Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 20, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 28, 2024

packet pp.3–7

▶ Watch from 2:00 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

is where emergency housing will be located. Leeson replied that day shelters and night shelters are required to be allowed where hotels are allowed and that the city is requiring the shelters to be at least half-mile apart, while state law requires that emergency housing be allowed where hotels are allowed and wherever any residential uses are allowed. CHAIR VOISS asked which entity is responsible for the code of conduct and Leeson replied the operator of the facility, required if receiving federal or state funding. CHAIR VOISS asked if the city has power within the permit process and Leeson replied that some cities have adopted regulations regarding what should be included in operational plans but Issaquah has opted not to due to liability.

Minutes of April 11, 2024

packet pp.9–15

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Apr 25, 2024

▶ Watch from 2:21 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, April 11, 2024

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Chair and Vice-Chair Elections

Action · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.17–18

Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

Community Planning & Development P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3450 issaquahwa.gov

Rules and Regulations Review

Action · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.19–29

Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

Each year, following an election of Chair and Vice-Chair, the Commission is provided an opportunity to review the Rules and Regulations.

Annual Updates to Title 18 Land Use Code- Phase 1 (D)

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.31–78

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.31 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission will review and discuss the 2024 annual updates to Title 18, Land Use Code.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

5 min · 8:20 PM Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.79–81

▶ Watch from 1:29:59 Open packet at p.79 ↗

Staff report:

