Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, March 12, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 26, 2026

packet pp.3–11

▶ Watch from 1:02 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, February 26, 2026

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18 Clarifying Amendments: Site Development Permits, Plats and Construction Permit Sequencing and Donation Bins (D)

Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Emily Medina, Senior Planner Kristen Javier, Assistant Planner · packet pp.13–26

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 2:26 Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the March 12 briefing is to review the second round of proposed clarifying code updates to the Title 18, Land Use Code. Staff will brief the Commission on three proposed code amendments.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.27–29

▶ Watch from 43:12 Open packet at p.27 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2026 Schedule (subject to change) 1/9/26 1/22/26

1221 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ Good evening, Isaqua, and good evening

0:08 ↗ everyone in chambers. Uh, we'd like to

0:11 ↗ call this meeting of the Planning Policy

0:13 ↗ Commission to order, the March 12th

0:15 ↗ meeting, and it currently is 6:41.

0:19 ↗ Whoa, we're running a little bit behind,

0:22 ↗ but uh, so apologies, but 6:41 p.m.

0:26 ↗ Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The

0:27 ↗ planning policy commission is in person,

0:29 ↗ but staff or members of the public may

0:31 ↗ be attending virtually or in person.

0:35 ↗ Staff, do we have a quorum this evening?

0:37 ↗ >> Yes, we do.

0:39 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you, Amanda. And just a

0:41 ↗ note, um, Commissioner Miller Irwin will

0:44 ↗ be joining us virtually this evening.

0:46 ↗ And we also have two excused absences.

0:49 ↗ >> Correct. Commissioners Olen and

0:55 ↗ >> Zacharov and Zacharov.

0:57 ↗ >> Correct. Great. Thank you.

0:59 ↗ >> Okay, we're going to begin as we always

1:02 ↗ do with the approval of minutes. So

1:06 ↗ hopefully all of you guys were looking

1:07 ↗ through your packet. You'll notice that

1:09 ↗ there was a quite a big um packet of

1:12 ↗ minutes. So this was for the February

1:14 ↗ 26th PPC meeting. Um, any questions,

1:18 ↗ concerns, or comments from our

1:21 ↗ commissioners?

1:23 ↗ Okay, great. And I don't see

1:26 ↗ Commissioner Miller Irwin. Is she

1:29 ↗ >> Oh, there she is. She's on the left.

1:31 ↗ Okay. Hi, Leslie. Um, any any concerns?

1:35 ↗ Commissioner Miller Irwin, I didn't

1:36 ↗ catch you down there on my screen.

1:43 ↗ I'm

1:43 ↗ >> ah, I just unmuted myself. Uh, no. chair

1:46 ↗ voice. Uh the minutes look great. Thank

1:48 ↗ you.

1:49 ↗ >> Wonderful. Thank you, commissioners. So

1:51 ↗ those meeting minutes are approved and

1:54 ↗ now we want to move on to our public

1:56 ↗ comment. So again, at every meeting we

2:00 ↗ hold general public comment at this time

2:02 ↗ and this is for general topics for the

2:04 ↗ good of the planning policy commission.

2:07 ↗ Staff, has anyone signed up in the room

2:10 ↗ or online to make general public

2:12 ↗ comments?

2:13 ↗ >> No, chair. There has no one signed up

2:15 ↗ today. Okay, thank you Amanda. Would

2:17 ↗ anyone in the room like to make general

2:19 ↗ public comments?

2:21 ↗ All right,

2:24 ↗ moving along. We are going to begin with

2:26 ↗ tonight's regular business. And our

2:29 ↗ first and only item on the agenda is

2:32 ↗ title 18 clarifying amendments, site

2:35 ↗ development, permit process, plat and

2:38 ↗ construction permit sequencing, and

2:40 ↗ temporary use requirements for donation

2:43 ↗ bins.

2:45 ↗ Um, so we're going to begin by

2:47 ↗ continuing to have that discussion on

2:49 ↗ these clarifying amendments that we uh

2:52 ↗ started two weeks ago. And Kate Kaney,

2:55 ↗ our principal planner, Emily Medina, our

2:58 ↗ senior planner, and Kristen Javiier

3:02 ↗ Javier, our assistant planner, will be

3:04 ↗ presenting this evening. So Kate, Emily,

3:07 ↗ and Kristen, please go ahead when you're

3:09 ↗ ready.

3:16 ↗ I hit the right button here. And

3:20 ↗ there we go.

3:22 ↗ Get the presentation

3:25 ↗ up properly. And is it on? Great. It's

3:28 ↗ on screen. Thank you. Um, thank you,

3:31 ↗ chair. And my name is Kate Kaney. I'm

3:32 ↗ principal planner here. and we have

3:34 ↗ Emily Medina and Kristen Javier who will

3:38 ↗ um be taking on the more technical part

3:40 ↗ of the review. Um tonight we will be

3:44 ↗ continuing the commission's review of

3:46 ↗ what we've been calling the clarifying

3:48 ↗ code amendments. There are those annual

3:50 ↗ amendments that we do um often call them

3:52 ↗ housekeeping amendments, more on the

3:54 ↗ minor side, but um important and very

3:57 ↗ helpful in uh in literally clarifying

4:00 ↗ code. Um tonight um just the background

4:04 ↗ consideration as always um is uh uh our

4:08 ↗ effort to help you understand what the

4:10 ↗ code says now um understand why the

4:12 ↗ amendment is proposed and um on your

4:16 ↗ side of the disast understand uh whether

4:19 ↗ their proposed changes are clear or if

4:21 ↗ additional changes are needed especially

4:23 ↗ in terms of their clarity.

4:25 ↗ So,

4:28 ↗ whoops.

4:31 ↗ Sorry about that. Um, in terms of where

4:34 ↗ we are in, uh, moving through the

4:36 ↗ clarifying amendments, um, at the last

4:39 ↗ meeting, you reviewed some of the sign

4:41 ↗ code provisions that we're looking at

4:43 ↗ amending. Um tonight um more on the

4:47 ↗ procedural side uh site development

4:49 ↗ permits um review process there uh

4:52 ↗ clarifying the sequencing of permitting

4:54 ↗ in terms of final plat recording and

4:57 ↗ construction permit issuance. Um these

5:00 ↗ are a little dense in terms of the topic

5:03 ↗ matter but really important for um

5:06 ↗ applicants who are trying to get things

5:07 ↗ on the ground. Um so uh we'll hear from

5:11 ↗ Emily on those. Um, also temporary uses.

5:14 ↗ Um, where are donation bins around? You

5:16 ↗ see them popping up? And, um, Kristen

5:18 ↗ will share information on that. So, the

5:20 ↗ last, um, review of new content for

5:22 ↗ these amendments is going to be on March

5:25 ↗ 26th. Um, but at this point, we will go

5:29 ↗ ahead and I will hand off um, to Emily

5:33 ↗ Medina.

5:38 ↗ Good evening, commission. Again, I'm

5:40 ↗ Emily Medina. and the senior planner

5:42 ↗ with the city. Um so I have two

5:44 ↗ amendments to discuss tonight and the

5:47 ↗ first is site development permits. Um so

5:50 ↗ these my two amendments are heavily

5:52 ↗ procedural based. Um so in the

5:54 ↗ nitty-gritty of what we do every day in

5:56 ↗ the on the current planning side. So

5:58 ↗ when it comes to site development

5:59 ↗ permits, there's kind of three changes

6:02 ↗ that um we're proposing to make.

