Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 27, 2024 · City Council Digest

3. PUBLIC HEARING

Annual Updates to IMC Title 18, Land Use Code, Phase 1 (A)

60 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Public Hearing Order: Commission · packet pp.3–54

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jun 20, 2024

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

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

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Neighborhood Planning

Discussion · 30 min · Valerie Porter, Associate Planner · packet pp.55–63

Open packet at p.55 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the June 27

5. REPORTS

Council Update

5 min · Valerie Porter, Associate Planner

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

5 min · packet pp.65–67

▶ Watch from 2:20:17 Open packet at p.65 ↗

Staff report:

▪ Housing Analysis Intro ▪ Housing Analysis Intro

3074 segments .txt ↗

0:09 ↗ good evening everyone and welcome to

0:11 ↗ your planning policy Commission meeting

0:13 ↗ the June

0:15 ↗ 27th this evening and we will call this

0:17 ↗ meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. tonight's

0:21 ↗ meeting is a hybrid meeting the planning

0:23 ↗ policy commission is in person we do

0:26 ↗ have staff with us this evening we have

0:28 ↗ staff with us virtually we also have

0:31 ↗ commissioner Milligan with us

0:33 ↗ virtually and we may have an audience

0:35 ↗ with us

0:36 ↗ virtually staff do we have a quorum this

0:42 ↗ evening yes we do great thank you there

0:47 ↗ are no minutes to approve tonight so we

0:48 ↗ are going to move into our first part of

0:51 ↗ our agenda which is public

0:53 ↗ comment for this meeting we're holding

0:55 ↗ general public comment right now so if

0:58 ↗ there is anything before the commission

1:00 ↗ as far as generally uh this is the time

1:02 ↗ to be

1:03 ↗ heard there will be a separate separate

1:07 ↗ time period for the public hearing a

1:09 ↗ little bit later staff has anyone signed

1:11 ↗ up to speak for public comment right

1:15 ↗ now yes

1:17 ↗ sir

1:23 ↗ okay Sarah hoy

1:35 ↗ can you hear me there we go hi I'm Sarah

1:38 ↗ Hoy I'm the executive director for the

1:39 ↗ iso Highlands Community

1:42 ↗ Association um I've been uh working

1:44 ↗ through the title 18 amendments with

1:48 ↗ manyi over the last couple of years um

1:51 ↗ and this cropped up recently um so I

1:55 ↗ have a couple things I want to address

1:56 ↗ with you um first thank you for giving

1:58 ↗ me the opportunity to address my

2:00 ↗ concerns uh the read on the re recent

2:03 ↗ upgrades to Title 18 and the code

2:05 ↗ changes particular around the uh

2:11 ↗ 18508 uh

2:13 ↗ 03b on the um uh HVAC unit setback

2:18 ↗ requirements Sarah can I can I stop you

2:21 ↗ real quickly so our public hearing is on

2:23 ↗ the title 18 amendments right now it's

2:25 ↗ just general public comment okay so if

2:28 ↗ you want to be part of the public

2:29 ↗ hearing and have it on record we'll be

2:31 ↗ doing that a little bit

2:33 ↗ later okay would it be better if I did

2:35 ↗ it then okay then I'll end okay it'll be

2:38 ↗ about probably about 10 minutes we're g

2:40 ↗ to move pretty quickly perfect okay

2:41 ↗ thanks thank

2:44 ↗ you is there anyone that would like to

2:47 ↗ make General Public comments right now

2:49 ↗ in the

2:50 ↗ room please and please uh please U name

2:55 ↗ yourself relationship to the city

3:01 ↗ for the

3:05 ↗ recorder my name is Connie Marsh and I

3:07 ↗ live in isqua on

3:09 ↗ so uh this is a process

3:14 ↗ comment um that is exemplified in the

3:18 ↗ code updates but goes across everything

3:22 ↗ so some of the code

3:25 ↗ updates

3:27 ↗ uh hit the environment hit

3:30 ↗ Parks but they weren't threaded through

3:34 ↗ the

3:35 ↗ commissions expressly made to look at

3:39 ↗ those things before they came to you and

3:43 ↗ then uh some decisions were made like

3:49 ↗ which which

3:51 ↗ um which choices should we choose in

3:56 ↗ order to not hit the timing limits

4:00 ↗ but those conversations were had and

4:03 ↗ presented to you all like they were a

4:06 ↗ done deal when it's exactly those kinds

4:09 ↗ of conversations at that level that

4:11 ↗ should be brought forth for the

4:14 ↗ community decision making so I chafe at

4:19 ↗ the exclusion of the community and some

4:21 ↗ of the city processes it's not just this

4:25 ↗ department it's other departments too

4:28 ↗ and I would ask ask that you try to

4:32 ↗ carefully

4:33 ↗ insist that you get the appropriate

4:37 ↗ information at the appropriate time like

4:39 ↗ the environmental board then would pass

4:41 ↗ on recommendations to the language and

4:44 ↗ Park Board uh would look at it and might

4:46 ↗ give you some comments too those are

4:48 ↗ just examples and if you see those those

4:52 ↗ processes not happening uh if you could

4:55 ↗ remember to

4:56 ↗ ask for their opinions because they

4:59 ↗ supposed to be provided to you in order

5:02 ↗ to make your own decision thank

5:09 ↗ you thank you is there anyone else who

5:12 ↗ would like to make public

5:16 ↗ comment in the room or virtually chair

5:19 ↗ there are no attendees that have public

5:21 ↗ comment you know one attendee is

5:24 ↗ emailing me and having trouble um

5:26 ↗ logging in but I think his comments are

5:28 ↗ on Title 18 we're trying to figure out

5:30 ↗ if we can get him to join thank

5:38 ↗ you all right we will move on to the

5:40 ↗ public hearing tonight's public hearing

5:42 ↗ is regarding the first phase of annual

5:44 ↗ updates to Title 18 the city's land use

5:47 ↗ code we will open the public hearing

5:49 ↗ which will be followed by a presentation

5:51 ↗ from staff then the PPC will ask

5:53 ↗ follow-up questions next we will take

5:56 ↗ public

5:57 ↗ testimony finally the PPC will will

5:59 ↗ deliberate and if appropriate make a

6:02 ↗ recommendation to the city council

6:04 ↗ Steven Padua our longrange planning

6:07 ↗ manager will be presenting tonight so

6:09 ↗ Stephen when you're ready please go

6:15 ↗ ahead hey can everybody hear me

6:18 ↗ tonight yes we can great thank you uh

6:23 ↗ just want to make sure you can see my

6:24 ↗ screen as well before I get

6:26 ↗ started nods all right thank you

6:29 ↗ everybody for for having me tonight uh

6:31 ↗ today is the followup from our previous

6:33 ↗ discussion for the public hearing on the

6:35 ↗ annual updates to Title 18 land use code

6:38 ↗ um the purpose is to review the proposed

6:42 ↗ amendments for this year's annual

6:45 ↗ updates um similar to a lot of the

6:48 ↗ questions that were posed to you at the

6:50 ↗ June 20th meeting we are here to review

6:54 ↗ several policy questions related to some

6:56 ↗ of the code amendments as well as the

6:58 ↗ clarifying amendments um that don't have

7:01 ↗ specific policy questions presented to

7:04 ↗ you tonight but if there are specific

7:07 ↗ clarifying amendments that you would

7:09 ↗ like to discuss or get clarifying

7:11 ↗ questions with please let me know um

7:13 ↗ once I get through the policy

7:16 ↗ questions so the first topic is on

7:19 ↗ pre-application Community meetings the

7:22 ↗ change is to we are proposing a change

7:25 ↗ to the name as well as to the

7:26 ↗ requirements to make them optional um

7:30 ↗ for pre- submittal and then required

7:33 ↗ post application submittal as part of

7:35 ↗ the development re process what this

7:37 ↗ does is it allows the city to comply

7:40 ↗ with a exemption from refunds as part of

7:43 ↗ State Bill

7:45 ↗ 5290 this bill was um adopted last year

7:51 ↗ and what it does is it actually require

7:53 ↗ cities to um abide by certain timelines

7:57 ↗ based on specific projects which are

7:59 ↗ presented to you tonight so for projects

8:01 ↗ that don't require public notice there

8:03 ↗ is a 65 day requirement for projects

8:07 ↗ that um require public notice there's a

8:10 ↗ 100 day requirement for projects that

8:12 ↗ require notice as well as a public

8:14 ↗ hearing the limit is at 170 days and So

8:18 ↗ within the same section in the bill it

8:21 ↗ allows a provision for cities to um be

8:25 ↗ Exempted from refunds if they don't

8:28 ↗ abide by these time lines as long as the

8:31 ↗ city can meet three of eight options

8:33 ↗ that are presented in this section of

8:34 ↗ the bill and so the city is actually

8:37 ↗ proposing to comply with options J and d

8:42 ↗ and what is presented to the commission

8:43 ↗ tonight is option G which is the current

8:46 ↗ proposal to make pre-application

8:47 ↗ meetings not

8:51 ↗ required just for context we have

8:53 ↗ ongoing improvements with our

8:55 ↗ development review process in response

8:57 ↗ to um our own efforts to try to improve

9:00 ↗ the development review process as well

9:01 ↗ as to State Bill 5290 we currently have

9:04 ↗ a consultant that presented to city

9:06 ↗ council earlier in June to discuss their

9:09 ↗ assessment of how to improve the

9:11 ↗ development review process as well as

9:12 ↗ how this city could make changes to make

9:15 ↗ those improvements as well as the city

9:17 ↗ has other ongoing improvements to the

9:19 ↗ city website for understanding what our

9:21 ↗ development process is who to contact um

9:25 ↗ we have started to provide online guides

9:28 ↗ for better understanding of processes

9:30 ↗ for permitting as well as starting to

9:32 ↗ form our own internal teams to look at

9:35 ↗ separate improvements that that are

9:37 ↗ aligned with the recommendations from

9:38 ↗ our

9:40 ↗ consultant so the question posed for the

9:42 ↗ commission tonight is should the city

9:43 ↗ change the community meeting previously

9:46 ↗ known as pre-application committee

9:47 ↗ meeting the optional pre submittal and

9:50 ↗ required post submittal for the table as

9:52 ↗ presented in the draft

9:56 ↗ amendments for the next item it's

10:00 ↗ related to technical document review and

10:02 ↗ what is being proposed is to change the

10:05 ↗ requirement for technical docum review

10:07 ↗ to allow more a little

10:09 ↗ flexibility on what techn documents are

10:12 ↗ actually required

10:14 ↗ at as part of the development review

10:16 ↗ process and this allows aint to complete

10:19 ↗ the review prior to decision uh to

10:21 ↗ pursuing a project just to allow some of

10:24 ↗ the

10:26 ↗ initial flexibility that was intended

10:29 ↗ with with the code changes with the

10:30 ↗ title 18 update last

10:33 ↗ year the next change is um related to

10:37 ↗ timing on development review review

10:38 ↗ decisions this change is a change in

10:42 ↗ policy but is in compliant with a

10:43 ↗ requirement from State Bill 5290 so uh

10:46 ↗ there is no actual policy question just

10:48 ↗ highlighting the policy change for the

10:50 ↗ commission

10:54 ↗ tonight the next change through the list

10:56 ↗ is related to heat pumps and hbac

10:58 ↗ installations

11:00 ↗ um the change Bo proposing is to allow

11:02 ↗ heat pumps and HVAC installation

11:04 ↗ regulated and regulated

11:07 ↗ setbacks in the last discussion on June

11:09 ↗ 20th the commission asked for what um

11:12 ↗ asked for two changes that uh will go

11:15 ↗ through tonight and the first being that

11:17 ↗ if if an installation go into Frontage

11:20 ↗ um that screening is required the other

11:24 ↗ uh the other change that was discussed

11:26 ↗ with the commission was what adding Lang

11:29 ↗ that would require the installation be

11:31 ↗ closest to the primary structure so that

11:33 ↗ is furthest away from the property line

11:35 ↗ and so that those two changes were

11:36 ↗ included an example of what these

11:39 ↗ screenings would look like is presented

11:41 ↗ to you uh on the screen right

11:43 ↗ now so the question proposed to the

11:45 ↗ commission is should the city allow heat

11:47 ↗ pumps or similar equipments such as air

11:49 ↗ conditioning units to be installed

11:51 ↗ within required

11:55 ↗ setbacks next policy question um change

11:59 ↗ is related to the lighting code this

12:02 ↗ what we're proposing for this section is

12:04 ↗ allow Stadium lighting to exceed minimum

12:06 ↗ requirements with uh the required

12:08 ↗ lighting study and what was discussed

12:10 ↗ with the commission at the last meeting

12:12 ↗ was adding additional language that with

12:14 ↗ the lighting study require um mitigation

12:18 ↗ strategies to comply with dark sky

12:20 ↗ initiative and so that language was

12:22 ↗ added within the draft amendments for

12:24 ↗ your materials today so the question

12:26 ↗ posed to the commission is should the

12:27 ↗ city allow

12:29 ↗ allow Stadium lighting to exceed minimum

12:32 ↗ color rendering index with supporting

12:34 ↗ lighting studies

12:40 ↗ prepared oh and I went over the

12:42 ↗ change the next change is related to

12:45 ↗ Monument sign requirements the proposed

12:48 ↗ change is the clarification when

12:49 ↗ Monument signs are allowed or prohibited

12:52 ↗ and the question for the commission is

12:54 ↗ should the city change the requirements

12:55 ↗ for monum signage where prohibited and

12:58 ↗ where current signs may be modified or

13:04 ↗ removed exchange related to Landmark

13:06 ↗ sign designation the update U to The

13:10 ↗ Landmark sign designation requirements

13:12 ↗ is to simplify the criteria for

13:14 ↗ maintaining landar Landmark sign

13:17 ↗ designation uh what was discussed at the

13:19 ↗ last meeting with the commission on June

13:20 ↗ 20th was to add a little more criteria

13:23 ↗ or specific additional criteria that

13:26 ↗ would be more supportive of what we're

13:28 ↗ looking for a landmark sign designation

13:30 ↗ so that is included in the commission's

13:31 ↗ packet for tonight so the question poses

13:34 ↗ should the city simplify the

13:35 ↗ requirements for how Landmark sign

13:37 ↗ designations is

13:42 ↗ maintained and the additional criteria

13:44 ↗ that we added for um Landmark sign

13:47 ↗ designation maintenance is uh specific

13:50 ↗ to maintaining the sign

13:52 ↗ shape limiting the area uh change to 50%

13:56 ↗ of the area sign or sign area

14:01 ↗ establish a priority to preserve the s

14:02 ↗ design color and

14:04 ↗ texture and then also adding an option

14:07 ↗ for development commission review if the

14:10 ↗ preser if the uh proposed design changes

14:15 ↗ exceed any of these

14:18 ↗ criteria so the question is should the

14:20 ↗ city simplify the

14:25 ↗ requirements the last policy question is

14:28 ↗ related to tree removal

14:30 ↗ tracking the proposed changes to remove

14:32 ↗ the requirement for a community Planning

14:34 ↗ Development Department from tracking

14:36 ↗ tree removals for public trees as a a

14:38 ↗ redundancy to Public Works and Parks

14:41 ↗ departments already tracking tree

14:42 ↗ removals as part of public projects so

14:45 ↗ the question is should the city remove

14:47 ↗ the requirement for Community Planning

14:49 ↗ and Development Department to track tree

14:55 ↗ removals timeline for this is it'll next

14:58 ↗ go to the council committee on July 9th

15:01 ↗ and then tenative Council action on July

15:08 ↗ 22nd CH voice that concludes my

15:11 ↗ presentation

15:12 ↗ tonight great thank you Stephen so now

15:15 ↗ we'll be taking questions from uh our

15:17 ↗ different members if anyone would like

15:18 ↗ to go first please raise your hand and

15:21 ↗ state your name before bring your

15:24 ↗ question or ask

15:30 ↗ uh Stephen could you put up that last

15:31 ↗ slide

15:57 ↗ please I know we asked quite a few

16:00 ↗ questions at our last meeting but I'm

16:02 ↗ sure there's a few

16:04 ↗ more give you some

16:09 ↗ time Vice chair Bader yeah Sarah Bader

16:13 ↗ um

16:17 ↗ I I understood the kind of what this

16:20 ↗ question is asking but to go deeper for

16:22 ↗ question number one about the community

16:23 ↗ meetings why was that option chosen out

16:26 ↗ of the a through J or those three a a

16:30 ↗ and and not others so a lot of what the

16:34 ↗ other options that are listed within the

16:35 ↗ bill um actually require significant

16:38 ↗ changes to the city's process or require

16:41 ↗ certain um investments from the city for

16:44 ↗ either hiring additional staff uh or um

16:48 ↗ investing in additional resources to

16:50 ↗ either streamline permitting processes

16:53 ↗ or to

16:56 ↗ um incorporate new things with a

16:59 ↗ development review that just

17:00 ↗ additionally just required additional

17:02 ↗ Investments so the three options that

17:04 ↗ we're eligible now actually are things

17:06 ↗ that um don't require additional

17:09 ↗ Investments um but the one post tonight

17:11 ↗ is a policy question would be a policy

17:13 ↗ change that we want to discuss with the

17:17 ↗ commission I go to uh commissioner

17:19 ↗ Milligan and commissioner

17:23 ↗ crra thank you commissioner Milligan

17:26 ↗ here my question is about the um

17:29 ↗ Stadium

17:30 ↗ lighting the uh do you have a slide that

17:33 ↗ has the new

17:35 ↗ words um if you don't I'm I'm just

17:38 ↗ looking at the packet and and I find the

17:41 ↗ wording um difficult to understand where

17:45 ↗ it

17:45 ↗ says

17:47 ↗ um that you

17:49 ↗ can do this sort of lighting supported

17:53 ↗ by lighting studies prepared by a

17:54 ↗ qualified professional that include

17:57 ↗ mitigation standards that are adhere to