▪ Housing Analysis Intro ▪ Housing Analysis Intro

2149 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ well hello planning

0:09 ↗ policy it's been a while since the last

0:12 ↗ time we've seen one another I hope all

0:14 ↗ of you are good we were just having a

0:15 ↗ conversation about uh how

0:18 ↗ incredible the weather

0:21 ↗ changes uh yeah so hopefully this is the

0:24 ↗ beginning of a nice long hot

0:27 ↗ summer tonight I would like to call the

0:29 ↗ June 20th Place policy commission to

0:31 ↗ order and it currently

0:36 ↗ is 32 6:32 p.m. today's meeting is a

0:41 ↗ hybrid meeting the planning policy

0:42 ↗ commission is in person but staff or

0:45 ↗ members of the public may be attending

0:47 ↗ virtually or in person Stephen do we

0:50 ↗ have a quorum this

0:51 ↗ evening yes chair voice you have a

0:53 ↗ quorum tonight and all absence

0:56 ↗ Commissioners are excused ABS excellent

0:59 ↗ thank you and I'd like to note that we

1:00 ↗ do have one commissioner commissioner

1:01 ↗ Milligan who's been joining us virtually

1:04 ↗ this

1:05 ↗ evening hello commissioner

1:08 ↗ Milligan at this point I would also like

1:10 ↗ to welcome our newest member Kata

1:13 ↗ zacharov commissioner zacharov is

1:16 ↗ joining us filling out our alternate

1:18 ↗ position um and I please would like to

1:21 ↗ ask commissioner zacharov if she'd like

1:23 ↗ to say anything for the

1:25 ↗ PPC thank you so much for a wonderful

1:28 ↗ introduction uh my name is SC zakov this

1:30 ↗ is my first chance to serve our

1:33 ↗ wonderful city of isqua and I hope I

1:35 ↗ will be useful and I hope we will have a

1:39 ↗ great work time together thank you

1:41 ↗ excellent thank you commissioner

1:43 ↗ zacharov I'd also like to take the

1:44 ↗ moment to uh welcome a newest member of

1:46 ↗ our staff Amanda

1:48 ↗ Jackson

1:50 ↗ Amanda maybe if everyone you help me

1:53 ↗ welcome our two newest members by just a

1:55 ↗ quick Round of

1:57 ↗ Applause thank you both and we will move

2:00 ↗ on to the approval of minutes which is

2:02 ↗ our first item of business to take

2:04 ↗ action on are there any corrections to

2:06 ↗ the draft March 28th minutes provided in

2:09 ↗ the agenda

2:13 ↗ pack hearing none and seeing none

2:16 ↗ minutes are

2:17 ↗ approved are there any corrections to

2:19 ↗ the draft April 11th meeting minutes

2:22 ↗ provided in the agenda

2:26 ↗ packet hearing and seeing none those

2:29 ↗ minutes are also

2:31 ↗ approved so we will move on right now to

2:33 ↗ our next item of business which is

2:36 ↗ public

2:37 ↗ comment we will hold that at this time

2:39 ↗ and Stephen has anyone asked or signed

2:41 ↗ up to make public comment chair voice

2:44 ↗ there are no inperson attendees that

2:47 ↗ I've signed up for public comment

2:48 ↗ tonight and there's no virtual

2:50 ↗ attendees

2:52 ↗ okay that boilerplate

2:56 ↗ stuff now we will move on to our regular

2:59 ↗ business for this evening evening and we

3:00 ↗ have three items tonight and our first

3:03 ↗ is our annual nominations and elections

3:05 ↗ process which uh should have probably

3:07 ↗ happened back in May so but we've been

3:11 ↗ uh absent for a minute so we will move

3:14 ↗ on and we will start that process by

3:17 ↗ electing the chair and vice chair the

3:20 ↗ process will be is first I will call for

3:23 ↗ nominations when all nominations have

3:25 ↗ been made close the nominations if only

3:28 ↗ one nomination is made that member is

3:30 ↗ considered elected to the position by

3:32 ↗ unanimous consent if multiple

3:35 ↗ nominations are made for a position will

3:37 ↗ hold time at our next meeting for an

3:39 ↗ election

3:42 ↗ process at that point board members will

3:44 ↗ have an opportunity to discuss the

3:46 ↗ nominees we'll cast votes and yes board

3:49 ↗ members can vote for

3:52 ↗ themselves let's get started are there

3:54 ↗ any nominations for the chair

4:00 ↗ yes I would like to nominate Jason vo

4:02 ↗ continue as our

4:04 ↗ chair for a

4:07 ↗ second

4:11 ↗ right

4:13 ↗ well thank you I appreciate it um

4:16 ↗ looking forward to being the chair

4:18 ↗ thought last year was a pretty

4:19 ↗ productive year again have a lot of fun

4:22 ↗ serving with all of you guys and

4:24 ↗ appreciate the confidence you placed

4:26 ↗ thank

4:27 ↗ you now we will move on to the vice

4:34 ↗ chair are there any nominations for vice

4:38 ↗ chair uh

4:40 ↗ Jesse I would like to nominate uh

4:42 ↗ commissioner Bader for vice chair I'll

4:45 ↗ second

4:47 ↗ that any other

4:51 ↗ nominations congratulations Vice chair

4:53 ↗ B thank you

4:56 ↗ all all right well thank you everybody

4:58 ↗ thank you for particip ating now we're

5:01 ↗ going to move on to our rules and

5:02 ↗ regulations review and for this item the

5:05 ↗ current adopted rules and regulations

5:07 ↗ were included as an attachment to this

5:09 ↗ packet this document contains the

5:12 ↗ commission's operating procedures for

5:13 ↗ the meetings taking actions making

5:16 ↗ recommendations to the city following

5:19 ↗ the introduction of new members the

5:21 ↗ commission takes the opportunity to

5:22 ↗ review the rules and regulations for any

5:24 ↗ changes proposed by staff or by the

5:28 ↗ commission this year staff has proposed

5:31 ↗ no changes so we would like to open the

5:33 ↗ floor to any of our commissioners if

5:35 ↗ they would like to see a change or make

5:36 ↗ an amendment to the rules and

5:38 ↗ regulations as they sit right now if

5:41 ↗ there are no proposed amendments no

5:43 ↗ action is needed they'll just continue

5:46 ↗ from last

5:47 ↗ year but if the commission wishes to

5:49 ↗ make an amendment to those rules and

5:51 ↗ Rags we will have to have formal

5:54 ↗ action are there any amendments

6:02 ↗ hearing and seeing

6:04 ↗ none those are not necessarily approved

6:07 ↗ they they just continue to move on from

6:09 ↗ 2024

6:15 ↗ 2023 all right now we'll get to the

6:18 ↗ heart of the matter which is our phase

6:20 ↗ one of annual code

6:22 ↗ update this item is to discuss the first

6:25 ↗ phase of annual updates to Title 18 the

6:27 ↗ city's land use code and I would just

6:30 ↗ say before we get into it this uh

6:32 ↗ tonight that I think the idea is to kind

6:35 ↗ of have a light hand a light touch as

6:37 ↗ far as us as Commissioners we're looking

6:39 ↗ for ideas or areas of improvement think

6:43 ↗ of language a tweak or an addition a

6:45 ↗ subtraction to make the language or the

6:48 ↗ understanding stronger or clearer what

6:50 ↗ we're going to try and avoid this

6:52 ↗ evening is you know we should rethink

6:54 ↗ this policy or we should change the

6:56 ↗ intent of this policy that's probably

6:59 ↗ more appropriate for next week after we

7:01 ↗ hear from the public and then we will

7:03 ↗ have our deliberations about whether we

7:04 ↗ want to toss this keep this but really

7:06 ↗ we're just trying to strengthen again

7:08 ↗ the language the understanding and then

7:10 ↗ we'll have the opportunity next week to

7:13 ↗ uh back and bat and

7:18 ↗ forth so I want to introduce stepen

7:21 ↗ padur our long range planning manager

7:23 ↗ who will be presenting tonight and

7:25 ↗ Stephen when you're ready please go

7:28 ↗ ahead thank you CH voice and good

7:30 ↗ evening everyone it's it has been a

7:32 ↗ minute since we last had a conversation

7:35 ↗ and I want to appreciate the

7:37 ↗ commission's patience as we kind of work

7:39 ↗ through and update our calendar here and

7:41 ↗ and hopefully there won't be any other

7:43 ↗ changes and we'll be able to work

7:45 ↗ through a lot of what we planed for the

7:47 ↗ work plan for the remain of the year as

7:49 ↗ as we've presented in the the

7:50 ↗ commission's calendar now can everybody

7:52 ↗ see my presentation okay

7:55 ↗ okay so tonight we're going to be

7:57 ↗ discussing um what is our first annual

8:00 ↗ update to our code Following last year's

8:03 ↗ big overhaul that we conducted for the

8:06 ↗ land use code um over several years

8:09 ↗ discussions uh multiple levels of

8:12 ↗ analysis and discussions with this

8:13 ↗ commission as well as multiple boards

8:15 ↗ commissions to look at updating our land

8:17 ↗ use code this year we are now taking

8:20 ↗ more of a lighter touch going through

8:21 ↗ now we've had a year of implementation

8:23 ↗ of our brand new land use code we want

8:26 ↗ to uh propose minor amendments and

8:29 ↗ slight uh policy adjustments or

8:32 ↗ clarifications of the code as we have

8:34 ↗ gone through implementation and that is

8:36 ↗ being what is being proposed so don't

8:39 ↗ worry about reading all the questions

8:41 ↗ that are on this page it's very small P

8:43 ↗ I just want to get all the questions

8:45 ↗ that are proposed or or presented to you

8:47 ↗ in your packet um we'll go through each

8:50 ↗ of them in the presentation and I'll

8:52 ↗ represent the questions for each

8:55 ↗ proposed major Amendment um one thing I

8:58 ↗ I should go back back on is I'm not

9:01 ↗ going to be going through all of the

9:03 ↗ proposed amendments we we are leaving

9:05 ↗ out many of the smaller clarification

9:08 ↗ policy amendments but if you do have a

9:11 ↗ question on any of those other items

9:13 ↗ that are in the larger Matrix that was

9:15 ↗ part of your packet tonight I'm happy to

9:17 ↗ go over that and we can discuss that as

9:19 ↗ well but for efficiency time we wanted

9:21 ↗ to start with at least the major policy

9:23 ↗ questions we want to pose for

9:26 ↗ you so with the first um policy

9:29 ↗ Amendment there was this section 18204

9:32 ↗ 030 this is focused on pre-applications

9:36 ↗ and and as I'm going through the

9:37 ↗ presentation I it is in the same order

9:39 ↗ of what was presented in The Matrix for

9:42 ↗ the policy questions so if you want to

9:44 ↗ go through the larger Matrix or you just

9:46 ↗ want to go through the presentation it's

9:47 ↗ up to you but I just want to make sure

9:49 ↗ it is in the same order the this

9:52 ↗ particular change focused on

9:53 ↗ pre-application Community meetings is

9:55 ↗ related to um one that we made with the

10:00 ↗ code update last year with Title 18 was

10:03 ↗ we introduced preapplication uh

10:05 ↗ Community meetings as a required element

10:07 ↗ for level four review or our per or

10:10 ↗ level four permits and we made it

10:13 ↗ required for level four but optional for

10:14 ↗ level three and two and what that means

10:17 ↗ is prior to a application being

10:20 ↗ submitted this meeting was required by

10:23 ↗ the app to have for level

10:25 ↗ four what we are proposing to do is

10:28 ↗ remove the requirement M um because with

10:31 ↗ a recently adopted State legislation um

10:37 ↗ 5290 that particular bill was focused on

10:40 ↗ review timelines for all cities and so

10:42 ↗ there's an exemption that they allow in

10:45 ↗ that new state bill that if you do these

10:48 ↗ three things or three of these nine

10:51 ↗ things you are Exempted from having to

10:54 ↗ refund 20% of the application fee if you

10:58 ↗ don't meet the fulltime

11:00 ↗ and so that's what we're trying to do

11:01 ↗ with this change is be able to comply

11:03 ↗ with that exemption so that we do not

11:06 ↗ have to we're not committed to refunding

11:10 ↗ that 20% for the application fee if we

11:13 ↗ don't meet the

11:15 ↗ full-time so with this change that

11:17 ↗ allows us to be able to compliant with

11:19 ↗ that

11:20 ↗ exemption the background on this one is

11:23 ↗ is with 5290 I mean the intent of the

11:27 ↗ entire bill is to have all cities meet

11:30 ↗ certain timelines and add more

11:32 ↗ requirements behind Meeting those

11:34 ↗ timelines and and making and the the

11:38 ↗ bigger argument for a lot of that is

11:41 ↗ because of the high demand for housing

11:42 ↗ they want to make sure that housing

11:44 ↗ projects do move forward that was that's

11:46 ↗ language that's built in Bill and so

11:49 ↗ that is kind of the background

11:51 ↗ information on the bill itself with the

11:53 ↗ title 18 update the conversation for the

11:56 ↗ pre-application meetings was that when

11:59 ↗ we previously had the rivers and streams

12:01 ↗ board there was discussions on making

12:04 ↗ sure that we had free application

12:07 ↗ meetings required for certain levels of

12:09 ↗ project and so when we evaluated Title

12:12 ↗ 18 update and the different levels of

12:13 ↗ review we found that for the level four

12:16 ↗ review it made sense to have these

12:18 ↗ conversations but with the conversation

12:21 ↗ with the new state Bill we are now

12:23 ↗ having to reexamine them so that is what

12:25 ↗ is being proposed with this I open to

12:29 ↗ the commission for any questions or any

12:35 ↗ comments questions

12:38 ↗ anyone Mr bad I have a bunch of

12:41 ↗ questions on this one

12:43 ↗ um I'll start with a stupid question

12:46 ↗ maybe um so the timeline starts pre

12:55 ↗ application the timeline starts with uh

12:57 ↗ the submitt of the application okay so

12:59 ↗ then why would a community meeting

13:02 ↗ happening

13:03 ↗ pre-application impact the timeline that

13:07 ↗ you need to comply

13:12 ↗ with so this is many doal um couple

13:16 ↗ things I think that are going on so the

13:19 ↗ the bill that also has a menu of options

13:22 ↗ that the city's you know it mandates the

13:24 ↗ timelines but it also mandates um cities

13:28 ↗ have to refund refund the money back if

13:30 ↗ they don't meet that timeline and in

13:32 ↗ that refund procedures there's a manyu

13:33 ↗ of options you can choose from to say um

13:37 ↗ you know for these reason if you if the

13:39 ↗ cities do these three things out of

13:41 ↗ these eight things then then the refund

13:44 ↗ Provisions don't apply because otherwise

13:46 ↗ it it can become very complex um so one

13:49 ↗ of those three options is to have

13:52 ↗ pre-application as an optional item um

13:55 ↗ so the other thing I think to keep in

13:57 ↗ mind is it from a practical standpoint

13:59 ↗ of how this thing gets implemented it

14:02 ↗ becomes complicated so even though the

14:03 ↗ timelines start from the day the

14:06 ↗ application come in uh but applicants

14:09 ↗ will see it as well we couldn't turn in

14:11 ↗ our application because you had this

14:13 ↗ requirement and you took six months the

14:15 ↗ city to schedule this meeting hold the

14:18 ↗ meeting and all that so from um from a

14:22 ↗ perspective of whether that counts or

