗ the road could you get rid of a planter

1:13:01 ↗ strip could you do other things to

1:13:05 ↗ reduce it first so there's no sort of

1:13:06 ↗ priority order the last thing we want to

1:13:09 ↗ do is impact the forested hillside

1:13:11 ↗ instead we want to look at one two and

1:13:14 ↗ three first to see if we actually get to

1:13:16 ↗ the need for impacting those hillsides

1:13:19 ↗ and I don't see this sort of Step

1:13:21 ↗ criteria in there do we need sidewalks

1:13:25 ↗ on both sides of the road because that

1:13:26 ↗ side of the road won't be connected

1:13:28 ↗ anyway I don't know but there's some of

1:13:31 ↗ that in past code that actually worked

1:13:33 ↗ pretty well where you had to step

1:13:34 ↗ through all of the options that you

1:13:37 ↗ could take

1:13:38 ↗ and then a non-conforming

1:13:41 ↗ trying to create Pathways for

1:13:44 ↗ non-conforming uses to do good things

1:13:47 ↗ while preventing

1:13:49 ↗ non-conforming uses to do terrible

1:13:51 ↗ things I think is The Sweet Spot that we

1:13:54 ↗ want to get to because right now there's

1:13:57 ↗ a threshold and if you hit that

1:13:59 ↗ threshold bam you have to go into total

1:14:01 ↗ Conformity or it's a big huge hullabaloo

1:14:03 ↗ so where is the discussion on from

1:14:07 ↗ single family up to Lakeside you're big

1:14:11 ↗ and you could do Terrible Things Connie

1:14:13 ↗ or five minutes I'm really close so a

1:14:17 ↗ conversation about where those

1:14:20 ↗ thresholds should be and what you want

1:14:23 ↗ to encourage in non-conforming and how

1:14:25 ↗ you could create criteria

1:14:27 ↗ for those would be I think awesome

1:14:30 ↗ that's it thank you

1:14:37 ↗ chair voice just checking the room one

1:14:38 ↗ more time

1:14:39 ↗ for public comment

1:14:42 ↗ I'm not seeing any so I'm gonna check on

1:14:43 ↗ mine

1:14:46 ↗ Kim did you want to speak to public

1:14:47 ↗ comment tonight

1:14:49 ↗ no Kyler spoke on behalf of Lakeside and

1:14:52 ↗ did a great job okay great thank you

1:14:56 ↗ and then we have one call in user that I

1:14:59 ↗ am unmuting now

1:15:01 ↗ did you want to speak to public comment

1:15:03 ↗ tonight

1:15:07 ↗ thank you

1:15:10 ↗ and we have one more

1:15:12 ↗ Roberta did you want to speak to public

1:15:13 ↗ comment tonight

1:15:15 ↗ that was me just answering oh okay that

1:15:18 ↗ was you all right perfect thank you so

1:15:20 ↗ much

1:15:21 ↗ chair voice that is everybody

1:15:25 ↗ all right well I want to thank everybody

1:15:26 ↗ for participating in the public hearing

1:15:28 ↗ all of our attendees uh in person and

1:15:31 ↗ virtually

1:15:33 ↗ nobody was virtual that's the problem

1:15:36 ↗ with the script right so I'd like to

1:15:38 ↗ close the public hearing and it is

1:15:40 ↗ currently 809 pm

1:15:43 ↗ so Commissioners what we've talked

1:15:45 ↗ whether I've talked with staff

1:15:47 ↗ previously yesterday what we'd like to

1:15:48 ↗ do is move through the policy questions

1:15:51 ↗ um again especially with our audio out I

1:15:54 ↗ am going to ask that you guys wave me

1:15:55 ↗ down I think it's good practice period

1:15:57 ↗ but definitely today it's it's very

1:15:58 ↗ helpful let me call on you and then what

1:16:01 ↗ I'd like to do is once we go through the

1:16:04 ↗ policy questions is we'll do a round

1:16:05 ↗ robin follow-up in case anybody has

1:16:08 ↗ anything I'll start with commissioner

1:16:10 ↗ esimuede and we'll move down but let's

1:16:13 ↗ get through the policy questions first

1:16:15 ↗ you know people can buzz in as they'd

1:16:16 ↗ like and then again once we kind of work

1:16:19 ↗ through the policy questions we'll do a

1:16:22 ↗ round robin and we'll wrap this up

1:16:25 ↗ foreign

1:16:26 ↗ all right

1:16:28 ↗ so I believe many are going to help

1:16:30 ↗ guide us by putting up the policy

1:16:32 ↗ questions we have that pertain to Parts

1:16:34 ↗ one through four this evening that is

1:16:36 ↗ where we'd like to stick as far as our

1:16:38 ↗ deliberations again uh next week we will

1:16:42 ↗ be deliberating Parts five through eight

1:16:44 ↗ and then the following week I believe is

1:16:46 ↗ February 2nd that is where we're going

1:16:48 ↗ to capture everything that we've

1:16:49 ↗ discussed everything the public has

1:16:51 ↗ discussed in the last two weeks and

1:16:53 ↗ it'll be a little bit of a free-for-all

1:16:55 ↗ we'll be able to discuss almost

1:16:56 ↗ everything and ultimately the idea is by

1:16:59 ↗ the end of that meeting we will be

1:17:01 ↗ giving a recommendation that is really

1:17:03 ↗ where you're going to be able to give

1:17:04 ↗ your vote you're up or down

1:17:07 ↗ and we can also do amendments which I'm

1:17:09 ↗ horrible at but there is that option too

1:17:13 ↗ all right so let's begin with

1:17:15 ↗ deliberations uh Minnie can you kind of

1:17:18 ↗ guide us through this I can bring that

1:17:19 ↗ up and before we launch into the

1:17:21 ↗ discussion on that I just wanted to

1:17:22 ↗ clarify one thing so we have the

1:17:24 ↗ representative from Department of

1:17:26 ↗ ecology in the audience today if the

1:17:29 ↗ Commissioners have any questions for

1:17:30 ↗ them I can bring up on my screen just a

1:17:33 ↗ quick synopsis of the shoreline master

1:17:35 ↗ program for anyone that's interested and

1:17:38 ↗ then if you have any questions for

1:17:39 ↗ Rebecca please okay

1:17:47 ↗ now

1:18:01 ↗ so real quickly

1:18:03 ↗ um

1:18:09 ↗ so Stephen's saying maybe we should

1:18:11 ↗ reopen the public hearing to formally

1:18:13 ↗ capture

1:18:15 ↗ um fair enough presentation you guys

1:18:17 ↗ surprised me I thought we were doing

1:18:18 ↗ this next week we were I think there was

1:18:21 ↗ just a miscommunication

1:18:23 ↗ um yeah our team sparked we will reopen

1:18:27 ↗ the public hearing at 8 12 p.m the

1:18:30 ↗ shoreline master program

1:18:32 ↗ I believe actually anything technically

1:18:38 ↗ um so for the shoreline master program

1:18:40 ↗ we've removed the common line setback

1:18:43 ↗ this was something that the council

1:18:44 ↗ asked us to do it used to be that if you

1:18:47 ↗ had homes that were closer to the the

1:18:50 ↗ Lakes Edge then you could do an average

1:18:53 ↗ or something and then you know you could

1:18:55 ↗ still not meet your required minimum

1:18:57 ↗ setback so that has been um we actually

1:19:01 ↗ studied uh Watershed company did a whole

1:19:03 ↗ characterization of all the parcels and

1:19:06 ↗ determined that there was not going to

1:19:07 ↗ be a huge impact as a result of taking

1:19:09 ↗ that provision away so that's been

1:19:12 ↗ removed there's no longer a reference to

1:19:14 ↗ buffer reduction because that went away

1:19:16 ↗ in the critical areas code the bulkhead

1:19:19 ↗ removal was an incentive that if you did

1:19:23 ↗ and it was hardly ever used but if you

1:19:27 ↗ removed it you know if you did if you

1:19:30 ↗ you were allowed to build closer to the

1:19:32 ↗ lake if you remove the bulkhead but

1:19:34 ↗ because bulkhead removal was so

1:19:36 ↗ extensive nobody really he took us up on

1:19:39 ↗ that incentive that often except for one

1:19:42 ↗ in the last 30 years or so so but at the

1:19:45 ↗ cost of actually getting

1:19:47 ↗ structures built closer to the lake so

1:19:49 ↗ that has been removed

1:19:51 ↗ um

1:19:52 ↗ but actually we're requiring bulkhead

1:19:55 ↗ removal for new homes and Redevelopment

1:19:58 ↗ and then the dock lighting standards to

1:20:03 ↗ because there's a lot of studies that

1:20:05 ↗ show the color the temperature and the

1:20:07 ↗ intensity of the light from the

1:20:09 ↗ Lakeshore actually impacts the The

1:20:11 ↗ Aquatic Life and so there are more

1:20:15 ↗ stricter dock lighting standards

1:20:18 ↗ and the last

1:20:22 ↗ um we've added some thresholds for when

1:20:24 ↗ the dock lighting has to come into

1:20:25 ↗ standards you know when you're building

1:20:28 ↗ a new dock or there's some Redevelopment

1:20:31 ↗ that triggers that

1:20:33 ↗ um the critical area ordinance which you

1:20:36 ↗ will look at in your part 8 has a lot of

1:20:40 ↗ new standards that will not be attached

1:20:43 ↗ as an appendix to the Shoreline master

1:20:47 ↗ program the largest change there is

1:20:50 ↗ through the best available science

1:20:51 ↗ analysis that the city did the stream

1:20:54 ↗ buffers 150 feet so the three water

1:20:59 ↗ bodies that are subject state of waters

1:21:01 ↗ of the state will have those buffer

1:21:03 ↗ increases so that's the extent of the

1:21:06 ↗ changes under the s p but if you have

1:21:08 ↗ any questions for Rebecca we can also

1:21:11 ↗ address this in our future public

1:21:13 ↗ hearings as well more details about it

1:21:16 ↗ but due to

1:21:19 ↗ Department of ecology is presence here

1:21:21 ↗ if you have anything specific for

1:21:24 ↗ um that you'd like to talk about we can

1:21:26 ↗ do that now

1:21:33 ↗ all right well thank you Minnie we

1:21:35 ↗ appreciate that

1:21:36 ↗ um because we've opened the pub the

1:21:38 ↗ public hearing again if there's anyone

1:21:39 ↗ who'd like to speak on the shoreline

1:21:41 ↗ master plan we'd ask you to do that now

1:21:44 ↗ I guess technically we'd want to do

1:21:46 ↗ clarifying questions first

1:21:48 ↗ clarifying questions first I will be the

1:21:50 ↗ first to admit that because I did not

1:21:52 ↗ know this was in our

1:21:53 ↗ agenda tonight I did not do homework on

1:21:56 ↗ the S P although I know a lot of this

1:21:58 ↗ work has been done previously but

1:22:00 ↗ full disclosure

1:22:02 ↗ one thing you guys should know is that

1:22:05 ↗ as long as we have these public hearings

1:22:07 ↗ you can comment on the S P you can send

1:22:09 ↗ questions into staff so again if you

1:22:12 ↗ don't have anything to offer up tonight

1:22:14 ↗ as far as the s p you can still comment

1:22:16 ↗ on it for the next three weeks so I want

1:22:19 ↗ to make sure that that's clear and

1:22:21 ↗ that's also for our audience

1:22:25 ↗ as long as we're having public hearings

1:22:27 ↗ we will have that option available

1:22:29 ↗ however our doe consultant is only here

1:22:33 ↗ tonight

1:22:35 ↗ so any clarifying questions as far as

1:22:38 ↗ the s p

1:22:40 ↗ commissioner Lewis

1:22:42 ↗ I have two little questions that are

1:22:44 ↗ actually not terribly related but I

1:22:46 ↗ would like to to see if I can better

1:22:48 ↗ understand something and it's to say um

1:22:50 ↗ I am having trouble with the ordinary

1:22:52 ↗ high water mark uh with a change in

1:22:56 ↗ precipitation and with a change of

1:22:58 ↗ glacial melt this is something that is

1:23:00 ↗ not as fixed as we thought it used to be

1:23:02 ↗ and using it as a standard it's been

1:23:04 ↗ hard to see how this adjusts in real

1:23:06 ↗ time in our community that has real

1:23:08 ↗ impacts from flooding and I'm curious to

1:23:11 ↗ kind of better understand how some of

1:23:13 ↗ these things like ordinary High

1:23:14 ↗ Watermark that we default and fall back

1:23:17 ↗ on and we say well Department of ecology

1:23:18 ↗ gives us this these are the numbers we

1:23:21 ↗ don't mess with them how can I better

1:23:22 ↗ understand

1:23:23 ↗ how we're getting these

1:23:27 ↗ sure

1:23:30 ↗ and thank you for letting us just

1:23:32 ↗ randomly pick your brain without any

1:23:34 ↗ background or prep on your part hi good

1:23:38 ↗ evening and thank you for having me

1:23:39 ↗ Rebecca Padgett with the state

1:23:41 ↗ department of ecology I'm a shoreline

1:23:43 ↗ planner and I'm hoping in the review of

1:23:46 ↗ the SMP Amendment

1:23:49 ↗ um

1:23:49 ↗ my understanding and I'm new to this

1:23:52 ↗ role so I hope you'll have patience with

1:23:54 ↗ me and if you need something further I'm

1:23:58 ↗ happy to go research and get back to you

1:24:00 ↗ my understanding with ordinary high

1:24:02 ↗ water mark is that it is that it is not

1:24:04 ↗ a a static line like on a bulkhead or

1:24:09 ↗ something like that it's determined uh

1:24:12 ↗ generally speaking on a case-by-case

1:24:13 ↗ basis

1:24:15 ↗ um I don't know if you want to chime in

1:24:18 ↗ on that but sure

1:24:20 ↗ um you know we can have Christian

1:24:25 ↗ yeah so for for bodies of water that are

1:24:27 ↗ regulated in their elevation like Lake

1:24:29 ↗ Washington and like Sammamish that are

1:24:30 ↗ tied to the the locks

1:24:33 ↗ um out in Ballard

1:24:34 ↗ uh ordinary High Watermark shifts

1:24:36 ↗ summertime and winter time so in the

1:24:38 ↗ summer comes up and the winter it drops

1:24:40 ↗ down

1:24:41 ↗ um to accommodate you know the influx of

1:24:43 ↗ rain that we get from local streams

1:24:46 ↗ um streams and wetlands they have you

1:24:48 ↗ know a different more important Dynamic

1:24:50 ↗ uh means for calculating ordinary water

1:24:53 ↗ it's generally the the scour Mark where

1:24:56 ↗ you can see the channel in Lakes though

1:24:58 ↗ like Lake Sammamish or Lake Washington

1:25:00 ↗ the order Watermark is often found when

1:25:04 ↗ you go out to a doctor you look at the

1:25:05 ↗ shoreline and you see a kind of a stain

1:25:08 ↗ on on rocks or on the pure pilings

1:25:11 ↗ themselves once that water starts

1:25:13 ↗ dropping down towards the end of the

1:25:15 ↗ summer and that is the ordinary high and

1:25:18 ↗ it's regulated at 21.8 feet on Lake

1:25:21 ↗ Washington I think it's

1:25:22 ↗ 31.4 or somewhere around there on Lake

1:25:25 ↗ Sammamish so it is a set amount a set of

1:25:27 ↗ elevation that can fluctuate over time

1:25:30 ↗ given rain but the the high water mark

1:25:33 ↗ is where

1:25:34 ↗ jurisdictions

1:25:36 ↗ measure things from a known point that

1:25:39 ↗ through the Army Corps of Engineers

1:25:42 ↗ kind of set those for both of those Lake

1:25:45 ↗ systems and when those are set are is

1:25:48 ↗ that done on an annual review I mean

1:25:50 ↗ we're we're in we're in a period

1:25:52 ↗ permanent they're permanently set if

1:25:54 ↗ they were to if they were to change that

1:25:56 ↗ would be a a large undertaking by Army

1:26:00 ↗ Corps fish and wildlife department of

1:26:01 ↗ ecology

1:26:02 ↗ based on how much water is Flowing out

1:26:05 ↗ of out of the locks through the

1:26:08 ↗ Sammamish Slough to maintain the

1:26:11 ↗ required

1:26:13 ↗ cubic feet per second better