6:05 ↗ The first is to um clarify the language

6:09 ↗ in what goes um be uh what moves forward

6:13 ↗ with a site development permit. So

6:15 ↗ currently the language is for

6:17 ↗ development and the proposal is to

6:19 ↗ change it for the word structure. Um and

6:22 ↗ this is to clarify what was always the

6:24 ↗ intent of the code to just have

6:25 ↗ structures go through site development

6:26 ↗ permits and to have um projects where

6:28 ↗ there's only site improvements not have

6:30 ↗ to go through um an extra permitting

6:33 ↗ process. The second part is to create a

6:35 ↗ minimum square footage. Um so kind of a

6:38 ↗ minimum threshold of what puts a project

6:41 ↗ through a site development permit. Right

6:43 ↗ now the minimum threshold is zero square

6:45 ↗ feet of expansion. So um just wanting to

6:48 ↗ create a minimum so we don't have these

6:49 ↗ very small projects having to go through

6:51 ↗ an additional permitting process. Um and

6:54 ↗ then the third is um revising it so that

6:57 ↗ only square footage determines the STP

7:00 ↗ review level. um instead of right now it

7:04 ↗ has square footage and number of units

7:07 ↗ and that can create some conflict if um

7:09 ↗ a project falls into the square footage

7:12 ↗ say a level two but the number of units

7:14 ↗ for level four. Um so just having one

7:17 ↗ threshold determination is just making

7:19 ↗ it simpler for both applicants and

7:22 ↗ developers as well as staff to determine

7:23 ↗ what is the uh what review level a

7:26 ↗ project should go through.

7:31 ↗ So, just a little background um uh since

7:35 ↗ I'm in this every day, but I realize

7:37 ↗ everybody else is not. What is a site

7:39 ↗ development permit? So, a site

7:40 ↗ development permit is our uh most common

7:42 ↗ land use permit, and it is used to

7:45 ↗ evaluate consistency with title 18, our

7:47 ↗ land use code. Um it's required for

7:49 ↗ multif family and commercial projects,

7:51 ↗ but it is not uh required for any

7:53 ↗ detached single family or middle housing

7:55 ↗ projects. So, we see this for um some

7:58 ↗ examples recently like Milano and the

8:00 ↗ Parkland Heights subdivision up by the

8:02 ↗ Seamish border. Those are That was a bad

8:05 ↗ example. Parkland Heights went through a

8:06 ↗ preliminary plat. Um Milano and Front

8:08 ↗ Street Town Homes next to Derry Gold.

8:10 ↗ Those both had to go through site

8:11 ↗ development processes.

8:12 ↗ >> Emily, what is Milano and what is

8:14 ↗ Parkland Heights?

8:15 ↗ >> Sorry, I'm the development commission

8:17 ↗ ladies on. So this Milano is our 65 unit

8:20 ↗ apartment complex and Front Street Town

8:22 ↗ Homes is next to Dairyold and it is 32

8:25 ↗ town homes and two retail spots. So

8:28 ↗ these are larger developments that have

8:30 ↗ design aspects um architectural aspects

8:33 ↗ that should be reviewed. Thank you. Um

8:37 ↗ so there's three levels for site

8:39 ↗ development permits. Um and some of

8:41 ↗ these code amendments are to help

8:43 ↗ clarify what level a project should go

8:46 ↗ through. Level one, simplest level is

8:49 ↗ just administrative review. Staff

8:51 ↗ reviews it, staff approves it. Level

8:53 ↗ two, staff reviews and approves it, but

8:56 ↗ it gets public notice. So they put a

8:57 ↗ notice board up on site that you may see

8:59 ↗ around town. We have to mail it to

9:01 ↗ surrounding properties. It gets

9:02 ↗ published in the paper online, all that

9:05 ↗ stuff. And then level four, two projects

9:08 ↗ I was talking about, they go in front of

9:10 ↗ the development commission. So staff

9:11 ↗ reviews it, makes a recommendation to

9:13 ↗ the development commission. development

9:15 ↗ commission holds a hearing and then

9:17 ↗ issues a decision on the project. So, as

9:20 ↗ you can see with each of these levels,

9:22 ↗ more intensive project, more time or

9:24 ↗ more intensive process, more time, more

9:26 ↗ money spent by the developer to go

9:28 ↗ through these.

9:32 ↗ So, some recent examples of kind of what

9:34 ↗ triggered us the need to bring these

9:37 ↗ amendments before the commission. Um so

9:41 ↗ this project came in with a proposal uh

9:45 ↗ to convert an office building to

9:47 ↗ residential interior improvements only.

9:50 ↗ No changes to the building, no changes

9:52 ↗ to the architecture of the building,

9:54 ↗ just interior when it comes to the

9:56 ↗ structure. However, lots of parking

9:58 ↗ associated with office buildings and

10:00 ↗ they were proposing to convert over

10:02 ↗ 10,000 square ft of asphalt parking into

10:06 ↗ community amenity space. Um, so they

10:08 ↗ were going to bring in ass or they're

10:10 ↗ planning to bring in asphalt turf and

10:12 ↗ create dog runs and landscaping. Um, so

10:15 ↗ this is an example of the proposed

10:17 ↗ amendment I was talking about of

10:18 ↗ changing development to structure. Um,

10:20 ↗ there's no architectural or design

10:23 ↗ elements associated with this proposal

10:25 ↗ that um, which is what development

10:28 ↗ commission reviews for. So, as it was as

10:31 ↗ it is under current code, it would have

10:32 ↗ to go to level four development

10:34 ↗ commission review, have a public hearing

10:36 ↗ just because it's having 10,000 square

10:38 ↗ ft of development. And we define

10:41 ↗ development as any manmade impacts to

10:44 ↗ land. So, super broad. Um, under the

10:47 ↗ proposed code, this would not have to go

10:49 ↗ to level four um because there's no

10:51 ↗ structures involved. So, there wouldn't

10:53 ↗ be an STP.

10:56 ↗ The second example is about creating the

10:59 ↗ minimum threshold. Um, so this is in

11:01 ↗ Isiqua Commons. They're going under a

11:03 ↗ lot of they're doing a lot of facade

11:05 ↗ updates in Isiqua Commons right now. Um,

11:07 ↗ and this one was including they were

11:09 ↗ popping out the front entrance about 100

11:12 ↗ square feet just to create um just a

11:14 ↗ little more entrance I guess. So um it

11:18 ↗ was about 100 square feet. So they had

11:20 ↗ to go through a level one SDP process

11:22 ↗ which means they had to go through the

11:24 ↗ land use process, get their land use

11:26 ↗ approval. The appeal period had to lapse

11:28 ↗ on the land use approval before they

11:30 ↗ could get their building permit. So this

11:31 ↗ is adding typically about a month if

11:33 ↗ there's revisions, sometimes up to 3

11:35 ↗ months to the timeline review. Um for a

11:39 ↗ business that wanted to just update

11:40 ↗ their facade. Um so as proposed or as

11:43 ↗ existing, they've already gone through

11:44 ↗ the STP process. They had to do it. But

11:46 ↗ under the proposed code amendments, they

11:48 ↗ would not have to get a land use permit.

11:49 ↗ They could just go straight to building

11:50 ↗ permit.

11:54 ↗ So the key questions about the the site

11:57 ↗ development permit amendments tonight is

12:01 ↗ uh first is it appropriate to create a

12:03 ↗ minimum expansion threshold where the

12:05 ↗ level one STP reviews are required and

12:08 ↗ does 100 square feet make sense as the

12:10 ↗ minimum

12:12 ↗ and any additional questions you may

12:14 ↗ have for me. So, our intent was to

12:16 ↗ present on each amendment and then pause

12:18 ↗ for any questions, any feedback for

12:20 ↗ staff and then I'll move on to the next

12:22 ↗ one and then go from there.