14:23 ↗ doesn't count it would be hard to argue

14:25 ↗ that your timeline doesn't start from

14:28 ↗ because it's a re requirement and then I

14:30 ↗ think the other part to keep in mind is

14:32 ↗ the for level four it says required but

14:35 ↗ we also for level two and three have it

14:38 ↗ required if there are critical areas in

14:40 ↗ the property I think the intent there is

14:42 ↗ that we have those Community

14:44 ↗ conversations early in the process um so

14:48 ↗ I think we've looked at all the moving

14:49 ↗ parts and and I I guess like Stephen

14:53 ↗ saying there are two options for uh you

14:55 ↗ all to consider one of them is we just

14:58 ↗ do this post we don't require it pre um

15:02 ↗ and that's how practically it's working

15:04 ↗ because we don't you know generally

15:05 ↗ applicants don't come and start talking

15:06 ↗ to us some of them do not everyone and

15:10 ↗ uh so they don't even know that this is

15:11 ↗ a pre you know this requirement so we

15:14 ↗ get an application and then we look at

15:16 ↗ it and then we hold a neighborhood

15:17 ↗ meeting uh but it happens early in the

15:20 ↗ review process so when we have 28 days

15:23 ↗ to determine if it's complete or not and

15:25 ↗ within that if there's a notice of

15:27 ↗ application required we circulate the

15:29 ↗ notice to 500 ft property owners and

15:32 ↗ tenants and in that notice we can say

15:36 ↗ you have a meeting scheduled with next

15:38 ↗ week or you know within 10 days before

15:41 ↗ the comment period ends so people can

15:43 ↗ come to that meeting get their questions

15:45 ↗ answered the community feedback can be

15:47 ↗ folded in um I think that that's sort of

15:51 ↗ where we've landed as a as a good place

15:53 ↗ where it comply you know this the city

15:55 ↗ we can comply with our regulations of uh

15:59 ↗ not having to refund because we can pick

16:01 ↗ those three options out of the eight

16:03 ↗ from the bill um it's better for the

16:05 ↗ applicants because they're not really

16:07 ↗ waiting for uh the city to schedule this

16:10 ↗ meeting and they can turn in their

16:12 ↗ application yeah yeah now that that

16:14 ↗ helps because my followon question which

16:17 ↗ was kind of I think getting to what the

16:19 ↗ policy question on the screen is is

16:21 ↗ would there still be a space right for

16:23 ↗ that Community feedback because I think

16:24 ↗ that's important not to lose yeah and

16:27 ↗ applicants have told me sometimes they

16:29 ↗ value this because they know what's

16:31 ↗ important to the community so before

16:33 ↗ they spend their time designing this

16:34 ↗ thing it's good for them to get that

16:36 ↗ feedback early so we can you know for

16:39 ↗ the applicants that want to do it we can

16:41 ↗ recommend and we can make it optional

16:43 ↗ but where where it can kind of gets

16:45 ↗ tricky is when it's required yeah and

16:48 ↗ then you I think if someone argued we

16:50 ↗ would have to count that time within

16:53 ↗ there because it it's a requirement even

16:56 ↗ though it's pre um then those I guess

16:59 ↗ have these been well attended

17:01 ↗ historically especially for like the

17:02 ↗ level four ones um is this like a space

17:05 ↗ that the community has been using that

17:07 ↗ they might now lose we've got good

17:09 ↗ attendance

17:11 ↗ yes depends on the project and the

17:13 ↗ neighborhood and and you know what folks

17:16 ↗ want to submit I think the couple that

17:18 ↗ I've attended were pretty well

17:27 ↗ attended commissioner

17:31 ↗ Milligan oh I was just getting in line

17:33 ↗ thank you very much uh commissioner n

17:36 ↗ Milligan thank you uh commissioner Bader

17:38 ↗ I'm G to um complement what you had just

17:41 ↗ said and come around the other direction

17:43 ↗ in asking about are we asking for the

17:48 ↗ permission not to refund if our time

17:52 ↗ permitting process is non-compliant or

17:57 ↗ over time

17:59 ↗ is that that's the reason why we would

18:01 ↗ not have a community pre-application

18:07 ↗ conference um this is mini again um yeah

18:10 ↗ commissioner Milligan that is one of the

18:12 ↗ reasons but not the only one the other

18:15 ↗ one is meeting the timelines which is

18:16 ↗ more important and than you know in in

18:19 ↗ the sche in terms of the triaging

18:22 ↗ because even though the the even though

18:24 ↗ we have a uh requirement it is

18:27 ↗ pre-application

18:29 ↗ um but applicants can't submit the you

18:32 ↗ know we can they can turn something in

18:34 ↗ so it's hard to argue that that time is

18:36 ↗ not a required time um yeah right I

18:41 ↗ think I remember some other issues about

18:43 ↗ that yeah so then um just following up a

18:46 ↗ little bit then uh

18:49 ↗ the

18:53 ↗ timeline it seems like what was coming

18:56 ↗ from the state and I think from our

18:58 ↗ heart was to be a better place to

19:00 ↗ develop I'm I'm not going to put out my

19:02 ↗ opinion because you told me to hold it

19:04 ↗ till next week but um the reason for

19:07 ↗ getting rid of the pre application

19:09 ↗ conference doesn't seem to make the

19:12 ↗ requirement doesn't to I'm wondering how

19:15 ↗ that really makes it a better

19:17 ↗ environment for

19:19 ↗ developers if that's what our objective

19:21 ↗ is and that's my last

19:27 ↗ question I mean um so you know I think

19:30 ↗ that's where um getting that um feedback

19:33 ↗ from the community from the applicants

19:35 ↗ giving the giving everyone an option to

19:37 ↗ to go through that process if they

19:39 ↗ choose to uh if they value that input

19:42 ↗ early on or having it in the first 10

19:46 ↗ days the application comes in uh it's

19:48 ↗ still early in the process uh and at

19:51 ↗ that time a few things have been flushed

19:53 ↗ out and you know you can actually see

19:55 ↗ the critical areas you can see all those

19:57 ↗ things um perhaps is the other option

20:01 ↗ there that you would still get the feed

20:03 ↗ feedback from everyone involved early in

20:06 ↗ the design process and still comply with

20:09 ↗ those other uh requirements in terms of

20:11 ↗ your question about make it a better

20:13 ↗ environment um maybe you can help me

20:17 ↗ understand what what you were thinking

20:20 ↗ well you know if the if the purpose of

20:22 ↗ SB

20:24 ↗ 5920 and of and of our updates to Title

20:28 ↗ 18 holistically was to make isqua a

20:33 ↗ better place for good developers to come

20:35 ↗ and do their work why would this make it

20:38 ↗ better if what it does is disincentivize

20:41 ↗ us um doesn't it removes an incentive

20:44 ↗ for us to stick to a later

20:48 ↗ timeline from the overall time

20:51 ↗ perspective I mean yeah if if it removes

20:54 ↗ the incentive to do things in a timely

20:55 ↗ fashion by removing the um you don't

20:58 ↗ have to refund if you go over time why

21:00 ↗ does why does this make it better for

21:03 ↗ them well some of the the timelines in

21:05 ↗ the bill are very um stringent so um you

21:10 ↗ know scheduling a community meeting and

21:14 ↗ doing that we we have to budget at least

21:17 ↗ uh 30 days if not more for that process

21:20 ↗ to work because there's the mailing of

21:22 ↗ the postcards finding a time holding the

21:25 ↗ meeting and so it it you know there's a

21:27 ↗ lot involved and so for some of these

21:29 ↗ projects you you would have to count

21:31 ↗ that 30 days in the overall 60-day time

21:34 ↗ period so you used up half of your time

21:37 ↗ review time um at this early stage so

21:41 ↗ that's that's an option we are not given

21:43 ↗ under this bill uh to extend the

21:46 ↗ timelines and such so we you know the

21:48 ↗ cities are bound by that time

21:52 ↗ frame I don't know if I answered your

21:54 ↗ question but want to make sure

22:02 ↗ any further questions on this

22:04 ↗ particular your Bader just have a

22:07 ↗ clarifying question on the Alternatives

22:09 ↗ and so one is making the pre-application

22:12 ↗ community meeting optional is the

22:14 ↗ alternative to that making the post

22:16 ↗ application meeting required or optional

22:20 ↗ make it required and so the the the

22:22 ↗ trade off there is that it would no

22:24 ↗ longer be a pre-application it would

22:26 ↗ just be an early community meeting once

22:29 ↗ the application is submitted so that was

22:30 ↗ the alternative we offered as part of

22:32 ↗ the question thank

22:37 ↗ you all right if there's no further

22:40 ↗ questions go ahead and continue

22:42 ↗ please great thank you chair voice so

22:45 ↗ with the next change it was focused on

22:47 ↗ the techn technical document requirement

22:49 ↗ that's within Title 18 that um the

22:52 ↗ reason why we are proposing to change

22:54 ↗ this and is changing um the the

22:56 ↗ requirement of the Techno document

22:58 ↗ submission is to allow applicants to to

23:01 ↗ complete a technical doent review prior

23:03 ↗ to the decision to pursue the project so

23:05 ↗ that actually allows a little more

23:07 ↗ flexibility for applicants to be

23:08 ↗ considering whether or not it's

23:10 ↗ technically feasible for them to be

23:12 ↗ pursuing a project um the background

23:16 ↗ with this one is within the discussion

23:18 ↗ in Title 18 update last year there was a

23:20 ↗ discussion on when and where we want to

23:22 ↗ allow technical documents to be

23:24 ↗ submitted and so in the old code we

23:26 ↗ didn't actually allow technical doents

23:29 ↗ would be submitted within its separate

23:30 ↗ process from the application process so

23:32 ↗ we built that into the code but the way

23:35 ↗ we wrote it

23:37 ↗ actually uh didn't create as much

23:39 ↗ flexibility as we were wanting so the

23:41 ↗ proposed amendments actually create the

23:43 ↗ meet the intent that we wanted to do

23:45 ↗ when we did the change last year to

23:47 ↗ allow techn technical document review to

23:49 ↗ be done

23:53 ↗ separate are there any questions on

24:02 ↗ hearing

24:03 ↗ none look like it I have a question

24:06 ↗ there it is commissioner Milligan thank

24:08 ↗ you U so Stephen I'm sorry you you did

24:11 ↗ flush it out a little bit better for me

24:12 ↗ but I still didn't quite understand um

24:15 ↗ if

24:16 ↗ separately um if there any um I was I

24:19 ↗ was wondering about

24:21 ↗ interdependencies within an application

24:24 ↗ so um what were the different separately

24:28 ↗ parts and it's later in the document

24:30 ↗ which I can't find right now help

24:34 ↗ me could you clarify your question are

24:37 ↗ you asking about is is it all the

24:40 ↗ technical documents for a particular

24:42 ↗ project separately or are there still

24:45 ↗ stages which might uh disconnect some uh

24:49 ↗ technical reviews that might be

24:52 ↗ interdependent there's the

24:58 ↗ well the idea behind what we wanted for

25:00 ↗ technical document review is is that the

25:02 ↗ applic applicants prior to submitting a

25:05 ↗ full application could do some type of

25:07 ↗ technical review process to weigh you

25:10 ↗ know maybe a geotechnical review for a

25:12 ↗ site um prior to full application and

25:15 ↗ working with the staff but not necessar

25:18 ↗ as part of a more formal process more so

25:20 ↗ than just having informal conversation

25:23 ↗ with staff to see where they might fit

25:25 ↗ in with within the regulations does that

25:27 ↗ help n your question of what we mean by

25:29 ↗ the technical so it's not necessarily

25:31 ↗ any specific one but just more of um

25:35 ↗ that with technical documents that they

25:37 ↗ would be able to have these conversation

25:38 ↗ with staff early on yeah and I I

25:41 ↗ appreciate that what I was thinking

25:43 ↗ about was when you have a Geotech uh

25:46 ↗ report and say a critical areas report

25:48 ↗ or a landslide Hazard report are all of

25:51 ↗ these still getting considered together

25:54 ↗ because they um relate to

26:02 ↗ another or do you do the Geotech all by

26:04 ↗ itself is that what you mean do the

26:07 ↗ Geotech all by itself and three months

26:08 ↗ later you do the critical areas and you

26:10 ↗ say oh shoot I already approved of the

26:12 ↗ Geotech that's what I'm thinking of I'm

26:14 ↗ going to defer to director doly wall on

26:17 ↗ this one yeah no good question in terms

26:19 ↗ of um the technical document process the

26:23 ↗ way it works it's up to the applicants

26:26 ↗ if they want to do this early so for

26:29 ↗ some that it may mean they want to know

26:33 ↗ uh is it a Type 3 Wetland or a type two

26:35 ↗ Wetland because that then informs their

26:37 ↗ site design so they may choose to just

26:39 ↗ do the critical area review for Wetlands

26:43 ↗ for instance or and and or streams um

26:47 ↗ the Geotech uh piece uh is pretty

26:51 ↗ Technical and so a lot of times um you

26:55 ↗ need to see uh you know building plans

26:57 ↗ and things like that to go with the

26:59 ↗ Geotech report um sometimes it's it's

27:02 ↗ helpful for people to know that you know

27:04 ↗ if there's a landslide potential they

27:05 ↗ can do borings and things like that so

27:07 ↗ that can be a separate path uh for them

27:11 ↗ um the other um flavors of this

27:13 ↗ technical document review could be you

27:15 ↗ know parking analysis so it's not listed

27:18 ↗ as a permitted use in our zoning code

27:21 ↗ there are no parking standards and they

27:23 ↗ want to know what what how much do we

27:25 ↗ want to park it at so they can get some

27:27 ↗ of those early decisions that inform

27:29 ↗ them designing their their site design

27:32 ↗ uh it some folks may want to do a

27:35 ↗ combined like we want to know these

27:37 ↗ three things ahead of time that they can

27:39 ↗ do those three things it's it's really

27:41 ↗ driven with um that in mind of giving

27:45 ↗ people options to know before they spend

27:47 ↗ their time designing um once we have

27:51 ↗ their formal application say a site

27:53 ↗ development permit to do this

27:54 ↗ development and they've gone through a

27:56 ↗ parking they know they need to park it

27:57 ↗ at 35 parking spaces or whatever um and

28:02 ↗ it's a wetland 3 and uh they have gone

28:05 ↗ through some technical review that you

28:07 ↗ know there'll still be an opportunity to

28:08 ↗ look at everything together um the

28:12 ↗ Geotech and critical area option that

28:14 ↗ you're saying sometimes those can be

28:16 ↗ interrelated but a lot of times

28:18 ↗ geotechnical analysis is really focused