17:59 ↗ the 2011 model lighting uh ordinance

18:02 ↗ developed in partnership with the

18:04 ↗ international dark sky Association and

18:06 ↗ The Illuminating engineering Society um

18:10 ↗ I don't to me that doesn't sound like it

18:12 ↗ says there is a dark sky standard and

18:15 ↗ that we're um and that we're complying

18:18 ↗ with it it just sounds different I don't

18:21 ↗ even know what it says so help me with

18:23 ↗ that thank you thank you for the

18:25 ↗ question commissioner migan and um that

18:27 ↗ specific language whether why we didn't

18:29 ↗ just say uh the the studies need to

18:32 ↗ include mitigation strategies that align

18:34 ↗ with dark sky initiative is that that's

18:38 ↗ it wasn't specific enough so that

18:39 ↗ language actually aligns with the

18:40 ↗ language that we have for in the

18:43 ↗ lighting code where we specifically call

18:44 ↗ out the dark sky initiative within the

18:46 ↗ purpose section of the lighting code and

18:49 ↗ so it just aligns with it uses the same

18:51 ↗ language as that and terms of like what

18:53 ↗ we discussed before so that we are

18:55 ↗ specific with which standards we are

18:57 ↗ actually trained to comply with

19:02 ↗ uh can I follow up so then mitigation

19:05 ↗ strategies that adhere to an

19:08 ↗ ordinance um is that the same as saying

19:12 ↗ comply with an

19:15 ↗ ordinance

19:16 ↗ yes okay good that would be nice to have

19:21 ↗ fewer words maybe okay thank

19:26 ↗ you commissioner crass Hey Stephen uh

19:29 ↗ John crass here so number one um you

19:33 ↗ mentioned uh when you change to the the

19:37 ↗ process um to make this optional there's

19:40 ↗ going to be other updates for

19:41 ↗ communication with website Etc is this

19:45 ↗ contingent on you will make this change

19:47 ↗ after these more robust ways of

19:49 ↗ communication are up so they're tied

19:51 ↗ together because it is important you

19:53 ↗ know once again communication is is

19:55 ↗ super key to to any new changes so

19:59 ↗ are they tied together you wouldn't make

20:00 ↗ this change until the other pieces are

20:03 ↗ done great question commissioner um no

20:07 ↗ this is a completely separate uh change

20:10 ↗ from all the other improvements or

20:13 ↗ changes that we're proposing or at least

20:15 ↗ that are ongoing changes is that what

20:16 ↗ you were asking about is with our

20:18 ↗ ongoing improvements with the

20:19 ↗ development review process is is the P

20:21 ↗ contingent on that I think when you take

20:23 ↗ something from being mandatory to

20:25 ↗ optional you want to make sure that it's

20:27 ↗ balanced with the ability for people to

20:29 ↗ get information so that's why I was

20:30 ↗ asking if they were if if they happen

20:32 ↗ together then that's probably an easier

20:34 ↗ thing to understand if you

20:41 ↗ make maybe I'm not

20:44 ↗ being communication via the website I

20:47 ↗ forgot the other couple points that you

20:48 ↗ had on there you're saying that's not

20:51 ↗ that that you're doing that anyway not

20:54 ↗ necessarily just for number one but

20:55 ↗ you're going to do number

20:56 ↗ one potentially before you have those

20:59 ↗ updates I was just trying to understand

21:01 ↗ the the timing of those different

21:04 ↗ things a lot of the updates that I spoke

21:07 ↗ to as part of the presentation have

21:08 ↗ already occurred and we're we're still

21:11 ↗ doing them okay and so the improvements

21:13 ↗ to our development review process are

21:15 ↗ are are separate and ongoing and are not

21:18 ↗ contingent on any of the code amendments

21:19 ↗ tonight okay

21:24 ↗ than thank you commissioner crash gr uh

21:28 ↗ commissioner

21:30 ↗ Z just a clarification for number two I

21:33 ↗ think it's 18 instead of 12 um um but

21:37 ↗ one question there is is the flexibility

21:40 ↗ to reduce the cost on the applicant or

21:44 ↗ or or for another reason the as it

21:47 ↗ pertains to the technical um document

21:52 ↗ review yes uh yes commissioner to answer

21:55 ↗ your question it a lot of the

21:56 ↗ flexibility would eventally result in

21:59 ↗ cost savings for

22:01 ↗ applicants okay as they get to the

22:04 ↗ decision for if they're going to move

22:06 ↗ forward with the project okay thank you

22:14 ↗ correct any questions from anyone we

22:16 ↗ haven't heard from

22:20 ↗ yet any questions someone who'd like to

22:23 ↗ go

22:24 ↗ again Vice chair Vader yes Sarah Vader I

22:27 ↗ have a question about number four the

22:29 ↗ heat pumps one I'm just a clarifying

22:31 ↗ question because I think when we had

22:32 ↗ talked last time about the screening

22:34 ↗ there was a concern that the units might

22:36 ↗ not work if they were screened in that

22:38 ↗ sort of way and so just wanted to see if

22:41 ↗ that was if we're requiring screening

22:43 ↗ just that the units will still be

22:47 ↗ effective it it it depends on the

22:50 ↗ installation in the property in the

22:52 ↗ building and there's a lot of factors

22:53 ↗ you go to win um installers uh look for

22:58 ↗ location

22:59 ↗ for uh heat pumps or AC units they are

23:02 ↗ wanting spaces where you get at least

23:05 ↗ one to two feet clearance space around

23:07 ↗ where the units are so they get enough

23:09 ↗ air to work efficiently um it doesn't

23:12 ↗ mean that they won't work if anything is

23:15 ↗ is closer than that proximity but that

23:18 ↗ they work more efficiently without it so

23:20 ↗ as long as there's enough space for um

23:25 ↗ uh the units to be uh collecting the

23:28 ↗ surrounding air then that those'll still

23:30 ↗ work efficiently and

23:35 ↗ effectively commissioner

23:40 ↗ Milligan commissioner Milligan here

23:42 ↗ thank you I'm going to the um same as

23:46 ↗ commissioner Bader the amenities in the

23:48 ↗ setback area and um reading at the

23:53 ↗ language it doesn't say anything about

23:56 ↗ heat pumps or air conditioners it says

24:00 ↗ permanent

24:01 ↗ amenities and where accessory structures

24:04 ↗ um which are also in this chapter are

24:06 ↗ defined permanent amenities are not so I

24:11 ↗ uh wanted to ask if there is a

24:12 ↗ definition of permanent amenities and um

24:16 ↗ if not can you imagine another thing

24:18 ↗ that besides a heat pump or air

24:21 ↗ conditioner that would be considered a

24:23 ↗ Perman

24:24 ↗ amenity and then I also want to ask

24:27 ↗ about the language that says minimizes

24:29 ↗ impacts on adjacent properties how would

24:31 ↗ you measure

24:35 ↗ that so with your first question there

24:39 ↗ is a subsection above where we made

24:41 ↗ proposed changes that does Define what

24:43 ↗ permanent amenities are as uh heat pumps

24:46 ↗ air conditioning units or similar

24:49 ↗ equipment I can't remember the specific

24:51 ↗ off the top of my head and I can't look

24:53 ↗ it up because I'm sharing my screen but

24:55 ↗ um I I we did double check to make sure

24:57 ↗ that it is find and we wanted to make

24:59 ↗ sure that it we are using the exact same

25:01 ↗ language that being permanent

25:04 ↗ amenities to your um can you can you

25:08 ↗ repeat your second question

25:10 ↗ please the the second question was how

25:12 ↗ do you define minimizing impact on

25:15 ↗ adjacent

25:16 ↗ property or how do you quantify

25:19 ↗ it it it's extremely difficult to

25:23 ↗ quantify that and what we did was work

25:27 ↗ work with similar Lang language that we

25:28 ↗ have in the code that helps us

25:31 ↗ um justify enforcing it being closer to

25:34 ↗ the building um as as close as possible

25:38 ↗ is basically what we're looking for um

25:42 ↗ most of the time when installers are

25:43 ↗ looking for location installations

25:46 ↗ they're wanting it close to the primary

25:48 ↗ structure because of U it being more you

25:52 ↗ know further away from the primary

25:53 ↗ structure it's further away from the

25:56 ↗ equipment to the housing which then

25:57 ↗ require additional cost and then there's

26:00 ↗ more things that can go wrong and so

26:02 ↗ most manufacturers don't like to go much

26:04 ↗ further away than what's operationally

26:08 ↗ possible okay and then let me clarify

26:11 ↗ that um one of the concerns that we

26:12 ↗ expressed in last week's meeting was um

26:14 ↗ noise impacts and U I'm looking forward

26:18 ↗ to uh hearing the ihca executive

26:21 ↗ director where I know that there are

26:23 ↗ noise standards where are the noise

26:24 ↗ standards located in is a cost code for

26:27 ↗ this

26:28 ↗ I I might have to defer to director

26:30 ↗ Dolly well to remind me where that is in

26:33 ↗ specifically but uh the noise ordinance

26:37 ↗ specifically for the municipal code will

26:39 ↗ be coming back to the commission later

26:40 ↗ this year for consideration for making

26:46 ↗ updates I can answer the noise code uh

26:50 ↗ reference so uh the the IMC adopts the

26:54 ↗ state law

26:55 ↗ requirements um and so so I'm looking

26:58 ↗ for the reference here uh but we don't

27:01 ↗ have our own noise standards which is

27:03 ↗ pretty standard for a lot of

27:05 ↗ jurisdictions even the ones that have

27:07 ↗ adopted their own standards they adhere

27:08 ↗ to these decibel levels

27:12 ↗ and it

27:14 ↗ is um

27:16 ↗ 18518

27:18 ↗ 020 uh that adds the references to the

27:22 ↗ Washington Administrative Code whack uh

27:25 ↗ for all the definitions the maximum

27:27 ↗ permissible noise level are under the

27:29 ↗ state law are uh wack 173

27:43 ↗ 60-4 do that answer your question

27:45 ↗ commissioner

27:50 ↗ Milligan any further questions from our

27:52 ↗ commissioner

27:58 ↗ commissioner Patterson uh in regards to

28:01 ↗ question eight on the tree removal um I

28:04 ↗ saw the city response notes about the um

28:07 ↗ urban forestry plan can you remind me

28:09 ↗ the timeline of when that is expected to

28:12 ↗ be rolled

28:17 ↗ out um you know it's my understanding

28:19 ↗ that's coming up um sometime in August

28:23 ↗ Stephen do you have an exact

28:25 ↗ schedule for that I believe that

28:28 ↗ the city's Urban Forester is bringing

28:30 ↗ the I think draft language to the

28:33 ↗ environmental board in

28:35 ↗ August I think that's the at least the

28:37 ↗ timing we're aware of at

28:47 ↗ this any further

28:56 ↗ questions going once

28:59 ↗ twice all right well thank you Stephen

29:02 ↗ and thank you Minnie for answering our

29:05 ↗ questions if there are no further

29:07 ↗ questions we're apparently I think

29:09 ↗ Nine's hands still up but I'm pretty

29:10 ↗ sure that's just it

29:13 ↗ up uh we'll Begin by opening the public

29:16 ↗ comment and we will do that for the

29:19 ↗ public hearing right now at 7:02

29:23 ↗ p.m. I do want to go over a few ground

29:26 ↗ rules for the public comment

29:38 ↗ tonight's public comments for the public

29:40 ↗ hearing may be made in person or

29:42 ↗ virtually and for all those who would

29:44 ↗ like to speak during public comments we

29:46 ↗ do ask that you speak clearly pause

29:49 ↗ frequently and that you state your name

29:52 ↗ before you begin to speak if you are

29:55 ↗ attending virtually or by computer um

29:57 ↗ and you would like to speak we do ask

29:59 ↗ that you please mute your microphone

30:01 ↗ when you're not speaking and if you're

30:02 ↗ having any technical issues try joining

30:05 ↗ the meeting using different device such

30:07 ↗ as a smartphone or tablet you can use

30:09 ↗ the call in information in the meeting

30:11 ↗ invite to call into the

30:13 ↗ meeting public comments are a very

30:15 ↗ important part of the public process we

30:17 ↗ take them seriously they are part of

30:20 ↗ what factors into our decision- making

30:22 ↗ comments right now are for the public

30:24 ↗ hearing and we do ask that you please

30:26 ↗ limit them to five minutes or

30:29 ↗ less all right is there anyone who would

30:32 ↗ like to speak on the title 18 code

30:35 ↗ amendments leave the

30:37 ↗ RS Sarah Hoy

30:43 ↗ please hello Sarah Hoy I'm the executive

30:46 ↗ director for the iso Highlands Community

30:49 ↗ Association thank you for giving me the

30:51 ↗ opportunity to speak um I'd like to talk

30:53 ↗ to you about uh Title 18 code change 185

31:00 ↗ 830b on the HVAC unit setback

31:04 ↗ requirements um quickly ihca is the

31:06 ↗ largest HOA in the state of Washington

31:09 ↗ we've got

31:10 ↗ 4,711 homes and we have new construction

31:12 ↗ coming still we have over 600 unit uh

31:15 ↗ Town Homes over

31:17 ↗ a, sorry 1,84

31:20 ↗ Condominiums um so any changes to Title

31:23 ↗ 18 code um in the HVAC setbacks uh is a

31:27 ↗ minimum effect to at least over 1600

31:30 ↗ units um a ihca alone processes over 300

31:35 ↗ Arc requests annually um and since we've

31:39 ↗ had the um evident um climate change

31:42 ↗ which has caused huge hot summers um we

31:45 ↗ have seen an 100% increase on hvic

31:48 ↗ requests for heat pumps and um hvic

31:51 ↗ units uh city of isqua has recently

31:54 ↗ begun to deny permits to owners who have

31:57 ↗ installed or wish to install AC units

32:00 ↗ due to the new title 18 code criteria on

32:02 ↗ setbacks not being met or due to decibel

32:06 ↗ intolerances I caution the commission to

32:09 ↗ consider denying owner to reconsider

32:12 ↗ denying owners the right to Safe

32:14 ↗ conditions in extreme hot summers this

32:18 ↗ rule may also not adhere to local and

32:20 ↗ state Ada laws pertaining to AC units we

32:24 ↗ have currently changed our our community

32:26 ↗ rules to allow for exterior window units

32:30 ↗ during the hot summer months um to help

32:32 ↗ accommodate residents for health and

32:35 ↗ safety IHC town homes and condos are

32:38 ↗ zero lot line AB buding structures with

32:41 ↗ common area Landscaping managed by the

32:44 ↗ Association ICA will not allow Sid

32:48 ↗ mounted units in our town homes as the

32:50 ↗ association is legally responsible for

32:52 ↗ the exterior maintenance and no sighting

32:55 ↗ penetrations are allowed

32:58 ↗ in addition the new uh Washington state

33:01 ↗ law on heat pumps Senate bill

33:04 ↗ 5973 has gone into effect as of June 6

33:08 ↗ 2004 which prohibits associations from

33:12 ↗ um prohibiting the installation of heat

33:15 ↗ pumps and HVAC units um if the owner

33:19 ↗ requests one associations May create

33:23 ↗ reasonable restrictions and may prohibit

33:25 ↗ the in uh insulation of heat pumps

33:28 ↗ um in a common area so they would need

33:30 ↗ approval from us through the

33:31 ↗ architectural

33:32 ↗ control um if we do prohibit uh HVAC

33:37 ↗ units going in we the association itself

33:40 ↗ can be penalized over thousands of

33:42 ↗ dollars I do not want to put the

33:44 ↗ association in this type of

33:47 ↗ situation um and then I also understand

33:49 ↗ about the mix maximum permissible

33:52 ↗ environmental noise levels which was

33:54 ↗ discussed a moment ago um I have a big

33:57 ↗ problem with that right now our our

33:59 ↗ decimal rating has been for the last 10

34:01 ↗ years 75 decimals and I understand now

34:04 ↗ it's 55 during the day 45 at night

34:07 ↗ there's no way to monit there's no way

34:09 ↗ to monitor a decimal and there's no

34:12 ↗ parameters on how the city is going to

34:15 ↗ to do that um so I have some I'd like to

34:18 ↗ be part of the conversations when that

34:20 ↗ happens um so I am respectfully asking

34:24 ↗ the city uh Council and commission to

34:26 ↗ allow the these HVAC units within the

34:30 ↗ setbacks in the ab buding uh property or

34:34 ↗ zero lot line Properties or town homes

34:37 ↗ and even for the

34:39 ↗ condos um I know that Talis and myself

34:42 ↗ uh talk regularly and he has the same

34:44 ↗ concerns they have the same

34:46 ↗ concerns um I would ask the city to

34:49 ↗ engage with a certified HVAC technician

34:52 ↗ to discuss potential impacts to

34:54 ↗ Residents around Heating and Cooling um

34:57 ↗ some of of these choices have economic

34:59 ↗ uh impacts and health impacts to the

35:02 ↗ community um I also urge the commission

35:05 ↗ to or the city to Grant at least

35:08 ↗ temporary permits for people who want AC

35:11 ↗ during the hot summer months until this

35:13 ↗ is

35:14 ↗ resolved um and that is all I have for

35:18 ↗ now thank you for your time

35:29 ↗ public Comet

35:41 ↗ Rick hi thank you for allowing me to

35:45 ↗ speak my name is Rick

35:47 ↗ conas um I'm old to

35:50 ↗ issaqua I went to Pine Lake Junior High

35:52 ↗ in s

35:54 ↗ Elementary um but knew as a business

35:56 ↗ owner here uh purchased a a building on

36:00 ↗ uh 221st in downtown

36:03 ↗ Aspire um and I would love a monument

36:07 ↗ sign love one uh the building that I

36:10 ↗ purchased was built back in uh the ' 50s

36:14 ↗ and it was an old residential house um

36:18 ↗ to put an awning on it or plaster a a

36:22 ↗ sticker on a

36:23 ↗ window doesn't go with the building the

36:27 ↗ architecture of the building or the

36:28 ↗ neighborhood uh a monument sign would be

36:32 ↗ appropriate and I think would be really

36:34 ↗ complimentary to the the architecture

36:37 ↗ and the and the site the curb appeal um

36:41 ↗ and so when I went to the city to apply

36:43 ↗ for a permit I was told no Monument sign

36:47 ↗ so when I look through the land use

36:50 ↗ code which I'd be happy to provide you

36:52 ↗ copies of um in the code it says that I

36:56 ↗ can which is interesting um so I

37:02 ↗ contacted the city and mean was was