1:26:15 ↗ through tree rights and everything to

1:26:17 ↗ make sure that the fish passage is is

1:26:20 ↗ consistent yeah yeah so if we if so who

1:26:24 ↗ is his monitoring to be able to be able

1:26:26 ↗ to track effectively the increase in

1:26:28 ↗ volume and flow that's coming down

1:26:31 ↗ the Army Corps and is that something

1:26:33 ↗ that we have any part in reporting on or

1:26:36 ↗ monitoring because then that kind of

1:26:38 ↗ sorry I'll say that that leads me to

1:26:40 ↗ right now we're using the 100 year for

1:26:43 ↗ our flood base we're using the 100 year

1:26:45 ↗ mark and I mean just in the last 20

1:26:48 ↗ years we've had several hundred year

1:26:49 ↗ floods in our community Alone

1:26:51 ↗ um and so then there's a question of

1:26:53 ↗ well why wouldn't we use the 500 year

1:26:56 ↗ um as another measure and I'm curious of

1:26:59 ↗ kind of how these numbers interplay of

1:27:01 ↗ how I can how I can better understand

1:27:02 ↗ sure because often when we talk to staff

1:27:04 ↗ staff tells us well this is already set

1:27:06 ↗ for us right this isn't something we

1:27:08 ↗ determine

1:27:09 ↗ true the ordinary Watermark is is at the

1:27:12 ↗ flood plain you know those levels can

1:27:14 ↗ can fluctuate and that's a a bigger

1:27:16 ↗ conversation with King County flood

1:27:18 ↗ District

1:27:19 ↗ um and you know

1:27:22 ↗ yeah I think we're mixing the the issues

1:27:25 ↗ it's sort of interrelated but the the

1:27:27 ↗ flood plain is through the Federal

1:27:29 ↗ Emergency and the FEMA maps that does an

1:27:32 ↗ undertaking of looking at all the maps

1:27:34 ↗ and then designates the 100 Year

1:27:35 ↗ floodplain and the 500 and we've gone

1:27:37 ↗ through that exercise of updating our

1:27:40 ↗ flood regulations and and and you know

1:27:42 ↗ looking at climate change and what does

1:27:44 ↗ that impact going to have what do we

1:27:46 ↗ need to proactively design for base

1:27:48 ↗ flood elevation plus one foot or not you

1:27:51 ↗ know so I don't know you probably all

1:27:52 ↗ were probably briefed on all the flood

1:27:55 ↗ regulations that were recently updated

1:27:57 ↗ by the city

1:27:58 ↗ um the ordinary high water mark for the

1:28:00 ↗ Lakes is set but for streams if there is

1:28:03 ↗ a development proposal that comes in we

1:28:05 ↗ would have a surveyor go out and

1:28:07 ↗ determine actually in the field at that

1:28:09 ↗ time where that is and then it gets

1:28:12 ↗ surveyed and prepared the plans are

1:28:14 ↗ prepared accordingly

1:28:16 ↗ thank you yeah

1:28:20 ↗ commissioner esemoida

1:28:24 ↗ just to pile on to commissioner Lewis's

1:28:27 ↗ question regarding

1:28:30 ↗ um I guess floodplains ordinary high

1:28:33 ↗ water mark I guess the question is since

1:28:35 ↗ we're

1:28:37 ↗ discussed properties around the

1:28:39 ↗ shoreline per se has there been

1:28:42 ↗ discussions outside of here of course

1:28:44 ↗ with your team in let's say the Army

1:28:47 ↗ Corps of Engineers because it's

1:28:48 ↗ understood that the precipitation is

1:28:51 ↗ more per se today than it was when a lot

1:28:55 ↗ when a lot of those

1:28:57 ↗ um markers were set per se and I and I

1:29:01 ↗ asked this because I've seen examples

1:29:04 ↗ where in certain jurisdictions where

1:29:07 ↗ they're essentially

1:29:10 ↗ um

1:29:10 ↗ remapping out that flood plain and its

1:29:13 ↗ effect and properties

1:29:15 ↗ sure yeah so that's the floodplain is

1:29:18 ↗ handled by

1:29:20 ↗ um a wing of Department of ecology but

1:29:22 ↗ really the FEMA regulations

1:29:25 ↗ um the the FEMA maps that come out so

1:29:27 ↗ yes there aren't periodic updates that's

1:29:30 ↗ a huge deal for a lot of people because

1:29:32 ↗ uh from insurance perspective and others

1:29:35 ↗ uh the city participates in the program

1:29:37 ↗ where because we do these things

1:29:40 ↗ proactively the the property owners get

1:29:43 ↗ a rebate on flood insurance and things

1:29:45 ↗ so that's that's a very complicated

1:29:47 ↗ process that that we can get into

1:29:50 ↗ details at some point with you all if

1:29:52 ↗ you're interested

1:29:54 ↗ thank you

1:29:58 ↗ any other questions for

1:30:01 ↗ the shoreline master plan

1:30:05 ↗ all right well thank you very much we

1:30:06 ↗ appreciate you joining us thank you

1:30:08 ↗ Minnie for the presentation and I'm

1:30:09 ↗ sorry what was your name Rebecca and my

1:30:12 ↗ apologies again for the miscommunication

1:30:14 ↗ and not being able to attend next week I

1:30:16 ↗ didn't mean to set you on off your your

1:30:19 ↗ game thank you thank you Rebecca we

1:30:22 ↗ appreciate it

1:30:25 ↗ all right

1:30:27 ↗ having had clarifying questions

1:30:30 ↗ we now would like to open up for public

1:30:32 ↗ comment this particular public comment

1:30:34 ↗ is now solely for the shoreline master

1:30:37 ↗ plan

1:30:38 ↗ so would anyone like to make a public

1:30:40 ↗ comment uh in regarding to the

1:30:42 ↗ presentation they just heard

1:30:44 ↗ um

1:30:45 ↗ from Rebecca and Minnie

1:30:50 ↗ you have your typical five minutes

1:31:04 ↗ okay Shoreline master program

1:31:08 ↗ much much the same but having 150 foot

1:31:11 ↗ buffers that you that you can't do very

1:31:15 ↗ much with it's awesome lighting is

1:31:18 ↗ awesome and I think there is a clearer

1:31:21 ↗ connection to the critical area code

1:31:24 ↗ within the shoreline master program

1:31:26 ↗ that's just it right there and the

1:31:29 ↗ confusing part will be that people while

1:31:32 ↗ they're reading the shoreline master

1:31:34 ↗ program are going to want to flip to the

1:31:37 ↗ code elsewhere instead of going down to

1:31:41 ↗ the code that's below it

1:31:44 ↗ um and over time they could end up being

1:31:48 ↗ different pieces

1:31:50 ↗ for a while as you change one I don't

1:31:54 ↗ know how that's exactly going to work

1:31:56 ↗ but I want to be sure that the shoreline

1:31:58 ↗ master program clearly states that and

1:32:02 ↗ is linked to the code that goes below

1:32:05 ↗ and then this is a general problem with

1:32:08 ↗ both our critical area code and

1:32:10 ↗ especially our Shoreline master program

1:32:12 ↗ in that when we have our large bodies of

1:32:16 ↗ water and someone wants to impact those

1:32:18 ↗ larger bodies especially wetlands they

1:32:21 ↗ tend to get handled through the core and

1:32:24 ↗ then through ecology and both of those

1:32:27 ↗ groups of people like Banks and they

1:32:30 ↗ want the mitigations to go into Banks

1:32:32 ↗ but we have this glorious Wetland and we

1:32:36 ↗ have a state park and we have this

1:32:38 ↗ amazing fish habitat and so we are then

1:32:42 ↗ losing the opportunity to continue to

1:32:44 ↗ improve our own area with mitigation and

1:32:50 ↗ uh

1:32:52 ↗ we're pretty good at it they want it

1:32:54 ↗ that way because there's a lot of places

1:32:56 ↗ that don't have the luxury of these huge

1:32:58 ↗ Wetlands that we can do improvement with

1:33:00 ↗ and and I just keep wondering if there's

1:33:03 ↗ not some better way for us to create our

1:33:07 ↗ own mitigation bank or an agreement with

1:33:10 ↗ these entities and be able to keep some

1:33:12 ↗ of our improvements on site as compared

1:33:15 ↗ to shipping them off elsewhere now if

1:33:19 ↗ there's some mitigation up on a hill I

1:33:21 ↗ could see why it could go to a bank

1:33:22 ↗ somewhere else because it's not so

1:33:24 ↗ connected but you just look look at that

1:33:27 ↗ valley floor and everything you could do

1:33:29 ↗ to make it awesome yet instead people

1:33:32 ↗ are paying money and shipping it off to

1:33:34 ↗ a different mitigation bank which is

1:33:36 ↗ great

1:33:38 ↗ but not necessarily great for our

1:33:41 ↗ habitat

1:33:42 ↗ um and and that is like a discussion

1:33:45 ↗ with the state and discussion with the

1:33:47 ↗ feds so you guys probably aren't going

1:33:50 ↗ to win that discussion but at least you

1:33:52 ↗ could ask for that discussion to to

1:33:54 ↗ happen and see what better thing we

1:33:56 ↗ could get done thanks

1:34:11 ↗ foreign

1:34:13 ↗ is there anyone in the room that would

1:34:14 ↗ like to speak to the Shoreline master

1:34:16 ↗ plan

1:34:21 ↗ uh Stephen do we have anyone online that

1:34:23 ↗ would like to speak to it

1:34:25 ↗ I'm not seeing any hands online

1:34:27 ↗ let's give it a second

1:34:30 ↗ yeah no one online wants to speak to

1:34:33 ↗ public comment okay and next week

1:34:36 ↗ um again that was my football but next

1:34:38 ↗ week people will be able to still

1:34:40 ↗ continue to comment on this SMP during

1:34:42 ↗ our public hearing on title 18. so we

1:34:45 ↗ won't do a specific

1:34:46 ↗ second presentation that again that was

1:34:49 ↗ my fault but um

1:34:51 ↗ we we will still take comments on the s

1:34:53 ↗ p

1:34:54 ↗ so I would like to close the public

1:34:57 ↗ hearing at 8 28.

1:35:04 ↗ okay

1:35:06 ↗ I was saying something uh basically

1:35:09 ↗ about the way we're going to deliberate

1:35:10 ↗ and so I think what we'd like to do is

1:35:12 ↗ have many put the questions and policy

1:35:15 ↗ questions up on the screen for our

1:35:16 ↗ commissioners and please again just

1:35:19 ↗ raise you know raise your hand let me

1:35:21 ↗ call on you and then once we get through

1:35:24 ↗ the policy questions we'll do a final

1:35:25 ↗ round robin

1:35:27 ↗ and that should take us

1:35:31 ↗ through our regular business

1:35:32 ↗ so please Mini

1:35:35 ↗ I think one of your Commissioners has a

1:35:38 ↗ question ah commissioner Lewis

1:35:40 ↗ thank you I'd like to start this

1:35:42 ↗ discussion of policy question number one

1:35:43 ↗ with a question I feel humor me many

1:35:46 ↗ especially because we have council

1:35:48 ↗ tonight

1:35:49 ↗ um I have been diving into kind of so

1:35:52 ↗ far it's page 79 for anyone looking at

1:35:54 ↗ the pre-application community meeting so

1:35:57 ↗ there's this notion well it's this is

1:36:00 ↗ what we've been told right is that there

1:36:02 ↗ needs to be one public hearing and

1:36:05 ↗ that is based on RCW 3670b120

1:36:12 ↗ for anybody who's gone and read it

1:36:14 ↗ you're in good company I did too and I'm

1:36:17 ↗ reading it really differently and I

1:36:20 ↗ would love to be straightened out

1:36:21 ↗ because I'm reading that this is just

1:36:23 ↗ for consolidation and it's only if the

1:36:27 ↗ applicant has multiple permits and they

1:36:29 ↗ pick that they're consolidating them so

1:36:31 ↗ if an applicant doesn't pick that then

1:36:33 ↗ it doesn't apply and I'm reading that as

1:36:36 ↗ I think my note says each local

1:36:38 ↗ government shall determine which permits

1:36:40 ↗ are subject to open record and

1:36:42 ↗ disclosures so Issaquah could decide

1:36:44 ↗ actually no we want to have more than

1:36:47 ↗ one based on the RCW that we're not as

1:36:50 ↗ boxed in as we think so I would love to

1:36:52 ↗ be straightened out

1:36:53 ↗ by our Council

1:36:55 ↗ um to kind of figure out if we're able

1:36:58 ↗ to have pre-application meetings plus a

1:37:00 ↗ public hearing if you know if we as a

1:37:03 ↗ community are able to decide it because

1:37:04 ↗ my reading of the RCW is not as

1:37:06 ↗ straightforward I I think

1:37:09 ↗ um maybe the the pre-application

1:37:11 ↗ community meeting is just informational

1:37:13 ↗ meeting it's not a public hearing you're

1:37:16 ↗ just sharing the information the

1:37:17 ↗ application hasn't come in yet it's it's

1:37:20 ↗ before the the applicant is in the

1:37:22 ↗ design phase and wants to hear from the

1:37:24 ↗ community so that's that that chap that

1:37:26 ↗ section that you're looking at once an

1:37:29 ↗ application is in yes there's a state

1:37:32 ↗ law that you the the applicant can bump

1:37:35 ↗ up if there's you know a variance needed

1:37:37 ↗ and a development commission decision

1:37:40 ↗ needed they have the right to bump up

1:37:42 ↗ everything to the highest body and and

1:37:44 ↗ they can hold one hearing and both those

1:37:46 ↗ applications a variance and a site

1:37:48 ↗ development permit

1:37:50 ↗ that's why they consolidate right am I

1:37:52 ↗ reading that right that that's

1:37:53 ↗ consolidation of bumping everything to

1:37:55 ↗ the highest level for the hearing

1:37:57 ↗ purposes what what we're talking over

1:37:59 ↗ here is

1:38:01 ↗ uh uh one public hearing so you can't

1:38:04 ↗ have like you know it can be a

1:38:07 ↗ continuation of the hearing or whatever

1:38:08 ↗ kind of thing but you can't have get

1:38:11 ↗ into a series of public hearings over

1:38:13 ↗ the same application so so in the case

1:38:17 ↗ of a quasi-judicial reason

1:38:20 ↗ you hold one public hearing

1:38:23 ↗ um and then you have to make a decision

1:38:26 ↗ the council could hold a closed record

1:38:29 ↗ hearing they would take all the

1:38:31 ↗ information but they can't talk to

1:38:33 ↗ anyone so you again are kind of creating

1:38:36 ↗ these

1:38:37 ↗ um nuances so therefore our

1:38:39 ↗ recommendation was the hearing examiner

1:38:41 ↗ builds that record collects all the

1:38:43 ↗ public testimony and then makes it makes

1:38:46 ↗ a decision in you know looking at the

1:38:49 ↗ criteria and prepares all that record

1:38:51 ↗ for Council then to make a decision on

1:38:54 ↗ it

1:38:55 ↗ um

1:38:56 ↗ but but it can be you know but but it

1:38:59 ↗ would still bar the council from holding

1:39:01 ↗ their own open record hearing if Council

1:39:04 ↗ chooses to hold their open record

1:39:06 ↗ hearing that where they want to directly

1:39:08 ↗ hear from the community members then the

1:39:11 ↗ third option would apply that they would

1:39:13 ↗ hold the public hearing themselves and

1:39:15 ↗ make a decision they won't get a public

1:39:17 ↗ hearing held by either PPC or a hearing

1:39:19 ↗ examiner regardless of the consolidation

1:39:22 ↗ that's been chosen or not chosen the

1:39:24 ↗ consolidation is of different permits I

1:39:26 ↗ think the section that you're

1:39:27 ↗ referencing this is one application

1:39:29 ↗ there's no consolidation it's once an

1:39:31 ↗ application comes in you you have to

1:39:34 ↗ have one public open record hearing I

1:39:36 ↗ don't know if Rachel you want to add two

1:39:38 ↗ anything more okay

1:39:43 ↗ it's not a very well

1:39:45 ↗ for a statue

1:39:46 ↗ [Music]