28:20 ↗ in safety and the critical area pieces

28:23 ↗ uh for Habitat protection and and

28:25 ↗ meeting our buffers so uh they're not

28:28 ↗ necessarily um one or the other um

28:31 ↗ they're looking for different things so

28:33 ↗ I'm not sure that answers your question

28:35 ↗ either but there's not a requirement to

28:38 ↗ do it one way or the other currently in

28:41 ↗ the

28:46 ↗ code uh care voice here so the idea mini

28:49 ↗ um director Dolly wall would basically

28:51 ↗ be giving the Builder the developer I

28:54 ↗ suppose more flexibility they're looking

28:56 ↗ at a site they're kind of an idea what

28:58 ↗ they want to do with the site rather

29:00 ↗ than submitting building designs gech

29:03 ↗ safety they can start right off the bat

29:05 ↗ to see feasibility by saying okay what

29:07 ↗ type of wetland do we have here so they

29:09 ↗ can take a small piece of that technical

29:11 ↗ puzzle start that and then like again if

29:15 ↗ it doesn't fit their scheme they can

29:18 ↗ walk away without incurring too much

29:20 ↗ cost and time correct yeah and um you

29:25 ↗ know it doesn't forego it's an OP

29:28 ↗ optional thing it's not a requirement

29:29 ↗ that they have to do technical document

29:31 ↗ review some some folks know what they

29:34 ↗ want to build they understand the codes

29:36 ↗ and they feel confident with their

29:37 ↗ ability they can they don't have to go

29:39 ↗ through this this is just an additional

29:41 ↗ option given to folks that we heard

29:43 ↗ through our process that we want to get

29:45 ↗ some early guidance um early

29:50 ↗ on thank you any further

29:54 ↗ questions moving along

29:58 ↗ great thank you so for the next item

30:02 ↗ this is focused on the timing and

30:03 ↗ development revieww decisions um this

30:06 ↗ change is actually a direct requirement

30:08 ↗ from uh State Bill 5290 so we don't

30:11 ↗ actually have a policy question related

30:13 ↗ to this one but it is a policy change we

30:15 ↗ wanted to make sure to highlight the

30:16 ↗ commission it's not so much the

30:18 ↗ clarification so it didn't warrant being

30:20 ↗ on the other list but we want to make

30:22 ↗ sure that for the RCW listed on the

30:24 ↗ screen that this is this change is it's

30:27 ↗ referring to this RCW specifically we

30:30 ↗ want to make sure that the commission

30:32 ↗ was aware

30:33 ↗ of any questions about the

30:38 ↗ changeed not looking like it

30:42 ↗ okay so um I just want this was already

30:45 ↗ removed from your packet but in case you

30:47 ↗ saw this early on this section was

30:49 ↗ removed uh this will be postponed to a

30:52 ↗ separate this was related to the

30:54 ↗ requirement for Street walls uh for

30:56 ↗ utility facilities we'll have a

30:58 ↗ discussion on this in the future so I

30:59 ↗ just want to make sure you read the old

31:01 ↗ packet or you've been reading the old

31:02 ↗ packet we're going to talk about that in

31:04 ↗ a later

31:06 ↗ time the next item is related to heat

31:09 ↗ pumps and uh HVAC equipment being

31:12 ↗ installed within required setback and

31:14 ↗ that change would actually allow heat

31:17 ↗ pumps and AC units which are defined as

31:20 ↗ accessory structures uh within our code

31:23 ↗ be allowed within regulated setbacks the

31:26 ↗ reason for the change is because our

31:28 ↗ current code does not allow heat pumps

31:30 ↗ or AC units to be Exempted from being

31:34 ↗ within the regulated setbacks and for

31:35 ↗ this reason many projects or many

31:37 ↗ properties aren't allowed to install any

31:40 ↗ of these units when they're fully built

31:42 ↗ out to the regulated setb so the the

31:46 ↗ background behind this is that being

31:48 ↗ defined as an accessory structure our

31:50 ↗ code defines certain things decks patios

31:53 ↗ and sheds as an example as being these

31:55 ↗ accessory structures and we allow

31:57 ↗ certain examp itions of you know a deck

32:00 ↗ below 30 in above the ground can be

32:03 ↗ allowed within the required or a shed of

32:05 ↗ a certain size is allowed within that

32:08 ↗ regulated setback but um when we updated

32:12 ↗ the code we didn't actually make that

32:13 ↗ exemption for accessory units and part

32:16 ↗ of that is that we didn't really have as

32:19 ↗ much of a demand in the previous past so

32:22 ↗ now it's becoming more evident that

32:24 ↗ people need have these installs and for

32:26 ↗ neighborhoods like Highlands and T us

32:28 ↗ where not every property was actually

32:30 ↗ built or every building was built with

32:32 ↗ AC unit or a heat pump there's this

32:35 ↗ demand now and most of those properties

32:37 ↗ within the newer neighborhoods are fully

32:39 ↗ built out to what they're allowed to do

32:41 ↗ and so this is kind of where this uh uh

32:45 ↗ regulation change kind of fits into why

32:48 ↗ we're proposing this time so the um the

32:53 ↗ other part of this allowance is that

32:56 ↗ there's a noise regulation that we'll be

32:58 ↗ discussing um that'll be discussed also

33:00 ↗ at a future date when we come back for a

33:02 ↗ smaller list of code amendments that

33:04 ↗ will be but I just want to make sure

33:07 ↗ that the commission knows that that's

33:08 ↗ kind of partnered with the other

33:10 ↗ regulations but for this one we want to

33:12 ↗ at least go in with uh with allowing the

33:15 ↗ installation within the

33:17 ↗ regulat are there any questions about

33:19 ↗ the proposed

33:22 ↗ change it's not about the proposed

33:25 ↗ change maybe but maybe we should discuss

33:27 ↗ the noise a little bit sooner cuz it's

33:29 ↗ about the time when people start using

33:31 ↗ ACS and they really want to install

33:33 ↗ something now yeah thank you the the

33:37 ↗ state regulation oh thank you for

33:38 ↗ reminding me of this so the state

33:40 ↗ regulates noise and the department of

33:42 ↗ ecology actually requires a 90-day

33:44 ↗ notice for any changes to this

33:46 ↗ particular type of Regulation so that's

33:48 ↗ part of the reason why it's not coming

33:50 ↗ at the same time as this

33:56 ↗ regulation I get the feeling this one

33:58 ↗ might be one we hear a little bit more

33:59 ↗ about next

34:01 ↗ week is there any fine tuning any

34:03 ↗ questions other than commissioner

34:06 ↗ zov's Vice chair Bader this is a little

34:08 ↗ bit of a question for the sake of having

34:10 ↗ a question but I'll ask it anyway um I'm

34:14 ↗ I think you did a good job of explaining

34:16 ↗ like that this is so that people can

34:18 ↗ have these units in place right but are

34:21 ↗ there and I think the noise gets to this

34:22 ↗ a little bit like Provisions in the code

34:25 ↗ that would stop and I realize you're not

34:26 ↗ going to install your heat pump like on

34:28 ↗ the other side of your property but I'm

34:30 ↗ saying like I don't want this right

34:31 ↗ outside my master bedroom window right

34:33 ↗ so I'm going to install it as far as I

34:35 ↗ can away from my house and now all of a

34:36 ↗ sudden it's right under my neighbor's

34:38 ↗ master bedroom window um like that

34:40 ↗ stopped that sort of thing from

34:42 ↗ happening because I get the point of

34:44 ↗ this is just to like allow these to

34:46 ↗ exist but does this potentially open up

34:49 ↗ like them being placed in weird

34:55 ↗ places can

34:59 ↗ you know um so a lot of development in

35:03 ↗ the master plan communities uh the town

35:05 ↗ homes the attached town homes and others

35:07 ↗ at the time they were built this

35:09 ↗ technology wasn't there and so you know

35:12 ↗ you can see like in Seattle they put

35:15 ↗ them on their flat rooftop deck or

35:17 ↗ whatever right so they there's a place

35:18 ↗ even in a townhouse development to put

35:21 ↗ these up um in in these uh units you

35:25 ↗ know they are getting approval from the

35:27 ↗ HOAs uh of these communities sometimes

35:31 ↗ they're in the front

35:32 ↗ yard um because there's no other place

35:35 ↗ uh for you know sometimes they they can

35:38 ↗ go on a deck of their own place um

35:42 ↗ so I think we can look at adding

35:45 ↗ language that says you have to do your

35:47 ↗ best to keep it away from um disturbing

35:51 ↗ other property owners and if there's no

35:52 ↗ other alternative then you know so I

35:55 ↗ think the the thought process that you

35:57 ↗ have I think is

35:58 ↗ probably worth exploring in terms of

36:01 ↗ adding some qu you know some parameter

36:04 ↗ around where to put it but the reality

36:07 ↗ is for these attached Town Homes there

36:09 ↗ isn't any room uh that complies with the

36:12 ↗ setbacks if you are a standalone unit uh

36:16 ↗ and you have bare minimum sidey setbacks

36:19 ↗ most of them are putting it in their

36:21 ↗ sidey because it's the closest to run

36:23 ↗ the the piping and everything to your

36:26 ↗ home um neighbors that might get

36:29 ↗ disturbed by that noise is the potential

36:32 ↗ and and I think even in the town homes a

36:34 ↗ lot of them in a line uh cumulatively

36:38 ↗ can become noisy at night especially for

36:41 ↗ the neighbors that don't have AC and

36:42 ↗ want to open their Windows yeah it's a

36:45 ↗ tricky one for sure but we're hearing

36:47 ↗ from the two HOAs that uh this is

36:50 ↗ absolutely must uh thing and and just so

36:54 ↗ that the record is clear we didn't

36:55 ↗ change the code the last Title 18 didn't

36:57 ↗ change it the noise code is what it was

37:00 ↗ for a lot of other cities too it's the

37:01 ↗ department of ecology's adopted noise

37:03 ↗ levels which are 55 DB and 45 DB at

37:08 ↗ night um so none of the noise code

37:11 ↗ issues changed and nor did this setback

37:14 ↗ issues so uh what we used to do is to

37:18 ↗ have these applicants apply for these

37:20 ↗ permits online and since we got a

37:23 ↗ complaint from a neighbor about noise uh

37:25 ↗ we've asked them to submit a site plan

37:28 ↗ that shows the location to verify that

37:29 ↗ the setback so that created a little bit

37:31 ↗ of uh an issue but that's why we wanted

37:34 ↗ to kind of Bring It Forward for a good

37:36 ↗ discussion and you know making sure we

37:39 ↗ we're implementing the code keeping in

37:41 ↗ mind all sides of the

37:44 ↗ equion and I think one thing that might

37:46 ↗ be helpful for next week is is possibly

37:48 ↗ you know different

37:50 ↗ scenarios um again I think Vice chair

37:53 ↗ Bader's point you know what does that

37:55 ↗ look like in a front yard on the rideway

37:57 ↗ you know is there an idea to screen

37:58 ↗ these so again you're not looking at a a

38:00 ↗ large air conditioning unit so I don't

38:03 ↗ know if that's part of the thinking

38:05 ↗ that's going on with staff but that

38:06 ↗ might be helpful for people to get their

38:08 ↗ heads around it if we have some

38:10 ↗ different op menu of options to look at

38:12 ↗ that because I think for me like I said

38:14 ↗ the rideway that one screams out to me

38:16 ↗ I'm thinking of all these small houses

38:18 ↗ in Oldtown all of a sudden now you have

38:20 ↗ these large

38:22 ↗ utility benefices right there and then

38:25 ↗ again okay well that's the only place

38:26 ↗ that could go and everyone should have

38:28 ↗ the right to be able to put those units

38:30 ↗ in do we have a policy to screen them

38:33 ↗ you know whether it be bushes and shrubs

38:34 ↗ or that

38:37 ↗ nature yeah the you know even from a

38:39 ↗ noise's perspective screening becomes

38:42 ↗ difficult for the heat pumps because

38:43 ↗ their concept is they're drawing air in

38:46 ↗ um so what a screening looks like for a

38:49 ↗ heat pump would also be need to be you

38:51 ↗ know you can't put an acoustic barrier

38:53 ↗ to keep the noise down because you're

38:54 ↗ you know you're trying to pull in air so

38:57 ↗ we we talk to the installers and

38:58 ↗ everyone else to kind of see what kind

39:00 ↗ of uh you know dampeners and things like

39:04 ↗ that that could be because the the noise

39:06 ↗ making is the fan uh piece but yeah we

39:10 ↗ can look at options for you all for you

39:13 ↗ I'm not even so much the noise because

39:14 ↗ again a lot of these units are are

39:16 ↗ working Department of ecology yeah it's

39:18 ↗ more of the aesthetic right when people

39:20 ↗ when they're walking by and to see

39:23 ↗ any the side of house that setback not

39:26 ↗ as big of a concern I guess person below

39:28 ↗ that primary bedroom but otherwise like

39:31 ↗ I said I'm thinking of all these

39:32 ↗ Charming little houses in Old Town and

39:34 ↗ all of a sudden you start having because

39:36 ↗ again these houses are older when you

39:38 ↗ start upgrading systems and start

39:39 ↗ putting them in the front yard yeah yeah

39:41 ↗ certainly you know we'll we'll look at

39:43 ↗ and provide you some options pros and

39:45 ↗ cons um and if a property has an

39:48 ↗ opportunity to put it in uh in a sidey

39:51 ↗ yard or backyard they have to exhaust

39:54 ↗ that before uh a front yard option is

39:57 ↗ put in or something like

40:00 ↗ that thank you director doall

40:02 ↗ commissioner

40:05 ↗ Milligan okay so uh thank you um uh our

40:10 ↗ new commissioner Kaa and and uh HB and

40:14 ↗ um Jason I would plus one to all of

40:17 ↗ those uh and I had a u also while I was

40:23 ↗ um thinking along those lines and was

40:25 ↗ concerned about the the noise sure we

40:28 ↗ can put in this noise ordinance but an

40:30 ↗ ordinance is only as good as the one

40:32 ↗ that you can enforce and because of what

40:36 ↗ um um M Dolly wall said you know there

40:39 ↗ are people who complain about the noise

40:41 ↗ even if there is an ordinance uh so the

40:43 ↗ um the ordinance doesn't mean that

40:45 ↗ they'll be quiet but in addition to that

40:48 ↗ I wanted to explore and ask um uh

40:51 ↗ Stephen about the reason for a setback

40:54 ↗ and if the reason for a setback is

40:57 ↗ access through property or you know a

41:00 ↗ safety thing or so I can get a fire hose

41:02 ↗ back there or a team of fire people or

41:05 ↗ um or for whatever or or to um you know

41:08 ↗ to keep out of the space between homes

41:11 ↗ things that might be at a risk for an

41:14 ↗ adjacent home to protect a neighbor is

41:18 ↗ that what a setback is for and so if we

41:20 ↗ allow things in a setback how how does

41:22 ↗ that defeat the purpose of the setback

41:25 ↗ and um and we're talking about heat

41:26 ↗ pumps right now now you know well have

41:29 ↗ heat pumps earlier and and I'm sorry if