37:05 ↗ helpful on this uh and gave me this

37:07 ↗ opportunity to speak so I'm not sure

37:10 ↗ what to do uh nowhere in the code does

37:13 ↗ it say I can't have it uh in the code it

37:16 ↗ says I can but I can't get a

37:19 ↗ permit so I'm kind of at a

37:22 ↗ loss thank you

37:37 ↗ good evening uh my name is Ken

37:39 ↗ Ean I'm a resident of the Talis

37:42 ↗ community in isqua I'm also a member of

37:45 ↗ the palace residential association with

37:48 ↗ the role of looking after our common

37:51 ↗ space in

37:52 ↗ Talis and so I'd like to comment on a

37:55 ↗ number of issues related to Title 18 but

37:58 ↗ not specific necessarily to uh the

38:02 ↗ business in front of the commission

38:04 ↗ tonight uh first off I want to uh

38:07 ↗ wholeheartedly agree with my colleague

38:09 ↗ from isqua

38:10 ↗ Highlands um the impact that Sarah

38:13 ↗ talked about uh is certainly felt in

38:16 ↗ Talis as well um Town Homes really can't

38:21 ↗ get air conditioning or heat pump um you

38:24 ↗ know if you uh enforce the setback rules

38:28 ↗ uh the state rules on

38:30 ↗ decb they just don't work anywhere there

38:33 ↗ is no air conditioner or heat pump um

38:37 ↗ that anybody makes that could meet those

38:39 ↗ requirements 55 DB and 45 DB you know

38:43 ↗ every air conditioner that we look at is

38:45 ↗ up in this in the low 70s is a quiet one

38:49 ↗ so um that's a huge problem where the

38:52 ↗ city uh is um now enforcing a state

38:58 ↗ um uh statute that U they hadn't

39:01 ↗ previously uh if a resident goes and uh

39:05 ↗ request a permit um they're likely to be

39:09 ↗ denied because of those two reasons

39:12 ↗ wanted to talk about a couple of other

39:14 ↗ items uh the tree code quite frankly

39:18 ↗ does not work for our open space we have

39:21 ↗ 78 Acres over many little pieces of

39:25 ↗ scrap Parcels that have been deed over

39:27 ↗ to us over the years um we tried to

39:31 ↗ comply with the new title 18

39:33 ↗ requirements in

39:35 ↗ 2023 um and it was incredibly honorous

39:38 ↗ we finally got through it but um it

39:42 ↗ shouldn't be that

39:44 ↗ complicated um you know we had a

39:47 ↗ forestry expert um go through our 78

39:51 ↗ Acres where you could imagine there's

39:52 ↗ thousands of trees cited 61 that needed

39:56 ↗ to come down because of safety reasons

39:58 ↗ we were talking about trees that would

40:00 ↗ hit homes or streets uh we had one

40:03 ↗ approved we went back and reworked the

40:06 ↗ report we had about half of them

40:08 ↗ approved by the time we got through all

40:11 ↗ of that it cost us about $20,000 in

40:13 ↗ permit fees and uh arborous reports just

40:17 ↗ to get through that owner's process and

40:20 ↗ I'll add to that I'm talking about

40:22 ↗ forests here where trees seed they grow

40:25 ↗ and they die it's a natural process the

40:28 ↗ city requirement says when you take down

40:30 ↗ a tree you've got to put essentially a

40:33 ↗ large tree back a two Caliber 2in

40:36 ↗ Caliber tree that's 68 feet tall you

40:40 ↗ can't just plant that in a forest and

40:42 ↗ expect it to grow you know when

40:45 ↗ warehouser Cuts uh their Forest they

40:47 ↗ don't put six foot trees back in they

40:50 ↗ put seedlings back in so uh once again I

40:53 ↗ ask you to look at the tree code it just

40:55 ↗ does not work for forests

40:59 ↗ um another item that I would like to

41:03 ↗ discuss um in uh at a brief level and

41:07 ↗ I've got a two-page white paper that I

41:09 ↗ put together really about the durability

41:13 ↗ of uh the landscaping and Associated

41:16 ↗ landscaping that's required in the city

41:19 ↗ code um you know we've found

41:23 ↗ after um you know 20 years of uh the

41:27 ↗ Talis community that there's so much

41:31 ↗ that was not done correctly and there's

41:33 ↗ no code that really

41:35 ↗ requires irrigation standards or

41:38 ↗ appropriate plants uh Street trees that

41:41 ↗ are too large for their tiny spaces that

41:43 ↗ are heaving sidewalks strangling the

41:46 ↗ irrigation invasives that uh you know

41:49 ↗ are there after many years because the

41:51 ↗ developer was never required to remove

41:54 ↗ them permanently so um I would like like

41:57 ↗ to uh submit to the commission a white

42:01 ↗ paper on our

42:03 ↗ experience uh after 20 years of

42:06 ↗ development and where quite frankly it's

42:09 ↗ cost the Talis residents a huge amount

42:12 ↗ of money to rework uh the items because

42:15 ↗ city code um didn't require uh the work

42:19 ↗ to be done correctly or in a way that uh

42:23 ↗ uh made it past a reasonable uh timeline

42:28 ↗ um

42:30 ↗ lastly I'd like to talk about bonding so

42:33 ↗ I think we all feel good that we ask

42:35 ↗ developers to submit bonds it's sort of

42:38 ↗ this giant threat that says if you don't

42:40 ↗ follow through on your commitments you

42:42 ↗ know we've got a bond here uh to make

42:45 ↗ things right U but we've had several

42:47 ↗ situations with developers that haven't

42:50 ↗ come through um they've not um committed

42:55 ↗ or followed through on their commitments

42:57 ↗ and their obligations and when we've

42:59 ↗ gone to the city and said let's cash

43:01 ↗ their

43:02 ↗ bond the answer that comes back is oh

43:05 ↗ it's a a very difficult process we don't

43:08 ↗ do that it requires all kinds of you

43:11 ↗ know attorneys and this and that and the

43:13 ↗ other thing and I guess I would just ask

43:15 ↗ look at the city code and ask yourself

43:17 ↗ if we're requiring a bond and we never

43:20 ↗ cash them then why do we have Bonds in

43:23 ↗ the first place is there not a different

43:25 ↗ or better way to do that

43:27 ↗ so um thank you for your time I'll hand

43:31 ↗ this to the city clerk

43:34 ↗ and um appreciate if you would

43:37 ↗ appreciate if you would uh look at that

43:39 ↗ thank

43:48 ↗ you chair we do have one member

43:53 ↗ virtually that would like to make a

43:54 ↗ comment

43:59 ↗ I apologize yes ma'am you can Mo

44:05 ↗ forward I know I was so shy and deur

44:08 ↗ back there nobody could possibly see me

44:12 ↗ Connie Marsh again okay

44:15 ↗ so I have spent probably 10 years of my

44:20 ↗ life

44:21 ↗ getting

44:23 ↗ pre-application meetings for the

44:25 ↗ neighborhoods to go along with critical

44:28 ↗ area studies because once you have a

44:30 ↗ complete application with all of the

44:33 ↗ investment and time from the applicant

44:36 ↗ and the city you cannot get a darn thing

44:41 ↗ changed because that's how it used to be

44:43 ↗ and it was horrible the the neighbors

44:46 ↗ would go out and they would talk and

44:48 ↗ they would cry and nothing had happen

44:51 ↗ and it's just infuriating so after many

44:54 ↗ years of effort we finally got

44:56 ↗ pre-application meetings with critical

44:59 ↗ area studies so that the neighbors could

45:01 ↗ tell the developers in Intimate detail

45:04 ↗ about the land that they would be

45:05 ↗ working with and they would learn

45:07 ↗ circumstances that you would never know

45:09 ↗ from any other test because people just

45:12 ↗ know right and so I

45:16 ↗ was more than Disturbed to find that now

45:20 ↗ it was going to come after the complete

45:24 ↗ application and we were reverting to the

45:26 ↗ Past

45:27 ↗ which does not work and then I was a

45:30 ↗ little more Disturbed to find it was

45:32 ↗ because it's the cheapest way to go but

45:35 ↗ the expense to the community for not

45:39 ↗ being able to engage early on and make

45:42 ↗ effective

45:43 ↗ change is far more than money and you

45:48 ↗ are excluding people's ability to make

45:51 ↗ their Town better which I think is the

45:54 ↗ basis of a good town so totally disagree

45:58 ↗ I uh if if if you're putting it after

46:02 ↗ the complete application now you're

46:04 ↗ actually adding to the likelihood that

46:06 ↗ you're going to get fines because now

46:08 ↗ you have to have that meeting in the

46:09 ↗ middle and it's going to take up time

46:12 ↗ and so then if you go over time then you

46:15 ↗ get your fines

46:17 ↗ potentially anyway so

46:20 ↗ please say no to that and ask them to go

46:23 ↗ back to the drawing board and look at

46:25 ↗ some of the other things that they want

46:26 ↗ to take that pathway now at the same

46:29 ↗ time this technical review which those

46:32 ↗ are critical area studies so we're

46:34 ↗ talking about the same thing now they

46:35 ↗ say oh we want to be able to do those

46:38 ↗ earlier and we want to be able to put

46:40 ↗ them on the website but you'll notice it

46:42 ↗ never says when they're going to go on

46:44 ↗ the website so I fail to understand if a

46:48 ↗ Community member would actually be able

46:51 ↗ to see those technical reviews uh before

46:55 ↗ or even after you have a complete

46:57 ↗ application until you until you tell

47:00 ↗ someone you have to put it on at X time

47:03 ↗ it just doesn't happen because it's

47:05 ↗ actually sort of painful to do it that

47:07 ↗ way so uh I am going

47:10 ↗ to conclusion with that one is I like it

47:14 ↗ I like that they're going to put it on

47:15 ↗ the website but I would like

47:16 ↗ clarification as to when in the process

47:18 ↗ they'll get there uh trees not tracked

47:21 ↗ by CPD so I talked to the gentleman

47:24 ↗ who's writing the urban Forest

47:25 ↗ management plan and in this first

47:28 ↗ iteration of the urban Forest management

47:30 ↗ plan there is not going to be a

47:32 ↗ gathering of all the tree information

47:34 ↗ from all the Departments into one uh uh

47:39 ↗ cohesive analytical piece so what this

47:42 ↗ thing in the code does is at least says

47:45 ↗ You must track it and it gives you an

47:48 ↗ opportunity potentially to get all of

47:50 ↗ the tree

47:51 ↗ information in in one place if they do

47:55 ↗ it great turn it into CPD and CPD has

48:00 ↗ theirs and then somebody can get a whole

48:01 ↗ picture right in two years if they get

48:04 ↗ to stage two of the urban Forest

48:06 ↗ management plan and they come up with a

48:08 ↗ better way to do it then change the code

48:10 ↗ but for now just leave it as it is

48:12 ↗ because everything is very segmented all

48:16 ↗ right uh oh I actually don't understand

48:20 ↗ the problem with Monument signs maybe I

48:22 ↗ missed that explanation are they

48:24 ↗ terrible for some tragic reason that I

48:26 ↗ don't understand because I like them I

48:28 ↗ like to be able to see what's in a place

48:31 ↗ um and then go in and find the thing

48:35 ↗ because um even if you're in an urban

48:38 ↗ environment it's it's hard it's hard to

48:42 ↗ look in all different spots when you can

48:45 ↗ see all the information gathered in one

48:47 ↗ place or even a larger single thing so I

48:50 ↗ don't understand maybe you discussed

48:52 ↗ that before but if you didn't if you

48:54 ↗ could ask about that that would be great

48:56 ↗ and I may be under 5 minutes and um so

49:01 ↗ thanks for your efforts though isn't it

49:02 ↗ fun I love code like Candy

49:11 ↗ by chair we do have a attendee that has

49:15 ↗ a comment virtually this is marnette

49:18 ↗ Lewis I am now unmuting your line

49:28 ↗ hi yes um I represent Burger master um

49:31 ↗ as head of

49:32 ↗ construction and we wanted to discuss

49:36 ↗ the signage uh verbage that was on the

49:39 ↗ uh that's been proposed uh one we're

49:41 ↗ excited to be here um and we're really

49:44 ↗ looking forward to really getting some

49:45 ↗ solid footing in the community and also

49:47 ↗ having a Building

49:48 ↗ represent um just overall uh layout and

49:52 ↗ so we wanted to update that

49:55 ↗ signage uh

49:57 ↗ this the actual sign itself the faing uh

49:59 ↗ really give it a a big refresh but have

50:02 ↗ the colors match our brand standards um

50:05 ↗ I did send some information over to mini

50:07 ↗ and um just wanted to discuss and and

50:10 ↗ work through that process with the city

50:11 ↗ so we just appreciate your

50:13 ↗ considerations

50:26 ↗ well thank you for everybody who spoke

50:29 ↗ up tonight during this public hearing we

50:30 ↗ appreciate your comments um again I'm

50:33 ↗ sure this is reverberating throughout

50:35 ↗ the commission everyone's digesting it

50:38 ↗ now we have the opportunity to discuss

50:40 ↗ it being there that there's no more

50:43 ↗ public comment we will close the public

50:45 ↗ comment at

50:50 ↗ 7:20 so there is formal action requested

50:53 ↗ of us so would someone like to make a

50:55 ↗ motion so we be begin to debate we're

50:59 ↗ talking

51:00 ↗ about commissioner

51:02 ↗ Patterson thanks chair voice um yes I'd

51:05 ↗ like to propose the motion uh I move to

51:07 ↗ recommend approval of all the proposed

51:10 ↗ amendments to Title 18 part one General

51:13 ↗ Provisions title two procedures part

51:17 ↗ three division of Land part four zoning

51:20 ↗ part five specified use standards part

51:23 ↗ six development standards and part eight

51:27 ↗ environment is there a

51:29 ↗ second

51:32 ↗ second all right so we will start with

51:35 ↗ discussion um I'm hopeful that everyone

51:37 ↗ will speak before we come back to second

51:39 ↗ and third time people speaking but

51:41 ↗ ultimately because commissioner

51:43 ↗ Patterson made the motion is there

51:45 ↗ something you'd like to start us off

51:46 ↗ with that's

51:52 ↗ new then yeah you can pass it

51:54 ↗ toon okay perfect that's okay

51:57 ↗ commissioner

51:58 ↗ Kennedy um just for procedural I think

52:01 ↗ it would be really helpful I know for me

52:03 ↗ after all our questions last week and

52:05 ↗ hearing from the community today then

52:08 ↗ processing the various questions we need

52:10 ↗ to answer if we could walk through each

52:12 ↗ one individually and look hopefully at

52:16 ↗ what the proposed

52:18 ↗ changes have a really clear conversation

52:21 ↗ of this is what it looks like this is

52:23 ↗ what we're proposing so we can Digest

52:26 ↗ what we talked about and what we've

52:28 ↗ heard for each item instead of hopefully

52:32 ↗ bouncing

52:33 ↗ around I appreciate that no that's

52:36 ↗ fantastic that's great commissioner

52:37 ↗ Kennedy so let's do that let's take it

52:39 ↗ apart one by one and I believe the very

52:41 ↗ first one that came up was the preac

52:44 ↗ application meeting so let's start with

52:47 ↗ that um I don't know

52:53 ↗ if if many tly wall or stepen are going

52:56 ↗ to be helping us out maybe it's a team

52:57 ↗ effort But ultimately yeah let's start

52:59 ↗ with that one and if I guess for right

53:01 ↗ now let's go ahead and put up that last

53:03 ↗ slide if Steph's still with us believe

53:05 ↗ he is um know he's no longer on my

53:08 ↗ screen yeah we'll just take it apart one

53:11 ↗ by

53:13 ↗ one great first

53:19 ↗ comment commission

53:23 ↗ Milligan commissioner Milligan here

53:25 ↗ lowering my hand now that you've called

53:27 ↗ on me uh I wanted to be reminded about

53:31 ↗ the uh

53:33 ↗ criteria uh or which kind of

53:35 ↗ applications we're talking about that

53:38 ↗ used to or would require if there were

53:40 ↗ no changes

53:42 ↗ the um pre community

53:51 ↗ meeting preapplication community meeting

53:54 ↗ which which um applications require that

53:57 ↗ somebody say it out loud for me because

53:59 ↗ I can't read that so this is mini uh

54:02 ↗ here I think Stephen's trying to find

54:04 ↗ that section and he's um putting it out

54:07 ↗ on the screen so uh as without any

54:11 ↗ changes today um the code says it is

54:15 ↗ optional for level two and three unless

54:19 ↗ there are critical areas on the property

54:20 ↗ then it is

54:22 ↗ required um but it is required

54:24 ↗ regardless of the critical areas are not

54:27 ↗ for level four so level four are the

54:30 ↗ ones that go to development commission

54:32 ↗ level two are administrative decisions

54:35 ↗ uh uh you know that trigger a notice of

54:37 ↗ application but they don't require a

54:39 ↗ public hearing and level three are the

54:41 ↗ ones that require a public hearing and

54:43 ↗ the hearing examiner makes the

54:45 ↗ decision um but building permits and

54:48 ↗ such and all those things are level one

54:51 ↗ so there's a separate table that

54:53 ↗ explains which type of permits are level

54:55 ↗ one two and three but

54:56 ↗ the basic difference is the process

54:59 ↗ whether you have a hearing or not and

55:00 ↗ who the decision maker is so it's

55:04 ↗ optional uh unless you have critical

55:06 ↗ areas then it's required for level two

55:09 ↗ and three it is required for level four

55:11 ↗ regardless uh without any proposed

55:14 ↗ amendments as the code is written today

55:16 ↗ and it is true there was a lot of

55:18 ↗ community feedback into this and this is

55:21 ↗ important for the community and

55:23 ↗ developers uh have said they do value

55:26 ↗ the this uh early interaction with the

55:28 ↗ community because then they know what

55:31 ↗ what some issues are earlier before they

55:34 ↗ bake the whole project um the state Bill

55:38 ↗ uh is in front of us and you know we

55:40 ↗ were waiting for guidance from

55:41 ↗ Department of Commerce uh it goes into

55:44 ↗ effect next year and we still don't have

55:47 ↗ uh you know a lot of cities are

55:48 ↗ struggling with that in terms of I think

55:50 ↗ the the slide that Steven showed the

55:53 ↗ three out of eight uh were're not tied

55:55 ↗ to those three but we had kind of you

