Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, March 13, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 27, 2025

packet pp.5–10

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, February 27, 2025

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18 Middle Housing Amendments

, Valerie Porter, Associate Planner · packet pp.11–113

Topics: HousingLand Use

▶ Watch from 8:57 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

At the March 13th meeting, the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will review and discuss proposed amendments to Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC) Title 18 to ensure compliance with House Bill (HB) 1110 (as amended by HB 2321) and HB 1337. On March 27th, the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will hold a public hearing and take public comment on the proposed Title 18, Land Use Code middle housing amendments.

Open Government Training

Information · Tisha Gieser, City Clerk · packet pp.115–135

▶ Watch from 45:03 Open packet at p.115 ↗

Staff report:

Open Government Training MARCH 13, 2025 | PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION

Title 18 Proposed Amendments: Miscellaneous (D)

, Christen Leeson, Principal Planner · packet pp.137–152

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Feb 27, 2025

▶ Watch from 1:21:09 Open packet at p.137 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will review, discuss, and provide feedback on proposed 2025 updates to Title 18, Land Use Code including:

6. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.153–154

▶ Watch from 3:05 Open packet at p.153 ↗

Staff report:

OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Staff Support: Stephen Padua Staff Support: Stephen Padua 4/10/25 4/24/25

2814 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ all right good evening everyone welcome

