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

Council / Members (8)

Voiss

Bader

Commissioners Altimore

Esemuede

Kennedy

Lewis

Milligan

Patterson Absence: None

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christian Geitz, Planning Manager Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Rachel Turpin, City Attorney 2