55:57 ↗ know looked at the list and those three

56:00 ↗ Rose to the top of what could be done um

56:03 ↗ now the options for you all to debate

56:05 ↗ tonight based on the public comments

56:06 ↗ you've received are leave it as is and

56:09 ↗ we can come back to it after the state

56:11 ↗ Bill implementation guidance comes up

56:13 ↗ from Department of Commerce and relook

56:15 ↗ at it more deeply and thoroughly if any

56:18 ↗ changes are

56:19 ↗ needed we can uh make it optional now in

56:22 ↗ anticipation of the state Bill uh but

56:26 ↗ require it you know we recommend it to

56:28 ↗ applicants to do it but those that don't

56:31 ↗ want to do it uh we will require it as

56:33 ↗ soon as the application comes in so I

56:35 ↗ think that's the the version that uh

56:37 ↗ Stephen portrayed here uh the other

56:40 ↗ option is

56:42 ↗ to leave it um required for critical

56:46 ↗ area pieces for two and three and leave

56:49 ↗ it required for level four but there

56:52 ↗ needs to be um some sort of like a

56:55 ↗ complete

56:57 ↗ uh you know that we can turn

56:58 ↗ applications legally is to say you

57:00 ↗ haven't done this because what happens

57:02 ↗ for level four they usually come in and

57:04 ↗ talk to the city because it's a larger

57:06 ↗ project they want to know what the codes

57:07 ↗ are for the little projects uh level two

57:09 ↗ and three they sometimes just upload the

57:13 ↗ the information online and so and so the

57:16 ↗ Practical reality has been that we've

57:18 ↗ you know then when we look at the

57:20 ↗ application we say you need to do this

57:23 ↗ and we quickly turn around and you know

57:25 ↗ um schedule that um we want to meet the

57:28 ↗ intent of the state bill and the law

57:30 ↗ which is to be timely in all of that so

57:33 ↗ we will do our best to as soon as we get

57:36 ↗ that application for pre- commmunity to

57:38 ↗ do it within you know two to three weeks

57:40 ↗ of getting that application it's still

57:43 ↗ the timelines are pretty aggressive

57:45 ↗ under the state bill I mean it's 60 days

57:47 ↗ 75 days and 175 days which is um you

57:52 ↗ know it it it takes a lot to put these

57:54 ↗ uh meetings in there's a lot of Val to

57:56 ↗ it the community desires it the

57:58 ↗ developers also like it so I think we

58:01 ↗ just want to leave with that um because

58:03 ↗ it was proposed we've kind of left it as

58:06 ↗ um as this but there are options for you

58:08 ↗ all to consider one is to just defer it

58:10 ↗ at this point and take it off the list

58:12 ↗ uh the other is to keep it as is but add

58:15 ↗ it to the um completeness list and um

58:20 ↗ and the third is to do what we had

58:24 ↗ recommended here

58:29 ↗ great thank you

58:33 ↗ many any

58:35 ↗ debate Comm Patterson might be more of a

58:38 ↗ clarifying question but um so there's

58:40 ↗ prese submission they submit it and then

58:42 ↗ they have to hold the meeting within 60

58:44 ↗ days during that time no that 60 days

58:47 ↗ when a application is deemed complete

58:50 ↗ got it okay uh the cities have only 60

58:53 ↗ days in-house review time to issue

58:56 ↗ decision okay perfect that clarifies

58:58 ↗ what I need to know so thank

59:06 ↗ you yes

59:08 ↗ SAR saher um I'm struggling to

59:13 ↗ understand this I think and what it

59:15 ↗ actually achieves because if I'm getting

59:19 ↗ it it's we're losing or have the

59:21 ↗ potential to lose like a really

59:23 ↗ important input into the development

59:26 ↗ design process for a developer um and

59:29 ↗ the community knowledge before they've

59:31 ↗ kind of done all of the work um and then

59:35 ↗ with the goal of being timely it feels

59:37 ↗ like requiring it after the fact will

59:40 ↗ extend the time of review um so I'm I'm

59:45 ↗ just other than the requ good question

59:47 ↗ um so requiring it um post

59:53 ↗ application you know for level two three

59:55 ↗ and four we have to do notice of

59:57 ↗ application and the state law is pretty

59:58 ↗ clear 14 days from the time it's deemed

1:00:00 ↗ complete we have to circulate the notice

1:00:02 ↗ so in that notice so public can comment

1:00:06 ↗ during that 14 days so we would in that

1:00:08 ↗ notice of application say within the

1:00:11 ↗ next week you also have you can come to

1:00:14 ↗ this community meeting ask your

1:00:15 ↗ questions so you're well informed to

1:00:18 ↗ submit your comments by the common

1:00:19 ↗ deadline so we would hold it within that

1:00:22 ↗ what that does is uh you community

1:00:25 ↗ members will get one postcard telling

1:00:27 ↗ them here's a project here's a common

1:00:29 ↗ deadline here's a community meeting come

1:00:32 ↗ be well informed and submit your

1:00:34 ↗ comments under that scenario people will

1:00:36 ↗ have you know more flushed out project

1:00:39 ↗ more details uh to look at to comment on

1:00:42 ↗ it um but uh like you heard the

1:00:45 ↗ testimony today there's you know it's

1:00:48 ↗ already a baked project so it's harder

1:00:50 ↗ for developers to go back and make those

1:00:53 ↗ changes based on community feedback at

1:00:55 ↗ that time because it's it's too far

1:00:57 ↗ along and it's going to cost a lot of

1:00:58 ↗ money to make those

1:01:00 ↗ changes but in terms of process uh right

1:01:05 ↗ now we would have to do two notices two

1:01:07 ↗ things and all that it would be one

1:01:09 ↗ combined notice yeah I ask

1:01:12 ↗ another um and then I'm wondering if you

1:01:15 ↗ can just speak to the role or any role

1:01:18 ↗ that the city has and I'm using again I

1:01:19 ↗ was a planner in a different country

1:01:21 ↗ back in the day and so in that process

1:01:24 ↗ if we got public comment

1:01:26 ↗ um because we did the same thing right

1:01:27 ↗ you send it out and you get letters in

1:01:29 ↗ um we could either use conditions or use

1:01:32 ↗ something to incorporate like to make

1:01:35 ↗ the developers do things that we heard

1:01:37 ↗ that were like in line with policy so

1:01:39 ↗ does the city have any ability like if

1:01:42 ↗ the community comes at a meeting they

1:01:43 ↗ hear all of these really wonderful

1:01:44 ↗ things and then the developer says well

1:01:46 ↗ we've already done all the work we can't

1:01:47 ↗ incorporate that right now is there any

1:01:50 ↗ like you know what I'm trying to say

1:01:51 ↗ like yeah you know regardless of whether

1:01:53 ↗ it's pre-application or post application

1:01:56 ↗ ation the developers are bound by the

1:01:58 ↗ code yeah uh the good ones will take the

1:02:01 ↗ community input and adapt that into

1:02:03 ↗ their thing because they want to be good

1:02:05 ↗ partners so I think a lot of developers

1:02:07 ↗ will do will value that yeah and so but

1:02:11 ↗ at the end of the day the approval is

1:02:14 ↗ based on criteria in in the code which

1:02:17 ↗ is based on policy Community input and

1:02:19 ↗ feedback that has you know has informed

1:02:22 ↗ that code um so it isn't one person's

1:02:25 ↗ opinion that can suede one way or the

1:02:27 ↗ other you know from a from a legal

1:02:35 ↗ perspective commissioner Kennedy um

1:02:37 ↗ Caroline Kennedy so just a couple things

1:02:40 ↗ one the language that thank you oh that

1:02:43 ↗ was like magic um all the we we talk and

1:02:48 ↗ it sounds like there's still a

1:02:50 ↗ requirement in level two three and four

1:02:51 ↗ and yet the required language is taken

1:02:53 ↗ out of the strength language it's all

1:02:56 ↗ recommended there is no the word

1:02:58 ↗ required been redlined correct I think

1:03:01 ↗ the intent there was it is in the

1:03:04 ↗ applicant's best interest because

1:03:06 ↗ they'll have to do one anyways that they

1:03:09 ↗ they look at it as a recommended but

1:03:11 ↗ it's going to be required post that it's

1:03:13 ↗ an incentive for them to do it early so

1:03:15 ↗ without it being a requirement it's more

1:03:17 ↗ of an incentives based thing that you

1:03:19 ↗ have to do it anyways might as well do

1:03:21 ↗ it early and save yourselves some time

1:03:24 ↗ money and angst over addressing uh

1:03:27 ↗ community so but and that was trying The

1:03:30 ↗ Balancing Act of complying with the law

1:03:33 ↗ that says you can choose three out of

1:03:34 ↗ these eight things yet being respectful

1:03:38 ↗ of of the process that the community

1:03:40 ↗ desires is which is to provide that

1:03:42 ↗ early

1:03:43 ↗ input so we were going to take required

1:03:46 ↗ out even though we're highly

1:03:47 ↗ recommending it it sounded like

1:03:52 ↗ um and we're trying to get in front of a

1:03:54 ↗ potential

1:03:56 ↗ State regulation is that correct it goes

1:03:59 ↗ into it the bill has passed it is state

1:04:02 ↗ law section 7even takes effect January 1

1:04:06 ↗ 2025 and through that bill Department of

1:04:08 ↗ Commerce is supposed to come up with

1:04:10 ↗ guidance and all the cities are

1:04:11 ↗ struggling and waiting for their

1:04:13 ↗ guidance because there's a lot of

1:04:15 ↗ complexity uh in that bill and timelines

1:04:18 ↗ you know what applies what doesn't apply

1:04:20 ↗ does it apply to building permit does it

1:04:22 ↗ not so we're we're all trying to

1:04:25 ↗ understand the different pieces of that

1:04:27 ↗ legislative so it's not unusual that

1:04:28 ↗ we're struggling with this and might not

1:04:31 ↗ be a bad idea to wait and table it so we

1:04:35 ↗ have a little more

1:04:37 ↗ clarity sure that we can certainly do

1:04:42 ↗ that commissioner craft I have a comment

1:04:45 ↗ on a question start with a comment so

1:04:48 ↗ the way you framed it is it's in their

1:04:50 ↗ best interest that only works with

1:04:51 ↗ people who want to listen so if I was a

1:04:54 ↗ developer and I wanted to build

1:04:55 ↗ something and if I don't want to listen

1:04:58 ↗ because I want to just get this thing

1:04:59 ↗ done and be gone and do the next one

1:05:01 ↗ then optional means I'm just not going

1:05:03 ↗ to do it so you're really relying upon

1:05:06 ↗ people's human nature which is an

1:05:07 ↗ undetermined way you have no idea what

1:05:09 ↗ their intent is that's my that's my

1:05:11 ↗ comment I think there's some risk there

1:05:13 ↗ the the other point you you mentioned

1:05:15 ↗ was timeliness and I understand you want

1:05:16 ↗ to get stuff done and built and more

1:05:18 ↗ streamlined process do you have a sense

1:05:20 ↗ of between the way it is now which means

1:05:23 ↗ don't change anything versus what you

1:05:25 ↗ recommended here the beginning to end

1:05:28 ↗ date of timeliness what the time

1:05:30 ↗ difference would be and as opposed just

1:05:33 ↗ the concept of one would be faster than

1:05:35 ↗ the other yeah so um you

1:05:38 ↗ know it we will we will obviously be

1:05:41 ↗ very judicious with time because time is

1:05:43 ↗ money for the developers they have

1:05:45 ↗ caring costs they're you know uh paying

1:05:47 ↗ their uh caring cost for the land while

1:05:50 ↗ it's Su idal until all of this is done

1:05:52 ↗ so we obviously want to meet the intent

1:05:54 ↗ of the of the state State Bill to the

1:05:56 ↗ best of our ability it's um the time

1:06:00 ↗ between uh by requiring it

1:06:02 ↗ pre-application for a developer who's

1:06:05 ↗ really pressed in time will look at it

1:06:07 ↗ you know at least a 3 week if not more a

1:06:11 ↗ month added on if we really quickly move

1:06:14 ↗ I mean there's a lot of production that

1:06:15 ↗ goes into mailings postings finding a

1:06:19 ↗ place to hold a meeting and all that so

1:06:21 ↗ there's an effort needed uh even the

1:06:24 ↗ quickest we can work you know we should

1:06:25 ↗ at least budget 3 to four weeks uh for

1:06:27 ↗ that effort um so that that's the added

1:06:31 ↗ time um from the time that they think

1:06:34 ↗ but they can continue to work on their

1:06:36 ↗ project you know it doesn't from it's

1:06:38 ↗ not sequential it's these can happen

1:06:41 ↗ correct as soon as they start planning

1:06:42 ↗ the project they can get this out of the

1:06:44 ↗ way um and and do it early they won't

1:06:47 ↗ have all their plans ready they won't

1:06:48 ↗ have you know so that's part of the

1:06:50 ↗ intent here is to not have it fully

1:06:52 ↗ baked um before they get the community

1:06:54 ↗ meeting so pros and cons

1:06:56 ↗ you you don't know what it looks like

1:06:57 ↗ and community may need to weigh in once

1:06:59 ↗ they actually see what it what it's

1:07:01 ↗ really about uh but it but level two and

1:07:04 ↗ three were tailored more for critical

1:07:07 ↗ areas so I think the uh the intent and

1:07:11 ↗ there's a lot of legislative history in

1:07:12 ↗ the past of why that came into play uh

1:07:15 ↗ is because we didn't have good you know

1:07:17 ↗ regulations in place and and things like

1:07:19 ↗ that and and so that informed some of

1:07:22 ↗ that we have come a long ways to getting

1:07:25 ↗ the Title 18 update and and having some

1:07:28 ↗ better guidance but it's still uh isqua

1:07:31 ↗ has a lot of critical areas so is a

1:07:33 ↗ critical

1:07:34 ↗ area please define real quick critical

1:07:36 ↗ area Wetlands stream water courses

1:07:39 ↗ streams uh steep slopes um Landslide

1:07:43 ↗ areas but all equally important is if I

1:07:46 ↗ live in a community and there's going to

1:07:47 ↗ be something really big next to me to me

1:07:50 ↗ that's critical even though in that

1:07:51 ↗ definition it's not so sure so that's

1:07:54 ↗ why the level four we had always

1:07:55 ↗ required it because that's the larger

1:07:57 ↗ there are thresholds in the code of what

1:07:59 ↗ goes uh Rises to the level of level four

1:08:02 ↗ and that's 10,000 sare ft building or or

1:08:05 ↗ larger or than

1:08:08 ↗ acre commissioner

1:08:14 ↗ Milligan thank you chair voice uh

1:08:17 ↗ commissioner Milligan here uh thank you

1:08:19 ↗ so much for this discussion I have a

1:08:23 ↗ question and then a comment uh uh the

1:08:26 ↗ question is uh what does the development

1:08:29 ↗ commission say about this proposed

1:08:34 ↗ change we have not gone to development

1:08:36 ↗ commission with this proposed

1:08:39 ↗ edit so they would only have the stuff

1:08:42 ↗ that would go to them is just the level

1:08:44 ↗ four okay well it would be helpful to

1:08:46 ↗ know whether they thought recommend or

1:08:48 ↗ required was a significant difference I

1:08:51 ↗ uh I think I heard and uh commissioner

1:08:53 ↗ Bader and so sorry if I'm stealing

1:08:55 ↗ feeling from you um that I I don't feel

1:08:58 ↗ fully convinced why we should make this

1:09:01 ↗ change uh I

1:09:04 ↗ would um it sounds like it's something

1:09:08 ↗ that works and benefits the city it

1:09:11 ↗ benefits our our citizens are for it our

1:09:13 ↗ developers are for it

1:09:17 ↗ uh I don't know uh who's not for it the

1:09:21 ↗ um so that is one reason why I don't

1:09:23 ↗ think I would be in favor of Chang in

1:09:26 ↗ the other is um one of the things we

1:09:28 ↗ really wanted to do in the title 18

1:09:30 ↗ update was to make um some sh in the

1:09:34 ↗ process for developers because that will

1:09:37 ↗ save money and time and when we say

1:09:39 ↗ recommend or we think it's a good idea

1:09:42 ↗ or that doesn't help as much as saying

1:09:45 ↗ this is required they can manage

1:09:48 ↗ something that's

1:09:50 ↗ required uh it it gives um

1:09:54 ↗ predictability

1:09:55 ↗ so if somebody uh proposed an amendment

1:09:59 ↗ I'm going to let it come from the floor

1:10:00 ↗ to remove this from the motion you

1:10:03 ↗ probably get my

1:10:07 ↗ support thank you commissioner migan

1:10:09 ↗ commissioner

1:10:11 ↗ Zach thank you commissioner zacharov um

1:10:15 ↗ question um you're talking about 6075

1:10:18 ↗ and 175 days for the state where does

1:10:22 ↗ the clock start ticking on what certain

1:10:24 ↗ time um after a complete application so

1:10:29 ↗ pre-application meeting basically is not

1:10:32 ↗ included that's corre into that timeline

1:10:35 ↗ we're talking about yeah but the the the

1:10:37 ↗ argument could be made that because it's

1:10:39 ↗ a requirement that we couldn't really

1:10:41 ↗ apply for an

1:10:43 ↗ application you know because you had

1:10:45 ↗ this earlier but legally you're right it

1:10:48 ↗ is po you know once a complete

1:10:51 ↗ application is submitted that's when

1:10:52 ↗ that clock

1:10:54 ↗ starts thank

1:10:57 ↗ you anyone else like to

1:11:00 ↗ speak I sh

1:11:02 ↗ Bader help me with my language here but

1:11:04 ↗ hearing um commissioner Milligan hearing

1:11:06 ↗ the public comments commissioner Kennedy

1:11:08 ↗ um kind of what I'm feeling I feels like

1:11:11 ↗ deferral of this um is right right now

1:11:14 ↗ and so I move to amend the motion um

1:11:18 ↗ that we don't include this 18204

1:11:22 ↗ do30 um piece of it

1:11:27 ↗ we have a

1:11:29 ↗ second

1:11:30 ↗ second right all in favor of the

1:11:33 ↗ amendment on the

1:11:36 ↗ floor

1:11:39 ↗ no oh virtually

1:11:41 ↗ too hello I'm in favor commissioner

1:11:46 ↗ meligan great all right well that first

1:11:49 ↗ part of the puzzle is done appreciate

1:11:51 ↗ everybody's comments and I believe we

1:11:54 ↗ can now move on to

1:11:56 ↗ to second one on our

1:12:05 ↗ list technical

1:12:08 ↗ documents all right that worked out

1:12:10 ↗ really well last time so if many if you

1:12:11 ↗ just want to give us a quick breakdown