41:31 ↗ someone ask what's the purpose of a

41:32 ↗ setback and how does this perhaps

41:35 ↗ impinge upon the purpose and then the

41:37 ↗ other is um is there some reason for me

41:41 ↗ to think that everybody has to have a

41:43 ↗ heat pump like there aren't alternatives

41:46 ↗ for the people who don't have the extra

41:48 ↗ space to install something outside their

41:51 ↗ home so those are my two

41:54 ↗ questions sure I can um um try and

41:58 ↗ answer those uh commissioner Milligan so

42:01 ↗ your first one is um safety requirement

42:04 ↗ you know where where what's the purpose

42:06 ↗ of the 5 foot setback uh you're

42:07 ↗ absolutely right it is the fire

42:10 ↗ separation generally um and and so some

42:13 ↗ of those setbacks come from fire code um

42:17 ↗ but you can you know um build the walls

42:20 ↗ to have Fire protective measures and

42:22 ↗ things like that so um we did reach out

42:25 ↗ to fire department to ask if they um you

42:28 ↗ know that we're hearing a lot from our

42:30 ↗ community members about the need for

42:32 ↗ these heat pumps and climate change is

42:33 ↗ year summers are hotter there's a lot of

42:36 ↗ federal rebates on these heat pumps so

42:38 ↗ they're becoming more popular um and uh

42:42 ↗ if uh they had any concerns of allowing

42:44 ↗ these in the sidey setbacks and they

42:46 ↗ have come back and said that that is

42:48 ↗ fine they they don't have too much of a

42:51 ↗ heartburn over allowing these in the in

42:53 ↗ the sidey setback so we did check with

42:56 ↗ the fire department

42:57 ↗ on that um your other question I think

43:01 ↗ was um are there other Alternatives uh

43:05 ↗ We've explored that as well uh our

43:07 ↗ building official uh looked at you know

43:10 ↗ can you mount these on the windows and

43:12 ↗ on the side of the building uh perhaps

43:15 ↗ there are some units that come like that

43:17 ↗ uh but I think uh we heard a very strong

43:20 ↗ uh opinion from uh HOAs um of the the

43:24 ↗ master plan Community um stating uh that

43:28 ↗ that is not allowed under their rules

43:30 ↗ because you're um you know you're

43:32 ↗ attaching it to sighting and that could

43:34 ↗ lead to uh you know um putting stuff on

43:38 ↗ the on the sighting is not desirable

43:40 ↗ because long term that could you know

43:42 ↗ yeah what I was really thinking is uh

43:45 ↗ you know what did people do in the olden

43:46 ↗ days before heat pumps uh I think they

43:49 ↗ had um Central Heating and Cooling uh or

43:52 ↗ they had their the infrastructure for

43:55 ↗ their home installed in inside the home

43:58 ↗ may be ridiculous but let's say uh I

44:01 ↗ don't have that much room and I want

44:03 ↗ another uh hot water heater to heat up

44:06 ↗ my hot tub and I think I'm going to put

44:08 ↗ that in the

44:09 ↗ setback um these things don't have to be

44:11 ↗ in the setback that's that's what I was

44:13 ↗ getting at what other devices could

44:15 ↗ satisfy the community's need for and I

44:18 ↗ think we're talking about cooling here

44:20 ↗ because you were talking about um uh

44:23 ↗ climate U impacts and people aren't

44:26 ↗ saying oh I'm I'm up ET that my um

44:28 ↗ heater doesn't work so well they're

44:30 ↗ saying it's because my Cooling and what

44:32 ↗ other cooling devices that the federal

44:33 ↗ government is driving the demand for

44:36 ↗ these externally installed devices maybe

44:40 ↗ um the solution isn't say okay let's

44:42 ↗ just have them but to find an internally

44:45 ↗ installed device and get a federal

44:47 ↗ rebate for that anyway oh I wasn't

44:49 ↗ supposed to have an opinion today sorry

44:54 ↗ chair that's okay commissioner Mill

44:57 ↗ again we like opinions we just don't

45:00 ↗ want to get too much into the back and

45:01 ↗ forth but I think that was perfectly

45:02 ↗ accept no problem at all are there any

45:06 ↗ other uh questions concerns um about

45:09 ↗ this particular

45:13 ↗ Amendment all right just so we're clear

45:17 ↗ what we you guys want us to come back

45:19 ↗ with some options so can we summarize

45:23 ↗ what would you like us to be back with

45:27 ↗ um sure um for myself again uh

45:31 ↗ Aesthetics I think for commissioner

45:33 ↗ Milligan um again safety explanations of

45:37 ↗ how these work I know just briefly

45:39 ↗ explained it if I'm missing something

45:42 ↗ feel free to chime in and then I'm even

45:46 ↗ director Dolly wall you had mentioned

45:47 ↗ that uh you know primarily if you were

45:49 ↗ to put this unit in ultimately you would

45:52 ↗ City would guide them let's try it back

45:54 ↗ here but if you absolutely had to put it

45:56 ↗ here

45:57 ↗ that's kind of what I'm interested to

45:58 ↗ hearing yeah the last last preferred

46:02 ↗ option to least desired option right and

46:05 ↗ then again obviously the safety concerns

46:07 ↗ commissioner Milligan brought

46:09 ↗ up some of those units are pretty big

46:12 ↗ and some of them can get once they start

46:14 ↗ worrying get pretty loud and again I can

46:17 ↗ understand the HOAs you know a lot of

46:20 ↗ the sighting those areas are actually

46:22 ↗ common spaces right that belong to the

46:24 ↗ HOA not necessarily the the owner

46:27 ↗ themselves right studs in type thing so

46:31 ↗ yeah I can see how it those type of

46:32 ↗ units and windows would not be yeah

46:35 ↗ Aesthetics only if it's in the front

46:37 ↗ yard is what you all are interested in

46:39 ↗ right it's what I'm interested in but

46:41 ↗ again I

46:43 ↗ defer okay and I think the other comment

46:46 ↗ we heard from Vice chair Bader was the

46:48 ↗ language around making sure someone

46:50 ↗ doesn't install the heat pump closer to

46:52 ↗ their neighbor's Master building or

46:54 ↗ Master uh bedroom window versus closer

46:57 ↗ to the primary structure yeah like

46:58 ↗ mitigating impacts on

47:01 ↗ neighbors I can sell our relations

47:04 ↗ quickly yeah chair I don't I think I

47:07 ↗ think Vice chair Vader meant that as an

47:09 ↗ example of the most egregious but your

47:11 ↗ living room you're whatever if it's next

47:13 ↗ to your neighbor's house which that's I

47:16 ↗ think what she was saying what if it's

47:17 ↗ next to their their back porch and they

47:20 ↗ want to have a barbecue out there it's

47:22 ↗ noisy correct correct I was just using

47:24 ↗ the the same example but yeah we'll look

47:26 ↗ at anguage on um Trying to minimize that

47:29 ↗ impacts on neighbors for

47:34 ↗ installation great thank

47:36 ↗ you all right thank you for the next

47:39 ↗ change we're proposing a change to the

47:41 ↗ lighting code specifically for uh the

47:44 ↗ allowance of Stadium lighting to exceed

47:46 ↗ the minimum requirements for with a

47:48 ↗ lighting study and the reason for this

47:51 ↗ change is that um with through

47:53 ↗ implementation we worked with Manu uh

47:55 ↗ applicants to look at what manufacturers

47:57 ↗ are actually offering and for stadium

47:59 ↗ lighting specifically they don't

48:01 ↗ actually construct these devices within

48:05 ↗ the required limits lighting limits that

48:07 ↗ we've set in the code and so that is the

48:09 ↗ reason why we're actually proposing the

48:11 ↗ change for specifically for stadium

48:12 ↗ lighting the background information on

48:15 ↗ how the code came to be particularly for

48:17 ↗ lighting is when we had the discussions

48:19 ↗ for the title 18 of B there was um we

48:23 ↗ were making a push for accommodating

48:25 ↗ dark sky initiative and so that's what a

48:28 ↗ lot of the recommendations went into or

48:29 ↗ the changes went into based on the

48:30 ↗ recommendations of the dark sky

48:32 ↗ initiatives and so but looking at the

48:34 ↗ current market there isn't actually any

48:37 ↗ stadium lightings that would meet the

48:40 ↗ requirements that we have set in code so

48:41 ↗ that is the reason for the proposed

48:45 ↗ change any

48:50 ↗ questions do appear to be up

48:53 ↗ commissioner

48:54 ↗ Milligan and if we don't have a question

48:57 ↗ it makes it seem like we don't care okay

49:00 ↗ so if we cared about dark

49:03 ↗ sky and there and there wasn't a light

49:07 ↗ that Lit a field a Playfield or Sports

49:11 ↗ Park dim enough to comply with the dark

49:13 ↗ sky we decide to go with the light at

49:16 ↗ sportsfield this is I'm trying to ask is

49:18 ↗ this what we're doing rather than saying

49:20 ↗ we want to comply with dark sky

49:23 ↗ standards and we're going to seek uh a

49:25 ↗ solution for our play fields that

49:27 ↗ complies with dark

49:29 ↗ sky the the choice seems to be um a

49:32 ↗ little disconnected and I don't quite

49:34 ↗ understand why we would go with away

49:36 ↗ from our objective in order to buy a

49:40 ↗ product the anyway to help me understand

49:43 ↗ this yeah no is a great question um

49:46 ↗ specifically for the change we're

49:48 ↗ proposing you're correct it's it's uh

49:50 ↗ trending to accommodate what the market

49:52 ↗ is available for these type of devices

49:54 ↗ but with the added language of requiring

49:57 ↗ a lighting study they would actually be

49:59 ↗ looking at the impacts of the lighting

50:01 ↗ on the surrounding areas and proposed

50:04 ↗ recommended mitigations for the impact

50:06 ↗ so that is part of the reason why that

50:08 ↗ language was also added into um the

50:11 ↗ exemption for stadium

50:14 ↗ light okay I'm sorry let me so the

50:16 ↗ mitigations might that be shielding

50:19 ↗ direction of light what the height of

50:21 ↗ the standard could the standards be

50:23 ↗ lower because that's the only way you

50:26 ↗ can get the dark Sky standard

50:29 ↗ yes well that would be interesting to

50:31 ↗ see that at the same time rather than um

50:33 ↗ seeing this isolated so maybe as a

50:36 ↗ followup um to understand what the

50:39 ↗ mitigating factors are that accompany

50:41 ↗ this at the same

50:44 ↗ time you know what I can add to that uh

50:47 ↗ commissioner Milligan is I think it's

50:49 ↗ the issue is hard wiring a standard that

50:52 ↗ the market doesn't deliver um but the

50:55 ↗ the lighting levels and regulations and

50:58 ↗ other things can be met with other

51:01 ↗ Alternatives already in the code um is

51:05 ↗ my understanding so this was just a a

51:08 ↗ hardwired you know thing that that was

51:11 ↗ put in the code but there are other ways

51:13 ↗ to achieve that same objective that that

51:16 ↗ of Dark Skies um be because this

51:19 ↗ standard is not even available in the

51:21 ↗ market uh we can you know nobody's is

51:25 ↗ manufacturing it through for anyone to

51:27 ↗ buy it from so it doesn't make sense to

51:30 ↗ include a okay okay so the so the

51:33 ↗ simplest part of my question I'll um see

51:35 ↗ if I can rephrase to make it really

51:38 ↗ simple will we still meet our dark sky

51:41 ↗ standard if

51:44 ↗ we allow the stadium lighting to exceed

51:47 ↗ the minimum

51:48 ↗ CRI that is my understanding we can

51:51 ↗ confirm that for the next meeting that'd

51:53 ↗ be great thank you that's what I want to

51:56 ↗ know all right thank

51:59 ↗ you J Bader yeah I have a follow-up

52:03 ↗ question to that um so the kind of

52:07 ↗ addition to the code that says minimums

52:08 ↗ are not required for stadium lighting

52:10 ↗ when supported by lighting studies

52:11 ↗ prepared by a qualified professional

52:13 ↗ that reads a little bit as like it can

52:15 ↗ be anything as long as it has a lighting

52:17 ↗ study um I wonder if language can be

52:19 ↗ added to that that is

52:20 ↗ like you know that gets us to the point

52:24 ↗ where we're meeting the dark sky

52:25 ↗ standards or something like like that

52:26 ↗ just to kind of strengthen that language

52:30 ↗ um in the code and then my second

52:32 ↗ question is that if it can't meet that

52:35 ↗ minimum of 80 like is there a number I

52:39 ↗ don't like using numbers that like mean

52:41 ↗ nothing to me but like is there a unit

52:44 ↗ um that like we wouldn't want that

52:46 ↗ Stadium lighting to ever go above or is

52:49 ↗ it like you know what I mean we can we

52:53 ↗ can look into both of that and propose

52:55 ↗ something for the next meeting

52:58 ↗ uh chair voice just quick question are

53:01 ↗ manufacturers manufacturers even looking

53:04 ↗ at bringing that down or the devices are

53:07 ↗ just not created that way it'd be too

53:09 ↗ expensive to create it is it just

53:11 ↗ something that hasn't come online yet

53:13 ↗ our understanding is it it it for the

53:16 ↗ type of lighting and it is for stadium

53:17 ↗ lighting they don't they just it doesn't

53:19 ↗ make sense for them to manufacture it

53:21 ↗ that way it doesn't meet the purpose of

53:22 ↗ what they're trying to do with stadium

53:24 ↗ that makes perfect but the idea is

53:26 ↗ there's nothing coming down the line

53:28 ↗ that would make our code try to be a

53:30 ↗ little bit more nuanced because again

53:32 ↗ they just there's no plan those type of

53:34 ↗ devices just simply aren't built that

53:36 ↗ way

53:39 ↗ correct any other further

53:42 ↗ questions moving

53:47 ↗ along thank you so for the next change

53:50 ↗ is specific to the monument sign

53:52 ↗ prohibition or monument sign uh

53:55 ↗ requirements and we're proposing to add

53:57 ↗ a clarification when Monument signs are

53:59 ↗ allowed or prohibited um the current

54:01 ↗ code actually isn't clear enough for us

54:04 ↗ to indicate when a new monument sign is

54:06 ↗ probated or required and so that is what

54:08 ↗ our changes are kind of aiming towards

54:11 ↗ when we can um even before we did the

54:13 ↗ title 18 update uh approved last year

54:15 ↗ there was a sign code update several

54:17 ↗ years prior to that and that's where the

54:20 ↗ language originated was in the

54:21 ↗ discussion for

54:24 ↗ um for that project update for the sign

54:27 ↗ code is is for focusing

54:30 ↗ on uh Monument signage and when we want

54:33 ↗ that to be allowed or or to be able to

54:35 ↗ make change and

54:38 ↗ so should the city make the change to

54:41 ↗ requirs for this minent signs

54:43 ↗ specifically where prohibited and where

54:45 ↗ current signs may be modified or removed

54:47 ↗ I changed up my question I realized

54:50 ↗ there was a typo with the questions

54:51 ↗ which is why that's crossed out in

54:56 ↗ any questions on this

55:01 ↗ change Sarah Sarah did her homework um

55:04 ↗ what's a monument

55:10 ↗ sign those you know we can look up the