0:09 ↗ to tonight's planning policy commission

0:12 ↗ we'll call this meeting to order and it

0:14 ↗ currently is 6:32

0:16 ↗ PM tonight's meeting is a hybrid meeting

0:19 ↗ the planning policy commission is in

0:21 ↗ person but staff or members of the

0:22 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

0:25 ↗ person uh Steph do we have a quorum this

0:28 ↗ evening chair voice yes you have a

0:30 ↗ tonight uh

0:31 ↗ Commissioners mulu and Matthews are

0:35 ↗ excused all

0:36 ↗ right excellent um you may notice we

0:40 ↗ have some new shiny Commissioners to

0:42 ↗ share with you so I want to

0:45 ↗ introduce uh commissioner

0:47 ↗ Adair commissioner millinder

0:49 ↗ Irwin as well as commissioner

0:53 ↗ oler and I should note we also have

0:55 ↗ commissioner zacharov joining us

0:57 ↗ virtually this evening um do a quick

1:00 ↗ question commissioner Adair what is your

1:02 ↗ favorite restaurant in

1:16 ↗ isqua

1:19 ↗ okay yes there are a lot of great

1:21 ↗ restaurants and U make sure you guys

1:23 ↗ push your buttons on so we can see the

1:24 ↗ red that'll indicate you are live so

1:28 ↗ 12th Avenue Cafe for the record 12th

1:31 ↗ Avenue Cafe is great I love uh getting

1:33 ↗ breakfast around town commissioner

1:35 ↗ Mander Irwin what is your favorite thing

1:37 ↗ to do on a Saturday in

1:40 ↗ isqua oh my goodness um I have to say

1:44 ↗ going to Costco it's truly an Excursion

1:47 ↗ and you find something new and

1:49 ↗ interesting and I love to shop so it's a

1:52 ↗ fun thing to do Costco yes and we love

1:55 ↗ Costco obviously their headquarters are

1:57 ↗ here so great plug for Costco uh

1:59 ↗ commissioner

2:00 ↗ oler um what have you found most uh

2:04 ↗ exciting about being an isqua

2:08 ↗ resident I think the proximity to Trails

2:11 ↗ uh access to

2:14 ↗ Civic uh and Community

2:17 ↗ facilities um and having a fantastic

2:21 ↗ hospital nearby is really nice for those

2:24 ↗ of us who've used the hospital more than

2:26 ↗ once I was going to say commissioner

2:28 ↗ crass could probably attest to that

2:30 ↗ I ra my

2:32 ↗ hand and uh we'll pass these two because

2:35 ↗ they're old hat but uh I didn't I didn't

2:38 ↗ want to pass up Stephen Stephen who do

2:40 ↗ you think's the most difficult

2:41 ↗ commissioner on the

2:43 ↗ PPC no I'm just kidding we ran out of

2:46 ↗ time we don't have to worry yeah I

2:49 ↗ know plead the fifth commissioner okay

2:53 ↗ well thank you and again we just want to

2:55 ↗ welcome our new Commissioners it's great

2:57 ↗ to have you guys with us we're looking

2:58 ↗ forward to working with you guys

3:00 ↗ and uh yeah let's

3:02 ↗ begin so I did want to make a quick

3:05 ↗ announcement uh regarding the public

3:08 ↗ hearing so the public hearing for the

3:10 ↗ middle housing amendments will now be

3:12 ↗ March 27th tonight we'll be holding a

3:14 ↗ regular discussion to review the latest

3:17 ↗ amendments and discuss questions from

3:19 ↗ City staff if anyone is attending

3:22 ↗ tonight's meeting to provide public

3:24 ↗ comment on that project you can still

3:26 ↗ provide public comment um that will be

3:29 ↗ considered by the commission but the

3:31 ↗ public hearing will actually be the next

3:32 ↗ meeting so please come and attend and

3:34 ↗ and provide your testimony then so we'll

3:37 ↗ move on right now to some housekeeping

3:39 ↗ which is the approval of

3:42 ↗ minutes um what we have before us this

3:45 ↗ evening is the February 27th planning

3:48 ↗ policy commission meeting minutes all of

3:50 ↗ them were provided in your agenda

3:52 ↗ packets are there any corrections or

3:54 ↗ concerns by the

3:58 ↗ Commissioners okay looking for Kata

4:01 ↗ nothing there um hearing none those

4:04 ↗ meeting minutes are

4:05 ↗ approved so right now we will hold

4:07 ↗ general public

4:09 ↗ comment and before I read a long list of

4:13 ↗ uh duties let's just find out if we have

4:15 ↗ anyone that would like to make public

4:19 ↗ comment CH Steven is graciously grabbing

4:22 ↗ the public comment list but it does look

4:24 ↗ like we may have someone in the room who

4:26 ↗ wishes to speak and then we do have a

4:28 ↗ virtual attendee um and so I guess we

4:31 ↗ could ask if they wanted to raise their

4:32 ↗ hand

4:48 ↗ excellent yes okay so we do have okay

4:51 ↗ this is my

4:52 ↗ part so we do have public comments this

4:55 ↗ evening they may be made in person or

4:57 ↗ virtually but for all those who would

4:59 ↗ like to speak um we do ask that you

5:01 ↗ speak clearly pause frequently we ask

5:04 ↗ that you state your name before speaking

5:07 ↗ and if you are attending virtually we do

5:09 ↗ ask that you mute your microphone when

5:10 ↗ you're not speaking and if you're having

5:12 ↗ any technical issues try joining the

5:13 ↗ meeting using a different device such as

5:15 ↗ a smartphone or tablet you can use the

5:18 ↗ call-in information in the meeting

5:20 ↗ invite to call in as well we do accept

5:22 ↗ phone calls uh public comments are an

5:25 ↗ important part of the public process we

5:27 ↗ take them seriously and they are

5:28 ↗ factored into this decisions that we

5:30 ↗ make comments may be general or related

5:33 ↗ to the topics we are discussing this

5:34 ↗ evening we do ask that you please limit

5:37 ↗ your comments to five minutes or

5:39 ↗ less

5:41 ↗ okay anyone who would like to

5:46 ↗ speak U Nancy Davidson is Raising her

5:49 ↗ hand in the

5:55 ↗ room okay great good evening my name's

5:58 ↗ Nancy David I'm a resident of issaqua

6:01 ↗ living in Oldtown on Bush Street and the

6:03 ↗ reason I'm here to talk to you I will be

6:05 ↗ testifying uh next meeting as well is to

6:08 ↗ primarily get the new Commissioners up

6:10 ↗ to speed on kind of how the community is

6:12 ↗ feeling about this midle housing issue

6:14 ↗ and this is primarily addressed

6:17 ↗ addressed by the legislature to bring

6:18 ↗ more housing into areas that do not have

6:21 ↗ big HOAs stopping them from happening

6:24 ↗ and so that primarily will affect an

6:26 ↗ isqua Oldtown and squawk Mountain having

6:29 ↗ lived in both of those areas I can tell

6:31 ↗ you we have middle housing on both in

6:33 ↗ both of those areas squawk Mountain has

6:36 ↗ duplexes they don't have any triplexes

6:38 ↗ but there are middle houses and adus on

6:40 ↗ squawk Mountain similarly in Oldtown

6:43 ↗ you'll find several duplexes trixes and

6:46 ↗ other kinds of middle housing most of

6:48 ↗ which are constructed on one light the

6:50 ↗ reason I'm concerned is there's a push

6:52 ↗ by some to potentially increase the

6:55 ↗ middle housing from two units per parcel

6:58 ↗ to go to four

7:00 ↗ and by doing that what we're doing is

7:02 ↗ increasing the densities in areas that

7:04 ↗ have been identified by the city as

7:07 ↗ lacking parking they have storm water

7:09 ↗ systems that are falling apart and no

7:11 ↗ longer capable of meeting all the

7:14 ↗ increased impervious areas they also

7:16 ↗ have issues associated with potentially

7:19 ↗ sanitary sewer and the other thing that

7:21 ↗ most of us at least in Oldtown are

7:23 ↗ concerned about is the character of this

7:25 ↗ neighborhood this town is very unique

7:29 ↗ and especially the Oldtown area it has

7:31 ↗ been preserved kind of as a classic area

7:34 ↗ of old homes were here back in the early

7:37 ↗ 1900s we don't want that area to start

7:40 ↗ looking like Belleview Kirkland and

7:42 ↗ other areas which have taken the houses

7:44 ↗ down come in and built two or four units

7:47 ↗ as either a duplex or a multif family

7:50 ↗ house adus there's lots of them in

7:53 ↗ Oldtown you just have to look around or

7:54 ↗ know neighbors some people have split

7:57 ↗ housing but our concern is the

7:59 ↗ administration is Ping for moving

8:01 ↗ forward with the two units per parcel

8:03 ↗ and we encourage you to do that and

8:06 ↗ while um there may be some issues with

8:08 ↗ parking I'm sure Valerie will do a great

8:10 ↗ job explaining all of that if there's

8:13 ↗ any way you can keep requiring parking

8:15 ↗ because let me tell you there is not a

8:17 ↗ lot of parking available on these old

8:19 ↗ streets many people do not have

8:21 ↗ driveways they have adus instead those

8:24 ↗ adus with Mother families living there

8:28 ↗ do not have the parking needed so I

8:30 ↗ encourage you to try and see what you

8:32 ↗ can do to get more parking in Oldtown on

8:34 ↗ those lots as they redevelop but also to

8:37 ↗ stay with the two unit for parcel thank

8:39 ↗ you very

8:45 ↗ much and chair the virtual attendee

8:48 ↗ doesn't wish to make comments okay uh we

8:51 ↗ appreciate those comments

8:55 ↗ Nancy all right we're going to move to

8:57 ↗ regular business and our first item of

8:59 ↗ regular business is to discuss the title

9:01 ↗ 18 middle housing amendments Valerie

9:04 ↗ Porter our associate planner will be

9:06 ↗ presenting tonight so Valerie when you

9:09 ↗ are ready please go

9:23 ↗ ahead thank you chair voice hello

9:26 ↗ everyone my name is Valerie Porter I'm

9:28 ↗ an associate planner with the community

9:30 ↗ planning and development department and

9:32 ↗ tonight we're going to talk about mental

9:34 ↗ housing so we're actually going to kind

9:36 ↗ of continue our discussion that we had

9:38 ↗ at the last meeting I posed two policy

9:42 ↗ questions go um so the administration is

9:45 ↗ eating some direction on um design

9:48 ↗ standards that will be applied to single

9:50 ↗ family and middle housing um structures

9:53 ↗ and then we also like to get your

9:55 ↗ feedback on the amount of open space um

9:57 ↗ that should be required for Courtyard

9:59 ↗ and C Courtyard and cottage

10:06 ↗ developments so because we have some new

10:08 ↗ Commissioners here tonight I thought it

10:09 ↗ would be good to briefly just go over

10:11 ↗ some of the um main requirements for um

10:14 ↗ House Bill

10:16 ↗ 1110 and um

10:18 ↗ 1337 and so why are we talking about

10:22 ↗ middle housing and um what is it so in

10:26 ↗ 2023 the state passed legislation um

10:30 ↗ House Bill 1110 also known as a middle

10:32 ↗ housing bill um which requires many

10:34 ↗ cities um in Washington to allow a

10:36 ↗ broader range of housing types

10:38 ↗ specifically middle housing types in

10:40 ↗ areas that previously allowed detached

10:43 ↗ single family homes so the intent is to

10:45 ↗ increase um density as well as the

10:48 ↗ housing stock so middle housing is a

10:50 ↗ term used to describe a type of housing

10:53 ↗ so over the years there's been a lot of

10:54 ↗ detach single family homes and multifam

10:57 ↗ large scale multif family but nothing

10:59 ↗ really in between so that's how you get

11:01 ↗ this term middle

11:03 ↗ housing middle housing are buildings

11:05 ↗ that are compatible in scale form and

11:07 ↗ character with single family homes and

11:08 ↗ consist of two or more units the

11:10 ↗ important concept about middle housing

11:12 ↗ is the scale the scale is aligned with

11:15 ↗ single family homes or it's multi-unit

11:17 ↗ buildings that are in line with single

11:19 ↗ family

11:27 ↗ homes go so middle housing um can be a

11:32 ↗ variety of building types so that could

11:33 ↗ be a duplex Triplex all the way up to

11:35 ↗ six plexes St Flats Town Homes Cottage

11:39 ↗ and Courtyard

11:42 ↗ housing House Bill Elton establishes

11:45 ↗ requirements by three tiers each tier is

11:48 ↗ based on a city's um population as well

11:50 ↗ as their location and isqua is a tier 2

11:53 ↗ City and so isqua is required to allow

11:56 ↗ two dwelling units on one lot and all

11:59 ↗ all lot for all Lots Zone residential

12:02 ↗ and in order to get that increased

12:03 ↗ density you have to build a middle

12:05 ↗ housing building type and so a detach

12:07 ↗ single family structure is not

12:09 ↗ considered a a middle housing type so

12:11 ↗ for those who have these large lots and

12:13 ↗ they're like I got a little room I can

12:15 ↗ throw a detach single family home next

12:16 ↗ to that no in order to um get that

12:19 ↗ increased density you have to build a

12:21 ↗ middle housing type for lots that are

12:24 ↗ within quarter mile walking distance of

12:26 ↗ a major Transit stop or they set aside

12:28 ↗ at least one unit as an affordable unit

12:31 ↗ they'll be allowed to have four units on

12:33 ↗ one

12:35 ↗ lot the city is also required to allow

12:38 ↗ six of the middle um middle housing

12:41 ↗ building types in all residential zones

12:44 ↗ and the tint of the bill we are required

12:47 ↗ to streamline the review process and

12:50 ↗ ensure that our middle housing

12:51 ↗ regulations are not more restricted than

12:53 ↗ those for single family

12:57 ↗ homes in addition to addressing

12:59 ↗ um House Bill 1110 will also be um

13:02 ↗ updating the land use code to address

13:04 ↗ House Bill 1337 which is for accessory

13:06 ↗ dwelling units and so this bill requires

13:09 ↗ us to allow two accessory dwelling units

13:11 ↗ on one lot if assoc if constructed with

13:15 ↗ a detached single family home and we

13:16 ↗ must allow that in multiple

13:18 ↗ configurations so attached detached or

13:21 ↗ internal we also are required to allow

13:23 ↗ the sell of um the independent sell of

13:26 ↗ an Adu from the primary home and um

13:29 ↗ again Adu regulations cannot be more

13:31 ↗ restrictive um than the regulations

13:34 ↗ appli to the primary home and um

13:37 ↗ property the city cannot require a

13:39 ↗ property owner to live on

13:42 ↗ site so those are the major highlights

13:45 ↗ and so now we're going to move into the

13:46 ↗ Pol the first policy question which is

13:48 ↗ should massing and facade design

13:51 ↗ standards be applied

13:53 ↗ Citywide

13:54 ↗ so again this question was posed at the

13:57 ↗ last meeting the administration is

14:00 ↗ proposing to relocate two design

14:02 ↗ standards from um the Oldtown design

14:04 ↗ standards or that are applied to single

14:06 ↗ family homes in the Oldtown Oldtown sub

14:09 ↗ area and so we're suggesting that these

14:12 ↗ are relocated and applied Citywide to

14:14 ↗ all single family um or all single

14:17 ↗ family zones so that would appli to

14:18 ↗ detach single family homes as well as

14:20 ↗ middle housing building types so the

14:23 ↗ first requirement is about building

14:25 ↗ modulation building modulation increases

14:27 ↗ visual interest and Al creates a more

14:29 ↗ human scale and also an engaging Street

14:33 ↗ skate the second requirement is related

14:36 ↗ to just blank walls um this standard is

14:39 ↗ requiring Windows or balconies or some

14:42 ↗ type of architectural feature or change

14:44 ↗ in color again to um ensure that the

14:47 ↗ there's visual interest and that it's

14:49 ↗ not a blank

14:53 ↗ facade so why are these standards um why

14:57 ↗ are they important and why should they

14:58 ↗ be being put in place design standards

15:01 ↗ are guidelines that ensure that the

15:02 ↗ building's design is functional

15:04 ↗ attractive and compatible across

15:06 ↗ different projects House Bill 11on

15:09 ↗ states that middle housing regulations

15:10 ↗ cannot be more restrictive than those

15:12 ↗ for single family homes and so adopting

15:14 ↗ the design standards would apply again

15:16 ↗ to um single family and multi multif

15:19 ↗ family um because building U multif

15:21 ↗ family is being introduced into single

15:24 ↗ family neighborhoods and so we want to

15:25 ↗ ensure that um there's a compatibility

15:28 ↗ between between the design standards and

15:30 ↗ it's just important to have standards in

15:33 ↗ place for those bad apples who want to

15:34 ↗ not put these types of design elements

15:37 ↗ in their um on their building so the

15:40 ↗ administration is s suggesting that

15:42 ↗ these design um is suggesting these

15:44 ↗ design standards to ensure compatibility

15:46 ↗ also to ensure that new um new

15:49 ↗ construction is aligned with the

15:51 ↗ existing um uh buildings that are

15:53 ↗ currently in place they're in line with

15:55 ↗ the character of the neighborhood and

15:57 ↗ again to avoid featureless buildings

16:01 ↗ so during the last meeting I received

16:03 ↗ some homework there was a concern that

16:05 ↗ um the proposed design standards may be

16:07 ↗ a little bit too burdensome for

16:08 ↗ developers and so I looked at existing

16:11 ↗ datat single family homes that were

16:14 ↗ constructed over the last 5 years that

16:16 ↗ were outside of neighborhoods that have

16:18 ↗ specific design standards and many of

16:21 ↗ the homes already are incorporating

16:22 ↗ these proposed standards which leads us

16:24 ↗ to believe that the proposed amendments

16:27 ↗ um would not create a hardship or um be

16:30 ↗ difficult to

16:33 ↗ implement so I'm going to stop here and

16:36 ↗ um give it to

16:39 ↗ the all right well thank you Valerie um

16:42 ↗ to all of our commissioners but

16:43 ↗ especially our new Commissioners I know

16:45 ↗ joining a commission could be a little

16:46 ↗ bit like jumping on a you know trying to

16:49 ↗ jump on a moving train so we do want to

16:51 ↗ open it up for questions the only thing

16:53 ↗ I ask is uh maybe tip up the microphone

16:55 ↗ so we can try and keep a little bit of

16:57 ↗ theorum and a little bit less cross talk

16:59 ↗ and I'll acknowledge you and then please

17:01 ↗ step in and ask your questions so

17:04 ↗ anybody with questions as far as before

17:06 ↗ we kind of get into providing Valerie

17:09 ↗ some feedback as far as uh the standards

17:12 ↗ any questions commissioner crass thank

17:15 ↗ you commissioner crass and I probably

17:17 ↗ would have gotten the award for the um

17:20 ↗ least favored commissioner most

17:22 ↗ difficult most difficult sorry um so

17:24 ↗ Valerie thanks for going back and doing

17:26 ↗ the homework and not using my house

17:27 ↗ using my neighbor's house which is good

17:29 ↗ uh in one of those pictures um I am

17:31 ↗ curious uh first of all thanks for going

17:33 ↗ back and do the homework did you find

17:35 ↗ some that didn't fit based on the new

17:38 ↗ ones because if one of the one of the

17:41 ↗ things because I have a bias of you know

17:44 ↗ how do you regulate attractiveness or

17:47 ↗ things that are very subjective so I'm

17:49 ↗ very cautious about those things and one

17:51 ↗ of the things I was hoping that you

17:52 ↗ would find and love to hear more of when