1:39:50 ↗ it's a confusing statute it's not very

1:39:52 ↗ well written but it does say you you can

1:39:55 ↗ only have one hearing

1:39:57 ↗ okay thank you yeah you're welcome

1:40:05 ↗ thank you commissioner Lewis anyone um

1:40:08 ↗ would like to speak on policy question

1:40:11 ↗ one

1:40:15 ↗ commissioner altmore

1:40:18 ↗ thank you last week we talked about the

1:40:21 ↗ value of the Commissioners up here being

1:40:23 ↗ lived experience and I have gone through

1:40:27 ↗ this process with a hearings examiner

1:40:28 ↗ and I found it to be really beneficial

1:40:30 ↗ because it was so impartial and that it

1:40:34 ↗ was set on criteria and the public was

1:40:36 ↗ included so that would be just wanted to

1:40:39 ↗ put my vote out there my voice out there

1:40:40 ↗ that I am in favor of the of the

1:40:42 ↗ recommendation

1:40:44 ↗ thank you commissioner altimore

1:40:46 ↗ commissioner Milligan

1:40:48 ↗ chair uh and thank you commissioner

1:40:52 ↗ altamar I agree with you on on with a

1:40:56 ↗ caveat uh and for this for a similar

1:40:58 ↗ reason the collection of the public

1:41:02 ↗ comment is a very technical thing to do

1:41:05 ↗ and the lived experience

1:41:07 ↗ um

1:41:08 ↗ burdened what can be carried by the city

1:41:10 ↗ council as elected officials who have

1:41:13 ↗ their responsibility to the city at

1:41:17 ↗ large so I appreciate the pairing but I

1:41:20 ↗ as I said earlier today I was concerned

1:41:22 ↗ about the accessibility of the hearing

1:41:24 ↗ examiner and I think that we do need to

1:41:25 ↗ make a list of

1:41:28 ↗ of public hearings that need to be

1:41:30 ↗ during our public time so that could be

1:41:33 ↗ site-specific read zones it could be

1:41:35 ↗ preliminary plots it could be a whole

1:41:37 ↗ number of things I think you knew

1:41:39 ↗ intuitively what they were anyway

1:41:42 ↗ oh it's not the fire alarm thank God

1:41:45 ↗ okay so I am I am also for the

1:41:50 ↗ recommendation with that caveat thank

1:41:52 ↗ you

1:41:54 ↗ thank you commissioner million

1:41:56 ↗ this room these last two weeks something

1:42:00 ↗ else

1:42:02 ↗ Commissioners any other commissioner

1:42:04 ↗ Lewis

1:42:06 ↗ I was actually very interested last week

1:42:08 ↗ in the thinking outside of the box when

1:42:11 ↗ Jesse had the suggestion of the

1:42:13 ↗ combination I like the idea of having

1:42:15 ↗ the public hearing sit with the hearing

1:42:17 ↗ examiner and I like the idea of using

1:42:20 ↗ our boards and commissions for the very

1:42:22 ↗ purpose that we have them and being able

1:42:24 ↗ to have city council when making that

1:42:26 ↗ discuss making that decision they have

1:42:28 ↗ multiple sources and opinions so while I

1:42:30 ↗ like the idea of having the public

1:42:32 ↗ hearing sit with the hearing examiner I

1:42:35 ↗ like the idea of having PPC being able

1:42:38 ↗ to submit their advice to council as

1:42:42 ↗ well for the site-specific rezones so I

1:42:44 ↗ thought that was

1:42:45 ↗ um I thought that was a lovely way to be

1:42:48 ↗ able to have the best of all worlds

1:42:53 ↗ with the site-specific rezones the

1:42:57 ↗ the objective should not should be that

1:42:59 ↗ there shouldn't be advice the objective

1:43:02 ↗ I think should be that people meet the

1:43:04 ↗ criteria or they don't meet the criteria

1:43:06 ↗ and so I think what you the goal should

1:43:10 ↗ be is to create criteria that U.S policy

1:43:13 ↗ makers are comfortable with and then to

1:43:17 ↗ hopefully find a decision maker who is

1:43:22 ↗ able to apply those criteria in a bias

1:43:26 ↗ free Manner and free of any political

1:43:28 ↗ influence and that's not to say that

1:43:30 ↗ anyone in any of the legislative or

1:43:33 ↗ advisory boards is biased but it's

1:43:37 ↗ really hard to be objective even if it's

1:43:40 ↗ you know unconsciously when it's your

1:43:43 ↗ community when it's your home I mean I

1:43:46 ↗ know at least for my my own self and I

1:43:49 ↗ think that we can all just have some

1:43:50 ↗ sort of kind of unconscious feelings

1:43:53 ↗ about projects like that and when we

1:43:55 ↗ have someone who's a trained profession

1:43:57 ↗ Channel come in I think that they're

1:43:59 ↗ more able to just look at does this meet

1:44:03 ↗ this criteria or does it not of course

1:44:06 ↗ that doesn't preclude anyone in the

1:44:09 ↗ community including any member of an

1:44:11 ↗ Advisory Board from coming and giving

1:44:14 ↗ their opinion or making their you know

1:44:16 ↗ giving their advice in the form of

1:44:18 ↗ making

1:44:20 ↗ testimony or giving you know their

1:44:22 ↗ comment to the hearing examiner so you

1:44:25 ↗ you can still give your advice or your

1:44:27 ↗ you know your feedback that way but I

1:44:30 ↗ don't think that the purpose of uh I

1:44:34 ↗ don't think that when you're dealing

1:44:36 ↗ with quasi-judicial matters that it's

1:44:40 ↗ really the they're not policy decisions

1:44:42 ↗ they're they're really specific legal

1:44:46 ↗ issues and so

1:44:48 ↗ it's it's kind of dangerous and risky to

1:44:51 ↗ even think about them in terms of giving

1:44:53 ↗ advice that's more of a that's looking

1:44:57 ↗ at it more through a policy lens I think

1:45:02 ↗ I wanted commissary Kennedy

1:45:06 ↗ I just wanted to support the hearing

1:45:09 ↗ examiner recommendation

1:45:12 ↗ we impart you know some of the same

1:45:14 ↗ comments that you've made but we really

1:45:16 ↗ have to think about this as bringing in

1:45:19 ↗ a disinterested third party we do bring

1:45:21 ↗ a lot of great Community experience

1:45:24 ↗ to a lot of parts of this job but when a

1:45:28 ↗ really objective decision needs to be

1:45:31 ↗ made we have to be really honest about

1:45:33 ↗ how black and white we can be we went

1:45:36 ↗ through this process at the end of the

1:45:38 ↗ year and we struggled and we struggled

1:45:41 ↗ because we knew the party making the

1:45:44 ↗ request I mean it's the reason that if

1:45:47 ↗ you are call if you're impounded on a

1:45:49 ↗ jury well you wouldn't be impeddled on a

1:45:51 ↗ jury where you knew the litigants or the

1:45:53 ↗ council the reason is because you're not

1:45:55 ↗ impartial we're not impartial to things

1:45:58 ↗ that are brought before us in this

1:46:00 ↗ community and there are these decisions

1:46:03 ↗ that really need black and white super

1:46:05 ↗ objective disinterested third parties to

1:46:07 ↗ look at it so I think we really need to

1:46:10 ↗ pay attention to that on this particular

1:46:12 ↗ policy question

1:46:14 ↗ thank you commissioner Kennedy that was

1:46:16 ↗ perfect because uh I'm going to share my

1:46:19 ↗ lived experience and I believe at the

1:46:21 ↗ end of the year I we actually this came

1:46:23 ↗ up

1:46:24 ↗ and I have to be honest part of the

1:46:26 ↗ reasons I recuse myself was because I

1:46:30 ↗ had a particular interest and I had a

1:46:32 ↗ great conversation with staff and I

1:46:34 ↗ think the problem and I agree with I

1:46:36 ↗ believe commissioner Kennedy

1:46:38 ↗ commissioner altamore commissioner

1:46:40 ↗ Milligan is it it showed me that it is

1:46:44 ↗ very difficult to do that and if I'm

1:46:46 ↗ being honest with myself really the

1:46:48 ↗ planning policy the whole idea and this

1:46:51 ↗ is to create the policy and then entrust

1:46:53 ↗ that we've done our job to pass it off

1:46:55 ↗ to that disinterested third party

1:46:58 ↗ my lived experience also remembers a

1:47:00 ↗ commissioner here commissioner Monahan

1:47:02 ↗ when all of us were talking about a

1:47:04 ↗ specific reason that I won't mention and

1:47:08 ↗ I think all of us had our opinions on it

1:47:10 ↗ and I think that bird was going down

1:47:12 ↗ until he actually said guys they they

1:47:15 ↗ did everything they were supposed to do

1:47:17 ↗ even if we don't like it technically

1:47:19 ↗ they've checked off all their boxes

1:47:21 ↗ I think we still said no and Council

1:47:24 ↗ actually came back and said no

1:47:26 ↗ commissioner Monahan was right they

1:47:28 ↗ technically did what they were needed to

1:47:30 ↗ do so I agree and that's my lift

1:47:32 ↗ experience so I'm in agreement with the

1:47:35 ↗ Commissioners I agree that the hearing

1:47:37 ↗ examiner then to city council is the

1:47:39 ↗ most appropriate form moving forward

1:47:45 ↗ Vice chair Bader yeah nothing new to add

1:47:48 ↗ I'll just go on the record saying that I

1:47:50 ↗ think that that

1:47:51 ↗ it's really a question of you know who

1:47:54 ↗ can best determine like yes it does or

1:47:56 ↗ no it doesn't meet these criteria what

1:47:58 ↗ has been said all along and I think

1:48:00 ↗ um given that that the hearing examiner

1:48:03 ↗ um followed by decision by city council

1:48:05 ↗ makes no sense here

1:48:09 ↗ right I mean

1:48:11 ↗ chair voice again I think our job is

1:48:14 ↗ really to set the policy to create the

1:48:16 ↗ policy and then let it go forth in the

1:48:18 ↗ world

1:48:19 ↗ and then have like

1:48:21 ↗ commissioner Kennedy said third party

1:48:23 ↗ would anyone else like to uh comment on

1:48:26 ↗ policy question one

1:48:29 ↗ so just for the record do we want to

1:48:31 ↗ just uh take a years and days on this so

1:48:34 ↗ that we can reflect it in our your

1:48:36 ↗ recommendation to uh Council committee I

1:48:40 ↗ I think that's a good idea because

1:48:41 ↗ that'll make our job on February 2nd a

1:48:43 ↗ little earlier if we can knock out the

1:48:45 ↗ ones that we have what looks like a

1:48:47 ↗ majority agreement and again obviously

1:48:49 ↗ that night people can throw up

1:48:51 ↗ amendments but I think you can get the

1:48:52 ↗ flavor of what's going to happen

1:48:54 ↗ so this is a non-form non-binding so

1:48:58 ↗ we're just looking for yays or Nays who

1:49:00 ↗ believes in policy option one hearing

1:49:03 ↗ Examiner

1:49:04 ↗ collects the information sends it off to

1:49:07 ↗ city council who makes the decision

1:49:10 ↗ thank you for the record unanimous

1:49:13 ↗ what's that

1:49:18 ↗ all right it's a unanimous decision

1:49:23 ↗ I started thinking you guys were gonna

1:49:24 ↗ make me

1:49:25 ↗ bungle up a motion or something okay I

1:49:28 ↗ started having nightmares what

1:49:31 ↗ yes okay so the Paul the the policy

1:49:34 ↗ decision is it was unanimous up here uh

1:49:37 ↗ all yays

1:49:38 ↗ um agreeing with the public hearing uh

1:49:40 ↗ should be held by the hearing examiner

1:49:42 ↗ and then on to city council

1:49:44 ↗ thank you

1:49:45 ↗ so this is the the nine criteria that in

1:49:48 ↗ our attempt to

1:49:51 ↗ um to fix the language make it more

1:49:53 ↗ clear especially the number two in terms

1:49:56 ↗ of the density and the growth targets

1:49:59 ↗ all that conversation we had so we've

1:50:00 ↗ kept the legislative intent of the

1:50:02 ↗ discussions but

1:50:04 ↗ um and I think we earlier talked about

1:50:06 ↗ May perhaps eliminating uh criteria

1:50:09 ↗ number one

1:50:10 ↗ um and to the attorney so it's nodded on

1:50:14 ↗ or agrees with with that concept but

1:50:17 ↗ beyond that change so does everyone

1:50:19 ↗ agreed have any heartburn over number

1:50:23 ↗ one if we eliminated it

1:50:26 ↗ you're good

1:50:29 ↗ eliminate would you guys like

1:50:31 ↗ would you guys like to speak or am I

1:50:32 ↗ okay commissioner altimore

1:50:36 ↗ thank you

1:50:37 ↗ um my question is uh do the other

1:50:40 ↗ criteria pick up enough if there was a

1:50:42 ↗ detrimental impact so this says that

1:50:44 ↗ there is public benefit or enhanced

1:50:47 ↗ public health safety and Welfare

1:50:49 ↗ do the other criteria do enough to say

1:50:51 ↗ that there isn't uh that there isn't the

1:50:54 ↗ opposite of that yeah number nine gets

1:50:56 ↗ to that one the probable adverse

1:50:58 ↗ environmental impacts of the type of

1:51:00 ↗ development Allowed by the proposed Zone

1:51:02 ↗ can be mitigated so if there is an

1:51:05 ↗ impact you know if that you can somehow

1:51:07 ↗ mitigate its screening by some

1:51:09 ↗ vegetation or you know whatever that

1:51:10 ↗ impact might be I think the other

1:51:12 ↗ conversation at the last meeting was can

1:51:15 ↗ we add a criteria about traffic

1:51:18 ↗ um so those are that's what I remember

1:51:21 ↗ in terms of adverse impact for traffic

1:51:23 ↗ could probably be a separate criteria

1:51:25 ↗ that you all can add

1:51:28 ↗ uh commissioner altmore would you like

1:51:30 ↗ to follow up yeah just a quick follow-up

1:51:32 ↗ so that does pick up the environmental I

1:51:34 ↗ like the idea of the traffic but the uh

1:51:36 ↗ the other health and safety I just

1:51:38 ↗ wonder if if there's still a missing

1:51:40 ↗ piece there

1:51:41 ↗ um and I don't know if it is just as uh

1:51:45 ↗ non-specific to say that there isn't a

1:51:48 ↗ detriment in these pieces versus there's

1:51:50 ↗ a public benefit

1:51:59 ↗ commissioner

1:52:02 ↗ yeah I don't actually

1:52:04 ↗ um agree with

1:52:05 ↗ um commissioner Milligan

1:52:09 ↗ um regarding the at leave and at least

1:52:11 ↗ the um that number one or at least

1:52:14 ↗ clarifying it a little bit more and I'll

1:52:17 ↗ but I think the essence of it is Public

1:52:20 ↗ Safety public health because they are

1:52:24 ↗ um zoning that can actually when you

1:52:26 ↗ have a

1:52:28 ↗ um a specific Zone in a rezone

1:52:31 ↗ the property or what's actually being

1:52:34 ↗ developed there could actually affect

1:52:36 ↗ the public health or the safety and

1:52:39 ↗ whatnot so I will look at it as possibly

1:52:42 ↗ rewriting that portion to make it a

1:52:45 ↗ little bit more measurable per se but

1:52:50 ↗ I I would actually remain and keep it

1:52:52 ↗ there

1:52:57 ↗ commissioner million

1:52:59 ↗ number one it was commissioner altimore

1:53:02 ↗ thank you so I don't want to take credit

1:53:04 ↗ away but I I hadn't thought enough about

1:53:07 ↗ this but so kind of off the cuff I think

1:53:10 ↗ that I haven't found this to be

1:53:12 ↗ problematic to me except that it's not

1:53:13 ↗ measurable but uh the the other eight

1:53:18 ↗ criteria uh create the

1:53:22 ↗ um the burden more than this one but uh

1:53:25 ↗ perhaps uh if we could um I don't know

1:53:28 ↗ if I can make a decision on this tonight

1:53:29 ↗ but I'm I'm leaning towards because of

1:53:31 ↗ commissioner altimore the reverse of the

1:53:33 ↗ statement that this uh side-specific

1:53:37 ↗ rezone does not

1:53:40 ↗ um cause a detrimental effect to public

1:53:45 ↗ health safety and Welfare maybe there's

1:53:47 ↗ something that's a little more provable

1:53:49 ↗ on the on the other side but I don't

1:53:53 ↗ think I could even vote on that tonight

1:53:57 ↗ thank you

1:54:00 ↗ any other comment on policy question

1:54:02 ↗ number two

1:54:04 ↗ commissioner Milligan yeah number one's

1:54:07 ↗ just number one there are eight more to

1:54:09 ↗ talk about

1:54:10 ↗ and so the ones um that I wanted to talk

1:54:14 ↗ about of course was number two

1:54:17 ↗ um the number two B in particular thank

1:54:20 ↗ you very much for um updating number two

1:54:23 ↗ and you know what

1:54:25 ↗ I'm gonna backtrack just a minute here

1:54:27 ↗ because we always forget to do this we

1:54:29 ↗ just Dive Right In and say God I want

1:54:30 ↗ you to fix this first thing I want to

1:54:32 ↗ say is I'm so glad to be at this point

1:54:33 ↗ where there's so much of this that we

1:54:35 ↗ love and and thank the staff for all the

1:54:37 ↗ work that they've done and I also want

1:54:39 ↗ to say thanks you to the public for

1:54:41 ↗ providing all the comments they do about

1:54:43 ↗ this and any other topic uh I don't I

1:54:45 ↗ can't amplify all of them but I really

1:54:48 ↗ appreciate that they they have made

1:54:49 ↗ comments and I hope that the they're all

1:54:52 ↗ so smart and

1:54:54 ↗ um valuable that I know that the staff

1:54:56 ↗ is giving them The credibility that they

1:54:58 ↗ deserve okay so but moving on to the

1:55:01 ↗ really fun stuff like this is better uh

1:55:05 ↗ to be again the language still

1:55:10 ↗ confuses whether you've met a Target

1:55:12 ↗ that can be 20 years from now and

1:55:15 ↗ whether you've met it today doesn't

1:55:19 ↗ apply and I wondered if just the

1:55:21 ↗ smallest edit could say that you um that

1:55:26 ↗ if it's

1:55:28 ↗ um

1:55:29 ↗ housing growth targets

1:55:31 ↗ must be on track at the time of the

1:55:36 ↗ application now you know I haven't

1:55:37 ↗ figured out how you're going to measure

1:55:38 ↗ that you know maybe it's are we a tenth

1:55:40 ↗ of the way when we're in one year of 10

1:55:42 ↗ years from the target I don't know but

1:55:44 ↗ the just say that they've been met in

1:55:46 ↗ 2022 for a Target that applies in 2040

1:55:49 ↗ is still the problem with 2B and then

1:55:53 ↗ number four reasonable that word makes

1:55:57 ↗ me uncomfortable

1:55:59 ↗ uh because I don't think it's specific

1:56:01 ↗ and measurable enough and number six uh

1:56:04 ↗ another uh phrase that I don't think is

1:56:07 ↗ measurable enough is immediate vicinity

1:56:09 ↗ if you mean adjacency or something like

1:56:12 ↗ that if we can use a more specific word

1:56:13 ↗ I'd appreciate that and then um number

1:56:16 ↗ nine uh to not Overlook can be mitigated

1:56:21 ↗ again this is seems like a a place to

1:56:25 ↗ amplify the public comment earlier about

1:56:27 ↗ our lack of

1:56:30 ↗ General support for mitigating

1:56:34 ↗ when we can just be supporting the

1:56:38 ↗ standards upholding standards we'd

1:56:41 ↗ rather uphold our standards because

1:56:42 ↗ they're there to maintain something

1:56:44 ↗ rather than allowing some

1:56:47 ↗ in the example earlier it had to do with

1:56:50 ↗ wetland

1:56:52 ↗ I'm taking from Wetland you could do

1:56:54 ↗ that if you mitigated well no we really

1:56:56 ↗ just don't want to lose our Wetlands so

1:56:58 ↗ anyway

1:56:59 ↗ number nine the word medicated thank you

1:57:05 ↗ thank you commissioner Milligan

1:57:08 ↗ anyone else like to speak on policy

1:57:10 ↗ question two uh involving the criteria

1:57:13 ↗ for site-specific rezone

1:57:17 ↗ commissioner Lewis

1:57:18 ↗ I think it's fair to say to staff that

1:57:21 ↗ this right now I think that we need this

1:57:24 ↗ to be tweaked a little bit but we have

1:57:25 ↗ the right intent so if we would love to

1:57:29 ↗ be able to see this again with another

1:57:30 ↗ wording option that I think consolidates

1:57:32 ↗ in a sense I think we can do these

1:57:34 ↗ things by actually maybe cutting two

1:57:36 ↗ combining and being able to be a little

1:57:38 ↗ crisper in what we're handing off thank

1:57:41 ↗ you

1:57:42 ↗ thank you commissioner Lewis

1:57:44 ↗ any other further comments

1:57:47 ↗ all right chair voice

1:57:49 ↗ I'd like what commissioner Lewis and

1:57:51 ↗ commissioner Milligan just had to say I

1:57:53 ↗ agree with commissioner Lewis the intent

1:57:55 ↗ is there there are a few words uh that I

1:57:58 ↗ had underlying detrimental was the one

1:58:00 ↗ that struck me on number six because

1:58:02 ↗ again how do you define detrimental and

1:58:04 ↗ again I'm looking for my traffic so I'd

1:58:07 ↗ like to see traffic as part of it

1:58:09 ↗ because again I guess that could be part

1:58:12 ↗ number six but if someone's asking for a

1:58:14 ↗ site-specific rezone

1:58:16 ↗ um

1:58:17 ↗ I'd like that at least to be part of the

1:58:19 ↗ criteria again it

1:58:22 ↗ I yeah I think I'd like to see that and

1:58:24 ↗ again there's a couple words in there

1:58:25 ↗ and to uh commissioner Milligan's Point

1:58:28 ↗ yes I also agree with the the um

1:58:31 ↗ the targets that was a I believe we had

1:58:33 ↗ quite a long conversation about that

1:58:35 ↗ that makes no sense because we're going

1:58:37 ↗ to be 99 well maybe not 99. we're going

1:58:40 ↗ to be a majority of our time always

1:58:42 ↗ below our Target line

1:58:43 ↗ so I mean again with our new targets are

1:58:46 ↗ what 20 40.