55:13 ↗ definition but it's basically a

55:14 ↗ standalone thing that you see at a you

55:16 ↗ know not on the attached to the building

55:19 ↗ but like a pedestal it has a pedestal

55:22 ↗ and you just see it uh as a standalone

55:25 ↗ free standing sign

55:27 ↗ basically

55:29 ↗ yeah like at the entrance to a

55:31 ↗ neighborhood where it says like the name

55:32 ↗ of the neighborhood that sort of yeah

55:34 ↗ and for businesses it's something they

55:36 ↗ put along the street corner uh not

55:38 ↗ attached to the building

55:44 ↗ yeah let me

55:47 ↗ followup just a quick question what's

55:50 ↗ going on with the trip X sign is Burger

55:53 ↗ Master going to take that down

55:56 ↗ that's in your list to fix that's a

55:58 ↗ landmark sign so and everyone ready for

56:02 ↗ the

56:03 ↗ next all right um please

56:06 ↗ continue thank you so Landmark

56:10 ↗ Signs so with Landmark Signs uh we're

56:13 ↗ proposing to change the language around

56:16 ↗ when when a landmark sign designation um

56:19 ↗ is have how a landmark sign designation

56:22 ↗ is maintained over time and so the

56:24 ↗ current criteria for landmark sign

56:25 ↗ design ation is fairly stringent in

56:28 ↗ working with um a certain applicant uh

56:33 ↗ we have learned that there is with how

56:36 ↗ stringent the require the criteria is

56:38 ↗ for maintaining the designation actually

56:41 ↗ disincentivizing establishing The

56:43 ↗ Landmark signed as a because it makes it

56:45 ↗ more difficult to make U to make any

56:48 ↗ changes to and so that is part the part

56:51 ↗ of the reason for this code amendment is

56:54 ↗ specifically on trying to meet the

56:56 ↗ original intent of why we wanted the

56:58 ↗ landmark sign

57:03 ↗ designation any

57:08 ↗ questions but Rusty here it's been two

57:10 ↗ months but having said

57:13 ↗ that want to know what's going on with

57:16 ↗ does anybody have any inside baseball I

57:18 ↗ know they're turning that into a burger

57:20 ↗ master so with Burger Master they are

57:23 ↗ wanting to keep the sign and so that's

57:25 ↗ part of the discussion of establishing

57:27 ↗ that the big Tri XX sign as a landmark

57:29 ↗ designation um but part of the issue is

57:32 ↗ that the way the criteria is set for

57:34 ↗ maintaining the designation is that they

57:37 ↗ can't change it essentially and that

57:39 ↗ doesn't match with what Burger Master

57:41 ↗ wants to do they want to be named Burger

57:45 ↗ master and not maintain the same sign

57:47 ↗ that's there now and so we want to allow

57:49 ↗ a little more flexibility of

57:50 ↗ establishing The Landmark side but still

57:53 ↗ keeping a little bit of criteria of what

57:56 ↗ exactly you want to keep for the

57:57 ↗ landmark designation over

58:01 ↗ time hungry

58:04 ↗ okay thank you Stephen commissioner

58:08 ↗ Millian thank you so much

58:11 ↗ uh this is interesting to me I don't

58:14 ↗ have a strong opinion but it

58:18 ↗ um I want to know if this particular

58:21 ↗ question could be asked of another

58:25 ↗ commission you know I'm thinking of do

58:27 ↗ we have a historic preservation

58:28 ↗ commission do we have an Arts the Arts

58:31 ↗ uh commission some others that have to

58:32 ↗ do with the um the reason why we would

58:35 ↗ have landmarked it in the first place

58:36 ↗ what other review might this um code

58:40 ↗ update uh go through for

58:43 ↗ feedback so part of the code language

58:45 ↗ for landmark scien is actually there's

58:48 ↗ separate criteria specifically for

58:49 ↗ establishing the designation for

58:51 ↗ Landmark Signs so it has to meet certain

58:53 ↗ historical aspects for the signage has

58:56 ↗ to be a certain um uh importance certain

59:01 ↗ level of importance for the community

59:03 ↗ and so there is separate designation

59:06 ↗ criteria for establishing sign what

59:08 ↗ we're proposing to change is primarily

59:10 ↗ just how do you maintain that

59:11 ↗ designation time and how does that make

59:15 ↗ sense to answer your question is is

59:17 ↗ there another border commission we can

59:20 ↗ consult with um yes but at the same time

59:25 ↗ with um

59:27 ↗ where this code lies and and in terms of

59:31 ↗ responsibilities for boards commissions

59:32 ↗ as primarily for the planning policy

59:34 ↗ commission the the discussion on

59:36 ↗ establishing the land Landmark sign

59:38 ↗ designation wasn't necessarily something

59:40 ↗ that was important to the Arts

59:41 ↗ commission previously when we updated

59:43 ↗ codes on this language um with Title 18

59:47 ↗ or the title 18 overhaul but that is

59:50 ↗ something that we can consider it just

59:51 ↗ postpones when we're able to make this

59:54 ↗ change yeah and if I may add to that um

59:58 ↗ to what Stephen's saying you know this

1:00:00 ↗ is not a heavily used provision in the

1:00:02 ↗ code I mean we could do a lot of

1:00:03 ↗ Outreach and get feedback from various

1:00:07 ↗ entities um one of the criteria is it

1:00:10 ↗ has to be in existence for 40 years the

1:00:12 ↗ lifespan of most signs it doesn't meet

1:00:15 ↗ that much and so uh cities that have

1:00:18 ↗ done you know where they want all

1:00:20 ↗ non-conforming signs to be brought into

1:00:22 ↗ compliance because they're trying to

1:00:23 ↗ declutter and you know kind of create a

1:00:25 ↗ vision

1:00:26 ↗ generally it's like a 10-year

1:00:28 ↗ amortization period for signs because

1:00:30 ↗ they think businesses change and other

1:00:32 ↗ things that you know that's the the

1:00:34 ↗ lifespan so um in um for someone to

1:00:38 ↗ qualify to apply for a designation they

1:00:41 ↗ have to be you know it has to be

1:00:42 ↗ assigned for 40 years so it's not going

1:00:44 ↗ to be a whole lot of locations in isqua

1:00:47 ↗ that would probably meet that test in

1:00:49 ↗ addition to all the other criteria that

1:00:51 ↗ are already in the code uh the qu the

1:00:54 ↗ issue was really one you go through a

1:00:57 ↗ process of getting it designated like

1:00:59 ↗ Stephen said what what are you allowed

1:01:01 ↗ to change I mean nobody's going to go

1:01:03 ↗ through that whole elaborate process if

1:01:04 ↗ they can't put their name on it um and

1:01:08 ↗ so within within some boundaries of what

1:01:11 ↗ what that change could look like because

1:01:13 ↗ nothing static at some point it will uh

1:01:16 ↗ have to kind of morph into but it is

1:01:19 ↗ important to the community I mean it's a

1:01:20 ↗ landmark in the sense that community

1:01:22 ↗ members relate to it and they keep you

1:01:25 ↗ know consider it as something that they

1:01:28 ↗ have you know value uh for the community

1:01:31 ↗ that's sort of the the thought process

1:01:36 ↗ there commissioner Patterson uh I guess

1:01:39 ↗ one just piece of feedback looking at

1:01:41 ↗ what was proposed in the packet for this

1:01:42 ↗ change is I'm wondering if it maybe goes

1:01:44 ↗ too far in the wide open Direction maybe

1:01:47 ↗ a little too relaxed um obviously the

1:01:50 ↗ triple X Burger sign being I think

1:01:52 ↗ probably the most iconic in our town in

1:01:53 ↗ terms of what comes to mind um but right

1:01:56 ↗ now it looks like we're dialing it back

1:01:57 ↗ to just size and shape um I understand

1:02:00 ↗ you know a new tenant may want to update

1:02:02 ↗ a name something like that but you know

1:02:05 ↗ if we don't have any guidance around the

1:02:07 ↗ aesthetic of it like all of a sudden now

1:02:09 ↗ instead of a root beer barrel it becomes

1:02:11 ↗ a gigantic burger or something that

1:02:13 ↗ might be a little bit more shocking I

1:02:15 ↗ was thinking steer right big one yeah

1:02:17 ↗ you know maybe something that you know

1:02:19 ↗ to your point it's a landmark because

1:02:21 ↗ it's been here for 40 plus years and

1:02:23 ↗ people are it's iconic because of what

1:02:25 ↗ it is is not you know because it's

1:02:28 ↗ something that will change so um maybe

1:02:30 ↗ there's a a middle ground there that we

1:02:32 ↗ can find that at least addresses the

1:02:34 ↗ aesthetic piece a little bit too not you

1:02:37 ↗ know just size and shape yeah no that's

1:02:39 ↗ a great point and we can take a look at

1:02:41 ↗ some additional language for

1:02:44 ↗ the great thank you commissioner

1:02:46 ↗ Patterson uh any other questions about

1:02:49 ↗ land mark

1:02:52 ↗ sign all right

1:02:54 ↗ Stephen okay

1:02:56 ↗ moving on uh for the next change we're

1:02:58 ↗ proposing a removal requirement for um

1:03:02 ↗ the community Planning and Development

1:03:04 ↗ Department we tracking tree removal for

1:03:06 ↗ public

1:03:07 ↗ project the part of the reason for this

1:03:09 ↗ is that through implementation of the

1:03:11 ↗ code and tracking of tree removals we've

1:03:13 ↗ realized that our parks and Public Works

1:03:16 ↗ departments are already tracking these

1:03:18 ↗ tree removals and uh with public with

1:03:21 ↗ public projects and so this was a big

1:03:24 ↗ discussion piece for a 18 update when we

1:03:26 ↗ were looking at updating the tree code

1:03:29 ↗ within that uh bigger overhaul and the

1:03:32 ↗ idea was that we wanted to make sure

1:03:34 ↗ that tree removal being a very or trees

1:03:36 ↗ being a very important aspect of this

1:03:38 ↗ community removal is a big concern and

1:03:41 ↗ so we wanted to make sure that we were

1:03:43 ↗ being able to track any type of removals

1:03:46 ↗ with any projects and so that is

1:03:47 ↗ something that we find important but at

1:03:50 ↗ the same time with this change we're

1:03:52 ↗ reducing that redundancy there is no

1:03:54 ↗ point with the community planning

1:03:55 ↗ Development Department to track this

1:03:57 ↗ tree removal if the other departments

1:03:59 ↗ are already doing that so that is the

1:04:01 ↗ reason for to

1:04:06 ↗ change any follow-up questions for

1:04:09 ↗ Stephen commissioner Patterson apologies

1:04:12 ↗ if I missed this part but is it a

1:04:14 ↗ requirement for the other department to

1:04:15 ↗ track it or are they just doing it do

1:04:19 ↗ it currently I don't believe it is a

1:04:22 ↗ requirement for them but they do do it

1:04:25 ↗ because it has always been a concern and

1:04:28 ↗ question for this community as anytime a

1:04:31 ↗ tree gets removed with any project

1:04:33 ↗ private or

1:04:36 ↗ public um sure I can add a little bit to

1:04:39 ↗ that um you know parks department and

1:04:42 ↗ Public Works um coordinate um on um as

1:04:45 ↗ part of last time we did the title 18

1:04:47 ↗ update one of the recommendations that

1:04:49 ↗ went to city council as part of that was

1:04:51 ↗ uh creating an urban forestry uh program

1:04:54 ↗ so now we have an urban Forester on

1:04:56 ↗ staff uh that is leading some of that

1:04:59 ↗ effort in terms of you know at some

1:05:01 ↗ point the city will have an inventory of

1:05:03 ↗ all the city- owned trees and things

1:05:05 ↗ like that on you know um that's up and

1:05:07 ↗ running um so there is some

1:05:10 ↗ accountability for um figuring out how

1:05:13 ↗ many trees parks department plants they

1:05:16 ↗ maintain a SharePoint list of all the

1:05:18 ↗ things and you know and he's sharing

1:05:19 ↗ that with public works so there's

1:05:21 ↗ already some sort of um accounting the

1:05:24 ↗ city also has this a lot of effort is

1:05:27 ↗ being put into Asset Management program

1:05:29 ↗ where um you know all the assets that

1:05:31 ↗ the city owns are sort of tracked and

1:05:34 ↗ maintained uh this seemed like an all

1:05:36 ↗ over the top of you know having creating

1:05:40 ↗ a process that um wasn't going to result

1:05:43 ↗ in anything um efficient for for the

1:05:47 ↗ city

1:05:48 ↗ so commissioner zacharov thank you uh so

1:05:52 ↗ can the some sort of agreement be

1:05:54 ↗ reached between let's say the Planning

1:05:58 ↗ Commission and the Parks Commission so

1:06:01 ↗ somebody has this requirement is uh

1:06:04 ↗ before we remove this requirement to

1:06:07 ↗ track remove remove

1:06:09 ↗ trees so I'm so we're not getting into

1:06:12 ↗ the situation when we're not counting

1:06:14 ↗ they're not counting I mean they

1:06:16 ↗ counting just because they do but they

1:06:18 ↗ stop doing this and everybody stops

1:06:20 ↗ doing this and at the end no one no one

1:06:22 ↗ is responsible thank you I would say

1:06:25 ↗ part of the discussion with the Parks

1:06:27 ↗ Board and and the urban forestry

1:06:29 ↗ management plan is that uh tracking

1:06:32 ↗ trees whether it's existing or it's

1:06:34 ↗ going for removal is an important aspect

1:06:36 ↗ of those discussion with the Parks Board

1:06:37 ↗ even though it's not built into the code

1:06:39 ↗ that they're required to do it that's

1:06:40 ↗ part of the reason why they are already

1:06:42 ↗ doing even without

1:06:43 ↗ the um we can wait for that but at the

1:06:46 ↗ same time it's not

1:06:50 ↗ it I don't think that based on the

1:06:53 ↗ discussions for the development of the

1:06:54 ↗ urban forestry management plan that

1:06:56 ↗ they're going to be stopping tracking

1:06:58 ↗ and the removal any just because of

1:07:01 ↗ important

1:07:06 ↗ so

1:07:09 ↗ Milligan thank you and thank you uh

1:07:12 ↗ commissioner Patterson and zacharov for

1:07:14 ↗ your um comments I want to amplify um

1:07:17 ↗ commissioner Patterson's a little bit um

1:07:19 ↗ we're talking here about tracking and

1:07:20 ↗ I'm sorry I'm not quite getting it

1:07:22 ↗ either um did either of these um

1:07:26 ↗ organizations or

1:07:28 ↗ agencies limit and regulate the tree

1:07:33 ↗ removal besides just counting tree

1:07:35 ↗ removal that's my first question uh and

1:07:38 ↗ then the other question is how do we

1:07:42 ↗ address the concern that I've heard in

1:07:43 ↗ our community um over you know several

1:07:47 ↗ incidences of of people or um

1:07:52 ↗ circumstances where trees are removed

1:07:54 ↗ you know you can only remove so many

1:07:56 ↗ trees and so they remove so many trees

1:07:57 ↗ and then the next week they remove so

1:07:59 ↗ many trees and the next week they I'm

1:08:00 ↗ saying week but I mean it could be month

1:08:03 ↗ next thing you know all the trees are

1:08:04 ↗ gone even though there would have been a

1:08:07 ↗ limit to how many trees you could remove

1:08:10 ↗ except that people did it in a peace

1:08:12 ↗ meal way so is are we um are we still

1:08:16 ↗ are we able to manage that and is uh are

1:08:20 ↗ either of these bodies limiting the