17:54 ↗ you did that um you know did almost

17:58 ↗ everything already passed so it becomes

17:59 ↗ less of a a burden um especially when

18:02 ↗ you get to the single family houses

18:04 ↗ there someone who's doing that um so I'd

18:05 ↗ love to hear a little bit more based on

18:07 ↗ what you learned from your from your

18:10 ↗ scrub that you just

18:11 ↗ did so yes all of the Homes Incorporated

18:14 ↗ the standards um you know of course as

18:16 ↗ you can see from the images so um these

18:18 ↗ are all images from that are in isqua um

18:23 ↗ so as you can see you know the style and

18:25 ↗ the way that you know people chose to

18:27 ↗ implement these standards s varied um

18:30 ↗ you know by neighborhood and um just by

18:33 ↗ project and scale and so um no they

18:36 ↗ weren't buring some um they didn't seem

18:40 ↗ like hard but they also you can see

18:43 ↗ allow the developer to get creative and

18:45 ↗ choose you know how to apply the

18:47 ↗ different modulation or the color or the

18:50 ↗ size or you know design of the window so

18:53 ↗ it allowed you or allowed the de

18:56 ↗ developer to you know kind of provide

18:59 ↗ some um again visual interest but in the

19:03 ↗ ways that they felt that was appropriate

19:06 ↗ so just some backgrounds so one one of

19:08 ↗ these is across the street from me so I

19:09 ↗ know that and that we're we're not in an

19:11 ↗ HOA or anything like that some of these

19:13 ↗ other ones may be in either Talis or

19:16 ↗ Highland so they probably have their own

19:17 ↗ design requirements I guess I was

19:20 ↗ curious for the ones that aren't don't

19:21 ↗ already have design requirements if you

19:23 ↗ found

19:24 ↗ violations that oh they built that and

19:27 ↗ they shouldn't have in the the new rules

19:29 ↗ that would not have passed that's what I

19:31 ↗ was kind of looking for so um when we do

19:33 ↗ plan review for projects that are in um

19:36 ↗ the highlands or in Talis because

19:38 ↗ they're the ones who actually have um um

19:40 ↗ HOAs with design standards they the

19:43 ↗ applicants are required to um go through

19:46 ↗ the HOA and then have um either a stamp

19:49 ↗ or a letter stating that they are that

19:52 ↗ the HOA approves their design before the

19:55 ↗ city will um approve their project so

19:59 ↗ I'm going to say that I believe that

20:00 ↗ they're in line because we wouldn't yeah

20:03 ↗ we wouldn't have approved their um

20:05 ↗ project if they didn't have that stamp

20:07 ↗ of approval from their HOA so I can't

20:10 ↗ say you know once we approved the

20:11 ↗ project if something changed and it

20:13 ↗ didn't align but if it did they would

20:15 ↗ have to take that up with their

20:16 ↗ HOA I was I was asking a slightly

20:18 ↗ different question which was when you

20:20 ↗ went back and looked at the things have

20:21 ↗ been built the last few years did you

20:23 ↗ find some that were not part of the HOAs

20:26 ↗ take those out that

20:29 ↗ ooh this would not pass our

20:32 ↗ current you know list of requirements or

20:35 ↗ did everything you looked at the

20:37 ↗ builders did this on their own because

20:39 ↗ they want to have a attractive sellable

20:41 ↗ house so it becomes something they would

20:43 ↗ do during normal course of action yes I

20:47 ↗ believe this is something that they do

20:48 ↗ during the normal course of action

20:50 ↗ another point to mention is that um we

20:52 ↗ know of the HOA in the highlands in

20:55 ↗ Talis but we don't know where all of the

20:56 ↗ HOAs are um throughout the city and so

21:00 ↗ um but again usually when developments

21:02 ↗ are established or built they develop

21:05 ↗ the HOA before the buildings are are

21:09 ↗ around the time the buildings are

21:10 ↗ constructed so those design guidelines

21:12 ↗ may not be in place when we approve the

21:15 ↗ building

21:19 ↗ permit any other questions commissioner

21:23 ↗ there can I make a comment regarding uh

21:26 ↗ commissioner crash so uh in my prior

21:29 ↗ town where I lived uh Studio City

21:31 ↗ California I can kind of answer the

21:33 ↗ question so over time uh we had a lot of

21:36 ↗ developers coming in and buying up like

21:38 ↗ little 1940s cottages and building

21:41 ↗ mcmansions and in my neighborhood they

21:45 ↗ developed uh rules regarding what they

21:47 ↗ needed to look like aesthetically and in

21:49 ↗ the next neighborhood over just like

21:51 ↗ three blocks down they didn't and there

21:53 ↗ was really a stark contrast in the homes

21:56 ↗ the houses closer to what's known as the

21:59 ↗ Silver triangle look like concrete boxes

22:02 ↗ whereas the ones that were built in the

22:05 ↗ neighborhoods where they got together

22:07 ↗ and they made rules about the Aesthetics

22:10 ↗ uh looked in my opinion much nicer they

22:13 ↗ were more Cape Cod style they were more

22:15 ↗ like what you would see here and these

22:17 ↗ are $3.6 million homes they're pretty

22:21 ↗ I'm not you know they're pretty

22:22 ↗ expensive homes so the developers were

22:24 ↗ trying to sell them for a lot of money

22:26 ↗ but they still made ugly houses

22:33 ↗ uh commissioner

22:35 ↗ oler um up in the highlands we we do

22:38 ↗ have uh HOA design

22:40 ↗ standards sorry uh we have design

22:43 ↗ standards but um they're not static um

22:46 ↗ when we built our house uh now about uh

22:49 ↗ 12 years ago we of course adhered to

22:52 ↗ those design standards and then the city

22:55 ↗ approved our our building permit um

22:58 ↗ since then the HOA has become a little

23:01 ↗ more flexible and some of those design

23:03 ↗ standards have evolved or have been

23:07 ↗ dissolved over time and so I think it's

23:10 ↗ important to understand that they're not

23:12 ↗ static necessarily where you have

23:17 ↗ HOA all right thank

23:20 ↗ you questions

23:25 ↗ comments um so one question I have chair

23:27 ↗ voice is uh mass and facade we're

23:30 ↗ talking about taking Old Town or

23:32 ↗ something similar are you guys actually

23:34 ↗ coming up with a new plan or are you

23:35 ↗ just taking the Old Town we're not

23:37 ↗ talking about the color palette or

23:38 ↗ things like that this is just about face

23:41 ↗ facing modulation things like that

23:43 ↗ correct we're just proposing to take

23:45 ↗ these two requirements the first one

23:47 ↗ about um uh building articulation and

23:52 ↗ then um just again avoiding blank wall

23:55 ↗ call it blank wall treatment um those

23:57 ↗ are just only two standards that we're

23:59 ↗ proposing to um basically apply

24:02 ↗ Citywide but everything when else would

24:04 ↗ change we would not be implementing a

24:06 ↗ color will or we wouldn't have those

24:09 ↗ stringent requirements that we do on

24:10 ↗ Oldtown

24:14 ↗ okay all

24:16 ↗ right how's everybody feel about

24:21 ↗ this commissioner crass so I'm I'm the

24:24 ↗ one who asking all the questions because

24:26 ↗ as I said I'm very cautious about having

24:29 ↗ any legislation based on taste and and

24:32 ↗ things that are very subjective as part

24:34 ↗ of this is there an appeals process if

24:36 ↗ someone comes and says hey wait this is

24:39 ↗ close enough is there is there just a

24:42 ↗ yes or no when they put something in

24:43 ↗ that someone looks at and say Hey you

24:44 ↗ you're you're 4 feet 8 feet and Etc or

24:48 ↗ is there is there some discussion aspect

24:51 ↗ of it because there may be a reason why

24:53 ↗ something needs to be built a certain

24:54 ↗ way because there's a Heritage Tree on

24:56 ↗ the property or whatever and what is the

24:59 ↗ process um in case there is someone who

25:01 ↗ wants to build something that doesn't

25:03 ↗ meet the specs as you have them out

25:07 ↗ there so if someone cannot if someone is

25:10 ↗ not able or does not want to comply with

25:12 ↗ code we would not approve their project

25:15 ↗ so these standards are pretty um they're

25:18 ↗ pretty

25:20 ↗ um lenient in that someone should be

25:23 ↗ able to um to meet these standards um

25:27 ↗ and if they couldn't then again again we

25:28 ↗ wouldn't approve their project now there

25:30 ↗ are some instances where um like you

25:33 ↗ said maybe there's I don't know some uh

25:36 ↗ something in place that they couldn't

25:37 ↗ meet then we would just have to have a

25:39 ↗ conversation and understand what that is

25:41 ↗ but for most people they would be able

25:43 ↗ to um to um Implement these one because

25:47 ↗ um again we're giving them options so

25:50 ↗ like this first one you have to

25:52 ↗ incorporate um both of these standards

25:56 ↗ but the second one you get to choose

25:59 ↗ you can do anything within this list and

26:02 ↗ so you should be able to find at least

26:04 ↗ two things you know again add some

26:06 ↗ windows in a couple plays change um the

26:09 ↗ F facade color so we believe that they

26:13 ↗ um are reasonable and so we shouldn't

26:16 ↗ have this issue where we have to have a

26:17 ↗ a back and forth about whether or not

26:19 ↗ you can comply or not

26:29 ↗ this is all level one reviews so there's

26:30 ↗ a director now do they have discretion

26:32 ↗ to actually talk with the homeowner and

26:34 ↗ be like to commissioner cr's Point hey

26:38 ↗ we understand this might be a hardship

26:39 ↗ but if you implement this one from our

26:42 ↗ you know our table of things you can do

26:44 ↗ so there's someone to work with them oh

26:46 ↗ yeah so um I mean staff is pretty nice I

26:51 ↗ think so we can have a conversation um

26:53 ↗ but if someone wants to talk to Minnie

26:55 ↗ because she is the um decision maker on

26:57 ↗ it then they're more than welcome to

26:59 ↗ talk to me but again usually um staff is

27:02 ↗ able to um have a or find a resolution

27:05 ↗ with the developer property owner that

27:07 ↗ works for

27:13 ↗ everyone want to make sure I don't miss

27:15 ↗ anyone commissioner

27:16 ↗ zacharov

27:18 ↗ okay um I'm coming with commissioner

27:21 ↗ crass I don't typically like a whole lot

27:24 ↗ of regulations but I don't think these

27:25 ↗ are burdens on myself and again I think

27:27 ↗ it beautifies the city

27:28 ↗ uh nobody wants to be next to someone

27:30 ↗ who builds a large box and again the

27:33 ↗ city is not being um overly cumbersome

27:36 ↗ because again they're being given a list

27:38 ↗ of options and I think again to

27:40 ↗ Valerie's point they can choose uh but

27:43 ↗ asking people to build an attractive

27:44 ↗ home in our city I don't think is too

27:46 ↗ much to ask especially again for the

27:48 ↗ most part Builders are doing this anyway

27:50 ↗ Builders are trying to build attractive

27:52 ↗ homes to bring in homeowners modulation

27:54 ↗ is again that's a pretty basic component

27:56 ↗ of architecture

27:58 ↗ um you know some of the front porch

28:00 ↗ stuff is a little bit unique to isqua

28:02 ↗ but I don't see them as burdensome

28:04 ↗ because again they have multiple options

28:06 ↗ to choose from and we're not talking

28:08 ↗ about the color wheels again that

28:10 ↗ Oldtown has some of the things that

28:12 ↗ Oldtown is a little bit more restrictive

28:14 ↗ um again talking to our general comment

28:16 ↗ theight you know these houses are older

28:19 ↗ 1900s but I don't see this as

28:22 ↗ restrictive myself so I'd be in favor

28:24 ↗ for

28:25 ↗ this of course you can commissioner

28:28 ↗ gross You' expect nothing less I do cuz

28:30 ↗ I'm I'm trying to think what scenarios

28:33 ↗ do we feel like this would be the most

28:34 ↗ cumbersome and I think it's when you

28:36 ↗ have someone building on a very small

28:38 ↗ lot and like asking someone for trim or

28:42 ↗ things like that not colors that's not a

28:43 ↗ big deal when you get to the you have to

28:46 ↗ have um the

28:48 ↗ 4ot in depth and 8ft width kind of

28:51 ↗ setback things if you're on a very

28:53 ↗ strange or small lot that may make it

28:56 ↗ unbuildable because of the setbacks and

28:58 ↗ that's why I was asking if there's a way

29:02 ↗ to like I look at my lot I I have a

29:05 ↗ decent sized house but on a 2800 foot

29:07 ↗ lot and I think mine I don't think we

29:10 ↗ should talk afterwards I don't think

29:11 ↗ mine would pass this um did it you went

29:14 ↗ by my house you were across the street

29:15 ↗ from my house I wasn't sure did did I

29:17 ↗ pass your neighbor your home isn't in

29:18 ↗ Oldtown it's outside no we're talking

29:20 ↗ about doing this outside of Oldtown

29:22 ↗ correct but this would apply to

29:24 ↗ buildings over 30 feet so if you have

29:26 ↗ like a smaller lot in this or smaller

29:29 ↗ home this wouldn't apply so you have to

29:31 ↗ think a lot of the um Lots in Oldtown or

29:34 ↗ for single family duplex are a minimum

29:36 ↗ lot size is 6,000 square F feet so no

29:39 ↗ but Oldtown we're not talking we're

29:40 ↗ talking about outside like I'm in I'm in

29:42 ↗ is Valley correct I have a long skinny

29:44 ↗ lot so the my front door is over 30 feet

29:48 ↗ so but it's it's skinny in a different

29:50 ↗ way so I probably depends on which side

29:52 ↗ you count as the front and I just want

29:55 ↗ to I think it gets really when as we get

29:57 ↗ to smaller and smaller smaller lots for

29:58 ↗ people to build and when we have

30:02 ↗ setbacks that you have to be part of if

30:04 ↗ all of a sudden it may make it so

30:06 ↗ there's no room for a garage there's no

30:07 ↗ room for something else that's what I

30:09 ↗ was asking about if you have these the

30:11 ↗ flexibility of having a discussion and

30:13 ↗ getting a pance on that because

30:15 ↗ otherwise you may take a piece of

30:16 ↗ property and make it unbuildable and

30:18 ↗ I'll give you my address and I'm curious

30:20 ↗ mine probably wouldn't past this because

30:22 ↗ if you look at my front facade um I

30:24 ↗ don't have that 4 foot by 8 foot maybe I

30:27 ↗ did actually it's probably pretty close

30:30 ↗ but it's um it's one of those things

30:33 ↗ that I just want to be very cautious on

30:35 ↗ because as we're we're we're getting

30:36 ↗ smaller and smaller lots to have more

30:38 ↗ density and setbacks are still there I

30:41 ↗ want to make sure that we don't paint

30:42 ↗ ourselves in the corner on some of those

30:44 ↗ things without the flexibility to do

30:45 ↗ something creative if we needed to right

30:49 ↗ um at the moment we do not have any um

30:52 ↗ any provisions in our code that allow

30:53 ↗ for a deviation from these type of

30:55 ↗ Standards I will say that prior to the

30:58 ↗ big code update that we did in 2023 we

31:01 ↗ did have um language that allowed for an

31:05 ↗ out and um I believe it was the

31:07 ↗ recommendation of um Council to move

31:10 ↗ away from that um because everyone was

31:13 ↗ asking for them everyone so I think um

31:16 ↗ we believe these standards um are not

31:19 ↗ burdensome they're apply to Oldtown

31:21 ↗ which have a lot of small um homes and

31:25 ↗ so um we don't think they would be a

31:28 ↗ challenge now as for as for your lot

31:31 ↗ yeah but I do want to make the point

31:32 ↗ it's going to be hard to look at your

31:34 ↗ home and say you know you don't have

31:37 ↗ this and so it doesn't work it's because

31:39 ↗ you weren't required to abide by this so

31:41 ↗ I think we would have to just look at

31:43 ↗ the lot as a hold to see um you know

31:46 ↗ could a building you know 30 ft or more

31:49 ↗ you're ConEd like I live on what was an

31:51 ↗ infill so it was a single family on a

31:53 ↗ good siiz lot a builder bought it

31:55 ↗ chopped up into three lots um um so

31:58 ↗ they're all pretty small and that was

32:00 ↗ the the goal of the city to have more of

32:02 ↗ those and you're going to start seeing

32:03 ↗ more of those I'm in Isco Valley not in

32:04 ↗ Oldtown and if more of those are

32:06 ↗ happening you're probably going to have

32:07 ↗ more of those

32:08 ↗ instances um Yes mine was done before

32:11 ↗ these rules I don't I don't care about

32:12 ↗ my house I'm just saying that's an

32:13 ↗ example that made me think about this

32:15 ↗ may not be a unique situation as you're

32:17 ↗ having smaller Lots because I think you

32:19 ↗ can get down to 2 200 foot Lots I think

32:22 ↗ where we live first and then if you do

32:25 ↗ that then it just makes it um

32:29 ↗ a little more cover all all I was asking

32:32 ↗ is what is the process if and if you if

32:35 ↗ you've looked at all these different

32:36 ↗ things in the last 10 years and

32:37 ↗ everything's passed then I feel better

32:39 ↗ about it I don't

32:40 ↗ think I I don't know if we have yet so

32:44 ↗ um I'm going to be more cautious on this

32:45 ↗ than the rest of the Commissioners and I

32:47 ↗ think that's the whole point of this um

32:50 ↗ but I think I've expressed my my

32:51 ↗ thoughts thank

32:53 ↗ you so you're saying you're concerned

32:59 ↗ okay um would anyone else like to

33:01 ↗ comment to provide Valerie feedback I'm

33:03 ↗ looking at uh commissioner zacharov

33:04 ↗ commissioner Adair commissioner um

33:07 ↗ Mander Irwin commissioner oler your

33:15 ↗ P um I think that the the the

33:18 ↗ variability um for all of the designs

33:20 ↗ that are offered I think are within the

33:23 ↗ um I think the building standards and

33:25 ↗ also the character of Oldtown so I I

33:27 ↗ think that there's enough Choice here in

33:29 ↗ order for um the building standards to

33:31 ↗ be maintained so I think they're quite

33:34 ↗ beautiful all right thank you uh

33:38 ↗ commissioner

33:39 ↗ oler yeah I think what the aim here is

33:42 ↗ to create um residential scale uh and um

33:48 ↗ you know a sense of massing that is

33:51 ↗ compatible with existing buildings um it

33:54 ↗ does not go into things like sizes of

33:57 ↗ wind windows or locations of the

34:00 ↗ windows simply calls for the building

34:04 ↗ not to have blank facades on the street

34:06 ↗ um and uh so you know it's there's

34:09 ↗ nothing in there about materials or uh

34:13 ↗ roof

34:14 ↗ slopes or U you know colors and those

34:18 ↗ those sorts of things I think can tend

34:21 ↗ to create more of a a standardized ticky

34:25 ↗ tacky look here I think these

34:28 ↗ regulations allow for a lot of

34:29 ↗ flexibility and a lot of variability U

34:32 ↗ while while keeping a residential

34:35 ↗ scale great thank you commissioner

34:38 ↗ ler commissioner there um yeah and I

34:41 ↗ just want to add that I think that while

