[3:20] [captions are auto-generated and may contain errors] okay, we  will call this august 12th planning board regular meeting to order.
[3:26] lee? Yes. Read us a land acknowledgement, please.
[3:32] we acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the snohomish people, and their successors, the tulalip tribes.
[3:39] and since time immemorial have hunted fish gathered and taken care of these lands.
[3:44] we respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection.
[3:50] with the landed water.
[3:53] thank you. We will do a quick roll call. Lee hankins? Here. John jessen? Here.
[4:01] john milkey, can you hear us?
[4:05] john cannot hear us online. He cannot hear us. Nope, he's texting me.
[4:10] oh, and that's probably what's in your chat, too. The audio is… working.
[4:17] thinking it's on your end. Well, his microphone just went on.
[4:26] nick, are you doing the thing where you also log in? Okay, so we'll keep going.
[4:33] and, he's gonna log back… he's gonna log out and come back in, if you don't mind. But john milkey is present.
[4:44] nick maxwell? Here. Stephen lee? Here. Daniel dakoto. Here.
[4:49] absent and excused is judy gladstone, and bristol, I did not hear from, I'm not sure if you did. I have not heard from him yet. Okay.
[5:02] and lauren golambiewski, also here.
[5:06] daniel? I did get daniel.
[5:09] thank you.
[5:12] our agenda tonight… sorry, I'm checking john at the same time. We will do approval of the last meeting minutes.
[5:22] we have nobody in the room for audience comments, we'll see if there's anybody online. So, unfinished business for bringing back the
[5:32] zoning map for the westgate neighborhood, and then we have some new business, yay, of some, 2025-2026 washington state legislative updates and udc program, and then family burial grounds permanent regulations.
[5:51] then we'll go over our extended agenda, have time for comments, and get out of here on time.
[6:00] so… first item is approval of the minutes. These are…
[6:12] 80 minutes? Are they from the… august 5th. August 5th special meeting.
[6:16] is there a motion to approve?
[6:18] those minutes.
[6:21] I will make the motion. It just seems that the format is changing a lot. For individuals, or is it because we had a public hearing?
[6:35] it'd be a rehash of the actions, the votes, but not very much.
[6:41] on the discussions? Yeah. Yeah, I mean…
[6:45] I think that, they were trying to turn this around in a very quick manner, in order to get it recorded. Okay, if you'd like to send it back for more information, we can.
[6:57] motion that we accept the notes as, it is… who's kidding.
[7:02] okay?
[7:04] do we have a second? Second. Seconded. So, a motion by zee jenkins, seconded by john jessen.
[7:12] any other discussions, steven? I wasn't here, so I'm not gonna make any comments, but I was not listed as a board member absent the…
[7:20] gotcha. So, we will have a,
[7:26] friendly amendment to update that, and take a vote with that.
[7:31] modification.
[7:34] all those in favor, say aye. Aye.
[7:38] any nays?
[7:41] not heard. Any abstentions?
[7:44] stephen lee abstains.
[7:46] motion.
[7:47] passes.
[7:52] we have nobody here for audience comments. Do we have anybody online for audience comments? We have a hand raised, but is it john?
[8:01] oop.
[8:04] it is john.
[8:06] see if he can hear… oh, he can hear us now. He needs a promotion. Got it.
[8:12] tell him you just got a field motion.
[8:15] he's got a what? Never mind.
[8:19] book of john, are you able to hear us?
[8:23] jon milkey: I can hear you, and I hope you can hear me now, and I abstained.
[8:27] okay. Thank you. That was two, two abstentions for the minute taker of… stephen lee and john milton.
[8:39] all right, no other attendees online for comment, nobody in the room for comment, so we will, go into our unfinished business with the land use map, zoning map for the westgate neighborhood.
[8:54] and those couple parcels that are…
[9:00] an anomaly.
[9:10] alright, so, this is our second reading on this topic. This is a…
[9:15] part of the comprehensive plan docket, there are a couple things. One, cip, cfp. You guys are going to really be hearing about that in september?
[9:23] and then this is, fixed to the future land use map, otherwise known as the flum.
[9:31] there was a discrepancy from a long time ago that's just kind of continued to carry forward, and it really didn't show itself until we changed
[9:41] wmu zoning to nch.