1:58:48 ↗ it it I think I like the idea of a track

1:58:50 ↗ or some type of tracking system are we

1:58:52 ↗ on track okay if we're not on track and

1:58:54 ↗ we're having a housing crisis that's one

1:58:56 ↗ thing if we're above track then it

1:58:59 ↗ doesn't make sense to have site-specific

1:59:01 ↗ rezones in particular in some areas

1:59:03 ↗ outside the regional

1:59:05 ↗ uh growth Center so or at least needs to

1:59:08 ↗ be a higher hurdle

1:59:10 ↗ my two cents

1:59:15 ↗ any other comment on policy question two

1:59:19 ↗ I think to summarize

1:59:22 ↗ um number one we need to either reverse

1:59:24 ↗ it or kind of address some concerns that

1:59:26 ↗ we heard on number two it shouldn't be

1:59:29 ↗ the 20-year targets have been met today

1:59:32 ↗ as as a marker it should be on track so

1:59:35 ↗ we'll figure out what to do with that

1:59:36 ↗ number six Uh define detrimental and and

1:59:40 ↗ immediate vicinity a little bit better

1:59:43 ↗ um number nine mitigation you you don't

1:59:47 ↗ like that so where we can revert that

1:59:50 ↗ and lastly come up with a criteria to

1:59:53 ↗ address traffic so we can propose some

1:59:56 ↗ edits to address those uh things that we

1:59:59 ↗ heard in our conversation today

2:00:01 ↗ for your last meeting yep okay I I get

2:00:05 ↗ commissioner Milligan uh can I ask and

2:00:08 ↗ number four did the word reasonable to

2:00:12 ↗ be different did that resonate with

2:00:13 ↗ people too okay okay thank you okay so

2:00:16 ↗ uh commissioner altimore

2:00:20 ↗ I blame commissioner Milligan for my

2:00:22 ↗ coming up with this question because I

2:00:23 ↗ hadn't thought of it before but for

2:00:25 ↗ number nine is there an example where we

2:00:28 ↗ would allow an environmental impact

2:00:30 ↗ whether or not it could be mitigated

2:00:35 ↗ as part of a reason you know you

2:00:38 ↗ generally wouldn't

2:00:40 ↗ um especially adverse impact but

2:00:43 ↗ um generally that would be a basis of

2:00:46 ↗ denial of a rezone

2:00:49 ↗ so would that be a necessary criteria

2:00:51 ↗ could we consider striking that one

2:00:55 ↗ I mean you could leave the mitigation

2:00:57 ↗ part out saying if there's probable

2:00:58 ↗ adverse impact

2:01:00 ↗ then

2:01:02 ↗ then you know you cannot have an adverse

2:01:05 ↗ environmental impact as part of this

2:01:06 ↗ reason it's hard to evaluate because

2:01:08 ↗ that's part of the reason you're really

2:01:10 ↗ not proposing a project is just what

2:01:13 ↗ else you could do Under The Zone so

2:01:15 ↗ it'll have to be some kind of a

2:01:16 ↗ comparison between the allowed uses here

2:01:18 ↗ and the allowed uses there and the

2:01:20 ↗ density here and the form and intensity

2:01:22 ↗ here kind of a cost you know comparative

2:01:25 ↗ analysis between the two reasons

2:01:28 ↗ Mr Milligan

2:01:30 ↗ love that commissioner eltimore do we

2:01:32 ↗ have to have number nine at all

2:01:36 ↗ um you know I'm looking at our legal

2:01:38 ↗ counsel if we can delete it

2:01:40 ↗ I'm thinking uh that environmental

2:01:43 ↗ impacts would be dealt with somewhere

2:01:45 ↗ else and that we wouldn't we wouldn't

2:01:48 ↗ consider

2:01:50 ↗ a site specific rezone that had an

2:01:53 ↗ adverts environmental impact considering

2:01:55 ↗ the temperature of the community I think

2:01:58 ↗ they'd be not in favor of that correct

2:02:00 ↗ then we have updated our code so that

2:02:02 ↗ you know any development will have to

2:02:04 ↗ comply with environmental regulations so

2:02:07 ↗ chair voice I'm actually going to depart

2:02:09 ↗ from my wonderful colleagues and say I'd

2:02:11 ↗ like that to continue to stay and

2:02:13 ↗ environment's very broad I mean that's a

2:02:15 ↗ very broad word I mean what are we

2:02:16 ↗ talking about and again to your point

2:02:17 ↗ we're talking about zoning I mean these

2:02:20 ↗ aren't projects that are passed these

2:02:21 ↗ aren't super reviewed these aren't

2:02:22 ↗ anything so you're really clipping

2:02:24 ↗ people's abilities to to do and I mean

2:02:27 ↗ again we shouldn't make site rezones

2:02:29 ↗ impossible for people and depending on

2:02:32 ↗ how you define the environment that

2:02:34 ↗ could be any type of impact that could

2:02:36 ↗ be moving Iraq

2:02:39 ↗ commissioner smiley

2:02:41 ↗ yeah and I think the key word there is

2:02:43 ↗ mitigated if there is an adverse

2:02:46 ↗ environmental impact it'll be it has to

2:02:49 ↗ be mitigated and that's where I think

2:02:51 ↗ the essence of dying is is not saying

2:02:54 ↗ that hey we're going to prove something

2:02:56 ↗ where it has an adverse environmental

2:02:59 ↗ impact we're only going to prove

2:03:00 ↗ something that

2:03:02 ↗ may have a potential adverse impact but

2:03:05 ↗ it's mitigated per se

2:03:12 ↗ Vice chair Bader yeah I agree I I like

2:03:15 ↗ the kind of because it seems so broad I

2:03:18 ↗ think you could say that like

2:03:19 ↗ parking spot right might have an adverse

2:03:22 ↗ environmental impact in there I'm never

2:03:24 ↗ going to improve like anything that

2:03:26 ↗ potentially has like a parking spot or a

2:03:28 ↗ paved area at all I think you could get

2:03:30 ↗ really kind of unwieldy with that so I

2:03:33 ↗ like the inclusion of keeping number

2:03:35 ↗ nine

2:03:36 ↗ um

2:03:37 ↗ and specifying the mitigation piece

2:03:40 ↗ thank you Vice chair Bader commissioner

2:03:42 ↗ Patterson

2:03:44 ↗ uh yeah now that we are moving towards a

2:03:46 ↗ hearing examiner being the one to weigh

2:03:48 ↗ this criteria as I understand it I would

2:03:51 ↗ also maybe suggest or want to see that

2:03:55 ↗ lens put on this criteria meaning almost

2:03:57 ↗ like a test run of how a hearing

2:03:59 ↗ examiner would analyze an application

2:04:01 ↗ with the criteria with adjustments made

2:04:04 ↗ as needed or you know suggested to us to

2:04:07 ↗ review so maybe more of a legal lens per

2:04:10 ↗ se to kind of really analyze this and

2:04:13 ↗ say how would this hold up against a

2:04:16 ↗ real world application assuming we move

2:04:19 ↗ towards the hearing examiner process

2:04:25 ↗ commissioner

2:04:28 ↗ commissioner Patterson's point and this

2:04:31 ↗ goes back to the first quali policy

2:04:35 ↗ question regarding the hearing examiner

2:04:39 ↗ um who would be able to ascertain that

2:04:43 ↗ the hearing examiner has has examined

2:04:47 ↗ what the public has brought forward

2:04:50 ↗ in line with these policies or these

2:04:55 ↗ these nine criteria that we've set up

2:04:58 ↗ would that that the PPC has recommended

2:05:03 ↗ for it essentially yeah so the you know

2:05:06 ↗ the way the process would work would be

2:05:07 ↗ the city the City staff Administration

2:05:10 ↗ would make a recommendation to the

2:05:11 ↗ hearing examiner prepare a staff report

2:05:13 ↗ the hearing examiner will hold the

2:05:15 ↗ public hearing get the public testimony

2:05:17 ↗ then he or she will actually prepare his

2:05:21 ↗ fine his or her findings and produce a

2:05:24 ↗ report that then is appealable and all

2:05:26 ↗ that so they actually evaluate and write

2:05:28 ↗ up how this proposal meets or doesn't

2:05:30 ↗ meet the criteria that then goes to city

2:05:33 ↗ council

2:05:34 ↗ so it's written findings for how the

2:05:37 ↗ proposal meets these eight or nine

2:05:39 ↗ criteria okay so when the hearing

2:05:41 ↗ examiner does their final report it goes

2:05:45 ↗ straight to city council or will will

2:05:49 ↗ your staff review it first or will there

2:05:52 ↗ be it'll go as is but we schedule on the

2:05:55 ↗ council agenda we do the you know the

2:05:57 ↗ notice and all that that goes with like

2:05:59 ↗ getting on the council but yeah we don't

2:06:01 ↗ change anything from hearing that comes

2:06:03 ↗ from the hearing exactly okay okay I

2:06:05 ↗ guess legal process okay

2:06:09 ↗ thank you commissioner has some way days

2:06:11 ↗ so I guess what we're looking for is uh

2:06:14 ↗ yays at least to give uh staff some

2:06:17 ↗ direction sounds like everybody's

2:06:19 ↗ comfortable with the edits that were

2:06:21 ↗ made through one through eight do I have

2:06:23 ↗ that correct can I get a show of hands

2:06:27 ↗ okay that is unanimous and then as far

2:06:30 ↗ as nine I know this might be this might

2:06:32 ↗ be where we break down a little bit

2:06:34 ↗ um who's in favor of keeping number nine

2:06:37 ↗ uh as is or with mitigation possibly

2:06:42 ↗ uh changed or

2:06:45 ↗ dialed in a little bit more

2:06:47 ↗ who's in favor of keeping number nine

2:06:54 ↗ commissioner altimore can we make sure

2:06:57 ↗ that the mitigation that there's some

2:06:59 ↗ sort of uh yeah yeah I mean ultimately

2:07:02 ↗ ultimately when the I think when we have

2:07:05 ↗ a motion Stephen to actually pass we can

2:07:07 ↗ start making amendments after amendments

2:07:09 ↗ and people can start tearing things

2:07:11 ↗ apart but ultimately I think we're just

2:07:13 ↗ trying to give them the flavor of what

2:07:14 ↗ we're where we're going so you know

2:07:16 ↗ where to spend more time and and again

2:07:18 ↗ to your point yes I guess that's what

2:07:20 ↗ we're getting at many the majority of

2:07:22 ↗ the people up here on the Deus I believe

2:07:24 ↗ I didn't get a count

2:07:26 ↗ um are looking to keep number nine

2:07:27 ↗ possibly defining mitigation uh a little

2:07:31 ↗ bit better

2:07:32 ↗ that sounds good

2:07:35 ↗ all right let's move on to policy

2:07:36 ↗ question number three

2:08:06 ↗ commissioner Milligan

2:08:08 ↗ thank you chair uh thank you for the

2:08:11 ↗ discussion tonight about this topic I

2:08:16 ↗ need to study this more to see the

2:08:20 ↗ limits that are in the IMC chapters that

2:08:23 ↗ are referenced in each of these

2:08:25 ↗ potential

2:08:27 ↗ deviations to see if

2:08:31 ↗ if it feels as as permissive as it does

2:08:35 ↗ when you read it in this chapter

2:08:37 ↗ uh so with that I still

2:08:41 ↗ don't know I so I need to do a little

2:08:44 ↗ more studying thank you very much for

2:08:45 ↗ the information but one of the things

2:08:46 ↗ that does still stick with me

2:08:48 ↗ um

2:08:49 ↗ goes to

2:08:52 ↗ the letter d

2:08:54 ↗ um

2:08:55 ↗ where the requested deviation eliminates

2:08:58 ↗ an unnecessary and convenience to the

2:09:00 ↗ applicant this language does not

2:09:04 ↗ seem to

2:09:06 ↗ Express

2:09:08 ↗ a measurable or even or even

2:09:12 ↗ convincing reason because an unnecessary

2:09:17 ↗ inconvenience doesn't seem a reason to

2:09:20 ↗ deviate from our standards

2:09:23 ↗ seems like a um hey I just want to be

2:09:26 ↗ nice you know I'm sorry you know I don't

2:09:29 ↗ want to cause you any inconvenience so

2:09:31 ↗ that phrase is still a sticking point

2:09:33 ↗ for me I don't have a

2:09:36 ↗ replacement but maybe somebody else's

2:09:38 ↗ code says better

2:09:40 ↗ thank you thank you commissioner million

2:09:42 ↗ commissioner Lewis

2:09:44 ↗ uh I'll I'll uh I'll reiterate my

2:09:47 ↗ earlier concern when I had a question I

2:09:49 ↗ still have concerns about

2:09:51 ↗ um about the possible I would like to

2:09:53 ↗ limit the number of deviations an

2:09:54 ↗ applicant can have

2:09:56 ↗ um the idea that they would be able to

2:09:57 ↗ take all of these

2:09:59 ↗ um because then you know they're having

2:10:01 ↗ a trade-off is something I have a

2:10:03 ↗ concern about and I think that an

2:10:04 ↗ applicant should have to pick and choose

2:10:06 ↗ and maybe modify their site plan and

2:10:08 ↗ modify their plan if they want so many

2:10:11 ↗ deviations that I think that that might

2:10:13 ↗ be a red flag and we need to have a

2:10:14 ↗ password that says you know pick two for

2:10:18 ↗ instance

2:10:21 ↗ Vice chair Bader

2:10:23 ↗ yeah just a quick comment um just on the

2:10:26 ↗ generally the first section

2:10:28 ↗ um I probably applies to others as well

2:10:30 ↗ but

2:10:31 ↗ um especially in light of the

2:10:32 ↗ conversation we just had I noticed that

2:10:34 ↗ in like

2:10:35 ↗ um section A Part Two

2:10:38 ↗ um provide flexibility that will help

2:10:40 ↗ promote Rehabilitation and reuse will

2:10:43 ↗ not adversely affect nearby Properties

2:10:44 ↗ or neighborhood character and then also

2:10:47 ↗ D2 will have no appreciable Adverse

2:10:51 ↗ Events impact on health safety or

2:10:53 ↗ general welfare of surrounding

2:10:55 ↗ properties should we include environment

2:10:58 ↗ environmental impacts in those two

2:11:00 ↗ sections as well

2:11:10 ↗ so it won't adversely affect nearby

2:11:12 ↗ properties neighborhood character or the

2:11:13 ↗ environment

2:11:15 ↗ and same with no appreciable adverse

2:11:17 ↗ impact on health safety general welfare

2:11:21 ↗ and the environment

2:11:24 ↗ yeah I think I think we can look into

2:11:26 ↗ those edits

2:11:31 ↗ plus one on that later thank you

2:11:37 ↗ any other further comments on policy

2:11:39 ↗ question three

2:11:43 ↗ all right chair voice uh I'm generally

2:11:45 ↗ in favor I don't think it's a large list

2:11:47 ↗ I do appreciate Minnie's earlier

2:11:49 ↗ commentary about uh they were so broad

2:11:51 ↗ that people were picking from 25 I think

2:11:54 ↗ these nine even if they if even if my

2:11:56 ↗ fellow Commissioners feel they should be

2:11:58 ↗ tightened up I do believe the deviations

2:11:59 ↗ are necessary to projects especially

2:12:02 ↗ with building costs everything going up

2:12:04 ↗ the idea that

2:12:07 ↗ uh

2:12:08 ↗ sites are unique there's no two sites

2:12:11 ↗ that are like

2:12:12 ↗ you have to be able to build properly

2:12:14 ↗ without building triangles and

2:12:16 ↗ architecture houses which everybody

2:12:17 ↗ makes fun of there's a reason why so I

2:12:20 ↗ think deviations are an important part

2:12:21 ↗ of the building process we want to keep

2:12:23 ↗ costs down that's one way you can do it

2:12:26 ↗ I think having a near a narrower list is

2:12:29 ↗ helpful and I do think to Minnie's Point

2:12:31 ↗ earlier it was really the discretion

2:12:33 ↗ which really meant there's 25 different

2:12:35 ↗ options I think having a smaller Buffet

2:12:37 ↗ is good I don't know if it's necessary

2:12:40 ↗ to let only people pick two

2:12:42 ↗ um

2:12:43 ↗ just the way I'm reading it it seems

2:12:45 ↗ like they can

2:12:46 ↗ they can pick from one of the nine

2:12:49 ↗ individual things so yes technically

2:12:50 ↗ they can do nine but it's not like

2:12:52 ↗ they're doing uh nine of the same type

2:12:55 ↗ of deviations in one area like so you

2:12:58 ↗ know intensity and form it's not like

2:13:00 ↗ they're doing nine deviations there so

2:13:03 ↗ I'm I'm in favor of having a narrower

2:13:05 ↗ list uh I'm perfectly fine with the list

2:13:07 ↗ that we have but that's my feeling

2:13:13 ↗ any other Vice chair Bader I'll chime in

2:13:16 ↗ there too because I think miniature

2:13:17 ↗ example is really helpful on the

2:13:19 ↗ forested hillsides one that it's only

2:13:21 ↗ like 10 feet it's not like saying oh you

2:13:23 ↗ can have a deviation now you can cut

2:13:25 ↗ down every single tree on that entire

2:13:26 ↗ Hillside that we're talking about really

2:13:28 ↗ small changes in this in this section so

2:13:30 ↗ in light of that I think

2:13:32 ↗ again to kind of be

2:13:35 ↗ flexible and it makes sense to

2:13:39 ↗ have a list of this

2:13:42 ↗ great thank you Vice chair Bader

2:13:44 ↗ any further comments as far as policy

2:13:47 ↗ question three

2:13:49 ↗ all right we can move along

2:13:54 ↗ so that that's pretty much what we had

2:13:56 ↗ originally identified

2:13:58 ↗ um as policy questions and then through

2:14:01 ↗ your through the public comments that

2:14:03 ↗ you all received there are some of these

2:14:04 ↗ additional ones if you agree that you

2:14:07 ↗ want to talk about these five we can

2:14:09 ↗ kind of go through those

2:14:12 ↗ I think we're in it to win it Minnie so

2:14:14 ↗ I think we can talk about let's do it

2:14:16 ↗ like this if anyone had we'll start the

2:14:18 ↗ round robin if anyone has something to

2:14:20 ↗ bring up on these five please feel free

2:14:22 ↗ to if anyone has additional commentary

2:14:24 ↗ about the last three we discussed please

2:14:26 ↗ feel free to

2:14:28 ↗ um but let's do it like that and once

2:14:31 ↗ we're through the round robin if

2:14:32 ↗ somebody wasn't ready you know obviously

2:14:34 ↗ we won't finish but we'll just get going

2:14:36 ↗ with around Robin so commissioner

2:14:38 ↗ essenware because you are at the end of

2:14:41 ↗ the days we'll start with you please

2:14:44 ↗ uh I think and if I remember the the

2:14:48 ↗ master site plan I think there was a

2:14:50 ↗ threshold for

2:14:52 ↗ like I believe a public here and if

2:14:54 ↗ there was a change of 10

2:14:56 ↗ I believe so my and this may be more

2:15:00 ↗ clarifying

2:15:02 ↗ um my my question per se on that is why

2:15:06 ↗ didn't they use acreage as opposed to

2:15:09 ↗ um a percentage on that

2:15:12 ↗ yeah I think um the existing code had

2:15:15 ↗ those criteria you know the the building

2:15:17 ↗ height the impervious surface so you're

2:15:19 ↗ looking at form and scale of what is

2:15:21 ↗ changing

2:15:23 ↗ um and it was based on what was already

2:15:25 ↗ approved to how much is it how much is

2:15:27 ↗ it changing so it's a relative to what's

2:15:29 ↗ already was already approved is it a 10

2:15:32 ↗ percent

2:15:33 ↗ here or there as opposed to you you have

2:15:37 ↗ a 15 Acre Site so you get you know

2:15:40 ↗ presented because most of the master

2:15:42 ↗ site plans were for larger projects

2:15:44 ↗ anyways so tying it to a parcel size

2:15:47 ↗ probably won't make much of a difference

2:15:49 ↗ exactly okay since for the most part

2:15:52 ↗ like you said they're larger as opposed

2:15:55 ↗ to vary okay thank you

2:15:59 ↗ um that that's that's it for me right

2:16:01 ↗ now okay

2:16:03 ↗ and remember we can come back we're just

2:16:05 ↗ going to kick this off so commissioner

2:16:07 ↗ Kennedy

2:16:09 ↗ I don't have any further questions at

2:16:11 ↗ this time

2:16:13 ↗ thank you commissioner Patterson

2:16:15 ↗ I yield my time

2:16:20 ↗ it's a good one thank you commissioner

2:16:21 ↗ altamore nothing from me thank you

2:16:24 ↗ commissioner Milligan

2:16:26 ↗ C-SPAN that's the C-SPAN effect

2:16:30 ↗ um I want to

2:16:33 ↗ I think we've tried we already talked

2:16:35 ↗ about the evening hours just want to

2:16:37 ↗ make sure I got the evening hours

2:16:40 ↗ deviations are limited in the code

2:16:43 ↗ and

2:16:47 ↗ the growth target language so I think we

2:16:50 ↗ got all of my real favorites now in here

2:16:53 ↗ I wish I could remember

2:16:54 ↗ more about the public utility exemptions

2:16:57 ↗ because this was something that caught

2:16:59 ↗ my eye but I can't remember why and I I

2:17:03 ↗ want to support that but I can't

2:17:05 ↗ remember the specifics

2:17:07 ↗ so if you can remind me yeah so uh let

2:17:12 ↗ me see if I can

2:17:13 ↗ pull them up

2:17:15 ↗ on

2:17:26 ↗ ah thank you yeah public notice required

2:17:29 ↗ seemed to be more important to me than

2:17:33 ↗ especially when it's an administrative

2:17:34 ↗ decision these things kind of

2:17:36 ↗ they're important topics and they can be

2:17:40 ↗ very impactful and without public notice

2:17:44 ↗ um

2:17:45 ↗ just makes people mad

2:17:56 ↗ okay we have found it so let me share

2:18:16 ↗ I don't know if you can see it large

2:18:18 ↗ enough is it one topic per round

2:18:20 ↗ no just keep going when it's your turn

2:18:23 ↗ [Laughter]