34:44 ↗ we can argue that some taste is

34:45 ↗ subjective they have done some studies

34:48 ↗ on what the human eye finds more

34:50 ↗ attractive in terms of architecture so

34:53 ↗ there's an empirical element to it and I

34:56 ↗ think that this is a great

34:58 ↗ way of

34:59 ↗ articulating what people are looking for

35:02 ↗ in a homey building structure that feels

35:06 ↗ comfortable and I think 30 ft wide is a

35:09 ↗ fairly Wide building and it looks like

35:12 ↗ there's a lot of ways to do the 4 by8

35:14 ↗ foot variability on the facade so I I

35:17 ↗ don't think it's

35:19 ↗ burdensome okay commissioner

35:22 ↗ zov good evening everyone um you can

35:26 ↗ hear me right yes

35:28 ↗ okay so well I just wanted to support

35:32 ↗ again uh what I said at the last meeting

35:35 ↗ and I truly believe that this rules are

35:37 ↗ simply made to avoid building another

35:40 ↗ project like the one that caused

35:42 ↗ moratorium years ago so I I am in

35:47 ↗ support thank you great thank you

35:49 ↗ commissioner

35:50 ↗ zakro Vice chair Patterson going once

35:53 ↗ going

35:54 ↗ twice Vice chair Patterson thank you

35:56 ↗ chair uh yeah I I am in support of this

35:59 ↗ overall I think to commissioner cr's

36:02 ↗ point maybe a bit of stress testing on

36:05 ↗ lot possibilities for the areas outside

36:08 ↗ of Oldtown um might be a kind of a happy

36:11 ↗ medium in terms of how this would uh

36:14 ↗ this change would impact some of those

36:15 ↗ maybe smaller Lots or certain lot sizes

36:17 ↗ or configurations um but I think in

36:19 ↗ terms of the design standards I I

36:22 ↗ personally am kind of in favor of those

36:25 ↗ so yeah great great thank you Vice

36:28 ↗ um again like I said I I don't think

36:29 ↗ they're too cumbersome but um I do hear

36:32 ↗ commissioner cr's Point as well as Vice

36:34 ↗ chair Patterson's and just one thing for

36:37 ↗ our our newer Commissioners again this

36:38 ↗ is an iterative process every year if

36:41 ↗ things aren't working I mean we can

36:42 ↗ always come back to things um Title 18

36:44 ↗ obviously is a big moving block that we

36:47 ↗ took on two years ago and um you know

36:50 ↗ we're still working out some Kinks so

36:52 ↗ again it's it's not something that is

36:53 ↗ just dying the cast it's over um if the

36:56 ↗ city does run into problems with it that

36:58 ↗ uh it can be addressed again

37:00 ↗ so Valerie did you get the feedback you

37:03 ↗ were looking for I did thank

37:05 ↗ you all right okay so we're going to

37:08 ↗ move on to the second question which is

37:09 ↗ does the commission agree with the

37:11 ↗ proposed open space requirements for

37:12 ↗ cottage and Courtyard housing so after

37:15 ↗ the last meeting staff H uh conducted

37:17 ↗ additional research and we're changing

37:19 ↗ our proposal we're now recommending um

37:22 ↗ new uh uh new requirements for Courtyard

37:25 ↗ housing so instead of requiring 400

37:28 ↗ square ft and 800 square ft per unit

37:31 ↗ we're now recommending 400 ft and 800

37:34 ↗ sare ft per project we believe this is

37:36 ↗ more aligned with the intent of the bill

37:39 ↗ and then it also considers sites that

37:40 ↗ are encumbered by critical era that are

37:42 ↗ required to leave that um area

37:44 ↗ undeveloped so there'll be open space on

37:46 ↗ site and so um the

37:50 ↗ new so I think during the last meeting

37:53 ↗ there was a question of you know what

37:54 ↗ does 400 or 800 square feet look like

37:57 ↗ because we've reduced the size uh 400 ft

38:00 ↗ is basically a two-car garage or like a

38:02 ↗ large living

38:04 ↗ room and 800 sare ft is uh like a pickle

38:08 ↗ ball court or a a studio apartment so I

38:12 ↗ have some the pickle ball part has a

38:14 ↗ those little dots are people give you a

38:16 ↗ little

38:18 ↗ scale so again it's always good to

38:21 ↗ understand what other cities are doing

38:22 ↗ and so um as far as the um Cottage

38:27 ↗ housing we're not changing that proposal

38:29 ↗ we're going to keep it that 300 Square

38:31 ↗ ft um we believe we're in line with you

38:33 ↗ know some of the other cities kind of in

38:35 ↗ the middle of the road um as far as um

38:38 ↗ Courtyard housing a lot of jurisdictions

38:40 ↗ are not um they don't have specific

38:43 ↗ requirements for Courtyard housing um

38:45 ↗ many folks have just said you know the

38:47 ↗ minimum Dimensions may be um 15 or 20 ft

38:51 ↗ in both directions but B is one where

38:54 ↗ they do have a minimum square foot per

38:56 ↗ unit but then they have a minimum 800 ft

38:59 ↗ per development and so again we feel

39:01 ↗ confident about the new proposal of

39:04 ↗ having um 400 square feet and 800 square

39:06 ↗ feet per

39:09 ↗ development and so POS the question

39:12 ↗ again does the commission agree with the

39:14 ↗ proposed open space requirement for

39:15 ↗ cottage and Courtyard

39:19 ↗ housing okay let's open it

39:24 ↗ up commissioner Aller Valerie could you

39:27 ↗ go back back to the slide where you um

39:29 ↗ sort of the the yeah first one oh this

39:33 ↗ one nope the uh this guy yes that one um

39:37 ↗ so I'm I'm just questioning whether 400

39:40 ↗ square feet for 10 units seems

39:44 ↗ right seems like it might be a little

39:48 ↗ small so the we're we're requiring a

39:51 ↗ minimum um no maximum so if someone

39:54 ↗ would like to provide more than that

39:55 ↗ then that's fine

39:57 ↗ but this is just

39:59 ↗ the the the starting point so typically

40:03 ↗ someone will probably provide more but

40:06 ↗ if they don't again we're um we're

40:09 ↗ pushing for more housing than open

40:12 ↗ space understood I in that 400 square

40:16 ↗ fet per our uh correspondence uh

40:20 ↗ previous to the meeting um that 400

40:23 ↗ square ft also includes Pathways to the

40:26 ↗ units correct

40:28 ↗ so what may end up in terms of open

40:31 ↗ space Green Space is somewhat limited I

40:35 ↗ mean if it's if you've got something

40:37 ↗ with 10 units and you've got 40 square

40:40 ↗ feet per unit and 20 square feet of that

40:43 ↗ is taken up by pathway not a lot left

40:46 ↗ for

40:47 ↗ Greenery that would be my

40:51 ↗ concern understand I think the other um

40:54 ↗ point to remember is that um this area

40:58 ↗ has um setbacks so a lot of the single

41:01 ↗ family zones have either 10 or 20 foot

41:04 ↗ foot setbacks which also kind of eat

41:06 ↗ into that developable area and so again

41:09 ↗ we were trying to be mindful of the open

41:11 ↗ space that's required to be provided as

41:13 ↗ well as the fact that again many single

41:15 ↗ family lots um throughout the city are

41:17 ↗ encumbered by critical areas and so

41:20 ↗ which also um takes away into from your

41:22 ↗ buildable area so so this open space

41:26 ↗ requirement is in addition to the

41:28 ↗ setback correct okay thank

41:33 ↗ you and clearly that doesn't include

41:36 ↗ critical areas correct it does not

41:38 ↗ include critical areas commissioner

41:40 ↗ crass thank you Valerie for going back

41:42 ↗ and looking at that um by the the pickle

41:45 ↗ ball court I learned something I didn't

41:46 ↗ know how big a pickle ball court is it's

41:48 ↗ a um you love them except if your

41:50 ↗ neighbor has one then makes a weird

41:52 ↗ noise um but I think I think what you

41:54 ↗ did here was great um I appreciate the

41:56 ↗ update

42:00 ↗ all right little feedback oh we got a

42:01 ↗ Simpson hand commissioner

42:04 ↗ zacharov okay now I have a question uh

42:07 ↗ between 5 to 10 units and 11 plus units

42:11 ↗ I mean 10 units and 11 units when you

42:13 ↗ have 10 units it's 400 square ft per

42:17 ↗ project and 11 is already twice more so

42:22 ↗ to me I'm thinking maybe it should be

42:24 ↗ something per unit

42:28 ↗ because it kind of like makes the

42:30 ↗ smaller

42:31 ↗ projects very unattractive for the buyer

42:35 ↗ or for the homeowner at the same time

42:38 ↗ bigger projects 11 units kind of like an

42:41 ↗ attractive for the Builder because they

42:42 ↗ need to provide more

42:45 ↗ space or like outdoor manity space so I

42:49 ↗ kind of like trying to math the math

42:53 ↗ there so maybe we should think about it

42:56 ↗ as something per

43:02 ↗ unit thank you commissioner

43:10 ↗ zacharov oh Vice chair

43:14 ↗ Patterson thank you chair voice um I

43:17 ↗ guess question with the 800 square feet

43:20 ↗ minimum per project I'm guessing maybe

43:24 ↗ you can confirm that one of the benefits

43:25 ↗ of that is that it helped

43:28 ↗ create more housing on different lot

43:30 ↗ sizes if you will meaning instead of

43:33 ↗ having like a a requirement per unit

43:35 ↗ that might cause them to create less

43:38 ↗ units in favor of less uh common space

43:42 ↗ outdoor space correct is that kind of a

43:44 ↗ yes okay gotcha okay thank

43:49 ↗ you all right um so I kind of share

43:53 ↗ commissioner oler's concern and again to

43:55 ↗ your point I know this is a minimum and

43:57 ↗ I know property here in isqua is very

43:59 ↗ expensive uh my question is is it too

44:03 ↗ cumbersome is it too much to have it

44:05 ↗ kind of staggered so I was just thinking

44:07 ↗ you know real quickly six at 400 square

44:09 ↗ ft 8 at 600 10 at 800 because my concern

44:13 ↗ is is a little bit more like those 10

44:15 ↗ units that get the 400 it's not so much

44:18 ↗ the size because I think it's six units

44:21 ↗ a small common area is fine but it's the

44:25 ↗ it's the 10 units that still get the 400

44:27 ↗ that's a little bit more concerning and

44:28 ↗ to your point if the the land is

44:30 ↗ expensive and they can only you know

44:33 ↗ they're encumbered by critical areas

44:35 ↗ that's my concern it's not so much the

44:36 ↗ the actual size it's that big jump from

44:38 ↗ 5 to 10 where there's nothing in between

44:41 ↗ so the units were um separated this way

44:44 ↗ based off of believe the threshold for

44:48 ↗ plats because we believe this would if

44:50 ↗ someone wanted to um either plat or

44:54 ↗ create tracks um so that the common

44:57 ↗ space was um owned by all um we wanted

45:01 ↗ those to be in alignment so um if we

45:05 ↗ kept the 10 um 10 unit threshold to not

45:09 ↗ create confusion because that we also

45:12 ↗ aligned it so that you don't um trigger

45:15 ↗ um a higher process right so right now

45:18 ↗ um plats are a level two level they're a

45:23 ↗ lower level and so they go to the he and

45:26 ↗ Examiner but if you um possibly have a

45:29 ↗ higher threshold it could k kick it to

45:31 ↗ the development commission which is

45:33 ↗ another public hearing process so we

45:35 ↗ were trying to align the the review

45:38 ↗ process should um someone want to do a

45:40 ↗ couple of things which is not uncommon

45:42 ↗ and so if we were to keep that 10 unit

45:46 ↗ threshold as the the

45:48 ↗ mark how would you do that so if you had

45:51 ↗ like a small medium and

45:53 ↗ large maybe um

45:57 ↗ I don't know 8 to 10 is like the medium

45:59 ↗ would that be appropriate or do you want

46:03 ↗ to do something different I mean I I

46:05 ↗ understand you're trying to line it up

46:06 ↗ with something else in the code I just

46:08 ↗ like I said

46:09 ↗ again 400's not a lot right you know

46:12 ↗ that's pretty small I was thinking about

46:14 ↗ it the day when I was reading this and I

46:15 ↗ was looking around my place and I was

46:16 ↗ like this is really small and so so like

46:20 ↗ I said that I just wondered if it's

46:21 ↗ staggered if that would be helpful as

46:23 ↗ far as what that actually looks like um

46:27 ↗ again I I'm kind of deferring to you

46:29 ↗ guys and your guys's uh expert opinions

46:32 ↗ but I just like I said my concern is

46:34 ↗ those 9 and 10 units that still are only

46:37 ↗ required the 400 so is there a way to do

46:40 ↗ that efficiently with the city where

46:42 ↗ we're not throwing things into new

46:44 ↗ standards yes I don't want I know we're

46:46 ↗ trying to move for density we're not

46:48 ↗ trying to you know throw this to a level

46:50 ↗ three where all of a sudden we have

46:51 ↗ public hearing because again we're

46:52 ↗ trying to make this easy for these

46:54 ↗ middle housing my thing was just really

46:56 ↗ more like more or less those nine units

46:58 ↗ that are still only at 400 those 10

47:00 ↗ units that are 400 is there any way we

47:03 ↗ could kind of stagger it

47:05 ↗ so yes we can um propose uh again maybe

47:10 ↗ a middle or a small medium large bucket

47:14 ↗ and we can look at that and propose

47:16 ↗ something yes

47:19 ↗ okay yeah Vice chair

47:23 ↗ Patterson looks like Stephen wants to

47:25 ↗ speak but I don't know

47:28 ↗ nope Vice chair P thank you Shar um one

47:31 ↗ thing I thought might help our

47:32 ↗ discussion is if you could maybe clarify

47:34 ↗ for us Courtyard housing and how it's

47:37 ↗ laid out because it's my understanding

47:38 ↗ that they're attached units that have a

47:42 ↗ central Courtyard is that true and

47:44 ↗ that's what we're talking about here

47:45 ↗ right it's basically kind of a starting

47:47 ↗ size for a central Courtyard right and

47:49 ↗ then the the attached Courtyard housing

47:51 ↗ would be you know somehow kind of around

47:53 ↗ it or maybe you can kind of get into

47:56 ↗ that a little bit yeah so they're

47:58 ↗ usually I believe the code requires them

48:00 ↗ to be um an L

48:02 ↗ shape I believe there's another but

48:05 ↗ basically they're L-shaped buildings and

48:07 ↗ you're right the the buildings are um

48:09 ↗ around a courtyard I believe the code

48:10 ↗ requires that they have to either see C

48:13 ↗ or L shape um and they have to either um

48:16 ↗ surround the courtyard either on two or

48:19 ↗ three sides and so uh yeah if you think

48:22 ↗ like an apartment building stacked flats

48:24 ↗ and then an open space in the middle and

48:26 ↗ and the requirement for Courtyard is

48:28 ↗ that they gain access from this

48:30 ↗ Courtyard not from the street gotcha and

48:33 ↗ that would count for the outdoor amenity

48:36 ↗ space correct like that right that area

48:39 ↗ would be their amenity space correct so

48:42 ↗ that might help clarify a little bit in

48:44 ↗ terms of you know you imagine an l-shape

48:46 ↗ or a c-shape and then that middle area

48:49 ↗ is the courtyard so realistically 400

48:52 ↗ probably isn't going to be enough for

48:55 ↗ you know 5 to 10 units probably going to

48:57 ↗ have to be bigger than that feasibly but

49:00 ↗ I mean realistically the other point to

49:04 ↗ just point out is that this is five

49:05 ↗ units or above and so this wouldn't be

49:07 ↗ going into single family zones these

49:09 ↗ would be for um multif family so um

49:12 ↗ Central areas with a little bit more um

49:16 ↗ land yeah what triggered this whole

49:18 ↗ thing for me was that when I was looking

49:20 ↗ it up online and look at it images I I

49:21 ↗ saw a lot of beautiful you know layouts

49:23 ↗ from the United Kingdom so obviously

49:26 ↗ they look like they had a little bit

49:27 ↗ more land to work with but again I I

49:29 ↗ thought of that 400 and it seems so

49:30 ↗ small but again I I know property and

49:33 ↗ isqua is very expensive so commissioner

49:36 ↗ adir uh yeah and do we need to specify

49:39 ↗ that it's contiguous are we worried

49:41 ↗ about that in terms of what the builders

49:44 ↗ might pull out I believe in the um

49:48 ↗ Community am amenity Cod we do state

49:51 ↗ that it needs to be continuous but I'll

49:52 ↗ double check that

49:57 ↗ commissioner ener so I'm I'm looking at

49:59 ↗ Cottage housing which um is not

50:02 ↗ necessarily attached dwellings correct

50:06 ↗ so if you have five units in cottage

50:09 ↗ housing you would have to have 1,500

50:12 ↗ square fet of open

50:14 ↗ space if you then had five units in

50:17 ↗ Courtyard housing you would need to have

50:20 ↗ a minimum of 1100 sare ft

50:23 ↗ less is that is that intended is that

50:26 ↗ what you're imagining that is correct

50:29 ↗ yes you would have to provide less with

50:31 ↗ Courtyard housing okay thank you

50:35 ↗ commissioner Mander Irwin did I miss you

50:38 ↗ is that your microphone oh no okay

50:42 ↗ sorry um anyone else uh would like to

50:45 ↗ give Valerie feedback on

50:48 ↗ this questions comments

50:52 ↗ concerns Valerie do you feel like you

50:54 ↗ have enough to run with yes I will be

50:57 ↗ back look at that no homework

51:00 ↗ tonight okay

51:04 ↗ moving okay parking standards so during

51:07 ↗ the last meeting I mentioned that um

51:09 ↗ parking was going to be part of a

51:10 ↗ comprehensive parking code update where

51:12 ↗ we're going to be dressing multiple um

51:14 ↗ bills so the state has um recently

51:16 ↗ passed some um new legislation and so

51:19 ↗ related to parking and so we need um

51:21 ↗ staff would like an opportunity to um

51:24 ↗ review that a little bit more and so

51:26 ↗ because have this um junee deadline for

51:29 ↗ midal housing we're going to break it up

51:31 ↗ and so middle housing is or the parking

51:33 ↗ standers are going to come back um and

51:35 ↗ so we're going to do all middle housing

51:40 ↗ together and so just wanted to remind

51:43 ↗ you very quickly what the requirements

51:44 ↗ are for um middle housing um the city

51:48 ↗ cannot require um on-site parking if a

51:51 ↗ lot is within a half mile walking

51:52 ↗ distance of a major Transit stop no more

51:55 ↗ than one parking stall can be required

51:58 ↗ um for lots that are 6,000 square ft or

52:01 ↗ smaller than 6,000 sare ft um no more

52:04 ↗ than two parking stalls can be um

52:06 ↗ required per unit for lots that are

52:08 ↗ greater than 6,000 squ ft² and again

52:10 ↗ this um that requirement that the

52:12 ↗ regulations for Middle housy must be the

52:14 ↗ same for single

52:17 ↗ family there's been a lot of confusion

52:20 ↗ um around um the requirements for major

52:22 ↗ Transit stop so I just want to um touch

52:25 ↗ on those a little bit so there are two

52:27 ↗ requirements for um related related

52:30 ↗ around major Transit stop the first one

52:32 ↗ is related to lot density and so the

52:34 ↗ city must allow four dwelling units on

52:37 ↗ one lot if that lot is within a quarter

52:40 ↗ mile walking distance of a major Transit

52:42 ↗ stop the second requirement is related

52:44 ↗ to the parking requirement and that's

52:46 ↗ where that half mile requirement comes

52:48 ↗ in and so there again um the city may