[9:45] there are 4 parcels, over on the,
[9:51] western portion of what is now known as the westgate
[9:56] neighborhood center, that used to be a part of the westgate mixed-use zone, but because there's a difference between the comprehensive plan map
[10:06] and the zoning that was underlying it.
[10:08] it didn't transfer over when we adopted the new nch code. It was just referencing the comprehensive plan map.
[10:17] so, we have labeled these as temporary. These are… this is a temporary zoning that we put in place. It was because we chose this one because it was the one that was able to match up
[10:28] with the land use table, the future land use table, where you have to match up
[10:31] the future land use designations with specific zones.
[10:36] so in this case, the only one that we could apply to here that made sense was bp, because we had bp adjacent to it, and that was consistent with the comp plan map.
[10:45] now, the question before planning board is to make a recommendation to council
[10:50] on what approach they should take.
[10:53] in the future. Either… make this permanent, bp permanent, or, revert it back to…
[11:02] being, same as the wmu zone, but now within the nch, and also included within the nch zone.
[11:09] for reference, these parcels include pagliacci's, includes taco bell.
[11:15] I listed them all, I can't… it was a third business there that I don't know. Let's talk about… I think I listed, floor.
[11:25] turner. Yeah, which is… the fourth will be…
[11:35] 27817 is, offices of a… up here? …supply company of some sort. Okay. Construction supply company. Thank you.
[11:47] so, these are the four parcels that we're talking about.
[11:50] currently, they're zoned, you know, temporarily zoned bp. I did lay out in the agenda memo the differences between
[11:58] nch and mvp.
[12:01] for the most part, they're…
[12:04] fairly similar in terms of what they allow, in terms of uses. There's some nuanced differences between
[12:11] what the zoning, or the development standards are for those.
[12:16] there's…
[12:18] I think more comprehensive design and public realm standards that we adopted with nch, there's a lot more thought put into some of those things. Bp doesn't really have some of those same kind of streetscape improvement requirements.
[12:32] bp allows building heights up to 25 feet, and ch allows 30 feet, except for the taco bell parcel, which is 25 feet, is the max.
[12:45] also, nch limits the portions of buildings located within 20 feet of an adjoining ldr zone, so these ones here.
[12:55] it limits the height.
[12:57] to… to no more than 30 feet in those zones, so that is in case they're using some of the incentives, they can't go above 30 feet.
[13:08] but other than that, that's some of the main distinguishing factors.
[13:13] between the two.
[13:16] is… you know, we could open up for discussion or questions, I'd like… you're welcome that.
[13:24] what does staff recommend?
[13:26] if I was to choose, I think keeping that whole block the same, in terms of, like, a streetscape, and they're kind of connected, especially taco bell, to those other parcels, I think from a streetscape standpoint.
[13:37] I would stick with nch. Also, I think we have better… well, I know that we have better design standards that apply to nch, and we put a lot of thought into amenity spaces and that kind of stuff. Is nch the purple? Nch is, yeah, this section down here. So, this is goodwill, you have…
[13:56] qfc, and then, you know, there's a strip mall back here, paint store. Does it extend on edmonds way all the way to 100th? No, that's bp. Yeah, so it's bp, and then you have nch again up here.
[14:09] eventually, as, you know, as we move in towards a unified development code, we will have more conversations about
[14:16] zones like bp and legacy zones that have existed for some time. Because I want to say that's the last bp.
[14:23] like, I think everything else that was bp when we did the comp plan update.
[14:30] change to nch. There's bc, which is sort of another fragment.
[14:35] well, that is a bit.
[14:37] so yeah, there's one little… yeah, so, you know, one bp here. So there's going to be cleanup that is going to be involved going forward on bp. I think we've thought more about nch. It's continuous to nch, you know, it maintains that streetscape, in my opinion. Nch is
[14:54] the better tool here.
[14:56] and so, just a point of clarification, the reason that we're talking about these four parcels and not the other stragglers was because the other one was already
[15:06] bp, whereas this was westgate mixed use, and since that zoning went away, we have to assign something else to it. Until we adopted the temporary one, it was just unzoned property. Right. Okay.
[15:21] yes, nick? I think the four properties all… they feel like they're part of the nch, and that…
[15:28] citizens will all say, yeah, well, of course. So, I'm in favor of nsch also. You want to make a motion?