12:24 ↗ >> All right, that sounds wonderful. Uh,

12:25 ↗ Vice Chair Patterson,

12:28 ↗ >> start with a a softball question is how

12:30 ↗ did the staff arrive at 100 square feet?

12:33 ↗ >> That's a great question. Um, I I

12:36 ↗ personally arrived at 100 square feet.

12:38 ↗ It was my recommendation um based on

12:40 ↗ recent applications that I've received.

12:42 ↗ So in the last I would say 6 months I've

12:45 ↗ had about four SDP level ones that have

12:48 ↗ come through that have been under 100

12:50 ↗ square ft that when myself and the other

12:53 ↗ planners our assistant planner Kristen

12:54 ↗ Javier had one recently as well. It

12:58 ↗ seemed excessive to put them through a

13:00 ↗ land use process for what was a very

13:02 ↗ simple small expansion that we

13:04 ↗ comfortably could have reviewed as part

13:06 ↗ of the building permit.

13:11 ↗ Uh, Commissioner Dair,

13:14 ↗ >> um, would 120 maybe be a little better?

13:17 ↗ I I know this is weird, but just when I

13:19 ↗ was doing construction growing up, I

13:20 ↗ felt like always like we did six foot

13:23 ↗ intervals, but otherwise, I think all

13:25 ↗ good.

13:26 ↗ >> That's a great point. Um, another just

13:29 ↗ to add on to that, another thought is um

13:32 ↗ like building permits for detached

13:33 ↗ accessory buildings don't need a

13:36 ↗ building permit up until 200 ft. So,

13:38 ↗ that's another idea of the threshold.

13:40 ↗ That threshold was kind of the main

13:42 ↗ thing I was looking for feedback on

13:44 ↗ tonight. So, 120 is also a great idea.

13:47 ↗ >> Yeah. Great. Yes. Uh, Commissioner

13:49 ↗ Krauss,

13:50 ↗ >> uh, I I will not ask why there's no

13:52 ↗ level three, but that's the um, but I do

13:56 ↗ have a question. Uh, first of all, they

13:58 ↗ all make sense to simplify it. So, uh,

14:00 ↗ is there any down what is the potential

14:02 ↗ downside you think of this using the

14:04 ↗ I'll go back to the one that where

14:06 ↗ they're converting

14:08 ↗ um commercial to residential, taking

14:10 ↗ away parking. Um, is there any downside

14:13 ↗ because you're still doing something

14:15 ↗ significant to the overall lot or will

14:18 ↗ that be handled in some other type of

14:20 ↗ review through the city whether to make

14:22 ↗ sure they have the right level of

14:23 ↗ parking or or other things like that?

14:25 ↗ >> Yeah, that's a great question. Um, so

14:28 ↗ two-part answer. First part is if they

14:31 ↗ are doing just site improvements, no

14:34 ↗ structure, and it's one acre in size or

14:36 ↗ greater, they still have to go through

14:38 ↗ the site development permit process. So

14:40 ↗ very large sites that are still only

14:42 ↗ getting site develop that are still only

14:44 ↗ doing uh ground work kind of thing. Um,

14:48 ↗ still have to get a site development. as

14:50 ↗ far as one like that where it's say

14:52 ↗ 10,000 square ft um we would review it

14:55 ↗ as part of the construction permitting.

14:57 ↗ So it would still be reviewed to meet

14:59 ↗ make sure it meets all the standards.

15:06 ↗ >> Any other questions?

15:09 ↗ >> Sure, please. Vice Chair Patterson.

15:11 ↗ >> Thank you, Chair. Um, kind of

15:13 ↗ piggybacking off of that would be a

15:16 ↗ little bit more specifically like are

15:17 ↗ there any like design or code compliance

15:20 ↗ concerns that could slip through on some

15:22 ↗ of the examples where uh the SDP review

15:25 ↗ is bypassed in favor of the building

15:27 ↗ permit? And a couple thoughts on my head

15:29 ↗ were either um kind of our overlay zones

15:31 ↗ or like ADA accessibility stuff.

15:34 ↗ >> Yeah. Um so our overlay zones which is

15:38 ↗ Oldtown and Central primarily they're um

15:43 ↗ overlay design standards are I would put

15:47 ↗ out a rough estimate 98% related to the

15:50 ↗ structure. Um so that's part of the

15:52 ↗ reason that also this amendment is

15:55 ↗ before you is because these items don't

15:58 ↗ fall within that. So um in that case no

16:01 ↗ they're 98% structure. There is in our

16:04 ↗ um design standards, we have site design

16:07 ↗ standards which do specify things on the

16:10 ↗ site. So, one of them I'm thinking of is

16:12 ↗ we have um provisions about when special

16:14 ↗ paving materials are needed. Um so, like

16:17 ↗ if there's a pedestrian crossing through

16:20 ↗ a parking lot, we like to see a

16:21 ↗ different kind of paving material, but

16:23 ↗ those would be reviewed for as part of

16:25 ↗ the building permit or the site work

16:27 ↗ permit. And that is when um there would

16:29 ↗ be a land use planning review on the

16:31 ↗ construction permit to review for those

16:33 ↗ items.

16:37 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews,

16:38 ↗ >> you may have already answered this

16:40 ↗ question, but does this impact both

16:42 ↗ residential and commercial?

16:44 ↗ >> It impacts multifamily residential and

16:47 ↗ commercial.

16:48 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

16:49 ↗ >> Yeah.

16:53 ↗ >> Vice Chair Patterson.

16:55 ↗ >> All right. One more. This one's a little

16:56 ↗ edge, Casey, I think. Um, but is there a

16:59 ↗ potential loophole with like repeated

17:01 ↗ small expansions over time? So, meaning

17:04 ↗ like if they did 100 square feet this

17:07 ↗ year and then another 100 square feet

17:08 ↗ next year and so on so forth like is

17:10 ↗ that I don't know if could that be

17:11 ↗ exploited? I guess

17:13 ↗ >> it could. I don't think we actually have

17:15 ↗ that closed loop for that in the code.

17:16 ↗ Um, I know there's code we can take from

17:20 ↗ our non-conforming code specifically

17:22 ↗ addresses that that you can't um it's

17:25 ↗ over the course of I think five years

17:27 ↗ that we evaluate it for. So that is code

17:29 ↗ that um we could take and plug into this

17:31 ↗ to make sure those repeated expansions

17:33 ↗ don't happen. If that's something the

17:34 ↗ commission would like to see, that's a

17:36 ↗ great point.

17:40 ↗ >> All fantastic. Yes, Commissioner

17:41 ↗ Matthews.

17:42 ↗ >> Sorry, I just have one more question

17:43 ↗ about setbacks. So if say that they want

17:46 ↗ to do 120 or 100 square ft addition but

17:49 ↗ it it butts up against a setback or it

17:51 ↗ might intrude. I I guess that's caught

17:53 ↗ during the building permit process.

17:55 ↗ >> Yep. Absolutely.

17:56 ↗ >> Okay. All right. Thank you.

18:03 ↗ >> All right. Uh ultimately like I really

18:06 ↗ like the idea of making things easier.

18:08 ↗ You know, I'm always in favor of that.

18:10 ↗ Um, and I think the 100 square feet is

18:13 ↗ probably a good starting off point. Um,

18:14 ↗ I don't know if we need to like build it

18:16 ↗ into the code, per se, but may and city

18:18 ↗ staff's already great at this, but maybe

18:20 ↗ this is an opportunity to revisit in a

18:21 ↗ year or two after this goes into effect,

18:23 ↗ like if we need to bump the 100 square

18:25 ↗ feet, you know, if we land there, like

18:26 ↗ if we need to adjust it uh at any point.