52:51 ↗ not require parking on site for um for

52:55 ↗ those lots so if you have a lot that's

52:58 ↗ within a quarter mile walking distance

53:00 ↗ they would not be required or they could

53:02 ↗ um be allowed to have four units on one

53:05 ↗ lot and no parking and

53:11 ↗ so and so um the map that you're seeing

53:15 ↗ right here is of uh a map showing the qu

53:20 ↗ mile and half mile walking distance from

53:24 ↗ the transit the isquad transit Center so

53:27 ↗ the light blue is the uh qu mile and

53:31 ↗ then the darker um outside area is the

53:34 ↗ um half mile and then the green Lots um

53:37 ↗ or the green outl lines are highlighting

53:40 ↗ the lots that are part of the walking

53:46 ↗ distance so I also want to um kind of

53:50 ↗ talk about this interpretation so uh the

53:53 ↗ state is interpreting a major Transit

53:55 ↗ stops as all sound transit bus stops so

53:58 ↗ meaning that all the lots that are

54:00 ↗ within close proximity or are there all

54:03 ↗ Lots within close proximity to Sound

54:05 ↗ Transit routes 554 and 556 must be

54:08 ↗ allowed to utilize these provisions and

54:10 ↗ so the administration disagrees with

54:12 ↗ this interpretation we are very

54:14 ↗ concerned um about the impacts that this

54:17 ↗ is going to have to a lot of neighbor

54:19 ↗ residential neighborhoods and so I just

54:20 ↗ wanted to update you and let you guys

54:22 ↗ all know that City staff is continuing

54:24 ↗ to work with um our state

54:26 ↗ Representatives um to change this

54:28 ↗ definition and we're doing this during

54:30 ↗ the current um legislation session and

54:32 ↗ so we're hoping that this definition

54:34 ↗ gets um modified before the middle

54:37 ↗ housing um regulations are

54:43 ↗ adopted can we stop you right there

54:45 ↗ because like you said this is a point of

54:46 ↗ contention and um I know obviously the

54:49 ↗ planning policy already gave some

54:50 ↗ feedback as far as the two lots that we

54:53 ↗ prefer obviously a majority of our res

54:56 ↗ residents prefer um you wouldn't happen

54:58 ↗ to have Thomas's graph too of the bus

55:01 ↗ routes the ones that looks like our

55:02 ↗ little city got you know missile the

55:05 ↗ ones with the big red

55:08 ↗ circles

55:10 ↗ I oh I do not have

55:14 ↗ that uh do not have that available

55:16 ↗ because I think that's the one that

55:17 ↗ actually shows those bus routes as major

55:20 ↗ Transit that's the one that if we could

55:22 ↗ bring because again I I I I share the

55:25 ↗ residents frustration with this and I

55:26 ↗ know the city's working on it I know

55:28 ↗ some of our emails might think we're not

55:32 ↗ but they're kind of funny but regardless

55:35 ↗ um that graph was really that picture

55:37 ↗ that slide was very helpful because it

55:39 ↗ does show currently what the state

55:41 ↗ beliefs or major Transit stops basically

55:44 ↗ covers the entire Oldtown that is

55:46 ↗ correct which is ridiculous but

55:49 ↗ obviously you guys are working hard on

55:51 ↗ that yes commissioner crass hi

55:53 ↗ commissioner crass so thanks for

55:54 ↗ fighting that I do wonder whether there

55:56 ↗ you have some power with teaming up with

55:59 ↗ Belleview specifically and other cities

56:02 ↗ that are going to have the same exact

56:03 ↗ issue with this because if you think

56:07 ↗ about what this would do if you did

56:08 ↗ every bus stop in Bellevue the entire

56:10 ↗ city of Bellevue would be considered

56:13 ↗ within a quarter mile or half mile

56:15 ↗ wherever the things is so I think you

56:16 ↗ may I'm curious if you have any

56:18 ↗ Partnerships with our neighboring cities

56:20 ↗ that have the same issue that we do and

56:22 ↗ if that helps you with the

56:23 ↗ state commissioner CR um Stephen

56:26 ↗ assistant planning director so we have a

56:28 ↗ lot of Partnerships with all of our

56:29 ↗ neighboring cities some of those cities

56:31 ↗ are already allowing the higher density

56:33 ↗ or no parking requirements in a lot of

56:35 ↗ those areas and so some of those some of

56:39 ↗ those cities may not be interested in in

56:41 ↗ any change or it's not impacting them

56:43 ↗ because they already allow some of that

56:45 ↗ but a lot of where the uh issue is is at

56:49 ↗ the state level it's the state

56:51 ↗ interpretation of this legislation that

56:53 ↗ is requiring us to um um allow these

56:57 ↗ this density and the parking um

57:00 ↗ exemption in these areas so that's what

57:02 ↗ we have to comply with and so that's why

57:03 ↗ we're working closely with our state

57:05 ↗ representatives to try to change that

57:09 ↗ interpretation yeah great thank you

57:11 ↗ Stephen um yeah and I hope that is clear

57:14 ↗ for the public that uh again this the

57:17 ↗ administration obviously the planning

57:19 ↗ policy but the administration's fighting

57:21 ↗ to get those terms changed because again

57:23 ↗ we don't believe that's fair um I'll

57:26 ↗ just say it so the residents know yes

57:28 ↗ the planning policy I mean I we haven't

57:30 ↗ asked our new Commissioners but prior to

57:32 ↗ when our first reading uh yes we wanted

57:35 ↗ the two the two the required two we

57:38 ↗ didn't want it to go up to four now I

57:39 ↗ know there's one or two voices out there

57:41 ↗ that do but as far as a commission we

57:43 ↗ were for two so um clearly that'll be a

57:46 ↗ part of the public hearing next uh

57:48 ↗ meeting but yeah so again I know it's a

57:51 ↗ little contentious but

57:53 ↗ uh that was just something I wanted to

57:55 ↗ make sure and because I saw this also on

57:56 ↗ a different page Valerie since we're

57:58 ↗ just talking about this issue really

57:59 ↗ quick I believe it

58:02 ↗ was page 61 of the packet it looks like

58:05 ↗ you guys have that wording in there for

58:07 ↗ the two correct I'm sorry I don't have

58:10 ↗ the

58:11 ↗ actual Oh you mean for the lot density

58:14 ↗ oh yes so you guys basically interpreted

58:16 ↗ what we said you guys have applied it to

58:18 ↗ the written language now again Council

58:20 ↗ has to okay that Council can do whatever

58:22 ↗ they like with our recommendation but as

58:25 ↗ far as your code code that you've

58:26 ↗ updated you've already reflected what

58:28 ↗ our will and preference was yes okay and

58:31 ↗ that's what I thought that's what I so

58:33 ↗ okay thank

58:36 ↗ you oh thank you sorry so small on the

58:40 ↗ monitor commissioner

58:43 ↗ zacharov okay I would also like to

58:46 ↗ talken um to talk about the major

58:50 ↗ Transit

58:51 ↗ stop um understanding uh with budget

58:56 ↗ cuts and budget cuts will be uh going

59:00 ↗ towards the uh King count Metro as well

59:03 ↗ and with us already having not enough

59:07 ↗ buses and buses that are not running all

59:09 ↗ the time and I am all pro public

59:12 ↗ transportation and affordable housing

59:15 ↗ and everything like that uh I don't

59:17 ↗ think that at this point this rule can

59:20 ↗ be applied to our city I'm very very

59:23 ↗ concerned about that uh so yeah I'm just

59:27 ↗ talking here in support of changing the

59:30 ↗ definition of a major Transit

59:32 ↗ stop thank you thank you commissioner

59:35 ↗ zacharov uh commissioner

59:38 ↗ oler um so I just want to have a point

59:41 ↗ of

59:42 ↗ clarification uh the the statement here

59:45 ↗ is that the city must allow for dwelling

59:48 ↗ units on all residential lots within

59:51 ↗ that quarter of mile distance but that

59:53 ↗ does not override the underlying zoning

59:57 ↗ limitations meaning setbacks Green Space

1:00:01 ↗ uh permeability things of that sort so

1:00:04 ↗ if you have a small lot you the city

1:00:07 ↗ isn't compelled to approve four units on

1:00:10 ↗ that lot that is correct so um the lot

1:00:14 ↗ will be allowed to have that but you

1:00:16 ↗ still have to meet all zoning and design

1:00:18 ↗ standards great thank

1:00:20 ↗ you yeah no great point Thank You

1:00:22 ↗ commissioner ener

1:00:27 ↗ seems like we got off track of your

1:00:29 ↗ parking am I missing something um yeah

1:00:34 ↗ can we go back to parking

1:00:36 ↗ please okay so um here are the latest

1:00:40 ↗ proposed amendments the administration

1:00:42 ↗ is proposing to um break the parking

1:00:44 ↗ requirements up by lot size um for both

1:00:47 ↗ single family and middle housing so the

1:00:49 ↗ initial um proposal I think was just to

1:00:52 ↗ add um a requirement for Middle housing

1:00:54 ↗ but we realized that we weren't really

1:00:56 ↗ in alignment and then we were possibly

1:00:59 ↗ um reducing um parking in some areas or

1:01:02 ↗ allowing more parking in other areas and

1:01:04 ↗ so just to um make sure that we are in

1:01:07 ↗ strict alignment with House Bill 11on we

1:01:10 ↗ are proposing to add um additional um

1:01:13 ↗ lines for single family um based off of

1:01:16 ↗ lot size so again that threshold of lots

1:01:19 ↗ that are 6,000 ft or less and then um

1:01:22 ↗ 6,000 ft or more um you'll notice that

1:01:25 ↗ with single family like for instance

1:01:27 ↗ single family detach there's the minimum

1:01:29 ↗ is one unit per lot and the maximum is

1:01:32 ↗ two unit per lot but for Middle housing

1:01:35 ↗ um for lot 6,000 um that are less than

1:01:38 ↗ 6,000 sare F feet the minimum is one

1:01:40 ↗ unit but there's no maximum in the event

1:01:42 ↗ that someone wants to provide more

1:01:44 ↗ parking just to address parking issues

1:01:47 ↗ in certain neighborhoods great thank you

1:01:49 ↗ Valerie commissioner CRA commissioner

1:01:50 ↗ CRA I have a question about parking yes

1:01:52 ↗ um I'm GNA stay on topic so is

1:01:56 ↗ parking within a garage counted in these

1:01:58 ↗ numbers that is correct yes so here's a

1:02:01 ↗ scenario if I look at and the only point

1:02:03 ↗ I have is about a Max on the first line

1:02:06 ↗ when you have a single family

1:02:08 ↗ detached if you have a two-car garage

1:02:12 ↗ but you also have a driveway does that

1:02:14 ↗ mean you can't have a two-car you're

1:02:15 ↗ telling someone they can't have a

1:02:16 ↗ two-car garage or does that mean you

1:02:19 ↗ that's correct so can I ask a question

1:02:21 ↗ why would we would have a Max as opposed

1:02:22 ↗ to making it at Na and if it fits let

1:02:24 ↗ them do that versus not that's so um the

1:02:29 ↗ the provisions for single family detach

1:02:31 ↗ were addressed in the last um code

1:02:33 ↗ update and so again um the goal of this

1:02:36 ↗ project is just to align with um house

1:02:38 ↗ bill um 1110 so if you would like to

1:02:41 ↗ have a discussion about possibly

1:02:43 ↗ removing that box then we can do that

1:02:46 ↗ okay that was before my time but I think

1:02:47 ↗ it's it is kind of a weird thing because

1:02:50 ↗ then says you have to build a smaller

1:02:52 ↗ garage or have a shorter driveway or

1:02:55 ↗ something like that where you can't park

1:02:56 ↗ on there versus I mean letting someone

1:02:59 ↗ have that flexibility so yeah I would

1:03:00 ↗ love to re look at why there's a Max on

1:03:02 ↗ that specific one if we I'm not sure

1:03:05 ↗ what the what the mechanism we're having

1:03:07 ↗ the conversation now what's the

1:03:08 ↗ mechanism to have that conversation um

1:03:11 ↗ we can have that conversation but I also

1:03:13 ↗ want to just um remind you that we have

1:03:15 ↗ a June deadlined and so in order to keep

1:03:18 ↗ in um align with the schedule we would

1:03:21 ↗ you would have to make a decision by the

1:03:23 ↗ public hearing and so um um I guess I

1:03:27 ↗ would like to know a little bit more

1:03:28 ↗ would you be supportive of removing the

1:03:30 ↗ max or um changing the minimum no

1:03:34 ↗ minimum is fine I think I would I would

1:03:36 ↗ if I had my magic wand I just think it's

1:03:40 ↗ odd to have a max if someone has a 5,000

1:03:44 ↗ foot lot and builds a single family

1:03:46 ↗ house you won't let them have a two-car

1:03:48 ↗ garage which seems like a weird thing to

1:03:50 ↗ do es especially if they have a drive

1:03:51 ↗ any type of driveway so I would I would

1:03:53 ↗ recommend getting rid of the Max on that

1:03:55 ↗ first line and unless someone has a

1:03:58 ↗ really good reason why it's there

1:04:00 ↗ besides it was there

1:04:11 ↗ before well I was going to say what uh

1:04:13 ↗ director dollar was going to say so if

1:04:14 ↗ the commission would like to make a

1:04:17 ↗ recommendation um that is something that

1:04:19 ↗ we can propose as part of the

1:04:20 ↗ recommendation going to the commission

1:04:22 ↗ on the public hearing and then that

1:04:23 ↗ recommendation would go to the city

1:04:25 ↗ council

1:04:26 ↗ I would like to make that recommendation

1:04:28 ↗ can you restate it please I would like

1:04:30 ↗ to make a recommendation that we remove

1:04:31 ↗ the max for the first line where it's

1:04:34 ↗ single family detached for Lots under

1:04:37 ↗ 6,000 square ft allowing a homeowner to

1:04:40 ↗ have the flexibility to have a two-car

1:04:43 ↗ garage and a driveway if they choose if

1:04:46 ↗ it fits and meets all the other

1:04:47 ↗ parameters that are built into the

1:04:51 ↗ code okay um

1:04:56 ↗ commissioner crass has asked for our

1:04:58 ↗ opinion so um we'll just make this e

1:05:01 ↗ easy if everyone's in favor of

1:05:03 ↗ commissioner crass just go ahead and say

1:05:05 ↗ I

1:05:07 ↗ I I chair I chair we need to first ask

1:05:12 ↗ for a discussion before we take

1:05:15 ↗ AAL we're going to make this real formal

1:05:18 ↗ okay it's it's more informal vote for in

1:05:20 ↗ terms of how we want staff to proceed

1:05:23 ↗ but um at least for the commissioners

1:05:26 ↗ uh benefit just having a discussion

1:05:28 ↗ before trying to take a vote okay um so

1:05:31 ↗ we'll have a brief

1:05:33 ↗ discussion uh commissioner crra why

1:05:35 ↗ don't you go ahead and Lead

1:05:37 ↗ it the basically the reason behind it

1:05:40 ↗ and what you're actually asking us to

1:05:41 ↗ look at which is the Topline single

1:05:43 ↗ family detach less than 6,000 yes I mean

1:05:46 ↗ I would love other people's perspective

1:05:48 ↗ if I missed something um on uh if you

1:05:52 ↗ believe that we should keep a Mac for

1:05:54 ↗ that first line item or eliminate it

1:05:56 ↗ like I

1:05:57 ↗ proposed commissioner

1:06:01 ↗ de I just want to play devil's advocate

1:06:04 ↗ here uh what's to stop somebody from uh

1:06:08 ↗ making a super wide driveway or giant

1:06:11 ↗ garage and having like six cars in

1:06:15 ↗ jeno's

1:06:20 ↗ garage

1:06:23 ↗ there I guess or you have the as your

1:06:26 ↗ neighbor right like you know the L yeah

1:06:29 ↗ I would assume just the property value

1:06:31 ↗ alone right and that's what's going to

1:06:33 ↗ keep people honest

1:06:36 ↗ right right and again it's they have car

1:06:39 ↗ elevators now come on now now no it's

1:06:42 ↗ it's a great point and and again that's

1:06:43 ↗ why we want to have a little bit of a

1:06:45 ↗ deliberation I I would assume probably

1:06:47 ↗ just literally the property value right

1:06:49 ↗ into commissioner cr's point this is

1:06:50 ↗ under 6,000 so how much unconditioned

1:06:53 ↗ living space would they really want on

1:06:55 ↗ this a lot um again this is Prime real

1:06:57 ↗ estate so that would be my that would be

1:07:00 ↗ my rebuttal as opposed to Playing

1:07:02 ↗ devil's advocate so for example one of

1:07:04 ↗ the pictures you had earlier my

1:07:06 ↗ neighbor's house could not build they

1:07:09 ↗ have a driveway that you could put car

1:07:11 ↗ on and they have a two-car garage the

1:07:13 ↗ lot is under 6,000 square feet they

1:07:15 ↗ couldn't do that in this so I think that

1:07:18 ↗ would be that I just think that doesn't

1:07:20 ↗ make sense

1:07:22 ↗ so chair Vice if I could just uh chime

1:07:25 ↗ in because a few Commissioners have kind

1:07:27 ↗ of asked us of of why you put in kind of

1:07:29 ↗ a maximum on of parking and typically

1:07:32 ↗ the and I can't speak to why the city

1:07:34 ↗ Isa established maximums um because many

1:07:37 ↗ of us weren't here when they had those

1:07:39 ↗ discussions uh but for for many cities

1:07:41 ↗ when they establish the maximum is

1:07:42 ↗ primarily at the um discussions around

1:07:46 ↗ the number of vehicles people are going

1:07:48 ↗ to be driving in and out of uh their lot

1:07:51 ↗ from their home they there are Street

1:07:54 ↗ standards that limit kind of the length

1:07:56 ↗ or width of driveways or garages but it

1:07:59 ↗ doesn't limit the amount of vehicles

1:08:01 ↗ that necessarily they have on site and

1:08:03 ↗ so someone could unless you are limit

1:08:06 ↗ limitting creating that limiter on the

1:08:08 ↗ number of total vehicles that they could

1:08:10 ↗ be parking as part of the development

1:08:13 ↗ they could be unlimited number of

1:08:14 ↗ vehicles going in and out of their site

1:08:16 ↗ and so that's part of the discussion

1:08:17 ↗ that most communities usually have that

1:08:19 ↗ establish that maximum um I would also

1:08:22 ↗ say that usually when you establish the

1:08:23 ↗ maximum you don't also have a minimum

1:08:25 ↗ so usually you see one or the other the

1:08:27 ↗ city as well um like some of the cities

1:08:30 ↗ in our region have

1:08:34 ↗ both all right a little bit of a

1:08:36 ↗ historical

1:08:37 ↗ perspective um does that anyone change

1:08:40 ↗ anyone's

1:08:47 ↗ perview commissioner Miler Irwin it

1:08:51 ↗ changes my perspective a bit because in

1:08:53 ↗ terms of the the visual of having three

1:08:56 ↗ or four cars stacked up in a

1:08:59 ↗ driveway that in itself I think that is

1:09:02 ↗ just it's a visual blight so um it

1:09:05 ↗ certainly gives me me pause because

1:09:07 ↗ initially um I I certainly was not on

1:09:10 ↗ the side of having a uh a maximum

1:09:12 ↗ minimum makes sense the size of a lot um

1:09:15 ↗ tells me that you could probably Cel

1:09:20 ↗ um having an issue with the um just

1:09:23 ↗ having the the minimum and not a Max

1:09:25 ↗ imum but I'm thinking about the visual

1:09:27 ↗ blight at this point of having several

1:09:29 ↗ cars stacked up in a fairly wide uh

1:09:33 ↗ driveway so

1:09:36 ↗ consideration commissioner grass that's

1:09:38 ↗ um thanks for that feedback I it is a

1:09:41 ↗ small lot so it's under 6,000 square

1:09:42 ↗ feet and you probably couldn't go too

1:09:46 ↗ deep and have a garage and still have a

1:09:48 ↗ house that would then start so I think