1:12:13 ↗ while everyone's Gathering their

1:12:14 ↗ thoughts sure um so the purpose of the

1:12:17 ↗ technical document review was really uh

1:12:19 ↗ again along the same line that

1:12:21 ↗ developers want to get some shity before

1:12:23 ↗ they spend the money designing their

1:12:25 ↗ project if they don't know if it's a

1:12:27 ↗ typee three Wetland or a type two

1:12:28 ↗ Wetland and want to get confirmation on

1:12:30 ↗ that they can go through this process it

1:12:33 ↗ was never intended to you have to do

1:12:35 ↗ this so I think it's a it's a very minor

1:12:38 ↗ language edit to say you

1:12:40 ↗ may um uh through a Consolidated review

1:12:43 ↗ under one technical document because if

1:12:45 ↗ someone has a wetland review they want

1:12:47 ↗ to get out of the way and confirm that

1:12:50 ↗ they also want to get their traffic

1:12:52 ↗ counts figured out or their parking

1:12:54 ↗ because the parking isn't listed in our

1:12:56 ↗ parking table and it's a different type

1:12:58 ↗ of a use that we have to make a call on

1:13:00 ↗ how many parking spaces do you need they

1:13:02 ↗ want that information before they can

1:13:03 ↗ design their project so but if they do

1:13:05 ↗ all you know they want to know their

1:13:07 ↗ parking they want to know what type of

1:13:09 ↗ wetland it is they can submit one

1:13:11 ↗ Consolidated review under one technical

1:13:13 ↗ document review

1:13:16 ↗ um but if they choose to do it

1:13:18 ↗ differently they can do that differently

1:13:20 ↗ so it's just giving more

1:13:23 ↗ options okay thank you

1:13:26 ↗ FL is

1:13:29 ↗ open I failed to really see the down uh

1:13:33 ↗ commissioner does the applicant um have

1:13:37 ↗ to pay for the technical document review

1:13:40 ↗ they do okay so that's why it should be

1:13:44 ↗ optional that may yeah thank

1:13:52 ↗ you any further discussion

1:13:58 ↗ right I don't believe we need an

1:13:59 ↗ amendment that's part of it oh part of

1:14:01 ↗ the original motion my Robert Rules

1:14:05 ↗ book okay I believe the third one was no

1:14:08 ↗ policy change or there's no policy

1:14:11 ↗ question that was just a an update by

1:14:13 ↗ its correspond with the state bill so

1:14:17 ↗ that one we're not even discussing

1:14:18 ↗ correct okay so I think the fourth

1:14:21 ↗ one was

1:14:29 ↗ all right knows the order which is

1:14:32 ↗ number

1:14:33 ↗ four on your

1:14:44 ↗ list oh he fil okay great thank you

1:14:47 ↗ commissioner

1:14:53 ↗ Patterson okay so again I think just a

1:14:55 ↗ brief rundown and then we'll let people

1:14:57 ↗ gather their thoughts and we'll get into

1:14:58 ↗ this one yeah so I think as you heard

1:15:01 ↗ the testimony here today we're trying to

1:15:02 ↗ fix that problem uh we have town homes

1:15:04 ↗ with zero lot lines and U uh these heat

1:15:08 ↗ pumps were not the the practice back

1:15:12 ↗ when they were built uh there's a lot of

1:15:14 ↗ federal incentives Summers have gotten

1:15:16 ↗ hotter uh there's a need for these so um

1:15:19 ↗ what we're proposing here aligns with

1:15:21 ↗ what the what you heard from the

1:15:22 ↗ community members to allow it uh to be

1:15:25 ↗ put in the the setbacks I think we also

1:15:28 ↗ heard uh some uhp concerns or questions

1:15:31 ↗ from you all in terms of screening if

1:15:33 ↗ it's in the front yard and remind me

1:15:36 ↗ Stephen there was another

1:15:38 ↗ question uh last time at the

1:15:41 ↗ commission yes it was on U putting in

1:15:44 ↗ language that would require installation

1:15:46 ↗ closer to the primary structure yeah and

1:15:48 ↗ then the safety considerations if you're

1:15:50 ↗ installing in the side yard and I had

1:15:52 ↗ mentioned that we' reached out to our

1:15:54 ↗ fire department just to confirm because

1:15:56 ↗ sometimes these setbacks are related to

1:15:58 ↗ fire Co and they didn't find anything in

1:15:59 ↗ the fire code they said if they are two

1:16:02 ↗ setbacks then the preferen is don't

1:16:03 ↗ block both you know just uh but there

1:16:06 ↗ isn't really a code basis for them to to

1:16:08 ↗ require it so um and uh what was that

1:16:13 ↗ again Stephen remind me what you just

1:16:16 ↗ said so it's uh subsection E4 there

1:16:19 ↗ where um if located in setback area must

1:16:22 ↗ be placed adjacent to the primary

1:16:24 ↗ structure

1:16:26 ↗ yeah and I think that was related to

1:16:28 ↗ your concern about uh people wanting to

1:16:31 ↗ put it far away from theirs and

1:16:32 ↗ impacting their neighbors negatively so

1:16:35 ↗ I think we took that feedback and

1:16:36 ↗ proposed some edits here uh for you all

1:16:39 ↗ to

1:16:40 ↗ discuss great thank you mini

1:16:42 ↗ commissioner Kraft U so I agree with the

1:16:45 ↗ concept of being adjacent because

1:16:46 ↗ otherwise they could put on their

1:16:47 ↗ property line near their name which um

1:16:50 ↗ do we Define adjacent meaning within X

1:16:53 ↗ number of from the primary

1:16:56 ↗ structure what is what is AJ what is

1:16:58 ↗ considered it still be within the

1:17:00 ↗ setback but if I have a if I have a 10

1:17:03 ↗ foot setback to put this big air

1:17:05 ↗ conditioning unit next to my nebor the

1:17:06 ↗ property line not next to my house close

1:17:09 ↗ to I think ad Jason in in general means

1:17:13 ↗ next

1:17:14 ↗ to um well I think to Steph's point it

1:17:17 ↗ just it it makes more feasible sense to

1:17:19 ↗ be Clos to but again it's not

1:17:21 ↗ necessarily yes it's just defining just

1:17:23 ↗ defining adjacent and then the other

1:17:25 ↗ question I have that it came up which is

1:17:28 ↗ a very good discussion about noise level

1:17:30 ↗ and decibel level and I find it puzzling

1:17:34 ↗ because I've never studied this that if

1:17:36 ↗ the state has a requirement that is so

1:17:38 ↗ low and there are no ACS that meet that

1:17:41 ↗ how would they have established that as

1:17:43 ↗ a standard and is it something we should

1:17:45 ↗ go back and look at what the true deel

1:17:47 ↗ levels are because I'm sure my air

1:17:49 ↗ conditioner at my house is not matching

1:17:53 ↗ that and no one ever said anything to me

1:17:54 ↗ when I put it in yeah so so those

1:17:57 ↗ decibel levels are at your property line

1:17:59 ↗ so the unit itself may be se you know 70

1:18:03 ↗ decibel levels but it's what is your

1:18:06 ↗ decel level at your property line so uh

1:18:09 ↗ the state law has been in the books for

1:18:12 ↗ a very long time and we didn't change

1:18:15 ↗ anything in Title 18 either to the

1:18:16 ↗ setbacks or related to the noise that

1:18:19 ↗ was always in the code uh as as you

1:18:22 ↗ heard the testimony today that there was

1:18:24 ↗ things change with the new code update

1:18:27 ↗ these were always the codes um but to

1:18:30 ↗ answer your question about uh the state

1:18:33 ↗ law uh and the noise uh I did reach out

1:18:36 ↗ to Department of ecology to see if they

1:18:38 ↗ could address it at the state level so

1:18:40 ↗ the cities don't have to deal with this

1:18:43 ↗ on a city by City basis because we've

1:18:45 ↗ reached out to other cities some are

1:18:47 ↗ just operating based on complaint basis

1:18:50 ↗ we don't think that's a good strategy

1:18:52 ↗ because then we go down this path of we

1:18:55 ↗ have to do the decibel levels we have to

1:18:56 ↗ take it and we have to prove it there is

1:18:58 ↗ a violation that can cost a lot of um

1:19:01 ↗ you know resources but also is not

1:19:03 ↗ foolproof method uh other cities like

1:19:06 ↗ Seattle have come up with their

1:19:07 ↗ methodology of okay here's a specs for

1:19:10 ↗ this unit and here's a math that you can

1:19:13 ↗ do to get to this level they'll spit out

1:19:16 ↗ a number on your property we took that

1:19:18 ↗ and got some opinion from an HVAC you

1:19:22 ↗ know expert and they said yeah it works

1:19:24 ↗ so so informally we can kind of you know

1:19:27 ↗ look at what what the noise dissipation

1:19:30 ↗ is at the property line the problem for

1:19:33 ↗ isqua is some of these properties and

1:19:36 ↗ that are developed that are wanting to

1:19:37 ↗ do this are zero lot line so there's

1:19:39 ↗ really no sidey setback the only thing

1:19:42 ↗ they have is I think the photos that one

1:19:44 ↗ of uh that Stephen had on his slides

1:19:46 ↗ it's just their garage and entrance to

1:19:48 ↗ it to the units so it's it's more

1:19:51 ↗ complex for things like that um the

1:19:54 ↗ state law also requires us to give

1:19:56 ↗ provide a 90-day notice to them to

1:19:59 ↗ Department of ecology if you're going to

1:20:00 ↗ adopt anything different than uh 55 and

1:20:03 ↗ 45 dbel levels we have formally started

1:20:06 ↗ that process and sent them a notice just

1:20:09 ↗ but it it can come in phase two of these

1:20:11 ↗ development uh of this bundle that

1:20:13 ↗ you're looking at today um uh but we

1:20:16 ↗ didn't want to delay this for the summer

1:20:18 ↗ and kind of put it on this fast track at

1:20:20 ↗ least we can address the the setback

1:20:22 ↗ issue if there's consensus uh to address

1:20:25 ↗ it and then we'll deal with noise uh

1:20:27 ↗ legally when we when we have some more

1:20:30 ↗ um when we've met our requirements of

1:20:32 ↗ notice and all that so it won't hold any

1:20:35 ↗ permits up that was the concern that

1:20:37 ↗ it's yeah unfortunately that we can't

1:20:39 ↗ issue permits that don't comply with the

1:20:41 ↗ city's law um so we can't give

1:20:45 ↗ temporary passes uh at this time that's

1:20:49 ↗ why we are bringing this forward now uh

1:20:51 ↗ the schedule for the setback issue is

1:20:54 ↗ going to planning and development

1:20:55 ↗ environment committee Council committee

1:20:57 ↗ on July 9th and we hope the council will

1:20:59 ↗ take action on July 22nd so we can at

1:21:02 ↗ least this is the quickest we could get

1:21:05 ↗ uh before the summer was over uh to

1:21:07 ↗ address this

1:21:10 ↗ issue will the city council have the de

1:21:12 ↗ Supple report what you're looking for

1:21:14 ↗ the Department of ecology will they have

1:21:16 ↗ yeah we need to meet the 90-day

1:21:17 ↗ Department of ecology and they'll come

1:21:18 ↗ back to you to say do you want to exempt

1:21:21 ↗ these from noise levels um and if you

1:21:25 ↗ say yes then we'll take that

1:21:29 ↗ forward there also another way of doing

1:21:32 ↗ it of having approved models as a list

1:21:34 ↗ that could be installed

1:21:36 ↗ that I'm just trying to think of because

1:21:39 ↗ otherwise you're in the circular motion

1:21:40 ↗ if nothing will ever be approved and you

1:21:43 ↗ may like I'm sure my me my neighbors all

1:21:46 ↗ of our air conditioners are louder than

1:21:49 ↗ 5 DB and they're you know it's a few

1:21:51 ↗ feet away from the property line so yeah

1:21:54 ↗ so the the options that you'll consider

1:21:56 ↗ when this comes forward to you will be

1:21:58 ↗ well thought out but out of the top of

1:22:00 ↗ my head you know one could be just to

1:22:01 ↗ exempt um um heat pumps from noise

1:22:05 ↗ levels as long as they are below 70 DB

1:22:08 ↗ or something you know whatever the this

1:22:09 ↗ industry standard is I think what you uh

1:22:13 ↗ probably heard today is there's another

1:22:15 ↗ approach of just American heating

1:22:17 ↗ Association I forget the name it's it's

1:22:19 ↗ some Association that they just have a

1:22:21 ↗ standard um and I think Talis has a

1:22:24 ↗ adopted that as a 270 standard so

1:22:27 ↗ instead of a decibel level they're just

1:22:29 ↗ saying this is what the unit has a

1:22:31 ↗ sticker on it that's much easier for

1:22:33 ↗ them to enforce so you you know we'll

1:22:35 ↗ bring all those options to you when when

1:22:37 ↗ we come

1:22:38 ↗ back commissioner

1:22:43 ↗ Milgen okay I'm I'm a little confused um

1:22:47 ↗ the state has a noise ordinance code or

1:22:53 ↗ a whack that says the 55 and 45 at night

1:22:58 ↗ at the property line and um director

1:23:02 ↗ Dolly wall did you just say that the

1:23:05 ↗ city or a city could say that we're

1:23:07 ↗ going to exempt these sorts of

1:23:09 ↗ appliances from a state code or that the

1:23:14 ↗ noise level acceptable noise level could

1:23:17 ↗ be higher than the state

1:23:19 ↗ code that's what we're trying to figure

1:23:21 ↗ out but procedurally we if we if cities

1:23:24 ↗ go above and you know uh different than

1:23:27 ↗ the path that the state has laid out we

1:23:29 ↗ have to give them a 90-day notice to say

1:23:32 ↗ yeah this will work or no you know this

1:23:34 ↗ is bad idea cities we will not allow you

1:23:37 ↗ to do it so yeah okay um I'm I'm uh I

1:23:43 ↗ think I'm understanding this uh this

1:23:45 ↗ process and and I I am GNA go ahead and

1:23:48 ↗ throw a comment out there that uh I

1:23:51 ↗ appreciate the um amendments or the the

1:23:54 ↗ updates to the changes that are proposed

1:23:56 ↗ for this uh section but I I would like

1:24:00 ↗ the

1:24:02 ↗ noise management to be more explicit

1:24:06 ↗ perhaps even to

1:24:08 ↗ say uh must adhere to the whack for um

1:24:12 ↗ noise and the reason for this is that

1:24:15 ↗ we're talking about in a five- foot

1:24:17 ↗ setback and a side set back and usually

1:24:19 ↗ in a platted neighborhood if it's 5T on

1:24:23 ↗ this site it's 5T on that side and that

1:24:25 ↗ means the primary structures might be

1:24:26 ↗ only 10 ft apart and to our uh

1:24:30 ↗ discussion last week um these appliances

1:24:34 ↗ can be uh Extremely Loud to those who

1:24:37 ↗ don't choose to use them I I sympathize

1:24:41 ↗ with this the concern for our the hot

1:24:43 ↗ summers and especially in isqua Highland

1:24:46 ↗ sitting up there it used to be a forest

1:24:47 ↗ now it's an open area with a lot of

1:24:50 ↗ pavement it does get extremely hot uh

1:24:54 ↗ but this uh outdoor uh Heating and

1:24:57 ↗ Cooling appliances aren't the only way

1:24:58 ↗ to heat and cool your home there are

1:25:01 ↗ indoor appliances where the noise

1:25:03 ↗ doesn't bother anybody uh and so if

1:25:06 ↗ there were no other options this might

1:25:08 ↗ be a more compelling argument but it's

1:25:11 ↗ not to me because you can put your um AC

1:25:13 ↗ units in your home uh with the window

1:25:16 ↗ port or even um allow for the ports uh

1:25:20 ↗ through in the through wall of a

1:25:23 ↗ building um the other reason that I'm

1:25:25 ↗ concerned about this and about noise

1:25:28 ↗ there could be some other things is that

1:25:30 ↗ the permanent amenities when we use

1:25:33 ↗ phrases like this and we say such as um

1:25:35 ↗ Heating and

1:25:36 ↗ Cooling um five years from now what

1:25:40 ↗ would be another permanent amenity that

1:25:43 ↗ would need to be managed and we can say

1:25:45 ↗ oh we'll cross that bridge when we get

1:25:46 ↗ to it but usually several of the um

1:25:49 ↗ offending permanent amenities that we

1:25:52 ↗ haven't thought of today uh sneak in and

1:25:55 ↗ the and if we could at least manage for

1:25:57 ↗ noise um

1:26:02 ↗ that subsection 4 that we refer to the

1:26:06 ↗ whack um and then I'm sorry that's all

1:26:09 ↗ I'm suggesting for the code but because

1:26:11 ↗ we do care about people's um safety that

1:26:14 ↗ the city um dedicate um time and effort

1:26:17 ↗ to the other commissioner I think was

1:26:18 ↗ commissioner craft who said um let's

1:26:21 ↗ find some preapproved so that makes it

1:26:23 ↗ easy easier for people to um find the

1:26:27 ↗ right Appliance and then uh if we are

1:26:30 ↗ even more concerned we could find a way

1:26:32 ↗ to help fund uh income uh limited people

1:26:37 ↗ to purchase these appliances because

1:26:39 ↗ they need them just as much as those who

1:26:41 ↗ can afford them um

1:26:48 ↗ that's thank you commission

1:26:52 ↗ Milligan Commission some

1:26:56 ↗ what I guess one question that comes up

1:26:59 ↗ is that is this a a health issue or is

1:27:02 ↗ it like as it pertains to noise I know

1:27:05 ↗ there's a certain decibel that you can't

1:27:07 ↗ be around for a long period of time but

1:27:11 ↗ then also with the heat without having

1:27:14 ↗ um the cooling um could is actually a

1:27:18 ↗ health issue as well um is there any

1:27:22 ↗ information about why it's set at the

1:27:26 ↗ certain decibel that they I think you

1:27:27 ↗ said 75 for the state and in the

1:27:30 ↗ community it's 55 Deb the state law is

1:27:35 ↗ 55 decb uh the commun the HOAs that

1:27:39 ↗ spoke today have been approving these up

1:27:41 ↗ uh that are about 73 DB okay okay yeah

1:27:46 ↗ so so I guess what's what's the basis of

1:27:50 ↗ the the um deciel limitation is it the

1:27:54 ↗ state level yeah is it like Health based

1:27:57 ↗ or is it um yeah the state law is really

1:28:00 ↗ you know if you have a residential Zone

1:28:02 ↗ these are the the things and it's meant

1:28:04 ↗ so that people are sleeping at night

1:28:06 ↗ you've got to keep it even lower uh

1:28:08 ↗ industrial zones have a little bit

1:28:10 ↗ higher levels so that that's based on in

1:28:13 ↗ commercial areas that can be a little

1:28:14 ↗ bit higher so this is meant uh you know

1:28:17 ↗ under the state law to be if your

1:28:21 ↗ livability standards um and then have

1:28:25 ↗ have any studies been done on um AC

1:28:28 ↗ units or HVAC units that are lower than

1:28:32 ↗ the 75 DB as of yet is it is it actually

1:28:37 ↗ here they all have this quiet mode uh