18:29 ↗ Um, just kind of a a check on that for

18:32 ↗ in a year or two or however long we we

18:34 ↗ need to reassess.

18:36 ↗ >> I definitely agree and would like to do

18:38 ↗ that.

18:40 ↗ love to come back and reassess things.

18:42 ↗ So again, I I appreciate all the

18:44 ↗ comments. I think they're all great. I

18:45 ↗ think the only thing I would pass back

18:47 ↗ to you, Emily, is maybe talk amongst

18:49 ↗ yourselves and amongst staff what maybe

18:51 ↗ whether it's 120 or 200 if there's any

18:54 ↗ benefit to it and then when you guys do

18:56 ↗ come back or put it in our packet

18:57 ↗ whether that's a conversation with it,

18:58 ↗ whether to have again. But I think

19:01 ↗ that's my only thing is again I think

19:02 ↗ the number's fine. And if you've already

19:05 ↗ seen four examples of everything coming

19:06 ↗ in at under 100, but I think

19:09 ↗ Commissioner Adair brings up a good

19:10 ↗ point and then you brought up 200. So I

19:12 ↗ think maybe just having a little bit

19:14 ↗ more conversation with your partners and

19:16 ↗ and see if uh that is the number you

19:18 ↗ truly want to land on.

19:19 ↗ >> Absolutely.

19:19 ↗ >> But I I personally like this too. Kind

19:21 ↗ of like Vice Chair Patterson said, I'm

19:23 ↗ all for it to make it easier for the

19:25 ↗ developer as well as for staff.

19:28 ↗ >> Thank you.

19:30 ↗ >> All right. Should I move on to the next

19:31 ↗ one,

19:32 ↗ >> please?

19:32 ↗ >> Okay.

19:36 ↗ Okay, the next one is even more

19:37 ↗ nitty-gritty. So, the next one is about

19:40 ↗ plat and construction permit sequencing.

19:44 ↗ Um, so this two two main parts of this

19:48 ↗ amendment. The first is to clarify that

19:50 ↗ site infrastructure, so that is things

19:52 ↗ like roads and utilities must be

19:55 ↗ constructed or in very minor cases

19:58 ↗ bonded for um prior to final approval of

20:02 ↗ plat. And plat is this division of the

20:05 ↗ land. So splitting a lot into multiple

20:08 ↗ lots. Um and then secondarily, it adds

20:11 ↗ language to prevent building permits

20:13 ↗ from being issued before that final plat

20:16 ↗ or subdivision is recorded. So

20:18 ↗ essentially um it it we're closing two

20:22 ↗ loopholes um that we've seen try to be

20:24 ↗ exploited so that we have our site

20:26 ↗ infrastructure in place before

20:27 ↗ subdivisions are approved and we are not

20:30 ↗ issuing having or being asked to issue

20:33 ↗ building permits for lots that

20:34 ↗ technically do not exist yet. Uh

20:41 ↗ so the sequence that we would like to

20:44 ↗ follow that is city best practice that

20:46 ↗ we try to follow when it comes to

20:47 ↗ platting and construction is the

20:50 ↗ preliminary subdivision permit sometimes

20:52 ↗ called a preliminary plat or preliminary

20:54 ↗ short plat. That's when we review

20:56 ↗ against the land use standards and make

20:58 ↗ sure everything's in compliance. site

21:00 ↗ work permit which is all the clearing

21:02 ↗ and grading and uh ground work for the

21:06 ↗ subdivision. Um so that's uh the

21:09 ↗ infrastructure improvements and then

21:10 ↗ bonding for very small items which is

21:12 ↗ when they give the city cash and say

21:14 ↗ hold on to this and if we don't complete

21:17 ↗ this then you can use the cash to do it

21:19 ↗ for us and then recording the plat which

21:21 ↗ is when the actual document of the

21:24 ↗ subdivision is taken to King County.

21:25 ↗ They record it. It gets put on all the

21:28 ↗ maps and the lots become official and

21:30 ↗ then building permit issuance.

21:35 ↗ So, general question on this one would

21:38 ↗ be, does the commission agree with these

21:40 ↗ proposed code clarifications to um

21:43 ↗ cement our permit sequencing in code?

21:47 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews,

21:49 ↗ >> I just had a question about um when the

21:52 ↗ site development permit is issued, is it

21:54 ↗ still open at the same time that the

21:56 ↗ building permits are issued or do they

21:58 ↗ have to close that out first? It's just

22:00 ↗ that, you know, if you have a whole

22:01 ↗ bunch of permits and you're trying to

22:02 ↗ keep track of what is closed and open,

22:04 ↗ it could be confusing. So, I just want

22:06 ↗ to know if there is a sequence for

22:08 ↗ closing things out before you go on to

22:10 ↗ the next step.

22:11 ↗ >> Um, I have a clarifying question for

22:13 ↗ you. Do you mean a site work permit or a

22:16 ↗ site development permit?

22:18 ↗ >> Sorry, I meant a site work permit. Thank

22:19 ↗ you very much.

22:20 ↗ >> Yes. No, it's okay. So, the

22:23 ↗ Okay. Will you repeat your question now

22:24 ↗ that I know which one you're talking

22:25 ↗ about?

22:26 ↗ >> Yeah. Is a site work permit closed out

22:29 ↗ and inspected before you before they go

22:32 ↗ on and get a per building permit as

22:34 ↗ well? Just you know that nothing's open.

22:37 ↗ >> So the site work permit is issued and

22:40 ↗ closed out before we will issue the

22:42 ↗ final plat or that's what the code

22:44 ↗ amendment is helping to clarify.

22:46 ↗ But they can submit for a building

22:48 ↗ permit at the same time that they can

22:51 ↗ that they submit for site work permits.

22:53 ↗ And then the second code amendment is so

22:55 ↗ that we um so that it's clear we will

22:58 ↗ not issue the building permit for them

22:59 ↗ to actually do any work until the final

23:02 ↗ plat is recorded and complete.

23:09 ↗ >> Does that make sense?

23:10 ↗ >> Yeah.

23:10 ↗ >> Okay.

23:12 ↗ >> Um Commissioner Kra

23:16 ↗ >> I'm still stuck on level three.

23:17 ↗ >> I can tell you why. Do you do you want

23:19 ↗ to know why?

23:19 ↗ >> You don't. Um, this all makes total

23:23 ↗ sense. Uh, how a quick question of

23:26 ↗ course first is how different is this

23:27 ↗ from what we're doing now? And does this

23:30 ↗ add more time or is it just the same

23:32 ↗ amount of time but just we're being

23:33 ↗ clearer about what we're

23:35 ↗ >> the second one? It is exactly what we

23:38 ↗ want to see happen now. It just wasn't

23:41 ↗ uh specifically stated enough in code.

23:45 ↗ >> Okay. People were probably doing this

23:46 ↗ already, but it wasn't written down and

23:48 ↗ this is just now. It was like an

23:49 ↗ internal policy um that wasn't clarified

23:52 ↗ in code.

23:54 ↗ >> Okay.

23:55 ↗ >> Yeah. They they and applicants would

23:57 ↗ push back but it doesn't work for us to

24:00 ↗ do what they wanted to do. So they would

24:02 ↗ push back and now we can actually say no

24:04 ↗ it's in our code. This is the way it

24:05 ↗ works.