1:09:51 ↗ this is a there that's there's one thing

1:09:52 ↗ of the the logistics of it the other one

1:09:54 ↗ is it's also goes back to my other

1:09:57 ↗ feelings like how much is it for us to

1:09:59 ↗ regulate what's attractive and what's

1:10:01 ↗ not attractive and I think um I side on

1:10:06 ↗ I'll focus more of my energies on the

1:10:08 ↗ logistics of it um because a builder if

1:10:12 ↗ you're building a new house you're going

1:10:13 ↗ to put more square footage in the house

1:10:15 ↗ than the garage that's why new houses

1:10:18 ↗ have tiny garages you don't realize that

1:10:20 ↗ till you move in you're like wait this

1:10:22 ↗ is two feet shorter than my other garage

1:10:24 ↗ um but you're still going to want to

1:10:26 ↗ have be a put a car in a driveway so um

1:10:30 ↗ I hear I hear your point you don't want

1:10:31 ↗ to have you know 12 cars next door but

1:10:34 ↗ you probably wouldn't find that in a

1:10:36 ↗ small lot because I don't think it'd be

1:10:37 ↗ physically possible okay um we're going

1:10:40 ↗ to wrap this up real quickly with Vice

1:10:42 ↗ chair Patterson's excellent point coming

1:10:44 ↗ up and then we'll uh we're gonna we're

1:10:46 ↗ going to try and figure this out with

1:10:47 ↗ the vote so we can move on to our next

1:10:49 ↗ order of business so go ahead Vice chair

1:10:50 ↗ Patterson gotcha thank you yeah so uh

1:10:52 ↗ just trying to find a middle ground here

1:10:54 ↗ maybe there's an opportunity just rais

1:10:56 ↗ the maximum to say four um it sounds

1:10:58 ↗ like there's a consideration to like

1:11:00 ↗ having a two-car garage and then also

1:11:02 ↗ having like two cars in the driveway

1:11:04 ↗ which seems like kind of maybe a happy

1:11:06 ↗ mediumish um but that's kind of my

1:11:10 ↗ raising the maximum to four is where I'd

1:11:13 ↗ land on that okay um well I I suppose

1:11:18 ↗ since what we basically have is

1:11:20 ↗ commissioner cr's original no maximum or

1:11:25 ↗ key keeping it the way it is let's start

1:11:27 ↗ with that and see if there's any type of

1:11:28 ↗ support for that I'm going to credit uh

1:11:31 ↗ these great Commissioners for changing

1:11:32 ↗ my mind and this it's not broke don't

1:11:34 ↗ fix it type deal so I'm just going to

1:11:36 ↗ say leave it um but we probably should

1:11:39 ↗ do this more formally than we just we

1:11:42 ↗ just want to say all in favor of

1:11:44 ↗ commissioner cass's recommendation say I

1:11:47 ↗ okay all in favor of commissioner

1:11:49 ↗ Craft's

1:11:51 ↗ recommendation that we get rid of the

1:11:54 ↗ maximum for single family detached homes

1:11:56 ↗ less than 6,000 square ft please say

1:12:00 ↗ I

1:12:01 ↗ I all right so that fails even though

1:12:06 ↗ it's not formal again

1:12:10 ↗ so

1:12:11 ↗ um

1:12:15 ↗ call we have two people that voted no

1:12:18 ↗ yeah so just um for proper procedure if

1:12:21 ↗ so for a vote it's it's a standard

1:12:23 ↗ process to call for eyes and call for no

1:12:25 ↗ so if you don't mind calling for no just

1:12:26 ↗ so we have a clear record that' be

1:12:28 ↗ appreciated Y no problem so all in favor

1:12:32 ↗ say

1:12:33 ↗ I all in favor say no

1:12:37 ↗ no

1:12:40 ↗ no so it kind of worked I I think you

1:12:43 ↗ had a I think you had three nose one eye

1:12:47 ↗ and two

1:12:50 ↗ extensions sure but let's try and wrap

1:12:52 ↗ this up I do this is another one where

1:12:54 ↗ if you

1:12:55 ↗ if we go back to smaller Lots people

1:12:58 ↗ building houses which ones would fail

1:13:02 ↗ this I think you're going to find a

1:13:04 ↗ fairly High degree of single family

1:13:07 ↗ homes that will will exceed this maximum

1:13:10 ↗ and I think um it's something that we

1:13:12 ↗ should have more consideration on I'm S

1:13:15 ↗ I am surprised that we quickly flipped

1:13:17 ↗ to that um I I like Jesse or Jesse's

1:13:22 ↗ commission Vice I'm sorry I'm inform

1:13:25 ↗ formal um Vice chair Patterson's um

1:13:29 ↗ having a Max that's that's higher could

1:13:31 ↗ be four because then you could have a

1:13:32 ↗ two-car garage and a driveway you could

1:13:33 ↗ park on but I think leaving it as a with

1:13:37 ↗ a maximum of two is going to once again

1:13:40 ↗ reinforce that isqua is a very difficult

1:13:43 ↗ place to do business and build

1:13:46 ↗ it okay so we'll we'll try this one more

1:13:51 ↗ time all in favor or who support

1:13:54 ↗ commissioner C cles uh recommendation

1:13:56 ↗ that we get rid of the maximum for

1:13:59 ↗ single family uh less than 6,000 ft

1:14:03 ↗ please say

1:14:05 ↗ I I that is two

1:14:08 ↗ eyes okay now all who object please say

1:14:13 ↗ no

1:14:15 ↗ no no no okay so I count one two three

1:14:21 ↗ four all who'd like to abstain abstain

1:14:27 ↗ okay um yes I'll read this out loud we

1:14:30 ↗ have two that support four that object

1:14:32 ↗ and one that abstains for the

1:14:42 ↗ record oh I'm okay Jesse did you want to

1:14:45 ↗ make a

1:14:49 ↗ motion uh yes I would thank you chair uh

1:14:52 ↗ Vice chair parison I would like to make

1:14:53 ↗ a motion to increase increase the

1:14:55 ↗ maximum for single family detached for

1:14:57 ↗ lot lots less than 6,000 ft to 4 per

1:15:01 ↗ unit

1:15:04 ↗ maximum okay so that is the motion on

1:15:07 ↗ the floor um all in favor of Comm Vice

1:15:11 ↗ chair Patterson's motion please say I I

1:15:16 ↗ I okay I that's unanimous we'll go I

1:15:21 ↗ there some Direction

1:15:26 ↗ they me

1:15:27 ↗ off life is nothing but other than right

1:15:30 ↗ life is nothing if not compromised

1:15:32 ↗ so okay now um I

1:15:36 ↗ believe uh before we let Valerie go we U

1:15:39 ↗ is there any other questions concerns

1:15:41 ↗ for Valerie but we do want to move along

1:15:43 ↗ we do have another part to get to yeah I

1:15:46 ↗ was going to suggest that um you know

1:15:48 ↗ this item official public hearing is

1:15:50 ↗ next um meeting so if there's more

1:15:53 ↗ information you needed we could always

1:15:55 ↗ come back but sounds like we we have

1:15:56 ↗ direction from you on what to do with

1:15:58 ↗ the maximum and and good good

1:15:59 ↗ conversation good issue brought forward

1:16:02 ↗ in terms of this is a problem because

1:16:03 ↗ you could have two car garage and two

1:16:05 ↗ car spaces outside which adds up to four

1:16:08 ↗ and that solves that sort of problems

1:16:10 ↗ but um your official voting and stuff

1:16:14 ↗ will actually happen at the next meeting

1:16:15 ↗ after you close the public hearing

1:16:17 ↗ that'll be your formal recommendation to

1:16:19 ↗ council so you'll still have an

1:16:20 ↗ opportunity to make motions and other

1:16:22 ↗ things at that time but we take

1:16:24 ↗ Direction for this to inform the packet

1:16:26 ↗ for next week's meeting yeah that's

1:16:29 ↗ where I got confused it started going

1:16:30 ↗ very formal all of a sudden but thank

1:16:32 ↗ you Minnie and before we let you go

1:16:34 ↗ Valerie did you get everything that you

1:16:35 ↗ needed from the commission this evening

1:16:37 ↗ I did but I just want to briefly let you

1:16:39 ↗ guys or quickly go over the timeline so

1:16:41 ↗ like Minnie said um at the next meeting

1:16:43 ↗ that will be the public hearing for

1:16:44 ↗ mental housing where we'll be um asking

1:16:47 ↗ for a formal recommendation and then

1:16:49 ↗ again April 1 is when we're going to

1:16:51 ↗ take this um item to um pte the council

1:16:54 ↗ committee and then hopefully um to uh

1:16:57 ↗ City Council in May for adoption so uh

1:17:01 ↗ that is it thank you all right well

1:17:03 ↗ thank you Valerie that was fantastic a

1:17:05 ↗ great conversation and then I think the

1:17:07 ↗ only request I had was uh that Thomas's

1:17:10 ↗ chart for the the one that shows the

1:17:13 ↗ mass transit for the public

1:17:17 ↗ hearing chair voice yes we can follow up

1:17:20 ↗ the commission and send that graphic to

1:17:22 ↗ the Commissioners on Thomas's map

1:17:23 ↗ showing that the city wide routes and

1:17:25 ↗ the stops correct yeah okay perfect okay

1:17:27 ↗ thank you thank you

1:17:30 ↗ Valerie okay we're moving on to our next

1:17:32 ↗ item of regular business and this

1:17:35 ↗ evening we're going to receive a

1:17:36 ↗ presentation from our city clerk Tisha

1:17:40 ↗ geyser um who's going to provide the

1:17:43 ↗ Commissioners with their annual open

1:17:45 ↗ government

1:17:46 ↗ training all

1:17:48 ↗ right and then Tisha just a question for

1:17:51 ↗ you um I know it's tough to present so

1:17:54 ↗ are there

1:17:55 ↗ would you like us to just kind of

1:17:56 ↗ bombard you with questions do you have

1:17:58 ↗ little breaks in the presentation that

1:18:00 ↗ you want us to kind of wait for you're

1:18:02 ↗ welcome to ask questions anytime I give

1:18:04 ↗ this presentation a lot

1:18:06 ↗ so okay Tia whenever you're

1:18:09 ↗ ready my slides

1:18:15 ↗ here all right so as um the chair said

1:18:19 ↗ my name is Tisha gizer I'm the city

1:18:20 ↗ clerk I've met most of you and some of

1:18:23 ↗ you have heard this training more than

1:18:25 ↗ so I apologize but um I'm here today to

1:18:28 ↗ ensure you have your required open

1:18:30 ↗ government and public records training

1:18:31 ↗ and then I'm going to touch on a couple

1:18:33 ↗ of meeting procedures I particularly

1:18:35 ↗ want the new members to uh be aware

1:18:38 ↗ of uh and firstly before I get started

1:18:41 ↗ thank you thank you and actually sitting

1:18:43 ↗ here listening to your discussion and

1:18:45 ↗ the Nuance um and complexity of the

1:18:47 ↗ issues you're weighing in on makes me

1:18:49 ↗ even more grateful that we have

1:18:51 ↗ community members willing to serve in

1:18:52 ↗ these seats and devote your hours of

1:18:54 ↗ time sitting in this chamber reading

1:18:56 ↗ your packet so thank you all right so um

1:19:01 ↗ let's talk a little bit about um this

1:19:03 ↗ open government training so Washington

1:19:05 ↗ State really values transparency in

1:19:07 ↗ government and they have two laws that

1:19:09 ↗ I'll be sharing with you today that

1:19:10 ↗ really highlight this and we call them

1:19:12 ↗ the sunshine laws um if I didn't already

1:19:15 ↗ just say this because they shine light

1:19:17 ↗ on uh government processes and so this

1:19:20 ↗ includes open meetings and accessible

1:19:22 ↗ records the reason we give this training

1:19:24 ↗ is under state law you're required to

1:19:26 ↗ receive it as a volunteer with the city

1:19:29 ↗ serving in a body such as this that is

1:19:31 ↗ uh subject to both of these state laws

1:19:34 ↗ and you know the city and in some cases

1:19:36 ↗ yourself have liability if there's a

1:19:39 ↗ violation of these so we want to ensure

1:19:41 ↗ you're

1:19:42 ↗ aware so we're going to start by talking

1:19:44 ↗ about open meetings uh so what this

1:19:47 ↗ means is literally your meeting is is

1:19:49 ↗ open so your doors are open we've had

1:19:51 ↗ some folks coming in and out of the

1:19:52 ↗ lobby tonight which is great so we

1:19:54 ↗ always will have your meetings in a

1:19:55 ↗ location with an open door and then the

1:19:58 ↗ virtual meeting we publish the password

1:20:00 ↗ so anyone can pop into your uh virtual

1:20:02 ↗ meeting at any time uh and there are

1:20:05 ↗ very very few exceptions to this this is

1:20:07 ↗ ensuring that people uh who you're sort

1:20:10 ↗ of representing in these seats have

1:20:12 ↗ access to observe you working through

1:20:14 ↗ your issues and making decisions that

1:20:16 ↗ impact

1:20:17 ↗ them uh so this slide here uh the um

1:20:21 ↗ sort of colored uh phrases are showing

1:20:25 ↗ the state's uh minimum requirements

1:20:28 ↗ related to open meetings and then I'll

1:20:29 ↗ just be sharing with you what isqua

1:20:32 ↗ practices are so we have to publish your

1:20:35 ↗ agendas and post them at your meeting

1:20:37 ↗ site 24 hours in advance but as you've

1:20:39 ↗ noticed we tip we aim to publish your

1:20:42 ↗ agendas the Friday before your meeting

1:20:43 ↗ to give you all some time over the

1:20:45 ↗ weekend or in those um other early days

1:20:49 ↗ of the week to review your packets and

1:20:51 ↗ be aware of what's on the agenda also to

1:20:53 ↗ give the public that notice

1:20:55 ↗ we have to take meeting minutes so you

1:20:57 ↗ have a recording secretary who's not

1:20:59 ↗ here in fact I'm actually not exactly

1:21:01 ↗ sure where she resides but she is uh

1:21:03 ↗ dutifully documenting your meetings in

1:21:06 ↗ writing and that is a requirement and

1:21:08 ↗ then as you likely know you're on camera

1:21:10 ↗ hopefully you know that you're on camera

1:21:12 ↗ tonight so your meetings are live

1:21:14 ↗ streamed on uh our we have a a landing

1:21:18 ↗ page on our website where the live

1:21:19 ↗ stream goes out on YouTube also on TV

1:21:21 ↗ channel 21 and your meetings are also

1:21:23 ↗ recorded and then posted on the YouTube

1:21:26 ↗ channel uh so again a lot of access to

1:21:29 ↗ government here like you heard me say

1:21:31 ↗ the public can also attend your WebEx

1:21:33 ↗ meetings virtually as well um I talked

1:21:36 ↗ to you about the fact that you're always

1:21:38 ↗ going to be meeting in an open location

1:21:40 ↗ a state law also says public comment has

1:21:42 ↗ to be accepted if you're taking action

1:21:44 ↗ at a meeting which in your case would be

1:21:46 ↗ those recommendations to the city

1:21:47 ↗ council and as you know public comment

1:21:49 ↗ is a fixture in all your meetings and

1:21:52 ↗ sometimes you have those public hearings

1:21:53 ↗ as well

1:21:55 ↗ and then uh just one uh mention here

1:21:58 ↗ about your special meetings so uh you

1:22:00 ↗ guys have regular meetings twice a month

1:22:02 ↗ you're actually our only commission that

1:22:04 ↗ does all of our other commissions meet

1:22:06 ↗ just monthly and some of them even less

1:22:08 ↗ than that um because of that you don't

1:22:10 ↗ need special additional meetings very

1:22:13 ↗ often but just wanted to let you know

1:22:15 ↗ that if we have to adjust your like at a

1:22:18 ↗ meeting or adjust your meeting date or

1:22:19 ↗ time for any reason under state law we

1:22:21 ↗ have to call that a special meeting and

1:22:23 ↗ when we have a special meeting you can

1:22:25 ↗ only discuss and act on items on your

1:22:27 ↗ published agenda so that's which is

1:22:29 ↗ typically what you do anyways I'm just

1:22:31 ↗ letting you know it's not a good meeting

1:22:32 ↗ to bring up a new topic that's really

1:22:34 ↗ not

1:22:36 ↗ allowed okay and then uh just a comment

1:22:39 ↗ here especially for anyone who might

1:22:40 ↗ tune into to our City Council meetings

1:22:42 ↗ sometimes the state law does outline a

1:22:44 ↗ few reasons we can have closed sessions

1:22:47 ↗ where the public is um not allowed and

1:22:49 ↗ you hope let's hope that the Planning

1:22:52 ↗ Commission does not need to participate

1:22:53 ↗ in one of those because usually it's for

1:22:55 ↗ things like pending litigation um sort

1:22:58 ↗ of um sort of contracts with staff

1:23:01 ↗ collective bargaining things like that

1:23:02 ↗ so things that are not likely to come

1:23:04 ↗ before the commission but I wanted to

1:23:06 ↗ let you know because um they do exist

1:23:09 ↗ and our city council actually goes into

1:23:11 ↗ them um somewhat

1:23:14 ↗ frequently okay so then um a couple

1:23:16 ↗ things that I want you to know about as

1:23:19 ↗ Commissioners is uh what your Quorum is

1:23:21 ↗ so your Quorum is the minimum number of

1:23:23 ↗ members that we need to have a meeting

1:23:26 ↗ um which is part of why we highly value

1:23:29 ↗ our alternate members because it helps

1:23:31 ↗ ensure that we can have a meeting even

1:23:32 ↗ if folks are traveling or you know it's

1:23:35 ↗ the summer whatnot um so we need at

1:23:38 ↗ least four of you uh here with us and

1:23:40 ↗ your rules say it can be in person or

1:23:42 ↗ virtually but we need four to have any

1:23:44 ↗ kind of meeting um and I'm going to be

1:23:47 ↗ talking to you a little bit about why we

1:23:49 ↗ want you to think about that number four

1:23:50 ↗ outside of your meetings as well well

1:23:53 ↗ actually that's the next bullet here so

1:23:54 ↗ let's talk about it so um anytime you're

1:23:58 ↗ four of you are together and you're

1:23:59 ↗ talking about things like parking

1:24:02 ↗ requirements in isqua that could be

1:24:04 ↗ considered a meeting state law says when

1:24:06 ↗ you're discussing items before the

1:24:08 ↗ commission or acting on them that can be

1:24:10 ↗ considered a meeting so we really don't

1:24:12 ↗ want you to do that outside one of our

1:24:14 ↗ notice public meetings so we don't even

1:24:17 ↗ and to be quite honest we don't even

1:24:19 ↗ like the meeting ends and then four of

1:24:21 ↗ you are standing outside on the sidewalk

1:24:23 ↗ after the meeting talking about what you

1:24:24 ↗ just experienced like even we don't even

1:24:27 ↗ really want that um we want you to be

1:24:29 ↗ doing working through your issues here

1:24:31 ↗ at the dis which you did tonight really

1:24:33 ↗ beautifully and sometimes that can be

1:24:35 ↗ uncomfortable because you don't know

1:24:36 ↗ where your fellow Commissioners are at

1:24:39 ↗ on an issue so you're having to kind of

1:24:40 ↗ put yourself out there um but that's

1:24:43 ↗ that's what in Washington state that was

1:24:45 ↗ what was intended and these same rules

1:24:47 ↗ apply to our city council and our other

1:24:48 ↗ boards and commissions um so let's talk

1:24:52 ↗ a little bit more about that number four

1:24:54 ↗ uh we don't want four of you like

1:24:55 ↗ physically together say there's a event

1:24:57 ↗ at the isqua Highlands council's hosting

1:24:59 ↗ and it's relating to design standards in

1:25:01 ↗ the highlands or something we wouldn't

1:25:03 ↗ want four of you attending that together

1:25:05 ↗ and especially sitting together um if we

1:25:09 ↗ hadn't noticed it as a meeting so in

1:25:11 ↗ cases like that which I expect will be

1:25:13 ↗ rare um if you're that fourth person

1:25:16 ↗ don't group with the others maybe

1:25:18 ↗ consider leaving and asking them to

1:25:19 ↗ report out similarly if there's a

1:25:21 ↗ regional um like event or something

1:25:24 ↗ something that's of interest to you guys

1:25:25 ↗ we recommend you designate a few folks

1:25:28 ↗ to go less than four and report back at

1:25:30 ↗ the your next commission