1:28:40 ↗ that you can turn them on at quiet mode

1:28:43 ↗ uh we've been asking for specifications

1:28:45 ↗ that show that they are 55 DB you know

1:28:48 ↗ so I you know and and we can't base our

1:28:51 ↗ code off of Industry at the moment

1:28:54 ↗ because it will evolve you know the

1:28:56 ↗ technology changes and and newer better

1:28:59 ↗ equipment we did reach out um to our

1:29:02 ↗ sustainability folks that have an

1:29:04 ↗ incentives based program because there's

1:29:05 ↗ other part of heat pumps because there

1:29:08 ↗ are less energy consumption that's why

1:29:10 ↗ the federal benefit you know uh

1:29:12 ↗ incentives and and and such come into

1:29:15 ↗ play and uh we looked at you know what

1:29:17 ↗ is what is the source of the noise it's

1:29:19 ↗ the fan and can there be dampers louvers

1:29:23 ↗ you know are there other things so we

1:29:26 ↗ through that research we found that you

1:29:27 ↗ could lower it about 15% or whatever but

1:29:31 ↗ again we'll come back to noise today is

1:29:33 ↗ just the screening piece so but yeah

1:29:37 ↗ okay thank you for

1:29:39 ↗ clarification commissioner

1:29:41 ↗ Kennedy um so quick thing one this topic

1:29:44 ↗ in general I think we absolutely should

1:29:46 ↗ improve something I think people need

1:29:49 ↗ hbac system so they can cool their homes

1:29:51 ↗ in the state and age we just a lot of

1:29:54 ↗ the houses in the Northwest were not

1:29:56 ↗ built with AC and they need them these

1:29:58 ↗ days and so I really feel for anyone who

1:30:00 ↗ doesn't have AC on our hot summers so I

1:30:02 ↗ think we need to approve some sort of uh

1:30:05 ↗ mitigation to their opportun the

1:30:08 ↗ restrictions that have been currently

1:30:09 ↗ been in place for the opportunities to

1:30:11 ↗ get those um totally appreciate the

1:30:13 ↗ arguments on both um Aesthetics and

1:30:16 ↗ noise level what I'm hearing is that the

1:30:19 ↗ noise the

1:30:21 ↗ state levels aren't don't sound like

1:30:24 ↗ they're particularly realistic for the

1:30:26 ↗ units that are

1:30:28 ↗ manufactured so if we were to say you

1:30:31 ↗ have to meet State levels and the

1:30:32 ↗ reality is that's not what's

1:30:36 ↗ manufactured period Then we're telling

1:30:39 ↗ people you can't have one of these units

1:30:41 ↗ so I think we've got to figure that out

1:30:43 ↗ and allow them to put in some sort of HV

1:30:47 ↗ some sort of heat pump or AC

1:30:49 ↗ unit um I do agree with commissioner

1:30:52 ↗ Milligan's language the permanent am

1:30:55 ↗ amenities

1:30:57 ↗ language um I would vote to Simply

1:31:01 ↗ clarify and just be specific HVAC units

1:31:06 ↗ you know just be specific about what

1:31:07 ↗ we're talking about so that some other

1:31:11 ↗ permanent amenity we aren't imagining

1:31:13 ↗ today doesn't sneak in here under that

1:31:16 ↗ vague language and let's just be say

1:31:20 ↗ HVAC heat pump whatever we want we want

1:31:23 ↗ to St unit may be placed in this way

1:31:27 ↗ adjacent to the

1:31:29 ↗ home with these

1:31:35 ↗ restrictions I have a quick question

1:31:37 ↗ mini or mini what is the life of a

1:31:40 ↗ typical heat pumper AG uh

1:31:45 ↗ system I talk 10 20 years I get the

1:31:49 ↗ feeling like the state law is set up to

1:31:50 ↗ drive the manufacturers to meet it

1:31:54 ↗ might know do you know Stephen average

1:31:57 ↗ LIF I do uh so the for the heat bump

1:32:00 ↗ that was installed at our house the

1:32:02 ↗ technician said it can last between

1:32:04 ↗ eight and 12 years depending on how hot

1:32:07 ↗ it gets how much you're using it and how

1:32:10 ↗ well you're uh maintaining the UPC so

1:32:13 ↗ basically the same lifespan as a water

1:32:15 ↗ tank correct

1:32:17 ↗ so I have to agree with commissioner

1:32:19 ↗ Kennedy you know this is about equal

1:32:21 ↗ access you know part of our system these

1:32:24 ↗ missions Equity so again allowing people

1:32:26 ↗ to have um access to how they're going

1:32:29 ↗ to heat and cool their homes I think is

1:32:32 ↗ important uh you have Oldtown which is

1:32:34 ↗ definitely set up a little bit

1:32:36 ↗ differently than Talis and Talis is

1:32:37 ↗ definitely set up differently than the

1:32:39 ↗ highlands I think it's important that we

1:32:41 ↗ give people options in how they're able

1:32:43 ↗ to go about this uh my concern is really

1:32:46 ↗ the screenings because again it sounds

1:32:48 ↗ like from the state we have requirements

1:32:50 ↗ that we really can't meet but it sounds

1:32:52 ↗ like you guys are working with the

1:32:53 ↗ Department of a college to address those

1:32:55 ↗ things so I think we'll see you know the

1:32:58 ↗ council will probably have a little bit

1:32:59 ↗ more knowledge by the time it gets to

1:33:01 ↗ their table then we will um I've got

1:33:04 ↗ plenty of faith that they'll look at the

1:33:06 ↗ decibal language um like I said the

1:33:09 ↗ screening the town home that's kind of

1:33:10 ↗ the thing I'm concerned about don't want

1:33:12 ↗ ice swords in a lovely Community but if

1:33:15 ↗ it's not against the fire code and the

1:33:16 ↗ police and the fire the firefighters

1:33:18 ↗ don't have any problem with it I think

1:33:20 ↗ you got to let them do it myself

1:33:27 ↗ and I do agree with commissioner Kennedy

1:33:28 ↗ and commissioner Milligan I would like

1:33:30 ↗ to see that language tightened I don't

1:33:31 ↗ know if it would be the same because a

1:33:33 ↗ pool requires its own permit but I can

1:33:34 ↗ think of just you know those different

1:33:37 ↗ entities that you need for things like

1:33:39 ↗ pools right filters and filtration

1:33:42 ↗ system so there's a whole list of what

1:33:45 ↗ such as could end up being I yeah I

1:33:47 ↗ think that in this one it was just uh

1:33:50 ↗ you won't we won't allow those in the

1:33:51 ↗ sidey setbacks and things like that so

1:33:53 ↗ we can just call it out instead of

1:33:55 ↗ permanent amenities I mean we wouldn't

1:33:57 ↗ want to make the code user friendly too

1:33:59 ↗ so you know someone that's not lives in

1:34:01 ↗ the code language May wonder what's a

1:34:02 ↗ permanent amenity so we can switch the

1:34:05 ↗ word permanent amenity to a mechanical

1:34:08 ↗ units and you know ground mounted

1:34:12 ↗ mechanical units can be located in the

1:34:14 ↗ without calling them heat pumps because

1:34:16 ↗ there may be other things but anything

1:34:18 ↗ mechan any mechanical unit is anyone

1:34:21 ↗ fighting that too restrictive mechanical

1:34:23 ↗ unit

1:34:25 ↗ I think I think just specifics it's like

1:34:28 ↗ heat pumps AC units I'm not sure what

1:34:30 ↗ else falls into that um and similar and

1:34:34 ↗ then ground mounted may be too limited

1:34:36 ↗ because you may mount it on the side of

1:34:37 ↗ your on side of the building too so I

1:34:39 ↗ would say maybe not do

1:34:41 ↗ ground okay is that something staff can

1:34:45 ↗ work langage we can take that you know

1:34:46 ↗ if there's consensus to make that change

1:34:48 ↗ we can um include that in your

1:34:50 ↗ recommendation to cancel

1:34:53 ↗ is where I don't I don't get an A uh do

1:34:57 ↗ we need to make a an amendment to this I

1:35:00 ↗ will defer to Stephen how do you want to

1:35:07 ↗ capture I think for this purpose where

1:35:09 ↗ we're just clarifying what what we're

1:35:12 ↗ going for you don't need to make an

1:35:13 ↗ amendment as for we're maintaining the

1:35:16 ↗ intent of what we're trying to propose

1:35:18 ↗ yeah the spirit of it's still there just

1:35:20 ↗ a little bit of language okay great um

1:35:23 ↗ would anyone else like to further

1:35:24 ↗ comment I don't want to shut it out

1:35:27 ↗ so all

1:35:29 ↗ right I believe the next one is Monument

1:35:34 ↗ sign Stadium lighting yeah um

1:35:38 ↗ so the way the sign code is written it

1:35:41 ↗ is confusing um and that that led to

1:35:45 ↗ this confusion about whether a monument

1:35:48 ↗ sign is allowed or not um I Stephen can

1:35:52 ↗ you bring up that section another the

1:35:54 ↗ code for commission members to actually

1:35:58 ↗ see the monument sign table

1:36:35 ↗ so um it was kind of this circular logic

1:36:39 ↗ in the code language which led to a lot

1:36:42 ↗ of confusion um where it says within

1:36:45 ↗ Central isqua Highlands and Talis it was

1:36:48 ↗ allowed and then it says conditionally

1:36:50 ↗ see below and then you go to the

1:36:53 ↗ conditionally see below do you have that

1:36:55 ↗ section here uh Stephen in your

1:37:02 ↗ document okay so conditions on the

1:37:04 ↗ monument sign

1:37:07 ↗ um

1:37:09 ↗ says um a monument sign in those

1:37:14 ↗ neighborhoods Highland Talis and

1:37:16 ↗ CBD which I believe um this particular

1:37:20 ↗ property is in central business district

1:37:22 ↗ CBD on known um that if you have it

1:37:27 ↗ legally in place before this chapter was

1:37:29 ↗ adopted you can it can main it can

1:37:32 ↗ remain uh it may be replaced prior to

1:37:35 ↗ demolition if you're demolishing the

1:37:36 ↗ building and then replaced has to comply

1:37:39 ↗ with the size requirements of the new

1:37:41 ↗ code um and then if it is demolished and

1:37:46 ↗ a subdivision is

1:37:47 ↗ redeveloped it has to be eliminated so

1:37:50 ↗ it got really nuanced um but the intent

1:37:54 ↗ here in Central and all of these

1:37:56 ↗ neighborhoods is that the there's a you

1:37:59 ↗ know the code is to bring the property

1:38:01 ↗ lines to the build to line so you're

1:38:03 ↗ bringing as Redevelopment occurs that

1:38:06 ↗ the buildings are going to come closer

1:38:07 ↗ to the streets Edge that um the Street

1:38:11 ↗ Mount the building mounted signs and

1:38:12 ↗ such are uh allowed but Monument signs

1:38:16 ↗ are not because at the time of

1:38:18 ↗ Redevelopment that's the legislative

1:38:20 ↗ intent of the sign code that was

1:38:22 ↗ established the language was extremely

1:38:24 ↗ confusing which led to some uh confusion

1:38:28 ↗ so we we're trying to clear the language

1:38:31 ↗ but I think the request from the

1:38:33 ↗ Community member here is to allow uh

1:38:36 ↗ Monument signs in these District or

1:38:41 ↗ where you don't have one pre-existing

1:38:43 ↗ Monument

1:38:51 ↗ sign Monument sign

1:38:57 ↗ both if the intent is actually to bring

1:38:59 ↗ them forward I'm just trying to think

1:39:01 ↗ because again all the monument sides I

1:39:03 ↗ can think of whether it's isqua Maple

1:39:05 ↗ Valley typically those commercial

1:39:07 ↗ buildings are pushed back the idea is

1:39:10 ↗ especially in the highlands where you're

1:39:11 ↗ adding more density for bringing those

1:39:13 ↗ buildings forward but then they kind of

1:39:15 ↗ do look out of place right then you'd

1:39:17 ↗ actually prefer that'd be preferable

1:39:19 ↗ that they would be building signs awning

1:39:21 ↗ signs those type of

1:39:24 ↗ but obviously there's you know that's

1:39:26 ↗ you're talking about 10 15 20 years of

1:39:28 ↗ Redevelopment some of these

1:39:30 ↗ areas is there a way that the city can

1:39:32 ↗ exempt older building that I mean

1:39:35 ↗ because again to your point you read the

1:39:37 ↗ code and all of a sudden it says new

1:39:38 ↗ monument signs so I understand the

1:39:41 ↗ confusion probably understand the

1:39:43 ↗ frustration if it was my business but

1:39:45 ↗ how do you allow us to move forward with

1:39:46 ↗ keeping the

1:39:47 ↗ content for newer development while

1:39:51 ↗ allowing exemptions for Poss ly older

1:39:53 ↗ ones that still have the the deeper

1:39:56 ↗ setback yeah I mean some of these you

1:39:59 ↗ know I mean we don't know how many of

1:40:01 ↗ these you know to answer your question

1:40:02 ↗ like can we allow it and how many of

1:40:04 ↗ these are pre Redevelopment doesn't

1:40:06 ↗ happen overnight uh there's a lot of

1:40:08 ↗ properties that may develop over a long

1:40:10 ↗ period of time uh or may never you know

1:40:13 ↗ uh develop and those are pre-existing

1:40:15 ↗ things um

1:40:18 ↗ so um cities that care about some of

1:40:21 ↗ these things do go down the the path of

1:40:23 ↗ doing an inventory of all the properties

1:40:25 ↗ that currently have Monument signs which

1:40:28 ↗ ones don't and which ones has owned

1:40:30 ↗ these properties that potentially could

1:40:32 ↗ come in for request for a monument sign

1:40:35 ↗ uh I mean that's goes beyond the scope

1:40:38 ↗ of the housekeeping code amendments that

1:40:39 ↗ are in front of you that's more of a

1:40:41 ↗ policy uh change um if if the community

1:40:46 ↗ desires to relook at all the monument

1:40:49 ↗ signs then that could be added to the

1:40:50 ↗ Future updates list perhaps

1:40:53 ↗ uh if you if there's consensus that we

1:40:56 ↗ need to look at allowing Monument signs

1:40:58 ↗ in all of these zones uh but currently

1:41:01 ↗ the way it's written it's uh the table

1:41:03 ↗ was confusing the intent was to not

1:41:06 ↗ allow them unless they already have one

1:41:09 ↗ and that we weren't making them

1:41:11 ↗ non-conforming um and if it's if an

1:41:14 ↗ existing building was being demolished

1:41:16 ↗ then you had to get rid of it as well so

1:41:26 ↗ commissioner

1:41:27 ↗ zacharov so uh commissioner zacharov uh

1:41:30 ↗ did I understand it right that you said

1:41:32 ↗ that uh buildings that were built prior

1:41:35 ↗ to certain date they were kind of like a

1:41:37 ↗ little bit farther away from the street

1:41:40 ↗ and all new developments are closer to

1:41:42 ↗ the street right yeah so you know now we

1:41:44 ↗ have these setback standards

1:41:46 ↗ architectural design standards and the

1:41:48 ↗ idea is that you're getting more um you

1:41:51 ↗ know on the valley floor where or in

1:41:53 ↗ these master plan communities that there

1:41:54 ↗ is more uh build to line requirements

1:41:58 ↗ where you're bringing prop buildings

1:41:59 ↗ closer to the property line so maybe uh

1:42:02 ↗ buildings that are currently farther

1:42:04 ↗ away from the property line can be

1:42:06 ↗ allowed to do that and buildings that

1:42:08 ↗ are closer there are

1:42:10 ↗ newer maybe the exceptions could be made

1:42:13 ↗ based on

1:42:14 ↗ that sure there will be a lot of

1:42:17 ↗ buildings uh that you know are

1:42:21 ↗ pre-existing yeah

1:42:23 ↗ what's the city's uh what's the city's

1:42:26 ↗ policy on exemptions and variances if so

1:42:28 ↗ for the particular uh comment tonight is

1:42:32 ↗ there a path for that because I think

1:42:34 ↗ the intense right again as far as

1:42:36 ↗ Redevelopment but that takes years I

1:42:38 ↗ also don't know how many of these

1:42:40 ↗ requests do you guys get to build those

1:42:41 ↗ type of Monument signs are we talking

1:42:43 ↗ about two a year we talking about 50 I

1:42:47 ↗ am not sure uh about the number but I

1:42:50 ↗ suspect there's a lot but um Valerie

1:42:53 ↗ Who's online might know off hand uh

1:42:56 ↗ Valerie do this question comes up often

1:42:59 ↗ about needing to put a monument sign in

1:43:02 ↗ these

1:43:07 ↗ neighborhoods no um they don't come up

1:43:11 ↗ regularly um occasionally some folks um

1:43:16 ↗ would like them um but it really just

1:43:18 ↗ depends on the the neighborhood um some

1:43:21 ↗ of the larger um

1:43:23 ↗ businesses like um the areas where like

1:43:27 ↗ Hobby Lobby they would like Monument

1:43:29 ↗ signs but not for smaller um not for

1:43:32 ↗ smaller

1:43:41 ↗ businesses does the city offer

1:43:43 ↗ exemptions or variances for an issue

1:43:44 ↗ like this I I'm not sure you know yeah

1:43:47 ↗ we all anyone has has an option to go

1:43:49 ↗ through a variance process uh but it's

1:43:52 ↗ uh cost

1:43:53 ↗ and uh it is unique circumstances for

1:43:56 ↗ that property that you know you would

1:43:58 ↗ have a very hard time meeting all eight

1:44:00 ↗ criteria for something that you just

1:44:03 ↗ desire uh and if if you have other

1:44:06 ↗ opportunities to put the the sign then

1:44:08 ↗ you won't really qualify and we we want

1:44:10 ↗ to be upfront with folks they have the

1:44:13 ↗ the due process to go through that

1:44:14 ↗ process and find out if they have a yes

1:44:16 ↗ or no but we generally like to tell

1:44:18 ↗ people that this will be waste of your

1:44:20 ↗ time and money because you likely will

1:44:22 ↗ get enough but you're welcome to go

1:44:24 ↗ through the

1:44:26 ↗ process I guess we could do a flash pole

1:44:29 ↗ who's real quickly who's in favor in of

1:44:34 ↗ changing it to allow Monument

1:44:38 ↗ signs I think I I think I worded that

1:44:41 ↗ right who's in favor with the uh the

1:44:43 ↗ language right there as far as changing

1:44:45 ↗ it to allow Monument signs in the CBD in

1:44:50 ↗ the highlands and in the palace who's in

1:44:52 ↗ favor of changing it to allow

1:44:54 ↗ those yeah CH because this doesn't allow

1:44:56 ↗ it yeah the proposal in front of you is

1:44:59 ↗ just to clarify the language so there's

1:45:01 ↗ no confusion well still I guess the

1:45:02 ↗ question stands who's in okay let me say

1:45:04 ↗ it like that who's in favor of keeping

1:45:07 ↗ it the way it's written

1:45:14 ↗ now who's in favor of seeing this change

1:45:16 ↗ to allow Monument signs to be

1:45:20 ↗ built with yeah with

1:45:24 ↗ okay yeah does somebody want to make

1:45:26 ↗ amendment to start a conversation

1:45:28 ↗ because right now

1:45:46 ↗ it yeah commission Madison I guess what