2:18:26 ↗ my horse carefully here right

2:18:29 ↗ you have the floor I mean again we will

2:18:32 ↗ do a final comeback I'm coming back I'm

2:18:35 ↗ coming back okay I wanted to follow up

2:18:37 ↗ on some of the public comments

2:18:40 ↗ um I wanted to follow up on investing

2:18:42 ↗ and just say that I do not want to make

2:18:45 ↗ a decision about vesting This legal

2:18:49 ↗ Minefield to me and I think we have

2:18:51 ↗ references we do have Council in the

2:18:53 ↗ room and it should be happy to hear it

2:18:55 ↗ but I would rather have somebody else

2:18:57 ↗ make that decision because I'm not I

2:18:59 ↗ don't have

2:19:00 ↗ um anything to stand on on that

2:19:03 ↗ um the adus it's interesting to think

2:19:05 ↗ about a larger size when there's a

2:19:08 ↗ larger than the minimum lot size that's

2:19:11 ↗ creative and interesting I I'm not as

2:19:14 ↗ interested to go over a thousand square

2:19:15 ↗ feet because it is an accessory dwelling

2:19:17 ↗ unit we're going to talk about this in a

2:19:19 ↗ later meeting what is accessory and I'm

2:19:22 ↗ looking forward to that conversation

2:19:24 ↗ and

2:19:27 ↗ that's it thanks

2:19:29 ↗ thank you commissioner Milligan

2:19:31 ↗ commissioner Lewis

2:19:32 ↗ many do you mind pulling up the uh the

2:19:35 ↗ slide that you have of the the questions

2:19:37 ↗ you had of possible policies

2:19:39 ↗ um sure real quick on the public agency

2:19:43 ↗ and utility exemption I think there was

2:19:45 ↗ a question to what can you remind us so

2:19:47 ↗ this was a carryover from our existing

2:19:49 ↗ code however there was exemptions for uh

2:19:53 ↗ basically it was if you know there's a

2:19:56 ↗ sewer line water line or whatever that

2:19:59 ↗ that is needed to serve the community

2:20:02 ↗ and you can do it because of these

2:20:04 ↗ regulations there's this exemptions for

2:20:06 ↗ that it did not have a criteria under

2:20:09 ↗ the code so we have added the criteria B

2:20:13 ↗ one through five so that's the change

2:20:15 ↗ with this code update but I'm happy to

2:20:17 ↗ bring the other

2:20:20 ↗ um presentation up

2:20:24 ↗ chair voice so just uh to clarify many

2:20:26 ↗ you guys have actually tightened what

2:20:28 ↗ was originally in the part yeah there

2:20:30 ↗ was no criteria it was just an exemption

2:20:32 ↗ now it's you have no other alternative

2:20:35 ↗ you have to you have a much higher bar

2:20:36 ↗ the the debate or the comment now is

2:20:40 ↗ whether that should be a public process

2:20:42 ↗ or a level one versus level two I think

2:20:45 ↗ it doesn't really matter if if we can

2:20:48 ↗ make it a level two and just do some

2:20:50 ↗ notice uh before we do that so that's

2:20:52 ↗ sort of this this question if if you all

2:20:54 ↗ agree to make it level two uh that's an

2:20:57 ↗ easy fix for us to do to make okay well

2:21:00 ↗ I apologize commissioner Lewis we will

2:21:01 ↗ get to you

2:21:03 ↗ as far as the Public Public Utilities

2:21:07 ↗ um

2:21:09 ↗ I think that's uh to Minnie's point I

2:21:12 ↗ mean these are utilities that have no

2:21:14 ↗ other place to go they're necessary does

2:21:17 ↗ anyone have a problem with the code AS

2:21:19 ↗ written and then we'll talk about levels

2:21:21 ↗ in a second does anyone have a problem

2:21:22 ↗ as far as the code that was written now

2:21:26 ↗ commissioner Lewis

2:21:27 ↗ um I as you know I will always advocate

2:21:29 ↗ for more public notice more transparency

2:21:32 ↗ more Daylight we've had issues before

2:21:33 ↗ with there being the notion the utility

2:21:36 ↗ had to go somewhere and therefore trees

2:21:38 ↗ had to go and through public

2:21:40 ↗ intervention we've been able to say

2:21:41 ↗ actually this can be redesigned and done

2:21:43 ↗ a little bit differently and it was of a

2:21:45 ↗ value to the community so I would be a

2:21:48 ↗ fan of moving it to level two to be able

2:21:51 ↗ to have more public awareness of things

2:21:52 ↗ I think that public utilities are things

2:21:55 ↗ that while necessary do require there to

2:21:57 ↗ be public notice that we have to play by

2:21:59 ↗ the same rules on this side of the fence

2:22:01 ↗ as we do with everyone else in the

2:22:02 ↗ community

2:22:03 ↗ thank you

2:22:05 ↗ anyone else

2:22:07 ↗ commissioner

2:22:08 ↗ yeah I was actually gonna

2:22:11 ↗ um pile on to commissioner Lewis because

2:22:14 ↗ at the end of the day even if there's no

2:22:16 ↗ alternative for that public agency I

2:22:19 ↗ believe and this isn't going to the

2:22:21 ↗ point of of course a public hearing but

2:22:24 ↗ a public notice notice level two would

2:22:26 ↗ be would be warranted because it's going

2:22:29 ↗ to affect uh it could it could

2:22:31 ↗ potentially affect the citizens within

2:22:34 ↗ Issaquah if one day they wake up and

2:22:37 ↗ there's construction in front of their

2:22:38 ↗ home basically so I believe something

2:22:41 ↗ like that would be needed level two

2:22:45 ↗ all right Vice chair Bader yeah that was

2:22:47 ↗ going to be my question if is there

2:22:49 ↗ another

2:22:50 ↗ place where that public notice would

2:22:52 ↗ happen or could I wake up one morning

2:22:53 ↗ and like my you know the street in front

2:22:55 ↗ of my house has been ripped up to put it

2:22:57 ↗ in new

2:22:58 ↗ or not in the kind of other side

2:23:01 ↗ um does this like slow down if there's

2:23:04 ↗ like an emergency right where like

2:23:06 ↗ something has happened to us sewer line

2:23:08 ↗ and it needs to be moved I don't know

2:23:09 ↗ how I don't know if that's even like a

2:23:11 ↗ possible scenario but like does it stop

2:23:13 ↗ like emergency

2:23:15 ↗ fixes and that sort of thing or slow it

2:23:17 ↗ in and slow them down

2:23:19 ↗ yeah this this isn't for your emergency

2:23:22 ↗ repairs this is uh for new stuff so

2:23:25 ↗ there's already your your exempt to do

2:23:28 ↗ those emergency things and then come

2:23:29 ↗ back after the fact to kind of do the

2:23:31 ↗ you know if there's water pipe breaks

2:23:33 ↗ you're going to get the repairs you know

2:23:35 ↗ uh ASAP not go through the permitting

2:23:37 ↗ process for that kind of stuff

2:23:40 ↗ so I think we're almost ready to pass on

2:23:42 ↗ our advice I just have a very quick

2:23:43 ↗ question for Council is is censor Public

2:23:45 ↗ Public Utilities is this eminent domain

2:23:48 ↗ is this I mean are we just notifying the

2:23:51 ↗ public because we feel it's a good thing

2:23:53 ↗ to do or is I mean is there any pushback

2:23:56 ↗ they can actually really give at a

2:23:58 ↗ public hearing other than just saying I

2:24:00 ↗ don't like this

2:24:04 ↗ [Music]