1:25:32 ↗ meeting um so kind of the last bullet

1:25:35 ↗ here and something to think about which

1:25:37 ↗ is not kind of totally intuitive and I

1:25:39 ↗ had not heard of before I began working

1:25:42 ↗ for a local government in Washington

1:25:43 ↗ state Was a Serial meeting and so there

1:25:46 ↗ have been some court cases that have

1:25:47 ↗ found that a discussion can even occur

1:25:50 ↗ if it's like cumulative so what this

1:25:53 ↗ means is if um one of you us reach out

1:25:56 ↗ to another commissioner after a meeting

1:25:58 ↗ and are like gosh I'm really not you

1:25:59 ↗ know unsure about how you're going to

1:26:01 ↗ vote on the 27th on an issue or

1:26:03 ↗ something like that and then one of the

1:26:05 ↗ two of you then shares that conversation

1:26:09 ↗ with two other members and passing and

1:26:11 ↗ email all of a sudden you've got four

1:26:13 ↗ folks who've kind of shared who now know

1:26:16 ↗ each other's viewpoints going into a

1:26:18 ↗ meeting we don't we can't even have that

1:26:21 ↗ and so um what that means is you can

1:26:23 ↗ have one or people on the commission you

1:26:25 ↗ reach out to and talk with and that's

1:26:26 ↗ great but then don't go sharing their

1:26:28 ↗ viewpoints with other Commissioners and

1:26:31 ↗ also where we're really careful with

1:26:32 ↗ this is email because email it's so easy

1:26:34 ↗ to do this right respond with some input

1:26:37 ↗ it gets forwarded other people kind of

1:26:39 ↗ glom on um and so we try and be diligent

1:26:43 ↗ with email if you have things you want

1:26:44 ↗ to share with staff that is totally fine

1:26:47 ↗ don't copy other Commissioners if you

1:26:49 ↗ have information you want your other

1:26:51 ↗ Commissioners to receive so when I say

1:26:53 ↗ information um it wouldn't really be

1:26:55 ↗ appropriate for you to email like your

1:26:57 ↗ Viewpoint and ask that to be shared but

1:26:59 ↗ you could email an article of Interest

1:27:01 ↗ or you know something that's

1:27:03 ↗ informational send it to Stephen and he

1:27:05 ↗ can distribute it to the commission so

1:27:07 ↗ we kind of try and have you sort of

1:27:09 ↗ communicate through staff just to

1:27:11 ↗ prevent any inadvertent issues with

1:27:13 ↗ email so I should send him my ugly house

1:27:16 ↗ pictures then yes yeah and then he can

1:27:19 ↗ distribute those and then we recommend

1:27:21 ↗ you not do a reply all right so yes you

1:27:25 ↗ can send those to Stephen um so if

1:27:28 ↗ you're if you are find yourselves

1:27:31 ↗ together at an event in isqua you four

1:27:34 ↗ of you can be there and you can talk

1:27:35 ↗ just try not to talk about your PPC

1:27:38 ↗ upcoming PPC meeting um and also you can

1:27:41 ↗ meet socially as a group like you can

1:27:44 ↗ have a Social and sometimes we've kind

1:27:46 ↗ of helped even facilitate that you can

1:27:48 ↗ meet socially together just keep your

1:27:50 ↗ conversation more on a personal or work

1:27:53 ↗ uh topic okay any questions about that

1:27:57 ↗ okay um one Tish real quick and and I

1:28:01 ↗ believe I know the answer to this but

1:28:02 ↗ when we took the tour of Oldtown because

1:28:05 ↗ it was staff uh Leed you know Stephen um

1:28:09 ↗ Valerie let it but was that an open

1:28:12 ↗ meeting right so that was published and

1:28:14 ↗ everything so that's why there was no

1:28:15 ↗ fear of us talking about those housing

1:28:18 ↗ types together yeah no I just like I

1:28:21 ↗ said I don't remember the email I'm sure

1:28:23 ↗ it was but I just just I couldn't

1:28:24 ↗ remember how I heard about it other than

1:28:27 ↗ being here yes chair voice um we we are

1:28:31 ↗ constantly keeping track of any of you

1:28:33 ↗ attending any events and if we're even

1:28:35 ↗ close to a quorum we're going to put the

1:28:37 ↗ public notice out and so for um for

1:28:40 ↗ instance the tours they were advertised

1:28:42 ↗ if we had a quorum or even close to a

1:28:44 ↗ quorum we advertised it as a public

1:28:48 ↗ meeting okay um so again one of the

1:28:52 ↗ reasons we train on this is because our

1:28:54 ↗ are penalties for some of these things

1:28:55 ↗ and actually for the these open meetings

1:28:57 ↗ um violations they are assessed to to

1:29:00 ↗ you as a person not to the city of isqua

1:29:02 ↗ so we just really want to make sure

1:29:03 ↗ you're aware and also it can um if

1:29:07 ↗ you're if let's hope this not doesn't

1:29:09 ↗ happen but if someone is found to have

1:29:11 ↗ knowingly

1:29:13 ↗ um uh breached this uh requirement the

1:29:17 ↗ action action could be impacted that the

1:29:19 ↗ commission has taken on that

1:29:22 ↗ issue all right so we're going to move

1:29:25 ↗ over to records and talk just for a few

1:29:27 ↗ minutes about the public records act so

1:29:30 ↗ the city and actually the city clerk's

1:29:32 ↗ office handles a lot of public records

1:29:33 ↗ requests in the city but we as a public

1:29:36 ↗ agency we have a form on our website and

1:29:38 ↗ anywhere anyone in the world can request

1:29:40 ↗ records of us at any time we have we can

1:29:42 ↗ charge fees they're very very very

1:29:45 ↗ nominal fees um and it's it's

1:29:47 ↗ interesting people can really ask us for

1:29:49 ↗ whatever they want they can ask for any

1:29:51 ↗ and all Communications we've had with

1:29:53 ↗ one of you or with a particular staff

1:29:55 ↗ person or with a particular phrase or on

1:29:57 ↗ a particular topic um and so what that

1:30:00 ↗ means is we just have to be careful

1:30:02 ↗ aware of what we're keeping where our

1:30:04 ↗ records are at and so that if we are

1:30:06 ↗ receive one of those requests we have to

1:30:08 ↗ provide any records we have so that's

1:30:10 ↗ the purpose of giving you just a little

1:30:12 ↗ bit of training um on this today and

1:30:15 ↗ again the idea being the public should

1:30:17 ↗ have a right to view records that the

1:30:19 ↗ government is

1:30:20 ↗ producing um so I'm going to just uh go

1:30:24 ↗ through this slide real quick here so

1:30:26 ↗ most of your most of your meeting

1:30:28 ↗ documents though we're generating and

1:30:30 ↗ we're sending to you so those things you

1:30:32 ↗ don't have to think about we've got them

1:30:34 ↗ we got copies we'll handle those um but

1:30:37 ↗ things we do want you to think about are

1:30:39 ↗ emails that might come to you directly

1:30:41 ↗ as a commissioner and not to the group

1:30:43 ↗ you have your own uh emails and we won't

1:30:46 ↗ have a record of those so two ideas one

1:30:50 ↗ is when you do any kind of response

1:30:53 ↗ includes St that puts your email in our

1:30:55 ↗ city email archive um and ensures we

1:30:58 ↗ have a copy the other thing is some

1:31:00 ↗ Commissioners do choose to open a

1:31:02 ↗ separate email account so they can

1:31:03 ↗ really keep any commission emails

1:31:06 ↗ separate again you don't have to be

1:31:08 ↗ worrying about keeping emails that

1:31:10 ↗ Stephen send sends you we have those

1:31:13 ↗ it's just if a Community member or

1:31:14 ↗ someone external was to reach out to you

1:31:17 ↗ so again you could if you'd really like

1:31:19 ↗ to kind of separate your commission work

1:31:22 ↗ you could have a separate email account

1:31:23 ↗ or you can can just commit to forward or

1:31:25 ↗ copy City staff on any non uh City

1:31:29 ↗ emails you might get uh similarly

1:31:32 ↗ different but related to records if

1:31:35 ↗ you're a note taker and you're taking

1:31:36 ↗ notes in preparation for your meeting at

1:31:38 ↗ the meeting after the meeting that is

1:31:40 ↗ okay and our records rules say that

1:31:43 ↗ those kinds of records are they're

1:31:45 ↗ called transitory you don't have to keep

1:31:47 ↗ them once they're no longer useful to

1:31:49 ↗ you what that means is you can

1:31:50 ↗ periodically get rid of those you can

1:31:52 ↗ get rid of them as soon as you need them

1:31:55 ↗ um if you choose to keep those though

1:31:57 ↗ and we did get a record request on

1:31:59 ↗ something the commission had discussed

1:32:01 ↗ we would be asking you for those so if

1:32:03 ↗ you keep notes and you're keep retaining

1:32:05 ↗ them just make sure you know where

1:32:07 ↗ they're at they're organized you could

1:32:09 ↗ provide them if

1:32:10 ↗ requested um I can't think of really

1:32:13 ↗ many or any other records you might have

1:32:15 ↗ I suppose if you generate something as a

1:32:17 ↗ commission member to assist you um you

1:32:20 ↗ know again sh share it with us but I

1:32:22 ↗ think those situations would be pretty

1:32:23 ↗ rare

1:32:26 ↗ all right so so Tisha I actually do have

1:32:29 ↗ one that I think I generated and it was

1:32:31 ↗ to wish commissioner crass good luck on

1:32:33 ↗ his surgery would that actually count no

1:32:36 ↗ because that's really more sorry as a

1:32:39 ↗ like a accomplishment that he had he had

1:32:42 ↗ surgery oh oh oh um no because I would

1:32:48 ↗ say you did that more because of your

1:32:49 ↗ relationship with him not in your not

1:32:51 ↗ necessarily in your role as a

1:32:53 ↗ commissioner and we do sometimes need to

1:32:55 ↗ ask our attorneys to help because

1:32:57 ↗ sometimes the line can be a little

1:32:59 ↗ blurry but I would say in that case

1:33:02 ↗ no that should be that should be fine

1:33:05 ↗ that was not in your duties as a

1:33:07 ↗ commissioner more as a colleague and

1:33:10 ↗ friend okay so let's touch on the code

1:33:12 ↗ of ethics real quick our new members

1:33:14 ↗ have you received a link to our code of

1:33:16 ↗ ethics that you can

1:33:18 ↗ recall maybe maybe not no okay so I'll

1:33:21 ↗ make sure and send that to you we have a

1:33:22 ↗ code of ethics document we just ask you

1:33:24 ↗ to read through it it talks to you about

1:33:26 ↗ not receiving gifts or gratuities for

1:33:28 ↗ your service on the commission um it

1:33:31 ↗ talks to you about some some of the

1:33:33 ↗ state ethics laws and it covers some of

1:33:35 ↗ the things I'm training on tonight um so

1:33:37 ↗ I will make sure you have a link to

1:33:40 ↗ that and then these are just c a couple

1:33:43 ↗ of meeting uh expectations I wanted to

1:33:45 ↗ just go over again with the new members

1:33:47 ↗ can be reminders for current members um

1:33:51 ↗ so attendance is important to us

1:33:53 ↗ particularly for the Planning Commission

1:33:55 ↗ because you host public hearings and we

1:33:57 ↗ have to notice those in the news we we

1:33:59 ↗ have some notice requirements that have

1:34:01 ↗ a financial impact and a planning impact

1:34:04 ↗ you're one of the first steps in you

1:34:06 ↗ know a multi-step process with these

1:34:08 ↗ code changes and so we want to make sure

1:34:10 ↗ we have a quorum um so please if you

1:34:13 ↗ have planed travel uh reach out to Steph

1:34:16 ↗ in advance and let him know even if

1:34:18 ↗ there's not a planned meeting on that

1:34:19 ↗ day if it's for a I would say if it's a

1:34:22 ↗ multi-day trip at my might be worth

1:34:24 ↗ mentioning um but particularly if it's

1:34:27 ↗ on one of your Thursday meeting

1:34:29 ↗ nights um we hope that you we expect

1:34:32 ↗ that you provide some kind of advanced

1:34:34 ↗ notice if it's an immediate unexpected

1:34:37 ↗ issue any kind of notice is appreciated

1:34:39 ↗ so you can be noted as excused at the

1:34:41 ↗ beginning of the meeting but if we don't

1:34:43 ↗ hear from you it's considered an

1:34:44 ↗ unexcused absence and if you have

1:34:47 ↗ consecutive unexcused absences it there

1:34:50 ↗ can be cause for removal I don't we have

1:34:53 ↗ really great attendance um from our

1:34:56 ↗ commissioners in general but I just want

1:34:57 ↗ to share those expectations and that

1:35:00 ↗ goes for regular and Alternate members

1:35:03 ↗ um and then as I mentioned and as you

1:35:05 ↗ see with commissioner zacharov tonight

1:35:07 ↗ the PPC rules do allow they they are a

1:35:10 ↗ bit strict they do say that if you're

1:35:12 ↗ unable to be in the meeting room that

1:35:15 ↗ you can participate virtually so it does

1:35:17 ↗ imply you know work travel a medical

1:35:19 ↗ issue not just um I don't really want to

1:35:23 ↗ feel like driving down to City Hall

1:35:25 ↗ tonight so there is definitely a meet

1:35:28 ↗ in-person expectation but there's an

1:35:30 ↗ allowance for virtual participation uh

1:35:33 ↗ and we ask that you let staff know and

1:35:36 ↗ uh like commissioner Zach has done

1:35:38 ↗ tonight you can fully participate in the

1:35:40 ↗ meeting you can count toward the Quorum

1:35:42 ↗ you can vote if you're a regular member

1:35:44 ↗ or an alternate serving as a regular we

1:35:46 ↗ do ask you to try and keep your camera

1:35:48 ↗ on the duration of the

1:35:52 ↗ meeting okay there not any questions on

1:35:54 ↗ that um the stien program I wanted to

1:35:57 ↗ make sure everyone was aware of this

1:35:59 ↗ program it is a program that is

1:36:02 ↗ available for anyone who is at or below

1:36:04 ↗ 100% Ami it uh provides up to not up to

1:36:09 ↗ it provides $50 per meeting to

1:36:11 ↗ compensate you for transportation child

1:36:13 ↗ care we there's no caveats on the funds

1:36:17 ↗ but this was something that was

1:36:18 ↗ important to the city council and

1:36:19 ↗ important to the city um to offer to

1:36:22 ↗ commissioners so if this is a program

1:36:24 ↗ see if I have a second slide here oh

1:36:26 ↗ here's just the Ami slide so you can

1:36:28 ↗ take a quick look at that um if you are

1:36:31 ↗ interested in applying for this program

1:36:33 ↗ we just ask you to attest to the that

1:36:36 ↗ you meet the income requirements there's

1:36:38 ↗ no uh documentation required on that

1:36:41 ↗ side so it's a very simple process and

1:36:43 ↗ then we issue checks a few times a year

1:36:45 ↗ um so again just want you to be aware of

1:36:47 ↗ that and I will include a link to that

1:36:49 ↗ for our new Commissioners when I send

1:36:50 ↗ you the ethics information uh and if

1:36:53 ↗ anyone else is interested the URL is

1:36:55 ↗ listed below or you can reach out to

1:36:58 ↗ me okay sorry this is a little dis my

1:37:01 ↗ slide order here is a little disjointed

1:37:03 ↗ but we're going to go back to meeting

1:37:04 ↗ procedures for just a moment here and

1:37:06 ↗ just clarify alternates and regular

1:37:08 ↗ members so can you let me know who's an

1:37:11 ↗ alternate in the room commissioner Adair

1:37:14 ↗ okay and then the other commissioner is

1:37:15 ↗ absent tonight okay so just to just to

1:37:18 ↗ so everyone's clear on this because it

1:37:19 ↗ has been a point of confusion in past uh

1:37:24 ↗ years so the goal you have a seven-

1:37:26 ↗ member Planning Commission we want seven

1:37:28 ↗ members voting whenever possible so um

1:37:33 ↗ if all nine of you are here seven

1:37:35 ↗ regular members and two alternates you

1:37:37 ↗ know only seven people can vote so in

1:37:40 ↗ those cases the alternates would not

1:37:41 ↗ vote but if if even one regular

1:37:43 ↗ commissioner is missing or two the

1:37:46 ↗ alternates vote so it's it can be

1:37:48 ↗ helpful for the chair to clarify and if

1:37:50 ↗ you're an alternate and you're unsure

1:37:52 ↗ like just ask before before the vote is

1:37:55 ↗ completed like am I voting or not but

1:37:57 ↗ the goal is you you want to get to Seven

1:37:59 ↗ but you can't go past seven if that

1:38:01 ↗ makes sense um the rules say that uh you

1:38:04 ↗ know providing input and feedback is

1:38:06 ↗ always welcome but once there's like a

1:38:07 ↗ formal motion on the floor alternates

1:38:10 ↗ don't make motions don't debate or vote

1:38:12 ↗ on motions unless they're filling in for

1:38:14 ↗ a regular member but as you see so often

1:38:17 ↗ there's some informal feedback being

1:38:19 ↗ provided and alternates are always

1:38:20 ↗ welcome to participate in that uh

1:38:24 ↗ and so hopefully that was that was clear

1:38:26 ↗ and we appreciate our alternate

1:38:31 ↗ members all right and then um just a a

1:38:34 ↗ couple comments about your meeting

1:38:36 ↗ agenda it looks like you all um got your

1:38:39 ↗ meeting agenda we do send our agendas

1:38:41 ↗ out through a subscription and I know

1:38:44 ↗ the email um can be problematic it can

1:38:46 ↗ sometimes get caught in people's junk

1:38:48 ↗ emails so here on screen is this is the

1:38:51 ↗ email your agenda links will come to um

1:38:55 ↗ I Compass Tech is the product we use for

1:38:57 ↗ all of our uh meeting Publications did

1:38:59 ↗ anyone have I've heard there have been

1:39:01 ↗ some issues receiving it want here have

1:39:03 ↗ any issues I had one but it was resolved

1:39:06 ↗ you had Okay so we've been kind of

1:39:08 ↗ confirming we've got your emails correct

1:39:10 ↗ um so if you can yeah whitel list it

1:39:13 ↗ sounds like you may have already done

1:39:14 ↗ that the other thing you can always do

1:39:16 ↗ and I I didn't navigate to it on my

1:39:19 ↗ slides here but I'm guessing you found

1:39:20 ↗ the Planning Commission landing page on

1:39:22 ↗ the website

1:39:24 ↗ you've been able to navigate there so

1:39:25 ↗ your agendas are also published there so

1:39:27 ↗ we want to get you this email but just

1:39:30 ↗ know you can always go there to access

1:39:32 ↗ them as well um and then a quick comment

1:39:35 ↗ and let's see if I do have a slide here

1:39:37 ↗ you may have noticed on your agendas

1:39:40 ↗ there's the little a d and I indicator

1:39:43 ↗ that's next in parentheses and that's

1:39:45 ↗ designed to let you know if you're being

1:39:47 ↗ asked to say anything so if it's an

1:39:50 ↗ informational item usually that means

1:39:52 ↗ your feedback isn't NE necessary or

1:39:54 ↗ required so you just can listen um D is

1:39:57 ↗ there's likely to be some discussion and

1:39:59 ↗ a is when you're making your formal

1:40:00 ↗ recommendations like you will on the

1:40:02 ↗ 27th we do that to try and help you feel

1:40:05 ↗ a little prepared and then I'm sure

1:40:07 ↗ you've seen we're we're attaching lots

1:40:09 ↗ of exhibits you guys definitely win for

1:40:12 ↗ the biggest uh boarding commission

1:40:14 ↗ packets you have lots of uh documents

1:40:16 ↗ that you are get to

1:40:19 ↗ review all right so that was all I was

1:40:21 ↗ planning to cover tonight thank you for

1:40:23 ↗ your time and uh this is an email

1:40:26 ↗ address you can reach myself and the

1:40:27 ↗ rest of the clerk's team at if you have