24:11 ↗ >> Any question? Any other questions? And

24:14 ↗ Commissioner Miller Irwin just let me

24:16 ↗ know if you've got any. There's that

24:17 ↗ little hand. That's what I'm looking for

24:19 ↗ in case you'd like to speak as well. Uh,

24:21 ↗ Commissioner Crass kind of stole my

24:23 ↗ question, which was just did it add any

24:24 ↗ time. It it definitely makes sense for

24:26 ↗ you guys to do it this way as far as

24:27 ↗ just the the rolling way. So, um, any

24:31 ↗ other comments.

24:34 ↗ All right.

24:35 ↗ >> Wonderful. Thank you for your input. I

24:37 ↗ will pass it over to Kristen now.

24:38 ↗ >> Wonderful. Thank you.

24:41 ↗ >> Donation B.

24:43 ↗ >> Hi, good evening. I'm Kristen Javier,

24:46 ↗ assistant planner. Um this evening I'll

24:48 ↗ be presenting our proposal for temporary

24:50 ↗ use requirements for donation bins. So

24:52 ↗ this is meant to clarify uh where and

24:55 ↗ how we allow donation bins on private

24:57 ↗ property.

24:59 ↗ Um so uh the reason we're bringing this

25:03 ↗ up is we had a business uh reach out

25:04 ↗ requesting um some information on what

25:07 ↗ our permitting process is for something

25:09 ↗ like a really large furniture donation

25:11 ↗ bin. And while our current temporary use

25:14 ↗ code allows donation bins, it's not

25:16 ↗ specific uh into what the standards for

25:19 ↗ that would be.

25:22 ↗ Um so, uh thinking about what these

25:25 ↗ standards should be, uh we did some

25:27 ↗ research to see what other cities are

25:28 ↗ doing, but we honestly couldn't find um

25:30 ↗ a whole lot that was super specific to

25:32 ↗ donation bins. Um, so a lot of this

25:35 ↗ comes from our current code, what we

25:37 ↗ allow for things like other uh temporary

25:39 ↗ uses like food trucks and then um some

25:42 ↗ conversation uh between us and our uh

25:45 ↗ code enforcement officer. Um so uh the

25:48 ↗ first of those standards could be uh

25:51 ↗ parking requirements. So, um, in this

25:53 ↗ first, uh, image at the top, that was

25:55 ↗ sent to us by, uh, one of those

25:57 ↗ businesses that was interested, and that

25:58 ↗ takes up about two spots, but they said,

26:01 ↗ uh, sometimes they can take up to six

26:03 ↗ spots. So, we would just want to make

26:05 ↗ sure that the minimum parking

26:06 ↗ requirements, um, are still being

26:08 ↗ provided for, um, for whichever property

26:10 ↗ this would be on. Um, and we would want

26:13 ↗ the normal business operations to remain

26:15 ↗ unimpacted. So things like uh garbage

26:17 ↗ collection, um dry vials remaining

26:20 ↗ clear, uh fire lanes remaining clear. Uh

26:24 ↗ we would also want to make sure that

26:26 ↗ trash accumulation around the receptacle

26:29 ↗ is prohibited or any other kind of

26:30 ↗ unaccepted items.

26:32 ↗ uh there would need to be uh permission

26:35 ↗ uh from the property owner to have this

26:37 ↗ here and the responsibility for

26:39 ↗ maintaining this would need to be a

26:41 ↗ formal agreement between the property

26:42 ↗ owner and the um owner of the uh

26:45 ↗ donation bin. Uh and finally, we would

26:48 ↗ want the contact information um for

26:51 ↗ whoever is responsible for maintaining

26:52 ↗ the area to be clearly marked so that um

26:55 ↗ if issues do pop up, they're quickly

26:57 ↗ resolved. These images at the bottom

26:59 ↗ were sent to our code enforcement

27:01 ↗ officer by a resident um and they were

27:04 ↗ able to contact that number and this was

27:06 ↗ cleared up within 24 hours. So it sounds

27:08 ↗ like uh these issues don't pop up often,

27:10 ↗ but when they do they're able to be

27:12 ↗ pretty quickly resolved.

27:16 ↗ And my question for you is we are

27:18 ↗ thinking about having a 365day

27:21 ↗ time limit uh for this use uh because

27:24 ↗ that's what we currently allow for our

27:26 ↗ food trucks which is um a common

27:28 ↗ temporary use. So we wanted to know if

27:30 ↗ you thought this was something that made

27:33 ↗ sense or if you had any other

27:34 ↗ suggestions and if you had any other

27:36 ↗ questions about this in general.

27:38 ↗ >> Perfect. Thank you Kristen.

27:41 ↗ All right. And I know some commissioners

27:43 ↗ have comments or questions about this.

27:45 ↗ Come on.

27:47 ↗ Oh, that's okay. Commissioner Crass, we

27:49 ↗ know you'd like to go first.

27:50 ↗ Commissioner Adair, I think she beat you

27:53 ↗ to it.

27:54 ↗ >> Can I go?

27:55 ↗ >> Yeah, absolutely.

27:57 ↗ >> Um, have we discussed So, obviously you

27:59 ↗ have a limit of how much parking it can

28:01 ↗ take up, but do you have a max size for

28:04 ↗ the dumpster the bin overall that we've

28:06 ↗ thought about yet?

28:07 ↗ >> That's a good question. Um, and

28:08 ↗ something that we should discuss. Yes,

28:12 ↗ >> Commissioner Grass. So does just quick

28:16 ↗ question on background. Um does the

28:18 ↗ property owners do this as a they charge

28:21 ↗ the drop offs? Like what is why do

28:25 ↗ property owners want to have this on

28:26 ↗ their property?

28:28 ↗ >> Um what's the is there an economic

28:29 ↗ reason why they're doing this?

28:31 ↗ >> Um I'm actually not sure as to why uh

28:34 ↗ the property owner would be interested

28:36 ↗ >> because understanding that may

28:38 ↗ understand motives too of what they're

28:39 ↗ going to ask for and want. Um, and then

28:41 ↗ the other one is, um, 365 days doesn't

28:45 ↗ seem like temporary. It seems like it's

28:47 ↗ permanent then. So, I'm curious, is

28:50 ↗ this, is this really temporary when you

28:53 ↗ say it's for a full year and has is it

28:54 ↗ renewed every year or

28:56 ↗ >> I believe you would have to renew it

28:57 ↗ every year? Yes, that's what we do for

28:59 ↗ our food trucks currently.

29:00 ↗ >> Okay. Is there a downside of this having

29:04 ↗ essentially it's permanent then?

29:06 ↗ >> Uh, it would be temporary.

29:07 ↗ >> Well, it's a year is a long time. I was

29:11 ↗ I'm just I just wonder whether that

29:13 ↗ seems like a long time for these things

29:15 ↗ or if because then they're there all the

29:17 ↗ time.

29:18 ↗ >> I'll play devil's advocate. I think part

29:20 ↗ of it is, you know, these people need to

29:21 ↗ know where it's located. It's moving on

29:23 ↗ wheels every couple.

29:24 ↗ >> That's a good point. That's a very good

29:25 ↗ point.

29:26 ↗ >> Might be harder to find.

29:26 ↗ >> Um but understanding the the dynamics of

29:28 ↗ why

29:30 ↗ >> will also help you understand what the

29:31 ↗ asks are going to be of

29:33 ↗ >> um if there if this is a profit type

29:36 ↗ thing or if it's just goodwill, no pun

29:38 ↗ intended, type thing. I uh can I ask a

29:40 ↗ question? If uh 365 days seems too long,

29:43 ↗ do you have a idea of what could work

29:45 ↗ better?