1:45:49 ↗ what does the city need from us at this

1:45:51 ↗ point because do we need to just answer

1:45:53 ↗ kind of the questions that were proposed

1:45:54 ↗ to us or do we need to formally like

1:45:56 ↗ recommend or reject this

1:45:59 ↗ particular yeah I think for City

1:46:01 ↗ councils do you agree with the proposed

1:46:03 ↗ amendments yes or no and then based on

1:46:07 ↗ the public comments you received do you

1:46:09 ↗ agree

1:46:10 ↗ to the city to add it to their work plan

1:46:14 ↗ to look at Monument signs and these

1:46:15 ↗ things I mean it's not in front of you

1:46:17 ↗ it's not been vetted out and you know

1:46:19 ↗ and all that but if you think that

1:46:21 ↗ should be added to the work plan then

1:46:22 ↗ you you can make that recommendation

1:46:24 ↗ right but as it currently stands now if

1:46:25 ↗ nothing's happens this would stay the

1:46:27 ↗ way it is so the public comment wouldn't

1:46:29 ↗ be

1:46:31 ↗ addressed either way though right it's

1:46:34 ↗ kind of Catch

1:46:35 ↗ 22

1:46:37 ↗ um boy if I can offer an alternative

1:46:41 ↗ of answering first answering the

1:46:44 ↗ question that's posed to the commission

1:46:45 ↗ for the proposed amendments and then

1:46:48 ↗ someone can make a motion to make a

1:46:51 ↗ secondary recommend Commendation to city

1:46:53 ↗ council for staff to take a look at it

1:46:56 ↗ and you can take action on that as

1:47:03 ↗ well yeah I think that's where I'm at

1:47:05 ↗ with it is that I I don't really like

1:47:08 ↗ the two options in front of us of like

1:47:09 ↗ either agreeing or disagreeing I think

1:47:11 ↗ that maybe a third option should be

1:47:14 ↗ considered uh to kind of go back to the

1:47:16 ↗ drawing board and figure out how we can

1:47:17 ↗ better address some additional

1:47:19 ↗ situations uh in particular the public

1:47:21 ↗ comment that was made this evening yeah

1:47:23 ↗ I think the way stevenh put it is great

1:47:26 ↗ because then we should clarify the

1:47:28 ↗ language in the code because it is

1:47:30 ↗ confusing so that is one thing you guys

1:47:33 ↗ should first make a decision on and then

1:47:36 ↗ additionally if you think we should look

1:47:39 ↗ address the public comment and um that

1:47:43 ↗ that's part

1:47:46 ↗ two commissioner

1:47:48 ↗ s and then when you're saying new

1:47:51 ↗ monument sign are you saying like like

1:47:53 ↗ the the bones or Tri XX sign or no um

1:47:59 ↗ Monument sign is a free standing sign

1:48:01 ↗ that has a foundation and then it's like

1:48:03 ↗ on the corner of the property or

1:48:05 ↗ something that you know or along the

1:48:07 ↗ street front not attached to the

1:48:09 ↗ building okay sometimes like a Safeway

1:48:11 ↗ sign or or a condominium sign okay okay

1:48:16 ↗ a business

1:48:18 ↗ sign thanks for that clarification I was

1:48:21 ↗ just looking at it like okay if one of

1:48:23 ↗ those and then you put it in Talis or

1:48:26 ↗ Isa Highlands at May right I mean that's

1:48:29 ↗ my fear right little Las Vegas and

1:48:31 ↗ that's what I don't that's what I was

1:48:33 ↗ thinking so that like I said I I

1:48:36 ↗ understand the public comment I would

1:48:37 ↗ understand the frustration but I know I

1:48:39 ↗ don't want to see Reno in

1:48:46 ↗ is yeah we've got one and it gets broken

1:48:48 ↗ and it gets it's not maintained and

1:48:50 ↗ there's a lot of things that come with

1:48:52 ↗ it so you know the business owner has

1:48:54 ↗ they're in charge of taking care of it

1:48:55 ↗ so you got a good business owner great

1:48:57 ↗ if you don't they fall into disrepair

1:48:59 ↗ lights don't work half of it's lit up

1:49:02 ↗ half of it's not I personally don't like

1:49:04 ↗ them but that's just my two cents your

1:49:07 ↗ voice it seems like the Community member

1:49:09 ↗ wants a second chance it's up to you if

1:49:12 ↗ you would uh public comment over I don't

1:49:14 ↗ know that that would be a new one for me

1:49:16 ↗ I'll def First St is that normal I don't

1:49:20 ↗ know either um uh because of this is a

1:49:23 ↗ formal uh public hearing public comment

1:49:26 ↗ period was already closed and so um we

1:49:30 ↗ it's it's not within at least the

1:49:32 ↗ boundaries of the rules and regulations

1:49:34 ↗ for the commission to uh have a

1:49:36 ↗ secondary public comment period unless

1:49:38 ↗ it's posted within the agenda yeah no I

1:49:40 ↗ I like I said I don't really like

1:49:41 ↗ breaking Norms so I do apologize I mean

1:49:44 ↗ I I think everybody heard the testimony

1:49:46 ↗ um again I I can

1:49:48 ↗ feel for a person and again the

1:49:50 ↗ frustration and I think that's what they

1:49:52 ↗ want right more clarity I just

1:49:54 ↗ personally don't like it because that's

1:49:56 ↗ me um but I also like to see exemptions

1:49:59 ↗ and variances so does anyone want to

1:50:01 ↗ take that brave step and make that

1:50:04 ↗ amendment to

1:50:06 ↗ allow staff to look into it further to

1:50:09 ↗ possibly change some of this language

1:50:10 ↗ again this needs to be cleaned up

1:50:12 ↗ regardless so it's not so

1:50:17 ↗ confusing okay um but to be clear it's

1:50:20 ↗ not we're not amending right the motion

1:50:24 ↗ we would approve this because the

1:50:26 ↗ language needs to be updated as is we're

1:50:28 ↗ making an secondary motion to recommend

1:50:31 ↗ to council that they can look more into

1:50:35 ↗ this or encourage staff to look more

1:50:37 ↗ into this is that right yeah so I move

1:50:41 ↗ um

1:50:42 ↗ to recommend to councel that where

1:50:46 ↗ Stephen where where's step were you um

1:50:49 ↗ that that um

1:50:53 ↗ staff are kind of granted time and

1:50:56 ↗ ability to

1:50:58 ↗ research that make sense that

1:51:02 ↗ good okay is there a

1:51:05 ↗ second second thank you commissioner

1:51:07 ↗ Kennedy Stephen do you have what you

1:51:11 ↗ need yes I just want to make sure that

1:51:13 ↗ there's uh discussion in case there's

1:51:15 ↗ anything else before a vot's

1:51:18 ↗ taken is everybody good with the

1:51:20 ↗ discussion I can just add to my reasons

1:51:22 ↗ to make that recommendation because I

1:51:24 ↗ don't see the issue I didn't think like

1:51:26 ↗ Viva Las Vegas I thought like my

1:51:28 ↗ neighborhood has a sign on the corner

1:51:30 ↗ and it's kind of nice to like know I

1:51:31 ↗ live in this neighborhood or like if I'm

1:51:33 ↗ driving down the street and I'm looking

1:51:34 ↗ for a business and like do I want to

1:51:36 ↗ look through the trees right to figure

1:51:38 ↗ out where I'm going and so for those

1:51:39 ↗ reasons I see the utility of these sorts

1:51:41 ↗ of signs and so for me it's maybe like I

1:51:45 ↗ don't know if the rest of the sign code

1:51:46 ↗ kind of dictates what they can look like

1:51:48 ↗ I'm assuming like there's Oldtown

1:51:49 ↗ standards right so you couldn't put a

1:51:51 ↗ flashing know yeah there

1:51:54 ↗ no disco in Old it's the maintenance

1:51:57 ↗ part that just that's what for me and

1:51:59 ↗ again I just I look at mine it's just

1:52:02 ↗ not well maintained those are the things

1:52:03 ↗ that bum me out and how many and how

1:52:06 ↗ many each property has it right right

1:52:09 ↗ every everyone wanted then so but I

1:52:11 ↗ don't get offended by

1:52:15 ↗ like all right are you ready to vote on

1:52:20 ↗ Vice chair Bader's Amendment all in

1:52:21 ↗ favor

1:52:27 ↗ unanimous and I believe I screwed up the

1:52:29 ↗ order I think we got to go back to the

1:52:32 ↗ stadium

1:52:51 ↗ lighting is this this is the technical

1:52:53 ↗ lighting requirements there's something

1:52:55 ↗ called color rendering index of 80 so in

1:52:59 ↗ that table uh up up above um Stephen

1:53:03 ↗ that 80 needs to be change changed to

1:53:06 ↗ something that's the problem no less

1:53:09 ↗ than

1:53:10 ↗ 80 because 80 is not available in the

1:53:14 ↗ market um so that's correct we what we

1:53:18 ↗ did for the amendment was uh put in an

1:53:20 ↗ exemption below oh okay so for

1:53:24 ↗ everything else it's 80 is the Max uh it

1:53:26 ↗ can't be less than 80 but for stadium

1:53:29 ↗ lighting 80 can't be manufactured

1:53:33 ↗ therefore you

1:53:36 ↗ um you're exempt from Stadium lighting

1:53:39 ↗ as long as you adhere to the mitigation

1:53:42 ↗ strategies of this model lighting

1:53:50 ↗ ordinance comments

1:53:59 ↗ questions I can make a comment for the

1:54:02 ↗ sake of it um I think this does kind of

1:54:05 ↗ what we wanted it to do um following our

1:54:07 ↗ discussion last week I guess my question

1:54:10 ↗ and assumption is that this is doable

1:54:13 ↗ right that you can kind of mitigate

1:54:15 ↗ these Stadium lights enough to comply

1:54:17 ↗ with dark sky standards that is UN

1:54:20 ↗ understanding yes

1:54:23 ↗ okay any further

1:54:28 ↗ debate okay and I think our last one is

1:54:31 ↗ tree

1:54:46 ↗ canopy oh forgot Landmark Signs oh yes

1:54:51 ↗ yes

1:54:57 ↗ so um you heard from um program master

1:55:02 ↗ um that um is looking at um using this

1:55:07 ↗ provision in the code it obviously um

1:55:10 ↗ had some uh challenges uh in terms of

1:55:14 ↗ our implementation and my personal

1:55:17 ↗ opinion there was some conflicts between

1:55:18 ↗ it that says no name change but the 20 %

1:55:22 ↗ of the text can be changed so I think

1:55:24 ↗ there was some inherent conflict there

1:55:26 ↗ um so I think staff Valerie and Stephen

1:55:30 ↗ others have been working on this and and

1:55:32 ↗ have some proposal um and marnett who

1:55:35 ↗ spoke earlier I think he may be still on

1:55:38 ↗ uh yeah and he's listening and he sent

1:55:40 ↗ out an email with some graphics that I

1:55:42 ↗ have sent over uh forwarded those to

1:55:45 ↗ your uh planning policy commission

1:55:48 ↗ meeting you're not approving his

1:55:50 ↗ particular permit application or has

1:55:52 ↗ signed but that's an example to use for

1:55:55 ↗ this filter I think um what's proposed

1:55:58 ↗ in front of you is uh some boundaries

1:56:00 ↗ within which a landmark sign um one The

1:56:04 ↗ Landmark sign has to be in existence for

1:56:06 ↗ 40 years so there's not a whole lot of

1:56:08 ↗ them in is that will qualify for that

1:56:10 ↗ for that very reason the definition of

1:56:13 ↗ landmark sign so it's not that this is

1:56:15 ↗ going to be heavily used or abused or

1:56:18 ↗ you know everyone's going to be able to

1:56:20 ↗ qualify for this because none of the

1:56:22 ↗ average life of a sign is in 40 years um

1:56:25 ↗ so having said that uh the proposal in

1:56:29 ↗ front of you is still setting some

1:56:31 ↗ boundaries within which um um these

1:56:34 ↗ could be altered if they get that

1:56:36 ↗ designation uh so keeping the shape the

1:56:38 ↗ same uh setting a threshold of 50% to be

1:56:41 ↗ modified and it's really we have 50% for

1:56:44 ↗ redevelopment threshold and we and we

1:56:46 ↗ were just trying to figure out instead

1:56:48 ↗ of just picking a number we already have

1:56:50 ↗ a 50% threshold for when a

1:56:52 ↗ non-conforming has to be brought into

1:56:54 ↗ compliance so uh keeping that and then I

1:56:57 ↗ think maret's uh comments and the email

1:57:00 ↗ that was uh emailed are uh related to C

1:57:05 ↗ he's asking a deteriorate you know like

1:57:08 ↗ if it's a damaged portion uh we say here

1:57:11 ↗ must be repaired rather than replaced

1:57:14 ↗ and in his particular context uh the

1:57:17 ↗ trip X root bear some of those lights

1:57:20 ↗ are falling off that would he be allowed

1:57:22 ↗ to at least if it stays within the same

1:57:25 ↗ context looks like that should he be

1:57:27 ↗ allowed to replace them uh and not just

1:57:30 ↗ uh repair them uh his other question is

1:57:34 ↗ related to new material must be

1:57:36 ↗ consistent with assigned design color

1:57:39 ↗ and texture as to how much flexibility

1:57:41 ↗ there is it is not exact like for like

1:57:44 ↗ match it's really keeping the intent of

1:57:46 ↗ the design uh sign so there's some

1:57:49 ↗ inherent flexibility that staff can use

1:57:52 ↗ um so if it if the material is wood and

1:57:56 ↗ it goes to a metal but kind of looks the

1:57:59 ↗ same you know will that that's his

1:58:01 ↗ question that will will that do we need

1:58:04 ↗ to provide that additional flexibility

1:58:06 ↗ there um the process for ones uh this

1:58:11 ↗ gets a landmark designation is if you

1:58:13 ↗ are doing making changes more than 50%

1:58:16 ↗ then uh once you get your designation

1:58:19 ↗ you can also go to development

1:58:21 ↗ commission and say this 50% doesn't

1:58:23 ↗ really work for us and they can make

1:58:25 ↗ that call if you scroll down um Stephen

1:58:28 ↗ under four is there something

1:58:31 ↗ description of what that criteria

1:58:37 ↗ is lighting must comply I'm not sure

1:58:40 ↗ what approval from development

1:58:41 ↗ commission is required for any

1:58:43 ↗ alteration that's more than

1:58:45 ↗ 50% um may be granted when modification

1:58:49 ↗ is consistent with the Landmark Signs

1:58:51 ↗ design color and texture so you can you

1:58:55 ↗ know that's just an

1:58:57 ↗ additional development commission's call

1:58:59 ↗ do really not too many boundaries for

1:59:01 ↗ them other than it's consistent with the

1:59:03 ↗ design so it's built on some sort of

1:59:05 ↗ flexibility there for development

1:59:07 ↗ commission it's not clear to me and

1:59:09 ↗ honestly um but Stephen may be able to

1:59:11 ↗ help or Valerie um so how would it work

1:59:15 ↗ that they apply for a landmark

1:59:17 ↗ designation and at the same time they

1:59:20 ↗ can make a case that they need to make

1:59:23 ↗ more than 50% changes so therefore that

1:59:25 ↗ should also be allowed or once a sign

1:59:28 ↗ gets Landmark designation and they come

1:59:30 ↗ in for sign permits later and they're

1:59:33 ↗ making more than 50% sign changes and

1:59:36 ↗ they would have to go back to

1:59:37 ↗ development commission that's the way

1:59:38 ↗ I'm understanding even if you can

1:59:40 ↗ confirm that I have the right

1:59:45 ↗ understanding H yes Mini U you're

1:59:48 ↗ correct on on the secondary process they

1:59:50 ↗ would need to go back back to the

1:59:52 ↗ development commission once they have a

1:59:54 ↗ signed permit

1:59:55 ↗ ready yeah but in in maret's case if he

1:59:58 ↗ has everything ready he can go in one

2:00:01 ↗ time and ask for it to be designated as

2:00:04 ↗ a landmark and if he's tripping the 50%

2:00:06 ↗ threshold then he could ask development

2:00:08 ↗ commission to look at it at the same

2:00:10 ↗ time correct there's nothing preventing

2:00:13 ↗ uh doing a combined process

2:00:18 ↗ okay comments

2:00:25 ↗ what's the benefit of being a

2:00:28 ↗ landmark um from the city's perspective

2:00:31 ↗ um you know it keeps the context and the

2:00:34 ↗ historical character of the city and um

2:00:37 ↗ sometimes those uh signs can become

2:00:39 ↗ non-conforming but there's the

2:00:41 ↗ historical context uh when the sign code

2:00:44 ↗ was being updated um the historical uh

2:00:48 ↗ folks did uh provide some comments I

2:00:50 ↗ think there was discussion at the

2:00:52 ↗ planning policy commission or at the

2:00:53 ↗ council level I can't remember now uh to

2:00:55 ↗ talk about um what about bom's candy and

2:00:59 ↗ what about these things you know if

2:01:00 ↗ they're not going to meet your sign code

2:01:02 ↗ should there be an exemption for that

2:01:04 ↗ and therefore I think it came into well

2:01:06 ↗ you can do a landmark sign designation

2:01:09 ↗ uh process to keep that unique character

2:01:12 ↗ uh of some of these uh unique aspects uh

2:01:15 ↗ that have some historical context that

2:01:18 ↗ you would lose otherwise so the biggest

2:01:20 ↗ thing is it allows them to basically

2:01:23 ↗ skip having

2:01:25 ↗ to fall

2:01:27 ↗ into going through the new code so if

2:01:29 ↗ like the sign was damaged they can

2:01:31 ↗ repair it without having to go through

2:01:33 ↗ the code they as long as they put it

2:01:35 ↗ back the way it was but ultimately other

2:01:38 ↗ than that like I said it seems strange

2:01:39 ↗ to me I mean I love the trip X sign

2:01:41 ↗ after 20 years seems strange to me that

2:01:44 ↗ we would punish Burger Master by keeping

2:01:46 ↗ a barrel uh but I can see understand

2:01:49 ↗ that yeah they would no longer be able

2:01:50 ↗ to advertise from the freeway way that

2:01:52 ↗ sign would come way down yeah rooftop

2:01:54 ↗ signs are not allowed the sign code so

2:01:57 ↗ they won't be able to put up a rooftop

2:01:58 ↗ sign but yeah at the same time does

2:01:59 ↗ anyone want to Big see a big steer with

2:02:01 ↗ horns from the freeway that's not the

2:02:03 ↗ intent of what the landmark designation

2:02:06 ↗ was

2:02:08 ↗ so yeah it's it's that balance of you

2:02:11 ↗ know the land the the signs nobody's

2:02:13 ↗ going to keep them if they can't

2:02:15 ↗ advertise their business on it too so

2:02:18 ↗ that's just the reality of um

2:02:25 ↗ yeah commissioner Patterson yeah I mean

2:02:27 ↗ I think where we're going is kind of

2:02:28 ↗ where we discussed last week was

2:02:31 ↗ originally this was brought to us

2:02:32 ↗ because it was too rigid and there

2:02:34 ↗ wanted to be some flexibility I think we

2:02:36 ↗ kind of gave feedback of maybe it was

2:02:38 ↗ too flexible and we wanted to get back

2:02:40 ↗ to focusing on like why it's a landmark