1:40:28 ↗ questions about anything I covered

1:40:30 ↗ tonight thank you so

1:40:32 ↗ much all right well I think we all want

1:40:34 ↗ to thank our fantastic city clerk Tisha

1:40:37 ↗ gizer uh thank

1:40:41 ↗ you okay

1:40:43 ↗ um looks like we're going to move along

1:40:46 ↗ to our last item of regular business and

1:40:50 ↗ this is to discuss Title 18 proposed

1:40:52 ↗ policy of amendments Kristen Leon our

1:40:55 ↗ principal planner will be presenting on

1:40:57 ↗ this topic so Kristen nice to see you

1:41:00 ↗ whenever you're ready

1:41:35 ↗ there we

1:41:36 ↗ go I apologize it takes a minute to get

1:41:39 ↗ my Behemoth of a computer setup

1:41:41 ↗ sometimes

1:42:00 ↗ all right there we go hi I am Kristen

1:42:03 ↗ Leon I'm a principal planner with the

1:42:05 ↗ community planning and development

1:42:07 ↗ department and we are here tonight to

1:42:10 ↗ talk about more policy Title 18 policy

1:42:14 ↗ amendments we're going to review it I'll

1:42:16 ↗ go through these and then you all will

1:42:17 ↗ discuss and provide feedback for me for

1:42:19 ↗ our next meeting no action will be taken

1:42:22 ↗ tonight

1:42:24 ↗ so it as a little information for our

1:42:26 ↗ new members welcome new members um we in

1:42:30 ↗ 2023 did a complete overhaul of our land

1:42:32 ↗ use code and when taking on a project

1:42:35 ↗ that large there is no way that we are

1:42:37 ↗ going to get it perfect as hard as we

1:42:39 ↗ try it won't be so we are continually

1:42:42 ↗ going through our code reviewing it

1:42:44 ↗ trying to make sure you know for quality

1:42:46 ↗ control and we have best practices in

1:42:48 ↗ place and so

1:42:50 ↗ forth and so we have a big list and we

1:42:53 ↗ have broken these up into clarifying

1:42:55 ↗ amendments and policy amendments and we

1:42:58 ↗ just had our public hearing on

1:43:00 ↗ clarifying amendments I believe many of

1:43:02 ↗ you watched that meeting uh tonight

1:43:04 ↗ we're starting to talk about some more

1:43:06 ↗ policy amendments and we talked about

1:43:07 ↗ some a few months ago and even late last

1:43:10 ↗ year we're going to bring those back so

1:43:11 ↗ that you can see those again but here

1:43:13 ↗ are some new

1:43:14 ↗ ones so we really as it we call these

1:43:18 ↗ policy amendments but the further we got

1:43:20 ↗ into this we didn't have a whole lot of

1:43:22 ↗ policy questions for some of these so

1:43:24 ↗ this isn't and this is just food for

1:43:26 ↗ thought okay so if you identify anything

1:43:30 ↗ that needs to be clear or additional

1:43:32 ↗ changes that are needed or more

1:43:33 ↗ information that you need just let me

1:43:38 ↗ know so our first one that we're going

1:43:40 ↗ to talk about is Building height and

1:43:42 ↗ this

1:43:43 ↗ is all of our zones in all of our zones

1:43:46 ↗ particularly our multif family and

1:43:48 ↗ Commercial zones we have a base Building

1:43:50 ↗ height and you can build up to that

1:43:52 ↗ Building height go for it but if you

1:43:54 ↗ want to go above that Building height

1:43:56 ↗ there are other requirements necessary

1:43:59 ↗ so in our old code we had a section and

1:44:02 ↗ you all received it in your packet but

1:44:04 ↗ there was a section that said if you

1:44:06 ↗ want to go up to 45 ft if you want to or

1:44:09 ↗ 50 ft if you want to go to 58 ft if you

1:44:11 ↗ want to go to 65

1:44:13 ↗ ft above the and 65 ft you have to do

1:44:16 ↗ these steps for each one and those

1:44:20 ↗ regulations for those heights were

1:44:22 ↗ intended initially it was Citywide

1:44:24 ↗ Citywide but then we wrote the central

1:44:26 ↗ isqua standards and we took all that out

1:44:29 ↗ and we said if you want to go above our

1:44:31 ↗ base height then you have to participate

1:44:34 ↗ in our density bonus program which

1:44:36 ↗ either gets the city it gets the city a

1:44:38 ↗ public benefit of either affordable

1:44:40 ↗ housing or open space but when we

1:44:43 ↗ rewrote the code that differentiation

1:44:46 ↗ that that separation of the two of the

1:44:48 ↗ standards wasn't included and so right

1:44:52 ↗ now the way the code is is written is

1:44:53 ↗ that all of these standards that are

1:44:56 ↗ here plus the density bonus apply to all

1:44:58 ↗ the projects in central isqua so we're

1:45:00 ↗ just trying to clear that up so that was

1:45:02 ↗ the misinterpretation there was no

1:45:04 ↗ intent included when we rewrote it so we

1:45:06 ↗ included an intent we're including an

1:45:08 ↗ intent in our proposed amendments we

1:45:10 ↗ added applicability which that's the

1:45:12 ↗ clarification piece to say that this

1:45:14 ↗ goes to zones outside of central squa

1:45:16 ↗ that have they can go to a maximum

1:45:18 ↗ height of 65 ft outside of central isqua

1:45:21 ↗ Talis and Highlands because they have

1:45:23 ↗ their own they're slightly different so

1:45:25 ↗ we added that to clarify which zones

1:45:27 ↗ this applies to The Way It Was Written

1:45:30 ↗ in the new code it said approval

1:45:31 ↗ criteria for up to 65 ft above the base

1:45:34 ↗ Building height we don't have any um

1:45:37 ↗ criteria that allows buildings to go

1:45:39 ↗ above 65 ft outside of those other areas

1:45:42 ↗ so we took that out and then this one's

1:45:44 ↗ a little different we're no longer by

1:45:47 ↗ state law we are no longer allowed to

1:45:49 ↗ require uh structured parking in

1:45:52 ↗ residential developments or developments

1:45:55 ↗ with residential as part of it so we

1:45:57 ↗ took that out since we can't really

1:45:59 ↗ require it

1:46:01 ↗ anymore okay

1:46:04 ↗ next this one has to do with home

1:46:06 ↗ business Adult Family Home and Family

1:46:09 ↗ Daycare so home businesses are intended

1:46:13 ↗ for to allow people to use businesses to

1:46:17 ↗ have businesses in their homes that are

1:46:19 ↗ not actually permitted there by right so

1:46:23 ↗ someone wants to start selling Insurance

1:46:26 ↗ out of their house there requirements

1:46:27 ↗ that they can only have so much parking

1:46:29 ↗ so many trips to in from their house a

1:46:31 ↗ day if they have signage there are

1:46:33 ↗ strict requirements on that there's lots

1:46:35 ↗ of requirements to come with it okay but

1:46:38 ↗ what came up is that family daycare

1:46:41 ↗ centers there's a difference between

1:46:42 ↗ daycare center and Family Daycare Center

1:46:44 ↗ Family Daycare Center is much smaller

1:46:46 ↗ family daycare centers and adult family

1:46:49 ↗ homes are actually Allowed by right they

1:46:51 ↗ are permitted in these single family

1:46:53 ↗ zones so we're clarifying that to take

1:46:56 ↗ them out of the home business occupation

1:46:58 ↗ because the the regulations for these

1:47:01 ↗ conflict a little bit so we're taking

1:47:03 ↗ that out um we clarified the purpose of

1:47:07 ↗ the home business standards which is

1:47:08 ↗ that it's for uses not permitted by

1:47:10 ↗ right because that's not already there

1:47:12 ↗ and there were home Adult Family Home

1:47:17 ↗ operations or standards at the bottom of

1:47:19 ↗ the home business occupation so we move

1:47:23 ↗ that back up to the um daycare center

1:47:27 ↗ and Adult Family Home standards so we

1:47:29 ↗ just switch that

1:47:30 ↗ around okay we

1:47:34 ↗ good okay moving on this is the last one

1:47:37 ↗ for

1:47:38 ↗ tonight uh development bonus program fee

1:47:41 ↗ and lose I mentioned in the beginning

1:47:43 ↗ that we have a program in central isqua

1:47:47 ↗ where you can go above the base height

1:47:49 ↗ if you participate in the development

1:47:51 ↗ bonus program now when we first started

1:47:53 ↗ writing this it was intended to get just

1:47:55 ↗ a more affordable housing and that's

1:47:57 ↗ still a piece of it and that if you're

1:47:59 ↗ doing a development with a residential

1:48:02 ↗ component you go above the base building

1:48:04 ↗ fight height you have to require or you

1:48:06 ↗ have to include affordable housing in

1:48:08 ↗ your

1:48:09 ↗ development

1:48:11 ↗ um if you don't have room to do this if

1:48:14 ↗ you're going to do a fraction of it you

1:48:15 ↗ can pay a fee and Lew that goes

1:48:17 ↗ into what's called our iHip fund which

1:48:20 ↗ goes toward affordable housing you can

1:48:23 ↗ pay a fee in L um but the fact that this

1:48:27 ↗ fee could go toward affordable housing

1:48:31 ↗ was omitted from the update it was in

1:48:33 ↗ the original one it was omitted from

1:48:34 ↗ this one so we're putting it back in

1:48:37 ↗ there's also a sentence in there that

1:48:38 ↗ says that the community Planning and

1:48:42 ↗ Development Department director's

1:48:43 ↗ responsibility is it's that person's

1:48:45 ↗ responsibility for the acquisition of

1:48:47 ↗ open space conservation easements and

1:48:49 ↗ development rights but the way the

1:48:51 ↗ code's written that's really the

1:48:52 ↗ council's Authority the director is not

1:48:56 ↗ responsible for that so we remove that

1:48:58 ↗ sentence

1:49:00 ↗ okay those are the only amendments I

1:49:02 ↗ have tonight um we will be back on we're

1:49:06 ↗ not coming back on the 27th anymore

1:49:08 ↗ we'll be back on April 10th the public

1:49:10 ↗ hearing will be April 24th and then it

1:49:13 ↗ will hopefully head to the Planning

1:49:16 ↗ Development and environment committee on

1:49:17 ↗ May 6th and then to uh the city council

1:49:20 ↗ for action on June 2nd

1:49:23 ↗ so back to Food For Thought and any

1:49:26 ↗ questions you may have too just throw

1:49:30 ↗ them up there thank you

1:49:32 ↗ Kristen I'm looking for questions

1:49:35 ↗ questions for

1:49:44 ↗ Kristen

1:49:48 ↗ okay give it a little bit of time you

1:49:50 ↗ never know there might be one that comes

1:49:52 ↗ up

1:49:56 ↗ since we're waiting here one thing I did

1:49:57 ↗ have a question on it's pretty

1:49:59 ↗ straightforward um the home business

1:50:02 ↗ standards

1:50:04 ↗ Kristen it I think I just was getting a

1:50:07 ↗ little caught up on some wording

1:50:11 ↗ so they're

1:50:15 ↗ not what we're dropping is not the home

1:50:17 ↗ business permit it's the site permit

1:50:22 ↗ there is actually a home business permit

1:50:25 ↗ that is

1:50:32 ↗ required therefore home occupation

1:50:34 ↗ permits home occupation permits are not

1:50:40 ↗ necessary I think that got changed this

1:50:42 ↗ we used to call home businesses home

1:50:43 ↗ occupations and I think that got changed

1:50:45 ↗ in our update so I should change

1:50:48 ↗ the home business to or home occupation

1:50:52 ↗ to home business whever it is

1:50:57 ↗ okay um and then there was just one line

1:51:00 ↗ in the issue for reason for change uh

1:51:04 ↗ both uses are permitted uses by right in

1:51:06 ↗ a single family residential zones with

1:51:09 ↗ the exception of family daycares which

1:51:11 ↗ are not allowed in UV single family and

1:51:13 ↗ UV multif family and then just down

1:51:16 ↗ below in the actual code it says family

1:51:18 ↗ daycare centers must

1:51:20 ↗ comply only when located being located I

1:51:24 ↗ imagine in the UV so that kind of they

1:51:26 ↗ have to comply with the home occupation

1:51:28 ↗ standards only when in the UV SF and UV

1:51:31 ↗ MH zones but then the is mixed up the

1:51:34 ↗ way I say it right but then it says with

1:51:36 ↗ the exception of family daycares which

1:51:38 ↗ are not allowed in

1:51:40 ↗ UVS by right so I will yeah they're only

1:51:43 ↗ allowed as home occupations so I'll

1:51:45 ↗ double check that language okay just a

1:51:47 ↗ little confusing for

1:51:48 ↗ me um okay I bought you guys some time

1:51:51 ↗ you got to help me out anybody have any

1:51:53 ↗ questions anything any feedback for

1:51:55 ↗ Kristen on these uh important policy

1:52:00 ↗ amendments Vice chair Patterson just a

1:52:03 ↗ clarifying question on the fee andl

1:52:05 ↗ regarding affordable housing um just a

1:52:08 ↗ little bit more detail on what that

1:52:10 ↗ means exactly so they pay us money it

1:52:12 ↗ goes into a pot and then that's used for

1:52:15 ↗ affordable housing like consultation

1:52:17 ↗ like what what does that mean correct so

1:52:19 ↗ it could be and I can talk to our city

1:52:21 ↗ attorneys and see if we can um beef this

1:52:23 ↗ up a little bit but it would be for the

1:52:27 ↗ purchase of land for affordable housing

1:52:31 ↗ maintenance preservation or affordable

1:52:34 ↗ housing

1:52:40 ↗ itself okay um going

1:52:43 ↗ once commissioner Ada there I have a

1:52:47 ↗ question about the daycare Amendment

1:52:49 ↗ where it says 7B that a daycare center

1:52:52 ↗ uh oh no sorry 7 C The Adult Family Home

1:52:57 ↗ must have no more than six residents and

1:53:00 ↗ Adult Family Home May provide services

1:53:02 ↗ up to eight adults upon approval so is

1:53:06 ↗ that saying that's the exception would

1:53:08 ↗ be that if they have approval so that

1:53:11 ↗ might be something that could be

1:53:13 ↗ clarified a little more yes okay and

1:53:15 ↗ that's that's exactly the way it's

1:53:16 ↗ written in the state law so I'll see if

1:53:19 ↗ I can clarify it more

1:53:29 ↗ okay uh I don't want to pick on but I

1:53:33 ↗ thought I saw a hand commissioner Linda

1:53:34 ↗ win please you did thank you um I did

1:53:37 ↗ have a concern uh about the uh

1:53:40 ↗ affordable housing uh fee in L um in

1:53:43 ↗ terms of uh what the overall intent is

1:53:47 ↗ of that my my concern as I hear this and

1:53:50 ↗ not have a whole bunch of information

1:53:52 ↗ which which is someone's ability to kind

1:53:54 ↗ of uh I guess buy um a consideration in

1:53:59 ↗ order to uh for affordable housing where

1:54:03 ↗ uh the intent may not be in in good

1:54:05 ↗ faith so have a little bit of a concern

1:54:07 ↗ there but not a lot of understanding of

1:54:10 ↗ it as of yet so any any time that the

1:54:12 ↗ fee and L is used city council has to

1:54:15 ↗ improve it and it has to meet the intent

1:54:18 ↗ of the

1:54:20 ↗ code thank you

1:54:24 ↗ yeah those are great thank you um all

1:54:27 ↗ right I'll say it one more time going

1:54:28 ↗ going once going

1:54:32 ↗ twice okay okay got thank you got off

1:54:36 ↗ lightly tonight Kristen you should have

1:54:37 ↗ seen your poor colleague Valerie getting

1:54:39 ↗ grilled up here for like an hour

1:54:42 ↗ watched okay well thank Kristen um yeah

1:54:47 ↗ that takes it for regular business this

1:54:49 ↗ evening uh we're going to move to city

1:54:51 ↗ council updates so staff if you have any

1:54:54 ↗ updates please go ahead chair voice I

1:54:57 ↗ just have a couple updates for you so

1:54:59 ↗ earlier this week city council reviewed

1:55:01 ↗ the L rail vision and guiding principles

1:55:04 ↗ draft uh Thomas presented to city

1:55:06 ↗ council and U provided a lot of great

1:55:09 ↗ feedback and so that's going to be

1:55:10 ↗ returning to full city council for

1:55:12 ↗ tentative approval in April um next week

1:55:16 ↗ city council is going to be taking a

1:55:17 ↗ look at the comprehensive plan docket

1:55:19 ↗ and they'll also be getting a update

1:55:21 ↗ from staff

1:55:22 ↗ um on permitting process improvements

1:55:25 ↗ and uh reporting on permit timelines so

1:55:28 ↗ if you're interested in learning more

1:55:29 ↗ about that the material should be

1:55:30 ↗ available

1:55:32 ↗ now that's it for city council

1:55:35 ↗ updates okay uh moving right along uh

1:55:39 ↗ other business and announcements so are

1:55:41 ↗ there any updates to the calendar or

1:55:43 ↗ other business announcements from

1:55:45 ↗ staff uh just a couple updates we'll be

1:55:49 ↗ looking at triode at u a few different

1:55:51 ↗ dates just slightly adjusted on the

1:55:53 ↗ calendar and then we'll be holding two

1:55:55 ↗ public hearings on March 27th those are

1:55:57 ↗ the biggest updates to the

1:56:00 ↗ calendar all right two public hearings

1:56:02 ↗ uh next

1:56:04 ↗ meeting okay well that takes it care of

1:56:06 ↗ our announcements I have one one quick

1:56:10 ↗ announcement um chair voice I was asked

1:56:12 ↗ to provide just a quick update on the

1:56:14 ↗ Pioneer program and um thus far we have

1:56:16 ↗ one interested party in in active permit

1:56:20 ↗ as part of the program but no active

1:56:22 ↗ land use or building permits associated

1:56:24 ↗ with Pioneer program that are currently

1:56:26 ↗ in the queue that's great the Pioneer

1:56:27 ↗ program that was some of the work we did

1:56:29 ↗ with the EVC I believe last year so

1:56:33 ↗ um yeah again some of the the the work

1:56:36 ↗ that we were able to share with the

1:56:38 ↗ economic Vitality commission it's great

1:56:40 ↗ to hear there's a little bit of movement

1:56:42 ↗ so

1:56:43 ↗ fantastic okay is that all our updates

1:56:46 ↗ that's it from

1:56:47 ↗ staff okay well thank you Stephen and I

1:56:49 ↗ want to thank all our staff tonight

1:56:51 ↗ Kristen good tonight Minnie Stephen uh

1:56:55 ↗ Tisha it's great to see you we don't get

1:56:56 ↗ to see you often so always a pleasure

1:56:59 ↗ and obviously we want to thank Valerie

1:57:01 ↗ for her hard work this evening um I do

1:57:03 ↗ also want to say uh again looking

1:57:05 ↗ forward to working with our new

1:57:06 ↗ Commissioners uh had a great first

1:57:09 ↗ outing our first evening and um yeah I

1:57:13 ↗ think that's it if anyone has anything

1:57:15 ↗ to say for the good of the order or

1:57:18 ↗ anything in general we'll we'll open it

1:57:20 ↗ we'll leave it open for a few seconds

1:57:23 ↗ no

1:57:24 ↗ takers okay we'll adjourn this meeting

1:57:27 ↗ of the planning policy commission at

1:57:29 ↗ 8:29 p.m. good night

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community P & D Tisha Gieser, City Clerk Amanda Jackson, Meeting & Records Assistant Stephen Padua, Assistant Planning Director Valerie Porter, Associate Planner

Recommendations & actions (5)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

CHAIR VOISS announced that the originally scheduled Public Hearing had been moved to March 27,
a) Minutes of February 27, 2025 There being no corrections or comments, the Minutes were approved.
a) Public Hearing: Title 18 Middle Housing Amendments (A) As announced at the beginning of the meeting, the Public Hearing has been moved to March 27,
Porter replied that if an applicant does not want to or is not able to comply, the project would not be approved.
COMMISSIONER KRASS replied that a minimum was okay but recommended removing a maximum.