29:47 ↗ >> Oh, I I'm not against that. I was just

29:48 ↗ curious when we called it temporary. It

29:50 ↗ just seems like a year is a long time

29:51 ↗ for temporary. And then um Jason had a

29:55 ↗ good point of understand having people

29:56 ↗ know where things are is is super

29:58 ↗ useful, especially I have a bag of

30:01 ↗ clothes in the trunk of our car now,

30:02 ↗ which I need to take. It reminds me. Um

30:05 ↗ so I think that's that was just some of

30:06 ↗ the background questions. That's all.

30:08 ↗ Okay.

30:09 ↗ Uh, Vice Chair Patterson,

30:11 ↗ >> I'll bite on your question. Um, I don't

30:14 ↗ think necessarily 365 days is bad, but I

30:17 ↗ do think like because of the food truck

30:19 ↗ comparison since that's our typical

30:20 ↗ temporary use permit. Um, I think it's

30:24 ↗ kind of a um an odd comparison only

30:26 ↗ because a food truck is an operating

30:28 ↗ business that there's a lot of movement

30:30 ↗ there. You know, like I'm thinking about

30:31 ↗ the food trucks we have in town here.

30:33 ↗ You know, they're open different hours.

30:35 ↗ Like there's people there. They're

30:36 ↗ coming and going. Um whereas this is

30:38 ↗ almost more of like a sign in a way like

30:40 ↗ it's a stationary. There's not it's not

30:42 ↗ an open business so to speak. It's just

30:43 ↗ kind of a a receptacle. Um so in my mind

30:47 ↗ I would kind of like the idea of a

30:50 ↗ shorter time frame, maybe 180 days.

30:52 ↗ >> And the reason being that it gives the

30:54 ↗ city the opportunity to check on a

30:56 ↗ shorter time frame, like a check-in

30:58 ↗ period almost, where it's like, "All

30:59 ↗ right, it's been half a year. How's it

31:01 ↗ going?" Like, "Have we had 12 code

31:03 ↗ compliance complaints of people dumping

31:05 ↗ garbage outside of it?" Um, and then we

31:07 ↗ can kind of shut it down at that point

31:08 ↗ or at least not renew or whatever. Um,

31:11 ↗ it just kind of lends an opportunity to

31:13 ↗ that. Uh, I guess one consideration

31:15 ↗ there would be the volume of it. You

31:16 ↗ know, are we getting like dozens of

31:18 ↗ these or is it like a handful? Like if

31:20 ↗ it's manageable and it's a handful where

31:21 ↗ if they continue to renew at a shorter,

31:24 ↗ you know, time frame, maybe it's not

31:25 ↗ that big of a deal, but then we're doing

31:27 ↗ this administrative burden of, you know,

31:29 ↗ there's 50 of them and we're renewing

31:30 ↗ them every, you know, six months, that

31:32 ↗ might be a different story. But um I

31:34 ↗ think 180 days is kind of what I might

31:36 ↗ propose as a potential alternative.

31:38 ↗ >> Okay,

31:43 ↗ >> Commissioner Dair.

31:44 ↗ >> Um yeah, I would I Whoops. Sorry. I

31:47 ↗ agree with 180 days for exactly the same

31:50 ↗ reason. And I also would like some more

31:53 ↗ context as crass kind of mentioned of

31:55 ↗ who's asking for it because sometimes

31:58 ↗ you know you think about Kid Vantage

31:59 ↗ which is over and they're over by Nick's

32:02 ↗ Magnificent in that kind of warehouse

32:03 ↗ district and I would be supportive of

32:06 ↗ them having a donation bin out for

32:08 ↗ example but you maybe don't want

32:11 ↗ something in like the parking lot of the

32:13 ↗ Dollar General. So if we could kind of

32:15 ↗ look at the regions and the areas where

32:17 ↗ people want to put them, that would also

32:19 ↗ be a factor. It's a good point,

32:24 ↗ >> Commissioner Grass.

32:25 ↗ >> So one other made me think, um, does the

32:28 ↗ city, if someone's violating the use of

32:30 ↗ this, can the city revoke it even before

32:34 ↗ the end of that term?

32:35 ↗ >> I believe so. Yes.

32:36 ↗ >> Okay. So then I feel more comfortable on

32:39 ↗ on different time frames as long as the

32:41 ↗ city if code compliance finds hey this

32:43 ↗ is not working you can pull the permit

32:45 ↗ >> right I think it would be a code code

32:46 ↗ compliance thing and they're you know

32:48 ↗ they get a letter then they get another

32:49 ↗ letter and then they are given a certain

32:51 ↗ amount of time to correct their issues

32:52 ↗ and then if not yes then I think it

32:54 ↗ could be revoked

32:56 ↗ >> I I think those are my two concerns is

32:59 ↗ you know inevitably I do think you know

33:02 ↗ these one to commissioner adar's point I

33:05 ↗ mean if you have a bin like picture

33:07 ↗ number one that's sitting at the Dollar

33:08 ↗ General. So, is there something like

33:10 ↗ square footage of the the property? I

33:12 ↗ don't know if there's some type of

33:13 ↗ tiein. Um, again, it's one thing if it's

33:16 ↗ in the parking lot of Home Depot. It's

33:19 ↗ one thing if it's in the parking lot of

33:23 ↗ the dollar store. I mean, and again, you

33:25 ↗ have two large bins. So, I don't know if

33:26 ↗ there's some type of scale there. And

33:28 ↗ then I do think the other thing too is

33:31 ↗ that first picture

33:33 ↗ um when you're taking into consideration

33:35 ↗ how many parking lots it's using, are we

33:37 ↗ also looking at you know we're expecting

33:40 ↗ people to park one to two parking spots

33:42 ↗ to actually put their items in the bin?

33:44 ↗ Is that being taken into account? Uh

33:48 ↗ just seeing that one picture they had

33:49 ↗ little A-frame signs out there. It says

33:52 ↗ two spots, but if you're actually

33:54 ↗ thinking about it with people coming and

33:55 ↗ going, you're actually talking about

33:56 ↗ more like four spots. So, I don't know

33:59 ↗ that those would be my concerns. And

34:01 ↗ then I did like uh Vice Chair

34:02 ↗ Patterson's just checking in with code

34:04 ↗ compliance. I feel like what Kristen

34:06 ↗ just said seems a little that seems like

34:08 ↗ it could be very long drawn out process.

34:10 ↗ A letter, a letter, and then a a

34:13 ↗ timeline of like a month to get, you

34:15 ↗ know, fix it. I mean, if I'm your

34:16 ↗ neighbor, I'm buming. I'm buming hard.

34:19 ↗ So, that would be my concerns. So,

34:22 ↗ again, kind of the size of the structure

34:23 ↗ in relation to the building.

34:26 ↗ I do think inevitably these things do

34:28 ↗ attract I mean people will be lazy.

34:31 ↗ They're not going to put the furniture

34:32 ↗ in the bin. They'll just drop it

34:33 ↗ literally right there. I mean that's

34:35 ↗ just going to happen.

34:36 ↗ >> Um trash I I'd like to think that most

34:38 ↗ isquans are a little bit better than

34:40 ↗ that. I don't know. But I think when it

34:42 ↗ comes to like furniture and certain

34:44 ↗ donations, it's just it's going to

34:45 ↗ happen. So I'm interested to hear what

34:48 ↗ you guys have to think about forcing

34:50 ↗ compliance and things like that.

34:51 ↗ >> Okay.

34:54 ↗ >> Yeah. You guys can have as many

34:55 ↗ questions as you want.

34:56 ↗ >> How How many of these in the city are

34:58 ↗ there now?

34:59 ↗ >> Um I'm actually not sure. Do you

35:01 ↗ >> Is this like a handful or is this like

35:03 ↗ We have a hundred of these things that

35:04 ↗ are going to be

35:05 ↗ >> uh for the giant bins specifically.