1:08:22 ↗ amount of tree removal not just tracking

1:08:27 ↗ I could get started on the first part of

1:08:29 ↗ your question in terms of

1:08:33 ↗ um

1:08:34 ↗ the tree regulations within Title 18

1:08:38 ↗ actually does provide limits on tree

1:08:40 ↗ removal and so that is something that

1:08:42 ↗ still capital projects still have to

1:08:44 ↗ follow that the other partyer question

1:08:48 ↗ I'm going to defer to director doly will

1:08:51 ↗ on so you know they don't there's not a

1:08:54 ↗ tree permit require requirement so this

1:08:56 ↗ was just this reporting requirement so

1:08:59 ↗ there are exemptions for stuff in the

1:09:02 ↗ public right away and others I think if

1:09:04 ↗ that's what your question was

1:09:07 ↗ commissioner Milan and the other one is

1:09:09 ↗ are they you know it costs the city

1:09:11 ↗ money to remove trees uh and all that so

1:09:15 ↗ it's it's not that they want you know

1:09:17 ↗ that additional trees are being removed

1:09:19 ↗ they are only removed when either they

1:09:22 ↗ disease dying or there's a capital

1:09:24 ↗ project to to do something and which you

1:09:26 ↗ know there's public Outreach and and

1:09:28 ↗ community outreach associated with

1:09:31 ↗ capital programs that uh feeds into

1:09:34 ↗ whether there should be a sidewalk added

1:09:36 ↗ and which could result in X number of

1:09:39 ↗ trees to come down or whatever the case

1:09:41 ↗ may be I think that process is set up

1:09:43 ↗ for capital projects where those

1:09:45 ↗ discussions can occur with the community

1:09:48 ↗ um um but

1:09:52 ↗ um what was your did I the second part

1:09:55 ↗ did I answer your question I I I think

1:09:58 ↗ you did uh except that well the concern

1:10:02 ↗ of if we do limit the number and I'm I'm

1:10:05 ↗ expecting our city to do what we require

1:10:10 ↗ of citizens and to hold ourselves uh

1:10:13 ↗ accountable in a similar way and not

1:10:14 ↗ have a more lenient rule for uh capital

1:10:18 ↗ projects uh with the uh accumulation of

1:10:21 ↗ tree removal because it gets tracked

1:10:25 ↗ uh in a peace meal

1:10:30 ↗ way and uh that's just if you if you

1:10:34 ↗ hadn't heard of this um way of getting

1:10:36 ↗ rid of all your trees then let me let me

1:10:38 ↗ work on it a little bit and I'll come

1:10:39 ↗ back next next week okay so you you all

1:10:42 ↗ are looking for some sort of reporting

1:10:45 ↗ back to uh some commissioner board

1:10:49 ↗ whether it's Parks or no I'm I'm looking

1:10:52 ↗ for how do we if we have a tree canopy

1:10:56 ↗ requirement how do we meet that

1:10:58 ↗ objective do we meet that objective by

1:11:00 ↗ limiting the number of trees that are

1:11:03 ↗ removed and if the only way you can

1:11:05 ↗ limit the number of trees that are

1:11:07 ↗ removed is by tracking the tree removal

1:11:09 ↗ I'm kind of going back to commissioner

1:11:11 ↗ Pattersons we and Stephen stort of

1:11:13 ↗ answered that question so I think I'm

1:11:15 ↗ I'm I'm most I'm part of the way there

1:11:17 ↗ so I'm I'm good for

1:11:20 ↗ now thank you

1:11:25 ↗ uh I guess since they were called out by

1:11:28 ↗ name I'll ask if commissioner zacharov

1:11:30 ↗ or commissioner Patterson have any

1:11:34 ↗ followup okay thank

1:11:37 ↗ you all right moving on to I think our

1:11:40 ↗ last two changes um this first one with

1:11:45 ↗ is within actually the title three of

1:11:48 ↗ the municipal code not within the land

1:11:50 ↗ use regulations but it's something that

1:11:52 ↗ uh Community Planning and Development

1:11:54 ↗ Department actually works with very

1:11:55 ↗ regularly with as part of permit review

1:11:57 ↗ process and this one is specific to

1:11:59 ↗ language within our traffic impact fees

1:12:01 ↗ and an exemption that we allow for um

1:12:04 ↗ change of use and so the proposed change

1:12:07 ↗ ensures that the fees are assessed in a

1:12:08 ↗ consistent manner the current language

1:12:10 ↗ does not match the exemption that we um

1:12:13 ↗ updated for the fire impact fees and so

1:12:15 ↗ we wanted to make that change to make

1:12:16 ↗ sure they're consistent the specific

1:12:19 ↗ change itself is that it when there's a

1:12:22 ↗ a certain when there's a change of use

1:12:24 ↗ for a certain site that we are exempting

1:12:27 ↗ them from the traffic impact fees um

1:12:30 ↗ within if it's the change of use within

1:12:32 ↗ a certain time frame and so that's not

1:12:34 ↗ consistent with what we allow for fire

1:12:40 ↗ impact uh one thing I want to not

1:12:42 ↗ because it's within title three this

1:12:44 ↗ isn't um something that will be adting

1:12:47 ↗ for discussion as part of the public

1:12:49 ↗ hearing but we still wanted to get

1:12:51 ↗ commission feedback before moving

1:12:52 ↗ forward with uh consistency change

1:12:55 ↗ are there any

1:12:58 ↗ questions or is

1:13:02 ↗ open uh b

1:13:05 ↗ b um yeah I have no issue with this in

1:13:09 ↗ theory I think the language that's

1:13:11 ↗ included like feels like it leaves a

1:13:13 ↗ little bit up to interpretation of just

1:13:15 ↗ less impact is there a way to better

1:13:18 ↗ Define less

1:13:20 ↗ impact yeah we can we can think a look

1:13:25 ↗ commissioner

1:13:27 ↗ Patterson thank you uh my question was

1:13:29 ↗ just if you could provide an example of

1:13:31 ↗ that change of use scenario um that that

1:13:34 ↗ would apply

1:13:35 ↗ to um let's say we have

1:13:38 ↗ a commercial property that was vacated

1:13:43 ↗ and then it became a residential

1:13:46 ↗ property the the way the language is

1:13:49 ↗ written now is that they if that change

1:13:51 ↗ of use happens within a certain time

1:13:53 ↗ frame they would actually be ex Ed from

1:13:55 ↗ traffic impact fees even though it is a

1:13:58 ↗ complete change of and so that is part

1:14:00 ↗ of the reason why we're making sure the

1:14:08 ↗ language any other

1:14:13 ↗ question commissioner

1:14:15 ↗ migan um not about this one but um

1:14:18 ↗ another just another couple spots in our

1:14:20 ↗ packet so when we get to that part call

1:14:23 ↗ on me yeah we'll do an overview at the

1:14:26 ↗ very end I just wanted Stephen to be

1:14:27 ↗ able to get through his presentation and

1:14:28 ↗ then we'll we'll go through the whole

1:14:31 ↗ thing um Stephen last

1:14:34 ↗ one so for the last one it's uh similar

1:14:38 ↗ issue with the traffic impact fees but

1:14:39 ↗ for the park impact fees section and we

1:14:41 ↗ can again take a look at less impact

1:14:44 ↗ and around

1:14:47 ↗ that other any questions about the

1:14:50 ↗ change for the park

1:14:55 ↗ doesn't appear to be okay so I did want

1:14:58 ↗ to offer the commission um an

1:15:00 ↗ opportunity again you guys just uh was a

1:15:04 ↗ lot to

1:15:05 ↗ digest and again as I'm sure for Stephen

1:15:09 ↗ and Minnie who give a lot of

1:15:10 ↗ presentations nice to get through it

1:15:12 ↗ without conviently being stopped because

1:15:14 ↗ then you lose your train of thought so

1:15:16 ↗ now I do want to open the floor for

1:15:19 ↗ anything that you've heard in the last

1:15:20 ↗ hour some minutes to be able to ask you

1:15:23 ↗ know share concerns again

1:15:25 ↗ uh hopefully I wasn't stifling debate

1:15:27 ↗ that definitely wasn't my purpose I was

1:15:29 ↗ just trying to drive it more towards

1:15:30 ↗ next week when we have a public hearing

1:15:33 ↗ and the public is involved because

1:15:35 ↗ they're going to give us their input

1:15:36 ↗ right we'll get the same pretty much the

1:15:39 ↗ same type of presentation the public

1:15:41 ↗ will then have a chance to weigh in and

1:15:43 ↗ after those concerns are met then we

1:15:46 ↗ really get to deliberate and kick the

1:15:48 ↗ ball back and forth argue with one

1:15:50 ↗ another agree with one another all of

1:15:53 ↗ that stuff gets to happen next week but

1:15:54 ↗ again I it if you do have concerns i'

1:15:58 ↗ I'd like you to voice them um just as

1:16:00 ↗ someone who does give presentations it's

1:16:02 ↗ a little hard they keep getting cut

1:16:05 ↗ up

1:16:06 ↗ so all

1:16:08 ↗ right would anybody like to add anything

1:16:11 ↗ questions concern concerns anything at

1:16:14 ↗ all but what we've just

1:16:17 ↗ heard commissioner Kennedy

1:16:20 ↗ please I'm quiet this evening um I have

1:16:24 ↗ in traditional my style I guess I have a

1:16:27 ↗ really odd one um

1:16:30 ↗ 18204 70 application

1:16:33 ↗ completeness um notify applicant via

1:16:36 ↗ male electronic mail or equivalent means

1:16:38 ↗ of electronic

1:16:41 ↗ communication great to put in that

1:16:43 ↗ option do they have the opportunity to

1:16:47 ↗ say what equivalent means of electronic

1:16:50 ↗ communication are used so I would see it

1:16:53 ↗ as we're g to mail mail you email you or

1:16:56 ↗ maybe text you and do they get to say

1:17:00 ↗ yes that's how I want to learn of this

1:17:04 ↗ how does the equivalent means of

1:17:06 ↗ electronic communication part

1:17:10 ↗ work so with the notifications that the

1:17:14 ↗ all properties within 500 ft need to be

1:17:17 ↗ notified or provide notice of whatever

1:17:20 ↗ is the electronic

1:17:23 ↗ communications um you asking if the

1:17:25 ↗ applicant gets to choose or if Property

1:17:27 ↗ Owners get to

1:17:32 ↗ choose I guess the applicant like how do

1:17:35 ↗ they

1:17:38 ↗ know how does anyone know that they that

1:17:41 ↗ it's been sent out like I'm supposed to

1:17:43 ↗ expect this via

1:17:45 ↗ email or if it's another means of

1:17:49 ↗ electronic

1:17:52 ↗ communication I'm thinking text are you

1:17:55 ↗ going to that thought

1:17:58 ↗ it uh I mean we through the city's

1:18:01 ↗ notification systems we have the

1:18:04 ↗ um list serves that people requested to

1:18:07 ↗ be part of and so they know that they're

1:18:08 ↗ getting notices for that and that's part

1:18:10 ↗ of some of our notification systems um

1:18:13 ↗ beyond that it's it's what whichever

1:18:17 ↗ electronic uh notification systems get

1:18:19 ↗ set up for either the project or that

1:18:21 ↗ the city might set up

1:18:25 ↗ okay I think well this serve as usually

1:18:27 ↗ an

1:18:28 ↗ email I'm trying to picture what other

1:18:30 ↗ electronic

1:18:33 ↗ notifications it's hard to say in the

1:18:35 ↗ future what kind of Technology might be

1:18:37 ↗ available but beyond emails and even

1:18:40 ↗ social media there's not much other

1:18:42 ↗ options out there for

1:18:44 ↗ electronic right so I like the

1:18:46 ↗ flexibility I just want to make sure

1:18:47 ↗ people knew there was enough Clarity

1:18:49 ↗ that people

1:18:53 ↗ knew and because of uh I'll say changing

1:18:57 ↗ technology that's why the part of the

1:18:58 ↗ reason why we kept it a little bit prder

1:19:00 ↗ rather than saying specifically emails

1:19:01 ↗ or

1:19:03 ↗ even that's changing

1:19:08 ↗ it commissioner

1:19:13 ↗ Milligan wow commissioner Kennedy I

1:19:16 ↗ forgot that that had uh caused a pause

1:19:19 ↗ for me too I think because it's um

1:19:21 ↗ triggers the uh completeness requirement

1:19:25 ↗ that to not be

1:19:29 ↗ specific uh could lead to a challenge at

1:19:31 ↗ some point on what is deemed a an

1:19:35 ↗ effective electronic uh communication

1:19:38 ↗ and so I I think I joined uh

1:19:40 ↗ commissioner Kennedy and and asking

1:19:42 ↗ y'all to look that over

1:19:44 ↗ again U but that wasn't my question I

1:19:46 ↗ had two other questions from the packet

1:19:48 ↗ one had to do with Building height uh so

1:19:50 ↗ this is uh section 18. 44.0

1:19:54 ↗ 5 Building height under form and

1:19:57 ↗ intensity and there's a a new section

1:19:59 ↗ called D determining average grade and

1:20:02 ↗ this looks like an addition not a

1:20:04 ↗ replacement and I have to tell you uh I

1:20:08 ↗ don't understand what I'm reading here

1:20:10 ↗ but what I wanted to ask was um does

1:20:13 ↗ this continue the spirit at which we

1:20:16 ↗ spend quite a bit of time on Building

1:20:18 ↗ height um not just with the title 18 but

1:20:21 ↗ before that on managing how high

1:20:24 ↗ building are I think the concern was

1:20:27 ↗ buildings get too high because of where

1:20:30 ↗ you determine from where you determine

1:20:33 ↗ your building height so um because this

1:20:37 ↗ is complicated and I don't quite

1:20:39 ↗ understand it does this in any way um

1:20:43 ↗ get in the way of us controlling

1:20:45 ↗ Building height because somebody could

1:20:48 ↗ measure it a particular way and make a

1:20:50 ↗ building even

1:20:51 ↗ higher did that make sense

1:20:59 ↗ um um just to be clear I understand your

1:21:01 ↗ question it's so the methodology laid

1:21:04 ↗ out in here could that be manipulated to

1:21:07 ↗ create uh a taller building is sort of

1:21:11 ↗ what you're wondering that's right okay

1:21:14 ↗ so I I think what this does is is sets

1:21:17 ↗ the framework for how to measure it

1:21:19 ↗ because average grade I think is the

1:21:22 ↗ language that's written in the code but

1:21:24 ↗ it's not really clear how do you

1:21:26 ↗ determine your average grade um you you

1:21:29 ↗ know you can take your highest and your

1:21:31 ↗ lowest point and just do the mid point

1:21:33 ↗ of that but what this lays out is that

1:21:35 ↗ you have to calculate your grade points

1:21:37 ↗ all along the perimeter of your building

1:21:41 ↗ uh so that so that you you don't get to

1:21:43 ↗ manipulate it too much in terms of what

1:21:46 ↗ your average grade is that you're

1:21:49 ↗ looking at all sides of the building um

1:21:52 ↗ right okay here's a here's a the word

1:21:54 ↗ that triggered me I think was proposed

1:21:56 ↗ topography and say that this had a

1:21:59 ↗ Shoring wall or something in the

1:22:01 ↗ proposed

1:22:03 ↗ topography um does this

1:22:06 ↗ allow the average grade to be higher

1:22:10 ↗ than it

1:22:11 ↗ was before this before section D yeah my

1:22:15 ↗ understanding is we take a look at the

1:22:17 ↗ existing grade not your finished grade

1:22:19 ↗ so it's the average of the existing

1:22:21 ↗ grade because what you don't want is

1:22:23 ↗ someone you know artificially elevating

1:22:26 ↗ your finished grade um but we'll take a

1:22:29 ↗ look at the what you're saying a

1:22:31 ↗ proposed topography that that doesn't

1:22:34 ↗ sound right we'll take a look at it yeah

1:22:36 ↗ yeah look at that again that'd be

1:22:37 ↗ awesome okay and then uh the next one

1:22:40 ↗ was

1:22:42 ↗ um looking at 18 after that in the

1:22:45 ↗ packet 18.