2:24:08 ↗ I always forget about the microphone

2:24:10 ↗ sorry Rachel Turpin City attorney good

2:24:13 ↗ question actually most utilities do have

2:24:15 ↗ the power of eminent domains so they

2:24:17 ↗ they can

2:24:19 ↗ um condemn the property if they do need

2:24:22 ↗ it

2:24:27 ↗ okay well thank you for that

2:24:31 ↗ I I guess that kind of just changed my

2:24:33 ↗ vote so it doesn't mean they wouldn't

2:24:34 ↗ still once they own the property have to

2:24:37 ↗ abide by like your your critical areas

2:24:40 ↗ codes though I suppose like they would

2:24:42 ↗ they would still have to you know they

2:24:43 ↗ would have to

2:24:45 ↗ any property owner would have to I mean

2:24:47 ↗ even the city has to abide by its own

2:24:49 ↗ tree tree removal codes and okay so

2:24:52 ↗ that's interesting so I guess Council if

2:24:54 ↗ if we had a level two review they would

2:24:57 ↗ I guess we would still expect them to do

2:24:59 ↗ the certain

2:25:01 ↗ um the certain requirements that are

2:25:03 ↗ obligated there yeah and had we have and

2:25:06 ↗ if we had a lower one then they could

2:25:08 ↗ actually use our code and say well we

2:25:09 ↗ don't need to do these things

2:25:11 ↗ am I getting that right kind of

2:25:13 ↗ I don't think so I think that they I

2:25:15 ↗ don't think this level of review would

2:25:18 ↗ change what they would have to to do I

2:25:20 ↗ think it truly is just the level of

2:25:24 ↗ notice correct yeah it's just it's just

2:25:27 ↗ a level of notice

2:25:29 ↗ and and I believe that at least how I

2:25:32 ↗ was reading the staff comments on this

2:25:34 ↗ on this issue that they would

2:25:37 ↗ they would the public would still there

2:25:40 ↗ would still be notice of

2:25:42 ↗ other

2:25:43 ↗ aspects of the project

2:25:46 ↗ uh for instance the the very I mean

2:25:49 ↗ wouldn't there be other permits that

2:25:50 ↗ they would be applying for that would be

2:25:54 ↗ that would be higher review so

2:25:58 ↗ even if the public weren't getting even

2:26:01 ↗ if the the utility exemption itself were

2:26:04 ↗ only a level one

2:26:06 ↗ in practicality

2:26:09 ↗ folks would still be getting noticed

2:26:11 ↗ because they would be getting noticed

2:26:13 ↗ through notice of the

2:26:17 ↗ um like would they be getting like a

2:26:19 ↗ building or a site like an excavation

2:26:22 ↗ permit or

2:26:23 ↗ these would be things like through the

2:26:25 ↗ capital Improvement projects list that

2:26:28 ↗ are long-term projects that Public Works

2:26:31 ↗ engineering other departments will be

2:26:33 ↗ looking to to build so they're they're

2:26:35 ↗ not quick things generally they are we

2:26:37 ↗ need a new sewer line here we need a new

2:26:39 ↗ water line to run through some part of

2:26:41 ↗ of the community and when they run up

2:26:45 ↗ against the the critical area codes in

2:26:48 ↗ in 802 this is how they could you know

2:26:52 ↗ go through the process they'll meet that

2:26:54 ↗ criteria but there's no other way to go

2:26:56 ↗ water has to go this way you know right

2:26:58 ↗ and so they're they're engineering this

2:27:00 ↗ out and when there is no

2:27:02 ↗ alternative to go around

2:27:05 ↗ something squawk Mountain they have to

2:27:08 ↗ run somewhere and that that might clip a

2:27:11 ↗ critical area and that's

2:27:13 ↗ that's what they're they're utilizing

2:27:14 ↗ this for but but that does require

2:27:17 ↗ people to then follow that project so if

2:27:20 ↗ you want folks to then get a specific

2:27:22 ↗ notice of the exemption then you would

2:27:26 ↗ want to make it a level two

2:27:29 ↗ I guess the only other question I have

2:27:31 ↗ and I'll make this quick is just uh from

2:27:33 ↗ staff what type of Burden would that put

2:27:35 ↗ on you if

2:27:36 ↗ is there any additional burden

2:27:40 ↗ staff resources I mean you know staff

2:27:42 ↗ resources always needed a public notice

2:27:45 ↗ takes time printing mailing you know all

2:27:48 ↗ of those kind of things but it's it

2:27:49 ↗ won't be used that often so it's not a

2:27:51 ↗ big deal uh we so it's only four cases

2:27:55 ↗ where it's an absolute necessary kind of

2:27:58 ↗ situation so it's not you know our

2:28:00 ↗ recommendation we don't have a strong if

2:28:02 ↗ we want to make it level two that that

2:28:03 ↗ will okay thanks uh commissioner Lewis I

2:28:07 ↗ just want to point out that tonight we

2:28:08 ↗ also read code about uh message boards

2:28:10 ↗ this would also apply to a message board

2:28:11 ↗ which is actually we have a code for a

2:28:13 ↗ double Message Board that's required in

2:28:16 ↗ our codes which would then be triggered

2:28:17 ↗ by a level two so it's a double

2:28:19 ↗ notification that would then happen it's

2:28:20 ↗ not just a mailing out it's also the

2:28:22 ↗ site putting up a notification board as

2:28:25 ↗ well

2:28:27 ↗ does everyone feel like they have enough

2:28:28 ↗ information and we'll just kind of put

2:28:30 ↗ again yays or Nays it's not binding as

2:28:33 ↗ far as tonight but gives staff the idea

2:28:35 ↗ of where we're going to go

2:28:38 ↗ the question is uh level two or level

2:28:40 ↗ one who's for level one

2:28:45 ↗ who's for level two

2:28:48 ↗ thank you

2:28:50 ↗ this is the same thing for technical

2:28:52 ↗ document review that so that was a

2:28:54 ↗ question we skipped but um

2:28:57 ↗ again I think here

2:29:00 ↗ the way this whole process is supposed

2:29:02 ↗ to work this is a new thing that we've

2:29:03 ↗ kind of inserted so you get early

2:29:05 ↗ decisions early look at and then also

2:29:09 ↗ accommodate development commissions uh

2:29:11 ↗ desire to not have all these technical

2:29:14 ↗ documents and then be the final decision

2:29:16 ↗ makers and those so this addresses that

2:29:20 ↗ um there was a public comment about

2:29:22 ↗ whether level one makes sense for this

2:29:25 ↗ or not I think we have some way to

2:29:28 ↗ either not just make it level one or

2:29:30 ↗ level two if you if the underlying work

2:29:33 ↗ you want to do doesn't require level two

2:29:36 ↗ then it would stay as level one but if

2:29:38 ↗ there is an underlying you know if you

2:29:40 ↗ need to go to the development commission

2:29:41 ↗ and this is an interim step then we

2:29:44 ↗ would process it as level two or we can

2:29:46 ↗ just make it simple and just call it

2:29:48 ↗ level two so either way we can make it

2:29:51 ↗ work so level one level two or a

2:29:55 ↗ combination of level one if it's a very

2:29:59 ↗ simple thing that wouldn't have required

2:30:01 ↗ a decision any a public notice anyways

2:30:05 ↗ and level two for everything else

2:30:12 ↗ okay

2:30:13 ↗ let me see if I understand this so this

2:30:15 ↗ is the technical

2:30:18 ↗ review of Geotech reports or whatever

2:30:21 ↗ the heck is happening with an

2:30:23 ↗ application that then creates a

2:30:28 ↗ package or something that goes to inform

2:30:31 ↗ the development Commission

2:30:33 ↗ who can read it with their discretion to

2:30:37 ↗ as part of the greater application

2:30:41 ↗ so the way this this is this is designed

2:30:43 ↗ to work is if you want to build a 10 000

2:30:46 ↗ square foot building and you happen to

2:30:48 ↗ have a wetland on your property and you

2:30:50 ↗ want to know what buffers are going to

2:30:52 ↗ apply to you is it a class one or is it

2:30:55 ↗ a class two

2:30:57 ↗ you could go through this technical

2:30:59 ↗ document review earlier than your whole

2:31:02 ↗ overall design project because you know

2:31:05 ↗ it's costly to kind of go back and

2:31:07 ↗ redesign because now you have to move it

2:31:08 ↗ back that you will come in for a

2:31:10 ↗ technical document review for the

2:31:12 ↗ purposes of figuring out what what's my

2:31:14 ↗ buffer that's going to apply to my

2:31:16 ↗ property and then we would process it

2:31:19 ↗ give them a decision create a staff

2:31:21 ↗ report and and prior to giving them the

2:31:24 ↗ decision because it's a critical area we

2:31:26 ↗ could do this public meeting notice and

2:31:29 ↗ all that kind of stuff as a level two

2:31:30 ↗ review

2:31:32 ↗ and then that decision then if someone

2:31:34 ↗ disagrees that it should actually be one

2:31:37 ↗ or two can file an appeal to the hearing

2:31:40 ↗ examiner and get that you know worked

2:31:42 ↗ out before you prepare your building

2:31:45 ↗ plans and go through the development

2:31:47 ↗ commission you can do it concurrently

2:31:49 ↗ you can do it early it's designed to

2:31:51 ↗ provide more options for folks to get

2:31:54 ↗ some answers early you don't have to do

2:31:56 ↗ it you could choose to skip the step

2:31:58 ↗ because you feel comfortable you're you

2:32:01 ↗ know what it is and you just want to

2:32:03 ↗ start your process that way

2:32:05 ↗ so it actually it so what you just said

2:32:08 ↗ we need to package that is ultimately if

2:32:11 ↗ the technical documents can be reviewed

2:32:14 ↗ in level one that just allows the

2:32:16 ↗ Builder to understand their their own

2:32:18 ↗ property whether or not it's even

2:32:19 ↗ feasible

2:32:21 ↗ okay I know where I'm gonna go

2:32:24 ↗ uh any other clarifying questions no

2:32:27 ↗ clarifying questions any other comments

2:32:29 ↗ on policy question four

2:32:31 ↗ commissioner Milligan thank you I do

2:32:33 ↗ remember the development commission

2:32:35 ↗ commenting on this and I I'm not saying

2:32:38 ↗ I took a poll but I do remember some

2:32:40 ↗ comment about this and then I also

2:32:42 ↗ remember challenges that I faced as an

2:32:45 ↗ Urban Village Development commissioner

2:32:46 ↗ uh being faced with making decisions

2:32:48 ↗ that included evaluating a Geotech

2:32:51 ↗ report for instance in Talus

2:32:53 ↗ um seven and eight and uh I didn't like

2:32:55 ↗ having to do that because I didn't have

2:32:57 ↗ the criteria or the means by which to

2:33:00 ↗ make a good determination and the early

2:33:03 ↗ on determination of this does help to

2:33:06 ↗ restrict or to limit or to inform a um

2:33:10 ↗ an application applicant

2:33:12 ↗ so again that public notice

2:33:18 ↗ as long as and I'm making an assumption

2:33:21 ↗ that the technical review has because

2:33:24 ↗ it's technical it is very strict I think

2:33:27 ↗ that this is something that could be

2:33:29 ↗ done as a level one

2:33:32 ↗ and lean in that way

2:33:36 ↗ would anyone else like to comment we'll

2:33:38 ↗ do thumbs up thumbs down

2:33:40 ↗ commissioner

2:33:42 ↗ yeah and then just to clarify that the

2:33:46 ↗ technical review what the sustain is a

2:33:48 ↗ technical review will be level one but

2:33:51 ↗ once that's done and determined if it's

2:33:54 ↗ it's feasible to move forward with that

2:33:56 ↗ it goes to the development commission

2:33:59 ↗ okay very well yeah I think that the

2:34:02 ↗ comment the public comments we're

2:34:03 ↗ getting at and you won't get the

2:34:06 ↗ community's input because they will you

2:34:09 ↗ won't know what you know the history of

2:34:12 ↗ the wetlands in the area or something

2:34:14 ↗ that you may miss out on that Community

2:34:16 ↗ involvement for the critical areas piece

2:34:20 ↗ if you bifurcate them and you don't

2:34:23 ↗ allow any notice earlier but the chances

2:34:28 ↗ are you know most people are going to

2:34:29 ↗ bundle everything together but they'll

2:34:31 ↗ want their decisions early so the the

2:34:34 ↗ public notice will probably get

2:34:35 ↗ triggered anyways because there'll be a

2:34:37 ↗ c power or something else going on with

2:34:39 ↗ that with the with the application yeah

2:34:41 ↗ I guess one one clarifying piece is that

2:34:45 ↗ once that feasibility study has been

2:34:48 ↗ done per se then they would come to a

2:34:52 ↗ forum like this the the developer to

2:34:55 ↗ present their case to move forward with

2:34:59 ↗ their development and at that point

2:35:01 ↗ those Commissioners can ask

2:35:04 ↗ maybe not technical questions but they

2:35:06 ↗ can ask questions and receive responses

2:35:09 ↗ that are a little bit more informed

2:35:11 ↗ based on that technical review is that

2:35:14 ↗ is that is that right

2:35:17 ↗ um I'm not trying to fully understand

2:35:18 ↗ your question but

2:35:20 ↗ um you know

2:35:22 ↗ when they come to the development

2:35:24 ↗ Commission

2:35:26 ↗ the the staff prepares the staff report

2:35:28 ↗ it's kind of a fully baked project

2:35:31 ↗ whether it meets the criteria or not and

2:35:33 ↗ it's in front of the development

2:35:34 ↗ commission we can engage them early

2:35:36 ↗ during pre-applic application Community