35:08 ↗ >> Just donation bins. I mean, this is this

35:10 ↗ >> Yeah, that's something I would need to

35:12 ↗ research. I'm not

35:12 ↗ >> Yeah, we don't we don't require permits

35:14 ↗ for them right now. So Oh, I don't know.

35:17 ↗ >> Right now it's like the wild west.

35:19 ↗ >> Yeah. Just it be interesting to see what

35:21 ↗ the current state is on this. And so the

35:24 ↗ ones that don't

35:26 ↗ that don't have permits, they just stuck

35:28 ↗ them there. Are they going to have to

35:28 ↗ then get a permit? The ones that are

35:31 ↗ already existing or are they

35:32 ↗ grandfathered? How's that work?

35:34 ↗ >> That's a good question. We'll have to

35:36 ↗ look into that. Yeah. I don't know.

35:39 ↗ >> I mean, what happens? I mean, even with

35:41 ↗ would uh City Hall Northwest have to get

35:43 ↗ a permit for their bin?

35:47 ↗ >> Does it have City Hall Northwest? Well,

35:49 ↗ yeah. The election uh the voter bin.

35:51 ↗ >> Oh, you mean city hall?

35:53 ↗ >> Yeah, city hall.

35:53 ↗ >> Oh,

35:54 ↗ >> city hall. So, do they get have to get a

35:56 ↗ permit?

35:57 ↗ >> Are they exempt?

35:58 ↗ >> I think they're exempt.

35:59 ↗ >> Okay.

36:02 ↗ >> It also is there a fee for the permit

36:04 ↗ for this?

36:05 ↗ >> I believe so.

36:07 ↗ >> It' have to be at least be like a filing

36:09 ↗ fee.

36:09 ↗ >> I'm just curious of the I mean because

36:11 ↗ especially if you go back and the ones

36:12 ↗ that that's why I asked the question,

36:14 ↗ how many are there now? And if you have

36:15 ↗ to go back to all of those thing, all of

36:17 ↗ those, are they going to stay or

36:19 ↗ disappear once they have to?

36:20 ↗ >> They'd probably get grand permanent,

36:21 ↗ right?

36:22 ↗ >> I don't know.

36:22 ↗ >> Could you repeat that?

36:23 ↗ >> They'd probably get grandfathered in.

36:24 ↗ >> I don't know. Depends on that depends on

36:26 ↗ their Well, that's recommendation of

36:29 ↗ what they want to do.

36:29 ↗ >> There'd be like a date certain where you

36:31 ↗ either remove it or you get a permit.

36:33 ↗ >> That should be part of the discussion.

36:35 ↗ >> Um, currently, right now, they have to

36:36 ↗ get a business license, but not a

36:38 ↗ permit. So when their business license

36:39 ↗ was due up again, their business license

36:41 ↗ would get to submit it to the city and

36:42 ↗ at that point we would have them get a

36:44 ↗ permit.

36:50 ↗ >> Oh yes, Commissioner Matthews,

36:53 ↗ >> I just have one suggestion is that um

36:56 ↗ you basically tell them certain areas

36:58 ↗ that they cannot put them. So like at an

37:01 ↗ entrance or near the store. So, they

37:03 ↗ have to be certain locations on the

37:05 ↗ property that it will be allowed

37:06 ↗ >> just so they don't cause a backup. Not

37:08 ↗ that there's a big run on those bins,

37:10 ↗ but you never know. Somebody could have

37:12 ↗ a big truck and be blocking up an

37:14 ↗ entrance.

37:14 ↗ >> Yeah, that's a great point.

37:16 ↗ >> Yeah. No, that is a great point.

37:18 ↗ Would anything like to add anything for

37:21 ↗ Kristen? Did you get everything you

37:24 ↗ needed?

37:24 ↗ >> I believe so.

37:25 ↗ >> Okay. So, some suggestions, but uh yeah,

37:28 ↗ it's kind of hard to believe they're not

37:29 ↗ permitted. out there in the wind at the

37:32 ↗ Wild West. So, thank you.

37:34 ↗ >> Okay. Well, thank you, Kristen. Thank

37:35 ↗ you, Emily.

37:37 ↗ >> And it looks like Kate's coming back up.

37:40 ↗ >> Got it on the right slide. Little bit of

37:42 ↗ musical chairs. Um uh one thing I would

37:45 ↗ like to add is um it has been really um

37:48 ↗ a great partnership because my main

37:50 ↗ focus is on long range strategic

37:52 ↗ planning and we have development review

37:54 ↗ staff who are having these conversations

37:56 ↗ with applicants and it's like both sides

37:59 ↗ of the brain come together as we're

38:01 ↗ moving through these code amendments and

38:02 ↗ throughout the the rest of this year and

38:04 ↗ I think the end product's much stronger.

38:06 ↗ Um anyway, so um so what are the next

38:10 ↗ steps for our clarifying code

38:11 ↗ amendments? Um you've seen this schedule

38:13 ↗ before. Um we do have the one meeting uh

38:16 ↗ or sorry the uh one other batch of

38:18 ↗ amendments uh to present to you next

38:22 ↗ week for your input and then uh chance

38:25 ↗ at your first meeting in April to go

38:27 ↗ through everything. We'll come back with

38:29 ↗ some of the uh information that you've

38:31 ↗ asked for tonight and at other meetings

38:34 ↗ and then we will move through um into

38:38 ↗ the public hearing and uh your

38:42 ↗ recommendation council review process um

38:44 ↗ as I said in Q2 um the state reviews um

38:48 ↗ SEPA uh state environmental review as

38:51 ↗ well as department of commerce uh that

38:52 ↗ you require sometimes a 60-day review

38:54 ↗ for kind of intensive code amendments.

38:56 ↗ we may ask them for an expedited review

38:58 ↗ in this case with council action um

39:01 ↗ aimed at June. So that's the process. Um

39:06 ↗ one last chance in case you all had any

39:09 ↗ other questions um you wanted us to take

39:12 ↗ back um take a look at

39:17 ↗ >> No, I think again I appreciate all of

39:20 ↗ you guys coming up and speaking. Again,

39:22 ↗ it makes sense. I mean, you guys hear

39:23 ↗ from the developers, as Emily pointed

39:25 ↗ out, every day, and obviously, the idea

39:28 ↗ is to make it easier for all of us to

39:29 ↗ work through these codes, and they can

39:31 ↗ be quite technical and quite in the

39:33 ↗ weeds. So, the more we can do to help

39:35 ↗ everybody, I think, is appropriate.

39:38 ↗ >> Anything else?

39:40 ↗ All right.

39:41 ↗ >> Okay. Well, that's all we had and thank

39:42 ↗ you so much for your input. It's really

39:44 ↗ been helpful tonight.

39:45 ↗ >> All right. Well, thank you, Kate again.

39:46 ↗ Thank you, Emily, and thank you,

39:47 ↗ Kristen.

39:50 ↗ That was the only bit of business we

39:51 ↗ had.

39:52 ↗ So, it's not going to be a late one

39:54 ↗ tonight.

39:56 ↗ Reports. I think I'm looking at Kristen

39:59 ↗ Le

40:00 ↗ >> or council reports. I do want to note

40:01 ↗ that uh poor um Commissioner Milaner

40:04 ↗ Irwin. It appears that the audio went

40:06 ↗ out. So, um I asked her to I just sent

40:09 ↗ her a message. I just found out. So, I

40:10 ↗ just sent her a message saying if she

40:12 ↗ has any other comments or questions to

40:13 ↗ send those to me and we can uh we'll

40:15 ↗ bring those back to the next meeting.