2:02:42 ↗ in the first place um so I I think

2:02:45 ↗ personally like what's been presented to

2:02:47 ↗ us today for the most part is a good

2:02:49 ↗ middle ground in terms of it does

2:02:51 ↗ provide the flexibility to allow a new

2:02:54 ↗ owner to promote their own business um

2:02:57 ↗ while still maintaining the I guess

2:02:59 ↗ Spirit of what the landmark is and I

2:03:01 ↗ think some of the longer term community

2:03:04 ↗ members who as soon as triple xbg went

2:03:06 ↗ out were like what's happening with the

2:03:07 ↗ barrel you know the barrel sign like

2:03:09 ↗ there was some amount of wanting to keep

2:03:11 ↗ that around because of its sort of

2:03:13 ↗ landmark type designation so um I think

2:03:17 ↗ on the whole it's a good kind of middle

2:03:19 ↗ ground there's probably some fine-tuning

2:03:21 ↗ that maybe we can all help with but um I

2:03:24 ↗ think it's a good improvement from where

2:03:26 ↗ we were last week yeah can I ask a

2:03:29 ↗ question Minnie and thank you

2:03:30 ↗ commissioner Patterson so ultimately

2:03:32 ↗ let's use Burger master and Trip s

2:03:34 ↗ triple X as an example so ultimately

2:03:36 ↗ they'd have to keep the shape of it

2:03:40 ↗ where they might be able to get away a

2:03:41 ↗ little bit is obviously the tri XX the

2:03:44 ↗ root

2:03:47 ↗ beer that's thank

2:03:50 ↗ you right

2:03:53 ↗ okay so ultimately like you said they

2:03:54 ↗ haven't changed 50% of the sign but they

2:03:56 ↗ get to keep that might based on what you

2:03:58 ↗ know we we just got this today so we

2:04:00 ↗ haven't done their math and it doesn't

2:04:01 ↗ have all the dimensions and stuff but a

2:04:04 ↗ quick look from staff was it probably is

2:04:06 ↗ going to trip the 50% threshold so it

2:04:09 ↗ just means that as long as the design

2:04:11 ↗ intent and the the you know the scheme

2:04:14 ↗ it still looks like a barrel it's still

2:04:16 ↗ you know that that development

2:04:18 ↗ commission will have a say in it now the

2:04:20 ↗ development Commission you know the the

2:04:22 ↗ sign Cod just said it's a development

2:04:24 ↗ commission approval it didn't say what

2:04:26 ↗ type of level and now we looked at our

2:04:28 ↗ code and development commission only

2:04:30 ↗ gets level four which is a little bit of

2:04:32 ↗ an overkill for a signed permit to be a

2:04:35 ↗ level four but level four will require a

2:04:37 ↗ public hearing all the property owners

2:04:39 ↗ will be notified development commission

2:04:41 ↗ will then hear and make a decision based

2:04:44 ↗ on this criteria so that'll be the

2:04:46 ↗ approval process for this unless you

2:04:49 ↗ think it should be a different approval

2:04:51 ↗ process and and real quickly roughly how

2:04:54 ↗ many Landmark Signs are there throughout

2:04:55 ↗ the city zero at this time nobody's

2:04:59 ↗ asked for a designation and how many

2:05:01 ↗ currently exist though

2:05:04 ↗ zero and we don't expect it to be

2:05:07 ↗ heavily used

2:05:08 ↗ anyways because of the

2:05:11 ↗ 40-year existence a tough marker to make

2:05:13 ↗ as you mentioned earlier

2:05:17 ↗ yeah well I think sending the picture is

2:05:21 ↗ Extreme helpful because we can talk

2:05:23 ↗ about this till we're blue in the face

2:05:25 ↗ but until you see what the intent is

2:05:27 ↗ it's really hard to know well 50% of

2:05:31 ↗ what they could be changing color they

2:05:33 ↗ could be changing shape but to see them

2:05:37 ↗ keep the basics of the traditional sign

2:05:41 ↗ there and in a in a very nice way at the

2:05:45 ↗ Burger Master to it um really helps with

2:05:49 ↗ assessing the general nature of of this

2:05:52 ↗ potential change to code um so I would

2:05:56 ↗ say yes and we've done I think a good

2:05:59 ↗ job of approval may be granted when the

2:06:02 ↗ modification is consistent with the

2:06:03 ↗ Landmark Signs design color and texture

2:06:06 ↗ you know if this is an approval from the

2:06:08 ↗ development commission so long as we've

2:06:09 ↗ got review and we're looking at all this

2:06:12 ↗ I think allowing it's great like you're

2:06:15 ↗ going to send us a mockup of what the

2:06:17 ↗ plan is because it's so

2:06:20 ↗ subjective um that I think given us that

2:06:23 ↗ we're in good

2:06:25 ↗ shape I second that commission that was

2:06:28 ↗ a great comment and yes it's very

2:06:29 ↗ helpful so um so if you want to address

2:06:33 ↗ the public comments um are you know in

2:06:36 ↗ terms of now binding them to just having

2:06:39 ↗ to

2:06:39 ↗ replace uh that they can't

2:06:42 ↗ replace uh the damaged portions to say

2:06:46 ↗ to the extent practical and feasible at

2:06:49 ↗ the end of C but damaged portions of the

2:06:52 ↗ sign may be repaired rather than

2:06:54 ↗ replaced to preserve historical context

2:06:56 ↗ to the extent practical and feasible

2:06:58 ↗ because what if you know they can they

2:07:00 ↗ can't find the replacement for it or

2:07:02 ↗ anything but as long as it looks and

2:07:03 ↗ feels the same whether it's new or

2:07:06 ↗ repaired is I think the ask from um the

2:07:10 ↗ public comment

2:07:15 ↗ tonight oh thank you commissioner migan

2:07:26 ↗ you're on

2:07:29 ↗ mute Nina you're muted there you go I'm

2:07:33 ↗ ready uh commissioner Milligan here uh

2:07:36 ↗ thank you director Dolly wall I was

2:07:37 ↗ going to comment on letter C and I

2:07:40 ↗ thought that the second sentence in that

2:07:42 ↗ where it says new material must be

2:07:43 ↗ consistent with the uh sign design color

2:07:46 ↗ and texture uh it says new material

2:07:49 ↗ which is implying that the material is

2:07:52 ↗ being replaced so I wondered why we were

2:07:56 ↗ um disallowing

2:08:00 ↗ replacing uh when we have all the other

2:08:03 ↗ caveats that say the new stuff is going

2:08:05 ↗ to be like is going to emulate and

2:08:08 ↗ represent what the old stuff was doing

2:08:10 ↗ so that was that was my word

2:08:12 ↗ Smith um I didn't think we needed and

2:08:15 ↗ and also oh excuse me uh that's feasible

2:08:18 ↗ and practicable I have um generally

2:08:22 ↗ generally always um been against that

2:08:25 ↗ language because it is too relative to

2:08:29 ↗ be very um uh uh useful and enforceable

2:08:35 ↗ thank

2:08:40 ↗ you Mr Kennedy well she makes a good

2:08:43 ↗ point now that pointing out section c

2:08:46 ↗ those two sentences don't work with each

2:08:48 ↗ other at all yeah I'm wondering if that

2:08:51 ↗ as Stephen you can speak to it is it

2:08:52 ↗ supposed to be

2:08:54 ↗ D it's a numbering thing that

2:09:01 ↗ happened maybe I can attempt to um speak

2:09:04 ↗ to that um I think the intent of the the

2:09:08 ↗ second sentence is when you have some of

2:09:11 ↗ these older structures you may not be

2:09:13 ↗ able to um find the same material or

2:09:15 ↗ replace for like for like so if you have

2:09:17 ↗ to replace it it with something new it

2:09:21 ↗ should be very consistent what what's uh

2:09:23 ↗ what was originally there that was the

2:09:25 ↗ intent of

2:09:27 ↗ this ises that hope that clarifies that

2:09:30 ↗ sure so Valerie should then we delete

2:09:34 ↗ the first part of that sentence because

2:09:37 ↗ the first sentence is saying you can't

2:09:38 ↗ replace

2:09:39 ↗ it uh you have to repair

2:09:44 ↗ it um my S I want to reiterate my

2:09:47 ↗ suggestion and that was just to remove

2:09:49 ↗ the word um

2:09:52 ↗ that they um must be repaired rather

2:09:55 ↗ than replaced okay remove uh rather than

2:10:02 ↗ replaced we probably do well

2:10:05 ↗ enough

2:10:06 ↗ um thank you commissioner Milligan

2:10:08 ↗ commissioner Kennedy I'm sorry

2:10:10 ↗ commissioner zacharov then commissioner

2:10:12 ↗ Kennedy commissioner zacharov maybe um

2:10:16 ↗ the word uh the phrasing um the intent

2:10:20 ↗ to keep as much of the the original

2:10:21 ↗ material of the sign should be shown

2:10:25 ↗ basically should be

2:10:29 ↗ there like that thank

2:10:32 ↗ you commissioner

2:10:34 ↗ Kennedy I propose deteriorated or

2:10:36 ↗ damaged portions of the sign will be

2:10:39 ↗ repaired when possible rather than

2:10:42 ↗ replaced to preserve historical

2:10:44 ↗ context when new material

2:10:47 ↗ must when needed new material must be

2:10:50 ↗ consistent with a sign design color and

2:10:53 ↗ texture yeah I'm comfortable with that

2:10:57 ↗ got a thumbs up from my

2:11:00 ↗ screen uh I will defer to Stephen is

2:11:03 ↗ that still maintaining the spirit or do

2:11:05 ↗ we need to actually make a proper

2:11:07 ↗ Amendment fa voice you would uh need to

2:11:10 ↗ take a formal V on vot vote on the

2:11:12 ↗ amendment okay does someone want so

2:11:14 ↗ basically the amendment on the floor if

2:11:16 ↗ I understand this correct even though we

2:11:17 ↗ didn't say the magic words as

2:11:18 ↗ commissioner Kennedy's that's okay

2:11:22 ↗ I move to amend this

2:11:24 ↗ portion with the wording maybe I can

2:11:28 ↗ repeat the deteriorated or damaged

2:11:30 ↗ portions of the

2:11:32 ↗ sign shall be repaired when possible

2:11:35 ↗ rather than replaced to preserve

2:11:37 ↗ historical

2:11:38 ↗ context when new material is needed it

2:11:42 ↗ must be consistent with the sign design

2:11:44 ↗ color and

2:11:46 ↗ texture nice job I second

2:11:49 ↗ that all right all in favor

2:11:54 ↗ hi okay

2:12:02 ↗ unanimous okay so which number are we on

2:12:08 ↗ Stephen now we're on the Tre now we're

2:12:11 ↗ in the

2:12:11 ↗ trees so there's one more before tree

2:12:14 ↗ removal tracking that's the critical

2:12:16 ↗ area report must be posted

2:12:18 ↗ online oh that's right oh uh is that a

2:12:22 ↗ CL

2:12:25 ↗ yes oh I'm sorry that's a clarification

2:12:28 ↗ that's a mistake on this list uh you're

2:12:30 ↗ correct it's the tree removal uh

2:12:46 ↗ tracking yeah I think this one um you

2:12:50 ↗ heard some testimony and stuff uh

2:12:52 ↗ Stephen do

2:12:54 ↗ we um treat removal by a public agency

2:12:58 ↗ or franchise utility within the public

2:13:00 ↗ right away or upon a public

2:13:03 ↗ easen

2:13:05 ↗ um these are exemptions except as

2:13:08 ↗ provided any person who desires to yeah

2:13:11 ↗ so you don't need a tree permit by a

2:13:14 ↗ public agency like the city or pugan

2:13:17 ↗ region you know

2:13:18 ↗ PC um any franchise utility doesn't need

2:13:22 ↗ a permit as long as the work is

2:13:24 ↗ occurring within the public RightWay or

2:13:26 ↗ upon a public easement and only for the

2:13:29 ↗ purpos of installing water storm sewer

2:13:31 ↗ power gas line blah blah blah um so I

2:13:34 ↗ think this was added that say public

2:13:38 ↗ works department and the streets is

2:13:40 ↗ taking down some trees and replacing

2:13:42 ↗ them that they would give a notification

2:13:44 ↗ to Community Development

2:13:46 ↗ Department um before they remove it um

2:13:51 ↗ tree replacement is required as part in

2:13:53 ↗ the same sub area so even though it's

2:13:55 ↗ not a tree permit requirement there's

2:13:57 ↗ still a not there was still a

2:13:59 ↗ notification requirement to the

2:14:00 ↗ department uh we've had some internal

2:14:02 ↗ discussions Parks um Dan hin who's are

2:14:06 ↗ the city's new Urban

2:14:07 ↗ Forester um program manager he shared

2:14:11 ↗ how Parks uh accounts for these uh you

2:14:14 ↗ know new plantings and things in a

2:14:16 ↗ spreadsheet format um Public Works

2:14:19 ↗ express some conc concerns about um you

2:14:23 ↗ know there's crew out in the field

2:14:24 ↗ there's a snowstorm if they've kind of

2:14:26 ↗ taken a few things out they're not going

2:14:28 ↗ to know which parcel number or whatever

2:14:30 ↗ but they account for that they take

2:14:32 ↗ pictures and they they can do their own

2:14:33 ↗ maintenance similar to parks department

2:14:35 ↗ and so we were saying well it doesn't in

2:14:38 ↗ order to be efficient we don't need more

2:14:40 ↗ process to kind of give us another form

2:14:44 ↗ um so but do we want this for p PSC to

2:14:49 ↗ still tell us and you know when it's non

2:14:53 ↗ city um agency uh do we want still some

2:14:57 ↗ reporting uh from them which is not what

2:15:00 ↗ is presented here but I think today we

2:15:01 ↗ were discussing so I'm wondering for the

2:15:04 ↗ options for this one perhaps are to

2:15:07 ↗ defer it to a later time when we

2:15:10 ↗ actually do the tree code update that

2:15:12 ↗ you know we're looking at sub area

2:15:14 ↗ planning and other things we can bundle

2:15:16 ↗ this with that and bring back um some

2:15:20 ↗ better

2:15:21 ↗ language for you all if or you can just

2:15:24 ↗ pass it forward and just this would then

2:15:27 ↗ the way it's written right now it would

2:15:29 ↗ apply to PSC as well as the city so

2:15:32 ↗ there's

2:15:32 ↗ no um they requirement for

2:15:36 ↗ them as well so as it's written now

2:15:39 ↗ there's no requirement for PSC to report

2:15:43 ↗ it it's not even though Public Works

2:15:45 ↗ takes it correct and then I think

2:15:48 ↗ striking out that sentence three

2:15:49 ↗ replacement must be required within the

2:15:51 ↗ same planning sub area is also struck

2:15:54 ↗ out so if the intent is

2:15:58 ↗ to keep

2:16:01 ↗ it um my my recommendation would be we

2:16:04 ↗ just defer this and we'll come back when

2:16:07 ↗ we've sorted it out a little bit better

2:16:10 ↗ yeah I'm not big on redundancies myself

2:16:12 ↗ but uh yeah I think more information is

2:16:14 ↗ always better for better

2:16:16 ↗ decisions having said that though I

2:16:18 ↗ think we are going to take the last item

2:16:20 ↗ on our agenda and move that to our next

2:16:22 ↗ meeting so I know Valerie was looking

2:16:24 ↗ forward to present tonight I apologize

2:16:26 ↗ Valerie but we'll do that next time so

2:16:29 ↗ again we do have a few more minutes if

2:16:31 ↗ you want to kick this around I don't

2:16:32 ↗ want to watch the clock and feel like

2:16:34 ↗ you've got another 40 minutes in front

2:16:36 ↗ of you so do anyone has anything to say

2:16:39 ↗ about this please speak up before we

2:16:41 ↗ close this out begin to close it

2:16:45 ↗ out we would need to move it right sure

2:16:52 ↗ I Stephen do we need to a formal move to

2:16:56 ↗ we had to move to defer the other

2:17:00 ↗ one yes Vice chair Bader is correct that

2:17:02 ↗ um we need a motion for deferring this

2:17:06 ↗ item um okay so then I move to defer

2:17:09 ↗ this to a later

2:17:12 ↗ date I second it all in

2:17:16 ↗ favor unanimous

2:17:21 ↗ okay I give you a sneak preview but yes

2:17:24 ↗ we are going to take our neighborhood

2:17:25 ↗ planning guide and we will move that to

2:17:27 ↗ our next meeting so we will begin to

2:17:30 ↗ wrap it up tonight by asking for

2:17:34 ↗ reports uh I'm not sure who's going but

2:17:36 ↗ I will look and just say staff any city

2:17:39 ↗ council updates for us this evening fa

2:17:41 ↗ voice we still need to close out the

2:17:43 ↗ main motion for tonight for the code

2:17:45 ↗ updates oh thank you Stephen

2:17:56 ↗ so basically someone has to repeat with

2:17:59 ↗ the Amendments made this motion carries

2:18:01 ↗ and we all Vote or do we not even have

2:18:03 ↗ to make that motion we can just

2:18:08 ↗ vote it would need to be a uh a repeat

2:18:12 ↗ if there's no further discussion

2:18:48 ↗ I think so

2:18:55 ↗ go ahead commissioner Patterson okay uh

2:18:58 ↗ all I uh move to recommend approval of

2:19:01 ↗ all the proposed amendments to Title 18

2:19:04 ↗ part one General Provisions title two

2:19:06 ↗ procedures part three division of Land

2:19:08 ↗ part four zoning part five specified use

2:19:11 ↗ standards part six development standard

2:19:14 ↗ and part eight environment with the

2:19:17 ↗ additional amendments that were passed

2:19:19 ↗ by the commission

2:19:21 ↗ this evening excellent thank you do we

2:19:24 ↗ hear a

2:19:25 ↗ second second

2:19:27 ↗ second all in

2:19:31 ↗ favor

2:19:36 ↗ unanimous all right Stephen did you get

2:19:38 ↗ what you

2:19:40 ↗ needed yes thank you chair okay thank

2:19:44 ↗ you all right reports city council

2:19:46 ↗ updates not sure who's going to go but

2:19:49 ↗ yeah I don't have any any updates I

2:19:51 ↗ think I provided some updates about the

2:19:54 ↗ permit process improvements that we're

2:19:55 ↗ doing at the last

2:19:58 ↗ meeting Stephen anything from you just a

2:20:01 ↗ quick update with uh the code amendments

2:20:04 ↗ um recommendation from the commission

2:20:05 ↗ tonight this item will go to the

2:20:07 ↗ Planning Development environment Council

2:20:09 ↗ committee on July

2:20:13 ↗ 9th all

2:20:15 ↗ right are there any updates to the

2:20:17 ↗ calendar any other business or

2:20:19 ↗ announcements from

2:20:22 ↗ staff no uh no additional announcements

2:20:25 ↗ from staff

2:20:26 ↗ tonight all right anything for the good

2:20:28 ↗ of the order for our

2:20:31 ↗ commission all right there being no

2:20:32 ↗ further business before the commission

2:20:34 ↗ we'll adjourn tonight a late

2:20:37 ↗ one 8:53 p.m. thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (8)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Bader

Commissioners Esemuede

Kennedy

Krass (Alt)

Milligan (Virtual)

Patterson

Zakharoff (Alt)

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Amanda Jackson, Meeting & Records Assistant Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager (Virtual) Valerie Porter, Associate Planner (Virtual) 2