2:35:39 ↗ meetings but but once it goes to the

2:35:43 ↗ final development commission it is a

2:35:45 ↗ staff report it's the 90 design plan you

2:35:48 ↗ know it's like it's not you're still

2:35:51 ↗ evaluating whether what to do kind of

2:35:53 ↗ thing okay okay and then basically what

2:35:56 ↗ this has stayed in here is that

2:35:58 ↗ typically if you do a level two you

2:36:01 ↗ would basically give a notice that they

2:36:05 ↗ have an intent to do something hear it

2:36:08 ↗ possibly and then once it goes through

2:36:11 ↗ that process then they can move forward

2:36:13 ↗ with their technical review yeah

2:36:15 ↗ development commission wouldn't get

2:36:17 ↗ involved with it level two but the

2:36:19 ↗ community would get a notice in the mail

2:36:21 ↗ you'll probably get a posting on your

2:36:23 ↗ site saying this is what we're doing in

2:36:25 ↗ this location education chances are some

2:36:27 ↗ you know people may not do the project

2:36:29 ↗ once they find out and they so then

2:36:31 ↗ you've got this site posted and your

2:36:35 ↗ mailing thing that happened but the

2:36:36 ↗ project never went through so there's

2:36:39 ↗ some nuances like that that can that can

2:36:41 ↗ happen with public knowledge so we want

2:36:43 ↗ to notify the public

2:36:45 ↗ but perhaps based on

2:36:47 ↗ the projects

2:36:49 ↗ to that Christian you've given it some

2:36:52 ↗ more thought

2:36:53 ↗ yeah I think we wanted to make sure you

2:36:55 ↗ know as level one

2:36:57 ↗ the majority of the community is

2:36:59 ↗ single-family residential if they want

2:37:01 ↗ to know what can I do to my you know all

2:37:03 ↗ my house can I add on to the back well

2:37:05 ↗ just like they might evaluate the

2:37:07 ↗ structure of their home uh you know find

2:37:10 ↗ out where the Wetland is or where a

2:37:11 ↗ stream is with that knowledge then they

2:37:13 ↗ can move forward and know here's my

2:37:15 ↗ limits of where I can build you know

2:37:17 ↗ that permit is going to go through a

2:37:19 ↗ level one anyway so you know whether we

2:37:21 ↗ we kind of keep it at that level one for

2:37:23 ↗ everything or we say well if if this is

2:37:26 ↗ for a new you know a site that is large

2:37:28 ↗ in its Zone commercial and you're likely

2:37:30 ↗ going to build something commercial so

2:37:31 ↗ it's likely going to go to development

2:37:33 ↗ Commission

2:37:34 ↗ at a level three or four or something

2:37:37 ↗ that's a three or four or higher

2:37:39 ↗ um would those be the ones that might

2:37:42 ↗ warrant you know public noticing so we

2:37:45 ↗ could we could look at that yeah and I

2:37:48 ↗ think that like if it's just a a single

2:37:51 ↗ family homeowner I don't I don't believe

2:37:54 ↗ at least me saying that

2:37:57 ↗ um it would warrant that level too but

2:37:59 ↗ like you said if it's a large commercial

2:38:03 ↗ um right developer yeah and to be able

2:38:06 ↗ to provide the predictability to any

2:38:08 ↗ Builder to know here's what I can build

2:38:10 ↗ you know depending on what their due

2:38:12 ↗ diligence is going to be if it's if it's

2:38:14 ↗ very limited they're you know larger

2:38:16 ↗ projects they'll likely wrap everything

2:38:17 ↗ into one thing but

2:38:19 ↗ you know if a property owner is looking

2:38:20 ↗ to sell and

2:38:22 ↗ they want to know what they have on

2:38:23 ↗ their property they can Market it

2:38:25 ↗ appropriately so and do they need a

2:38:28 ↗ public notice sign for that when we're

2:38:30 ↗ going to be evaluating It And discussing

2:38:33 ↗ it when a larger permit comes in exactly

2:38:36 ↗ and and can they do these Studies by

2:38:38 ↗ themselves per se they would need to be

2:38:41 ↗ done by a qualified professional for you

2:38:43 ↗ know whatever it is geotechnical

2:38:45 ↗ wetlander stream and then it would be

2:38:47 ↗ peer-reviewed so the fully baked project

2:38:50 ↗ when it comes in it's it's been provided

2:38:52 ↗ by a qualified professional it's been

2:38:54 ↗ peer reviewed by our Consulting

2:38:55 ↗ biologist or Geotech engineer and then

2:38:59 ↗ we have a

2:39:01 ↗ clean recommendation of it meets the

2:39:04 ↗ criteria because it went through this

2:39:06 ↗ process

2:39:07 ↗ no no I think what I'm saying is that

2:39:09 ↗ can they

2:39:11 ↗ bring on their own consultant per se to

2:39:14 ↗ study outside of the process absolutely

2:39:17 ↗ and then we do our peer review with our

2:39:20 ↗ um

2:39:21 ↗ when it comes to us right okay okay

2:39:24 ↗ thank you

2:39:27 ↗ thank you commissioner yeah I mean the

2:39:29 ↗ way I see it is it's just uh it's an

2:39:31 ↗ opportunity for people to find out more

2:39:32 ↗ about what they have without triggering

2:39:35 ↗ Public Notices and all these things so

2:39:37 ↗ I'm going to say I'm for level one for

2:39:39 ↗ the technical reports who would like to

2:39:42 ↗ go

2:39:43 ↗ oh commissioner million uh yeah I'm

2:39:46 ↗ going to go for number one too but I

2:39:48 ↗ want to put on the record the staff is

2:39:51 ↗ already responding to a comment I had in

2:39:53 ↗ my email about

2:39:55 ↗ qualified which is under definitions and

2:39:58 ↗ we do need to talk about definitions I

2:40:00 ↗ don't think it's gonna happen tonight

2:40:01 ↗ but

2:40:03 ↗ um one of them is that the stormwater

2:40:04 ↗ professional doesn't seem to have the

2:40:07 ↗ um

2:40:08 ↗ specified criteria that the others do

2:40:11 ↗ even though storm water is such a huge

2:40:13 ↗ issue I was seeking a stronger as long

2:40:16 ↗ as we have

2:40:17 ↗ strong qualifications in the

2:40:20 ↗ qualification definitions I can go for

2:40:23 ↗ level one

2:40:27 ↗ I heard a second

2:40:30 ↗ yays or Nays who is for level one review

2:40:33 ↗ for technical documents

2:40:38 ↗ okay that is almost unanimous but that

2:40:41 ↗ is one off from being unanimous so that

2:40:43 ↗ is a clear majority

2:40:45 ↗ all right let's move along to policy

2:40:48 ↗ question number five I believe so we did

2:40:50 ↗ this one utility exemptions and then

2:40:52 ↗ this is the master site plan so the

2:40:55 ↗ questions here were

2:40:58 ↗ Major versus minor the 10 threshold that

2:41:02 ↗ we've kind of clarified from substantial

2:41:04 ↗ change just defining what the

2:41:06 ↗ substantial is 10 percent

2:41:08 ↗ and then

2:41:10 ↗ um the second one is should we add a

2:41:12 ↗ sentence about phasing is allowed for

2:41:14 ↗ properties over 15 Acres I think the

2:41:16 ↗ second one is really not a policy

2:41:18 ↗ question I think we can make that at it

2:41:20 ↗ um but really Major versus minor if you

2:41:25 ↗ think the 10 percent

2:41:28 ↗ needs is okay

2:41:31 ↗ or

2:41:33 ↗ commissioner Lewis I think with a 10

2:41:37 ↗ um what I when I read it it didn't feel

2:41:40 ↗ uh why it was gonna sound so like it

2:41:42 ↗ didn't feel super

2:41:43 ↗ um defined to me right even though 10 is

2:41:46 ↗ a number because the the site can vary

2:41:49 ↗ what that 10 is what I was wondering is

2:41:51 ↗ if we were able to have like a threshold

2:41:53 ↗ number 10 of a property up into this

2:41:56 ↗ size rather than a blanket ten percent

2:41:58 ↗ for anything

2:42:00 ↗ it's not 10 for anything I'm trying to

2:42:03 ↗ try and find that section here real

2:42:05 ↗ quickly

2:42:07 ↗ um I think it's under site development I

2:42:10 ↗ mean the same way that we talk about

2:42:11 ↗ like you know different you know you

2:42:13 ↗ know the four thousand square feet

2:42:15 ↗ building for level one up to ten

2:42:16 ↗ thousand square feet for level two I I

2:42:19 ↗ wondered if we would almost would have a

2:42:20 ↗ table of a percentage depending on the

2:42:22 ↗ size of the square feet

2:42:24 ↗ that makes sense yeah it's actually

2:42:26 ↗ getting it

2:42:27 ↗ um 10 of the building uh square footage

2:42:30 ↗ or height uh right so is it the

2:42:33 ↗ structure is it the is it the property

2:42:35 ↗ is it the amount of impervious surface

2:42:38 ↗ it's it's all of those right

2:42:41 ↗ so then again 10 could be a pretty big

2:42:44 ↗ number that didn't feel so minor to me

2:42:47 ↗ so let me

2:42:49 ↗ share my screen again here

2:43:06 ↗ so this is under the site development

2:43:08 ↗ permit

2:43:10 ↗ um

2:43:10 ↗ and amendments to site development

2:43:12 ↗ permits is where it gets gets to it and

2:43:16 ↗ this is for anything the site

2:43:18 ↗ development or previously approved

2:43:20 ↗ Master site plans

2:43:22 ↗ if you all can read it do you want me to

2:43:24 ↗ make it bigger

2:43:27 ↗ um so minor amendments are defined as

2:43:29 ↗ changes in the amount of open space of

2:43:31 ↗ 10 or less

2:43:33 ↗ changes to impervious surface of 10 or

2:43:36 ↗ less project densities buffers setbacks

2:43:39 ↗ of 10 or less

2:43:41 ↗ and building addition that adds 10 or

2:43:44 ↗ less of the existing square footage

2:43:47 ↗ changes to the height size the location

2:43:49 ↗ of the building or other improvements

2:43:52 ↗ and some minor changes as determined by

2:43:54 ↗ the director so it's specific things but

2:43:58 ↗ then a major is changes to parking

2:44:00 ↗ greater than 10

2:44:02 ↗ changes to facades greater than 10

2:44:04 ↗ percent adds more than 10 percent of the

2:44:07 ↗ square footage

2:44:09 ↗ um inconsistent with the design

2:44:12 ↗ guidelines

2:44:13 ↗ and such so it's not Broad and you know

2:44:17 ↗ I think it took the same criteria that

2:44:19 ↗ was in the existing code and changed the

2:44:21 ↗ word substantial to say 10 or you know

2:44:25 ↗ it defined what substantial meant

2:44:28 ↗ so that can be on a site that is greater

2:44:31 ↗ than 10 000 square feet

2:44:33 ↗ Masters so we're talking just about

2:44:35 ↗ previously approved Master site plans

2:44:37 ↗ those were larger projects right so the

2:44:40 ↗ the Amendments or are the again so we're

2:44:43 ↗ on page 103 all these 10

2:44:45 ↗ are not subject to a sliding scale of

2:44:50 ↗ the size

2:44:51 ↗ of the site no it's what was approved so

2:44:54 ↗ if you had like the example I gave a

2:44:57 ↗ thousand square feet of impervious

2:44:58 ↗ surface hypothetically then adding

2:45:02 ↗ another

2:45:03 ↗ 199 would be minor anything more than

2:45:06 ↗ 9900 would be

2:45:08 ↗ uh major

2:45:14 ↗ Vermillion

2:45:16 ↗ uh remind me so this is just to amend

2:45:20 ↗ the permit

2:45:22 ↗ uh and the Amendment must still come in

2:45:27 ↗ compliance with the code caress is not

2:45:30 ↗ an exception it's just a change it's

2:45:33 ↗ just the process yeah to approve it yeah

2:45:35 ↗ I mean I think the idea is that it's to

2:45:37 ↗ scale

2:45:38 ↗ so uh commissioner

2:45:40 ↗ yeah and I think that's the key thing to

2:45:43 ↗ scale this is a master site plan as

2:45:45 ↗ opposed to a specific

2:45:48 ↗ um Design Within that Master site plan

2:45:51 ↗ per se because typically if we say 10

2:45:54 ↗ percent is the threshold when you get to

2:45:57 ↗ the design stage

2:45:59 ↗ um 10 of of a hundred acres and I I

2:46:04 ↗ would believe that the threshold would

2:46:07 ↗ be lower than that just from an

2:46:09 ↗ environmental impact if you're adding

2:46:11 ↗ impervious areas so I think the

2:46:13 ↗ clarification there is that this is a

2:46:16 ↗ master site plan so since it's more so

2:46:21 ↗ um essentially on a desk per se

2:46:24 ↗ um update in that plan

2:46:26 ↗ um related to that 10 threshold per se

2:46:30 ↗ it should be okay as opposed to later on

2:46:34 ↗ when you move forward into design then

2:46:37 ↗ that threshold that there's a different

2:46:39 ↗ code and threshold essentially yeah we

2:46:42 ↗ can look at some language edits here you

2:46:45 ↗ know changes in the amount of open space

2:46:47 ↗ of ten percent of previously approved

2:46:49 ↗ you know we can look at maybe clarifying

2:46:52 ↗ if it's adding confusion So yeah thank

2:46:56 ↗ you I'm sorry I'm gonna jump in I think

2:46:57 ↗ that would be super helpful sorry sir I

2:47:00 ↗ think that would be super helpful

2:47:01 ↗ because right now uh again I have a

2:47:03 ↗ scalability issue of the way that it's

2:47:05 ↗ written right now because again 10 can't

2:47:08 ↗ be significant for a lot of these things

2:47:09 ↗ uh thank you thank you commissioner

2:47:12 ↗ Lewis everyone's been so well behaved so

2:47:14 ↗ it's getting late so I know we're trying

2:47:16 ↗ to Barrel towards the end but still

2:47:18 ↗ answering uh very important and

2:47:20 ↗ pertinent questions

2:47:22 ↗ um I think it's safe to say maybe we get

2:47:23 ↗ some language many to that effect and uh

2:47:26 ↗ it comes back I personally don't have a