40:16 ↗ >> Yeah. I apologize. Uh

40:18 ↗ >> yeah,

40:18 ↗ >> I apologize.

40:20 ↗ Yeah, there's a Simpson button. And I

40:21 ↗ think she has, right?

40:22 ↗ >> A what?

40:23 ↗ >> A Simpson hand.

40:25 ↗ >> That's what I That's what I usually look

40:27 ↗ for is the little Simpson hand.

40:29 ↗ >> Uh I think so. Yes. But yes.

40:33 ↗ >> So I Yeah.

40:35 ↗ >> Um so two reports. I have a few things.

40:38 ↗ One, you recall the traffic impact fee

40:40 ↗ waiver that went to council two Mondays

40:43 ↗ ago, Monday after I saw you. City

40:45 ↗ council did pass it. They passed it to

40:46 ↗ allow both an 80% and 100% fee waiver.

40:49 ↗ and we have an applicant already taking

40:51 ↗ us up on that. So, we are working

40:53 ↗ through that process.

40:55 ↗ Second, on Monday night, we went to we

41:00 ↗ had we had a council uh committee the

41:02 ↗ whole meeting, our special council

41:03 ↗ meeting on Monday night and we were

41:06 ↗ talking about the work plan that I've

41:08 ↗ been talking to you all about for so

41:10 ↗ long. It was a very long deep discussion

41:14 ↗ and um

41:16 ↗ anyway we we now have a new work plan

41:19 ↗ with 17 items. 14 will be coming to you

41:22 ↗ all and they start to get rather hefty.

41:25 ↗ I'm going to bring two of the

41:29 ↗ easier ones to you all next week as a

41:31 ↗ part of this. But we will have

41:33 ↗ amendments coming to you all every 3

41:35 ↗ months for the next to get approved by

41:37 ↗ council every 3 months for the next five

41:39 ↗ quarters. So lots going on and I'm going

41:43 ↗ there will be a presentation next week

41:45 ↗ and we'll go into more depth. We'll

41:47 ↗ essentially give the same presentation

41:49 ↗ to you all that we've g gave to council

41:52 ↗ and we'll talk about those upcoming

41:53 ↗ amendments.

41:55 ↗ Lastly for a council update is that

41:58 ↗ former council president Barb de

42:00 ↗ Michelle has had some has had an illness

42:03 ↗ and is going to take her has had some

42:05 ↗ health issues and it's going to take her

42:07 ↗ longer to heal than she thought. So she

42:09 ↗ has resigned from the council.

42:12 ↗ Uh, new council president is Total

42:14 ↗ Mart's uh, deputy vice whatever the vice

42:20 ↗ deputy council president. That's what it

42:22 ↗ is. Deputy council president. Um, is

42:26 ↗ uh, who is it? Oh, it's council member

42:27 ↗ Jiang is the deputy whatever. Um, and

42:33 ↗ they will be filling that role. They

42:35 ↗ will be appointing a new council member.

42:37 ↗ The applications open on Monday, this

42:40 ↗ coming Monday. And that role will be to

42:41 ↗ fill council member D. Michelle's role

42:44 ↗ and it will run through November of

42:45 ↗ 2028. So if you know anyone who's

42:48 ↗ interested doing it again. Um okay,

42:51 ↗ that's all I have for council.

42:54 ↗ >> A lot of recent appointments,

42:56 ↗ >> but we also um definitely want to send

42:59 ↗ our best wishes to Barbara D. Michelle

43:01 ↗ and hope she recovers a speedy recovery,

43:03 ↗ a full recovery. So again, best to

43:06 ↗ Barbara

43:07 ↗ >> and thank you for all her service and

43:08 ↗ hard work.

43:10 ↗ >> Okay, that takes care of council

43:12 ↗ reports. Any other business or

43:13 ↗ announcements?

43:14 ↗ >> Yes. Uh Commissioner um

43:19 ↗ Malbero is uh resigning from PPC. So we

43:23 ↗ are currently going through interview

43:26 ↗ the interview process anyway. And so we

43:28 ↗ are we will be interviewing to find

43:30 ↗ someone to fill that position as well.

43:33 ↗ That's all.

43:34 ↗ >> And likewise, we also want to thank

43:36 ↗ Ellen for her service this past year.

43:38 ↗ Um, and wish her well.

43:42 ↗ >> All right. I believe that's other

43:44 ↗ business and announcements. Any calendar

43:47 ↗ items we should be aware of other than

43:48 ↗ just a lot of work coming our way?

43:50 ↗ >> Nope, that's it.

43:51 ↗ >> Okay.

43:52 ↗ >> Uh,

43:54 ↗ no. I was thinking that there might be

43:55 ↗ that we might some might be canceled

43:57 ↗ because of cultural things, but no,

43:58 ↗ we're we're on schedule for a while.

44:00 ↗ >> All right.

44:01 ↗ >> Okay. Great. Anything

44:04 ↗ from the commissioners as far as uh go

44:06 ↗ to the order?

44:08 ↗ >> All right. Please, Vice Chair Patterson,

44:11 ↗ >> any light rail updates?

44:13 ↗ >> No. There you go.

44:14 ↗ >> No, no light rail updates. No, just just

44:17 ↗ keep getting your voice out there. Yes.

44:20 ↗ >> Keep sending those letters. And again,

44:21 ↗ the handwritten letters or your own

44:23 ↗ voice, that actually works a lot better.

44:25 ↗ Um, so yes, keep sending them in. Okay.

44:29 ↗ Well, again, thank you everybody for

44:30 ↗ >> Oh, but I do have one that just reminded

44:32 ↗ me. I apologize. Um, so

44:34 ↗ >> almost a journ but at any

44:35 ↗ >> I know. I'm sorry. So close. Um, Thomas

44:37 ↗ Valdz, I don't know if I announced that

44:39 ↗ he's leaving.

44:40 ↗ >> No.

44:40 ↗ >> Yes, he is. Light rail brought that up.

44:42 ↗ Yes, he is leaving. Tomorrow is his last

44:44 ↗ day. Steven Padua took him. He's going

44:47 ↗ to Kirkland. Yeah.

44:49 ↗ >> Wow.

44:49 ↗ >> So, um, so anyway, that, um, that is my

44:52 ↗ other piece of news. So, we will be

44:54 ↗ looking for someone else there, too.

44:56 ↗ >> Yeah. I'm starting to feel like that

44:57 ↗ city is like the the Voldemort, right?

44:59 ↗ We just don't say that city's name.

45:01 ↗ >> We did a trade about about seven years

45:03 ↗ ago. We took about seven people from

45:05 ↗ Kirkland. So, it's just they're getting

45:07 ↗ back at us.

45:08 ↗ >> Yeah, like I said, it's it's been

45:10 ↗ painful. But, uh we wish Thomas the

45:13 ↗ best. And uh are are you guys looking to

45:16 ↗ fill that position? I would imagine.

45:17 ↗ >> I I would assume so, but I have not

45:19 ↗ heard anything yet.

45:20 ↗ >> Okay. Okay. Well, again, if there's no

45:24 ↗ any other no other announcements, we are

45:26 ↗ going to adjourn this meeting, the

45:28 ↗ Planning Policy Commission, at 7:26 p.m.

45:31 ↗ 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

Council / Members (6)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Patterson

Commissioners Adair

Krass

Matthews

Millender-Irwin (virtual)

Staff (1)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Kristen Javier, Assistant Planner Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Emily Medina, Senior Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of February 26, 2026 With no changes or comments, the Minutes were approved. 3