1:22:47 ↗ 50830 which up in the table is about the

1:22:52 ↗ um hvx going in the

1:22:56 ↗ setbacks and then in here the way this

1:22:58 ↗ is written is that it removes a line

1:23:01 ↗ that says amenities must be set back 5T

1:23:03 ↗ from the property line This doesn't seem

1:23:06 ↗ a specific um a change as what we were

1:23:11 ↗ talking about before which was should we

1:23:13 ↗ allow people to put HVAC in the setback

1:23:17 ↗ am I are these really the two are these

1:23:19 ↗ really the same

1:23:26 ↗ page something I don't even know page

1:23:31 ↗ you're referring to the language

1:23:32 ↗ specific to heat pumps or the language

1:23:35 ↗ for the decks well all we talked about

1:23:38 ↗ was heat pumps but when you look at the

1:23:41 ↗ the edit to the code language it's just

1:23:45 ↗ removing line number

1:23:49 ↗ four that's one of the things the

1:23:52 ↗ amenities uh I think that the heat pumps

1:23:55 ↗ were called amenities not structure I

1:23:57 ↗ think there's a line being deleted

1:23:59 ↗ related to amenities is that so what

1:24:02 ↗ what else besides heat pumps are

1:24:04 ↗ amenities that now would not have to be

1:24:08 ↗ 5et from um from the property

1:24:11 ↗ line yeah I think that particular

1:24:13 ↗ section earlier kind of

1:24:15 ↗ defines uh things like heat pump and

1:24:19 ↗ this let me find it D Director D is

1:24:23 ↗ correct there is accessory structures

1:24:25 ↗ are defined earlier in that section of

1:24:28 ↗ code for

1:24:30 ↗ 030 yeah but where are amenities um

1:24:34 ↗ defined that's the one that I didn't

1:24:35 ↗ know

1:24:40 ↗ um

1:24:44 ↗ is what's that section of the code uh

1:24:50 ↗ 508 we can follow up with that just

1:24:53 ↗ let's let's just put that as a question

1:24:55 ↗ you can come back be part of the thing

1:24:58 ↗ then that's that's my last question

1:25:00 ↗ thank you they're hunting it down yeah I

1:25:03 ↗ think on uh in that

1:25:06 ↗ 50830

1:25:07 ↗ A2 it's talking about permanent

1:25:10 ↗ amenities such as mechanical equipments

1:25:12 ↗ which include but are not limited to AC

1:25:15 ↗ units air compressors and heat

1:25:18 ↗ pumps that's what it defines so mostly

1:25:21 ↗ HVAC type of equipment

1:25:24 ↗ yeah but not but not limited to it's

1:25:27 ↗ corre but but the decks porches patios

1:25:31 ↗ ramps and all of those a minor elements

1:25:33 ↗ so that's not an amenity different

1:25:37 ↗ yeah thank

1:25:45 ↗ you any further

1:25:48 ↗ questions all right and I did want to

1:25:50 ↗ give the commission also an opportunity

1:25:52 ↗ I know we didn't talk about the minor

1:25:54 ↗ amendments but if anyone has any

1:25:56 ↗ questions or concerns about the minor am

1:25:58 ↗ amendments which are um know pretty

1:26:02 ↗ limited some of the stuff

1:26:05 ↗ being driven

1:26:08 ↗ by just simply update some things but if

1:26:11 ↗ anyone does have any questions for those

1:26:13 ↗ minor amendments that we kind of skipped

1:26:14 ↗ over please feel

1:26:19 ↗ free and obviously next week we'll have

1:26:23 ↗ some time for clarifying questions as

1:26:24 ↗ well so we're not completely done

1:26:27 ↗ questioning staff but uh I think for

1:26:29 ↗ this part of it we can now officially

1:26:32 ↗ move

1:26:37 ↗ on

1:26:51 ↗ right Stephen do you have everything you

1:26:53 ↗ need

1:26:54 ↗ I do thank you chair voice thank you

1:26:57 ↗ Commissioners

1:26:59 ↗ okay the next item on the agenda is

1:27:02 ↗ reports we'll start with any city

1:27:06 ↗ council updates that staff would like to

1:27:07 ↗ share with

1:27:09 ↗ us sure um so on June 10th uh we went to

1:27:14 ↗ council to share with them uh some of

1:27:18 ↗ the recommendations uh that we had from

1:27:20 ↗ our national consulting firm for permit

1:27:22 ↗ process improvements uh so as you know

1:27:25 ↗ House Bill 5290 and other administrative

1:27:29 ↗ priorities about streamlining and making

1:27:31 ↗ a process more effective uh we have gone

1:27:35 ↗ to C we had gone to council a couple of

1:27:37 ↗ times before that and then one of the

1:27:40 ↗ the um items was to uh take a look at it

1:27:43 ↗ more comprehensively so we did a request

1:27:45 ↗ for qualifications uh for Consultants to

1:27:48 ↗ come help us evaluate our process and uh

1:27:51 ↗ through that process we selected ref

1:27:53 ↗ Tellis uh which is a national consulting

1:27:55 ↗ firm and they worked with staff um to

1:27:58 ↗ map out our existing processes um and

1:28:01 ↗ interviewing um them and our internal

1:28:05 ↗ customers uh that we you know review

1:28:07 ↗ capital projects for uh parks and public

1:28:10 ↗ works and economic development and then

1:28:12 ↗ they also talk to our applicants um so

1:28:16 ↗ through that work uh then they submitted

1:28:18 ↗ a report uh that uh outlined some

1:28:21 ↗ recommendations of uh things that they

1:28:23 ↗ heard saw and uh based on their

1:28:25 ↗ evaluation of best practices uh we

1:28:28 ↗ should uh take into consideration so we

1:28:30 ↗ have 12 recommendations uh we're happy

1:28:32 ↗ to share the report if anyone's

1:28:34 ↗ interested um and uh you know into the

1:28:38 ↗ details um but things like better

1:28:41 ↗ completeness items you know that'll help

1:28:43 ↗ uh all the subsequent steps be be more

1:28:46 ↗ clear um that then we have um the the

1:28:50 ↗ way we communicate our with our

1:28:52 ↗ applicants about the next steps so a lot

1:28:54 ↗ of times applicants were you know would

1:28:56 ↗ get the marked up copies in the plans

1:28:58 ↗ but they weren't really sure what the

1:29:00 ↗ next steps would be so we will'll be

1:29:02 ↗ working through all those

1:29:03 ↗ recommendations to uh Implement for the

1:29:06 ↗ rest of the year so that that's been

1:29:08 ↗ what we've been

1:29:09 ↗ busy um and BR you know with a council

1:29:13 ↗ um update um I think that's it um some

1:29:19 ↗ of the upcoming meetings with Council um

1:29:22 ↗ committee uh are on Lakeside development

1:29:25 ↗ project we're uh going to be taking a

1:29:27 ↗ transfer of development rights as part

1:29:30 ↗ of the development agreement um project

1:29:32 ↗ item that has come in um I think that's

1:29:36 ↗ what and then of course comprehensive

1:29:38 ↗ plan that all your work is going to move

1:29:40 ↗ up uh through that process and uh

1:29:44 ↗ Missing middle will

1:29:51 ↗ start that's great busy City

1:29:55 ↗ uh if there's no further city council

1:29:57 ↗ updates we'll ask if there's any other

1:29:59 ↗ business or announcements from

1:30:02 ↗ staff just one quick announcement of uh

1:30:05 ↗ since our last meeting it's been a while

1:30:07 ↗ we've updated the commission's calendar

1:30:09 ↗ and so it's updated to be consistent

1:30:10 ↗ with several of the project schedule

1:30:12 ↗ updates that we've had so it should be

1:30:15 ↗ pretty much set for the the rest of this

1:30:17 ↗ year there's some still going to be some

1:30:20 ↗ potential cancellation because of H

1:30:22 ↗ conflicts with holidays and those will

1:30:24 ↗ be kind of to be determined if there's

1:30:26 ↗ needed to be rescheduling a special

1:30:28 ↗ meeting but our intent is um consider

1:30:31 ↗ those canceled unless there is a need

1:30:33 ↗ potentially either Council or as our

1:30:36 ↗ general work plan needing to have an

1:30:37 ↗ additional

1:30:38 ↗ meeting right talking to Stephen earlier

1:30:42 ↗ looks like there's a lot of 101

1:30:44 ↗ introduction to class that should be

1:30:48 ↗ fun all right any anything for the good

1:30:51 ↗ of the order the good of the commission

1:30:55 ↗ commissioner

1:30:57 ↗ Milligan ah you're exemplifying the

1:30:59 ↗ reason I wanted you to call on me I want

1:31:01 ↗ to thank you all for allowing me to

1:31:03 ↗ participate fully in the hybrid even my

1:31:05 ↗ kitty is participating you can hear her

1:31:07 ↗ uh thank you chair voice and uh thank

1:31:10 ↗ you planning manager padaa and director

1:31:12 ↗ dolly wol for um just uh uh making this

1:31:16 ↗ format work so well and and for engaging

1:31:18 ↗ me fully I I encourage other people who

1:31:20 ↗ want to come before the commission that

1:31:23 ↗ it really works

1:31:24 ↗ you can come from

1:31:26 ↗ home we prefer to see you here but yes

1:31:29 ↗ you can come from home yeah thank you

1:31:32 ↗ commissioner

1:31:34 ↗ Milligan uh I guess to close it out it's

1:31:37 ↗ great to see everyone again it's great

1:31:39 ↗ to see director Dolly wall uh again a

1:31:41 ↗ warm welcome to Amanda Jackson on staff

1:31:44 ↗ uh to commissioner Kaa zacharov looking

1:31:47 ↗ forward to working with all of you this

1:31:50 ↗ this summer it's always the nicest day

1:31:53 ↗ of the year that we SE to kick these

1:31:54 ↗ things off again I don't know why that

1:31:56 ↗ is the commissioner God seemed to smile

1:31:58 ↗ on it I do want to say thank you again

1:32:01 ↗ for electing me as your careair for this

1:32:02 ↗ upcoming

1:32:04 ↗ year I'll take it seriously um we do

1:32:07 ↗ meet behind the scenes to hopefully make

1:32:09 ↗ these meetings run

1:32:11 ↗ efficiently not waste anybody's time but

1:32:13 ↗ also to make sure that everybody gets a

1:32:14 ↗ fair hearing so thank you for that one

1:32:19 ↗ last time anybody

1:32:21 ↗ else okay there being no further

1:32:24 ↗ business before the commission we will

1:32:26 ↗ adjourn this meeting at 8:04 P.M

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (3)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Community Planning & Development (CPD) Director Amanda Jackson, Meeting & Records Assistant Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of March 28, 2024 There were no comments or corrections

the Minutes were approved. b) Minutes of April 11, 2024 There were no comments or corrections

the Minutes were approved. 3

Recommendations & actions (5)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of March 28, 2024 There were no comments or corrections and the Minutes were approved.
b) Minutes of April 11, 2024 There were no comments or corrections and the Minutes were approved.
COMMISSIONER PATTERSON seconded the nomination.
CHAIR VOISS seconded the nomination.
The Department of Ecology adopted noise level is 55 decibles (db) during the day and 45 db at night.