2:47:28 ↗ problem with the number to me it's to

2:47:29 ↗ scale to commissioner Milligan's point

2:47:31 ↗ but I don't think there's any harm in

2:47:33 ↗ seeing what you guys can come up with to

2:47:35 ↗ tighten that language to commissioner

2:47:36 ↗ Lewis's concern

2:47:38 ↗ anybody have any

2:47:40 ↗ um

2:47:40 ↗ exceptions to that

2:47:44 ↗ okay a lot of headshaken note

2:47:47 ↗ so let's move on to question seven Yeah

2:47:49 ↗ question seven we really don't have

2:47:51 ↗ anything for you to debate or discussion

2:47:53 ↗ on this thing I just highlighted this

2:47:55 ↗ because this came as a public comment

2:47:56 ↗ about changes to the non-conforming

2:47:59 ↗ section so as you read through this if

2:48:02 ↗ you have anything that you'd like to to

2:48:04 ↗ bring to your attention we can but but

2:48:07 ↗ there were no policy changes made to

2:48:09 ↗ this section it is rearranged and it

2:48:11 ↗ kind of walks you through uh different

2:48:13 ↗ sections but it's the grandfathered

2:48:16 ↗ Clauses are in here if you already you

2:48:20 ↗ know don't meet the code

2:48:22 ↗ then what are your bookends you can do

2:48:25 ↗ maintenance and all of those kind of

2:48:27 ↗ things but if you go beyond that then

2:48:29 ↗ when do you have to bring it into

2:48:30 ↗ compliance

2:48:32 ↗ um but I think there was some

2:48:34 ↗ public comments made about some policy

2:48:36 ↗ changes being made over here so we just

2:48:38 ↗ wanted to kind of so I'm not sure if

2:48:40 ↗ there's any anything we're looking

2:48:41 ↗ specifically from you all on this

2:48:44 ↗ um well I do appreciate your

2:48:45 ↗ clarification earlier this evening so I

2:48:47 ↗ think that works for me and I believe uh

2:48:50 ↗ the particular public comment I I didn't

2:48:52 ↗ realize they were sitting on an aquifer

2:48:53 ↗ so yeah

2:48:55 ↗ um does anyone have anything to add

2:48:57 ↗ about uh number seven

2:49:01 ↗ okay

2:49:03 ↗ I believe we have one more and then the

2:49:05 ↗ last one is really the definition of

2:49:07 ↗ Redevelopment we Define is addition

2:49:10 ↗ alteration repair it doesn't distinguish

2:49:12 ↗ interior or exterior and has a 50

2:49:15 ↗ threshold and then when we have our site

2:49:18 ↗ development permit thresholds we say

2:49:21 ↗ new development or Redevelopment so

2:49:24 ↗ just wanted you know to have be very

2:49:28 ↗ clear that if you're doing interior

2:49:30 ↗ improvements we don't necessarily want

2:49:32 ↗ you to go through a site development

2:49:34 ↗ permit exercise because you're not

2:49:36 ↗ changing anything on the outside so if

2:49:38 ↗ you all agree then we can fine-tune the

2:49:40 ↗ language too

2:49:42 ↗ to reflect that

2:49:46 ↗ any questions as far as questions any

2:49:49 ↗ comments as far as I'm question eight

2:49:51 ↗ commissioner Lewis

2:49:53 ↗ so I was recalling a discussion with our

2:49:56 ↗ dear departed uh Lucy about this when we

2:49:59 ↗ were still here just not with us I am I

2:50:04 ↗ the only one who misses her

2:50:06 ↗ um so I that and I remembered us talking

2:50:08 ↗ specifically about these assessed values

2:50:10 ↗ of trying to determine this and we had a

2:50:13 ↗ a pretty at length discussion about it

2:50:16 ↗ um what I was confused about was where

2:50:18 ↗ we landed as far as saying that we

2:50:20 ↗ didn't have a better mode than the

2:50:21 ↗ county giving the assessment it was

2:50:23 ↗ going to be to Technical and onerous for

2:50:25 ↗ us to do anything else even though we

2:50:27 ↗ recognized that this was a shortfall and

2:50:29 ↗ is that where we basically landed was

2:50:31 ↗ this was better than the worst

2:50:33 ↗ Alternatives yeah I mean you know the

2:50:36 ↗ alternative of that is you hire an

2:50:38 ↗ assessor right who gives you um you know

2:50:40 ↗ market assessment and then you argue

2:50:42 ↗ with them about whether they're right or

2:50:44 ↗ wrong right and so this is the quickest

2:50:46 ↗ and easiest way to do it but it doesn't

2:50:48 ↗ work for all properties if you are a you

2:50:51 ↗ know a property that pays No 10 taxes

2:50:54 ↗ it's a you know 503 whatever the case

2:50:56 ↗ may be then then you have to go down

2:50:58 ↗ that path of determining what the

2:51:00 ↗ assessed market value is okay thank you

2:51:07 ↗ commissioner awesome lady

2:51:10 ↗ uh when you talk of interior remote

2:51:12 ↗ remodeling it's just based on

2:51:15 ↗ essentially just uh within the walls

2:51:18 ↗ there's no structural pieces or anything

2:51:21 ↗ that's touched good point so in dear you

2:51:26 ↗ know a lot of cities will have exterior

2:51:28 ↗ uh you know you're not exceeding more

2:51:30 ↗ than 10 percent of the exterior

2:51:33 ↗ valuation for your exterior so they

2:51:36 ↗ separate out interior from interior

2:51:38 ↗ exterior dollar value that you're

2:51:40 ↗ spending so if you're doing a face lift

2:51:41 ↗ on your building the new tenants have

2:51:43 ↗ changed and you're redoing it they'll

2:51:46 ↗ make you go through a design review

2:51:47 ↗ process if it's if it's more than 10

2:51:49 ↗ percent of the assessed value we don't

2:51:51 ↗ have a design review here we have a site

2:51:54 ↗ development permit which is really

2:51:55 ↗ looking at building not just the

2:51:57 ↗ building and site design but you know

2:51:59 ↗ other things so that uh but the the

2:52:04 ↗ reason why this one came into and you

2:52:07 ↗ know these comments came into play were

2:52:09 ↗ we have an architectural manual for

2:52:11 ↗ Central Issaquah which says you have

2:52:14 ↗ these five architectural styles that you

2:52:16 ↗ have to comply with and it was a problem

2:52:18 ↗ for some of the properties because

2:52:21 ↗ um

2:52:22 ↗ you know bombs candy and other and

2:52:25 ↗ Gilman Village and all those are are

2:52:27 ↗ Unique Treasures adopted by Council as

2:52:29 ↗ Unique Treasures but to fit them into

2:52:31 ↗ one of these five styles was so we've

2:52:34 ↗ we've added that uh where they're not

2:52:36 ↗ they don't have to go through this

2:52:38 ↗ exercise to prove how they comply with

2:52:40 ↗ one of those five Styles

2:52:42 ↗ um so that's where it started with but I

2:52:44 ↗ think then the question still is left is

2:52:47 ↗ to any property that is doing

2:52:52 ↗ um remodels is 50 and do we need to

2:52:57 ↗ distinguish between interior and

2:52:59 ↗ exterior if you're doing anything to the

2:53:01 ↗ outside of your building you

2:53:03 ↗ automatically what is that threshold so

2:53:06 ↗ we could split it that way

2:53:08 ↗ to say interior you're not subject to

2:53:11 ↗ site development if you're doing the

2:53:13 ↗ exterior and you're adding more than

2:53:16 ↗ 50 to the value of the building

2:53:19 ↗ than you are or whatever that threshold

2:53:22 ↗ is 25 percent

2:53:24 ↗ um

2:53:25 ↗ something like that okay no thanks for

2:53:28 ↗ clarifying

2:53:29 ↗ commissioner altimore

2:53:32 ↗ so this is same footprint on the

2:53:35 ↗ interior that we would be discussing and

2:53:37 ↗ so and this is just site development all

2:53:39 ↗ other permitting if they're putting

2:53:41 ↗ outlets in all over the place or

2:53:42 ↗ changing Plumbing Etc all of that would

2:53:44 ↗ still uh be in play correct

2:53:49 ↗ just doing your inside work

2:53:51 ↗ I I don't think we want to process a

2:53:54 ↗ site development permit because nothing

2:53:55 ↗ on the outside is changing where the

2:53:57 ↗ lines kind of get blurry is you're doing

2:53:59 ↗ something to the outside

2:54:02 ↗ but the most of your 50 threshold is

2:54:05 ↗ because you're upgrading on the inside

2:54:07 ↗ and then the the separate you know at

2:54:09 ↗ what point do we want people to go

2:54:11 ↗ through site development permit for

2:54:13 ↗ small exterior changes

2:54:16 ↗ it's still a little bit of a gap I think

2:54:20 ↗ so we can come back with if you all

2:54:22 ↗ agree interior no site development

2:54:24 ↗ permit exterior changes we come up with

2:54:27 ↗ a threshold then we can propose some

2:54:29 ↗ language so let's find out

2:54:31 ↗ sure Lewis

2:54:33 ↗ I think this is moving in the right

2:54:34 ↗ direction uh from where we've had this

2:54:36 ↗ discussion over the last you know like

2:54:38 ↗ two years

2:54:39 ↗ um and it would be great for us to get a

2:54:41 ↗ I don't think we're gonna able to have a

2:54:42 ↗ qualified opinion right now about what

2:54:44 ↗ that is and so being able to give us

2:54:45 ↗ examples of options I think will help us

2:54:47 ↗ being able to visualize a footprint and

2:54:50 ↗ being able to give us square footage and

2:54:51 ↗ it makes a lot more sense that way than

2:54:53 ↗ abstractly in words thank you will do

2:54:55 ↗ yeah the only I guess the only thing I

2:54:57 ↗ would ask is everybody ready to say an

2:55:00 ↗ up or down as far as the interior of the

2:55:01 ↗ house

2:55:02 ↗ I'm almost

2:55:05 ↗ I'm sorry interior of the the yes um

2:55:07 ↗ yeah I apologize right but it would

2:55:10 ↗ still have it still come under all the

2:55:11 ↗ other you know occupancy all those other

2:55:13 ↗ things that would still have to be

2:55:15 ↗ checked off so it's really about not

2:55:16 ↗ changing the footprint of the project

2:55:18 ↗ itself

2:55:20 ↗ Landscaping anything like that

2:55:22 ↗ so for me I

2:55:24 ↗ are we ready to say that tonight I'm

2:55:26 ↗ getting nods so I'm just going to go

2:55:28 ↗ ahead and ask so we can at least give

2:55:30 ↗ staff a little bit more Direction

2:55:32 ↗ as far as the interior

2:55:34 ↗ does everyone have a problem that no

2:55:37 ↗ threshold it's it's not no side

2:55:39 ↗ development permit for interior remodels

2:55:41 ↗ okay so who's in agreement with that

2:55:46 ↗ thank you and then I guess many um yeah

2:55:49 ↗ if we can get some different options for

2:55:51 ↗ the exterior that would be helpful

2:55:53 ↗ we will do that do that excellent

2:55:55 ↗ do we have any more that concludes

2:55:57 ↗ everything thank you so much for

2:55:59 ↗ sticking with it I know it's late in the

2:56:01 ↗ hour and it's a lot of information and

2:56:04 ↗ we're making you meet every week so

2:56:06 ↗ can't thank you enough for all you're

2:56:08 ↗ doing and you know appreciate it

2:56:10 ↗ um a lot of time spent reading very dry

2:56:14 ↗ code so we did have two months off so

2:56:17 ↗ we had some we had some gas in the tank

2:56:20 ↗ so that concludes our regular business

2:56:21 ↗ for this evening

2:56:25 ↗ I'd like to ask staff if you have any

2:56:28 ↗ city council updates that you'd like to

2:56:30 ↗ provide us

2:56:31 ↗ nothing new I think we talked about last

2:56:34 ↗ last week okay

2:56:38 ↗ all right

2:56:39 ↗ any other businesses business or

2:56:41 ↗ announcements from staff

2:56:45 ↗ nothing new to report all right Stephen

2:56:48 ↗ we have Christian and Council here is

2:56:50 ↗ that anything

2:56:52 ↗ well I'll make sure we daughter eyes and

2:56:54 ↗ cross our T's well I do want to thank

2:56:56 ↗ everyone tonight

2:56:58 ↗ um I do want to thank everybody that

2:56:59 ↗ joined us for bearing with us through

2:57:01 ↗ the technical issues we had earlier this

2:57:03 ↗ morning I want to thank staff I want to

2:57:05 ↗ thank our fantastic commission for

2:57:07 ↗ bearing with us uh we did have a little

2:57:09 ↗ bit of a late start try not to think

2:57:11 ↗ about what time you would have been

2:57:13 ↗ getting out but different different

2:57:15 ↗ thing but uh anyway thank you everybody

2:57:18 ↗ tonight we are going to adjourn

2:57:21 ↗ at 9 50. so have a good rest of your

2:57:24 ↗ evening thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christian Geitz, Planning Manager Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Rachel Turpin, City Attorney 2

Recommendations & actions (5)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Dhaliwal stated questions regarding the SMP could be directed to the Department of Ecology representative present.
COMMISSIONER PATTERSON suggested a test run of how a Hearing Examiner would analyze an application with the criteria, more of a legal lens on a real world application, assuming the Hearing Examiner process is adopted.
Dhaliwal replied that a percentage is relative to what was already approved.
Through public intervention, utilities have been directed to redesign and achieve outcomes differently to the value of the community, and COMMISSIONER LEWIS state support for Level Two.
COMMISSIONER LEWIS asked for clarification that ten percent figures are not subject to a sliding scale of the site, and Dhaliwal replied no, only on what has been approved.