[15:38] I don't think I've been tracking quite well enough, because I was getting my thing ready, but if I made a motion, I would say that these four parcels will all be designated nch.
[15:49] okay? Second. I'll take it. Second. So, yeah, I'll read it again anyway. So, that was a motion by nick maxwell to designate the four parcels that used to be mixed
[16:03] westgate mixed use.
[16:05] as nch on the flum, seconded by stephen lee.
[16:11] other discussion?
[16:13] yes?
[16:15] what are the downsides to the businesses that currently reside there if they change from bp, temp, to nch?
[16:24] is there… are there any issues as far as…
[16:31] in other words, did they then have to comply with something that they didn't have to before?
[16:36] not to existing uses. We're not gonna really… you know, if there is something that's different, it's just a legal non-conforming use.
[16:44] in that case, only if it…
[16:47] it ceases to exist for a year or more, then it goes away. But most of the uses are pretty similar. It's really going to come down to development, and then development, you're looking at new standards. And to develop that as a group property, they all have to sell.
[17:06] if all these were just… unless they become the bottom floor…
[17:10] of a mixed-use, kind of, of, nch.
[17:14] you know, maybe they could build a triangle building here, you know, I don't know, you know, it is challenging, but it is done, too. So, I guess it's not a prerequisite, but probably for the scale of development, it would make sense to
[17:30] to group these together in some manner.
[17:34] I am also in support of this. I think that our protection, or 30 feet max building heights against residential zones takes a lot of that concern out of that, so I am also comfortable with moving these to nch.
[17:49] john milkey, do you have any… I can't see if you have any hands up, so I just want to make sure.
[17:53] jon milkey: yeah, I just… I just put it up. Thanks, lauren. Is there any possibility for first floor residential from these in either the bp or the nch?
[18:06] it is… currently not precluded, under nch… let me think…
[18:16] well, because nch, we adopted ground floor requirements, and that's not…
[18:22] that is not universal throughout nch, it's only along certain strips, so since… do we know if that's one of them? Well, it's not nch, so no, it's not… oh, okay. Yeah, it hasn't been designated.
[18:33] for requiring ground floor commercials, so no. And changing it to nch does not change that unless
[18:40] that is a part of the recommendation from planning board.
[18:44] jon milkey: would we make that a second?
[18:47] jon milkey: motion, lauren, or would we…
[18:50] jon milkey: automatically, make it first floor business only within this motion?
[18:58] I think we should take the motions separately.
[19:02] if that's alright?
[19:03] jon milkey: I have no issues either way, I was just clarifying.
[19:07] but after we vote on this, if you want to make that motion, I think it may have support.
[19:14] jon milkey: okay.
[19:17] any other discussion?
[19:20] all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye.
[19:24] any nays?
[19:26] none. No abstentions. Motion passes. Excellent.
[19:31] so, do we know for sure that the area, the nch area and westgate, that was for sure a ground floor commercial along there, right? Like, I don't even… it does, but it only goes to the edge of the existing… right. So when we redraw the map, if we want to extend that, then yes, a second motion for that… okay. …is warranted. If…
[19:49] that is not desired, then there's no motion needed, because… correct. We're not changing any. Okay. John, is that something that you feel strongly about and would like to make a motion on?
[19:57] jon milkey: yes, I'd like to make a motion.
[20:00] jon milkey: to extend from the existing nch, first floor commercial only.
[20:07] jon milkey: extension to somewhere, I guess, in the proximity of the intersection between 102nd place west and edmonds way.
[20:15] but not wrap it up around 102nd, correct?
[20:19] jon milkey: yeah, wherever you draw your line commensurate with the parcels is whatever would be necessary.
[20:27] I think what brad is clarifying, that it is only on edmonds way that you would require a ground floor commercial, you would not require ground floor commercial for the, 102nd place facing side.
[20:40] jon milkey: correct.
[20:40] 2787.
[20:42] jon milkey: yeah, and thanks.
[20:42] would also be the…
[20:44] jon milkey: yeah, and thank you for that clarification.
[20:46] okay. Okay. Okay, so the motion by john milkey is to extend… extend… second.
[20:51] seconded by john… by lee. The notetaker asked me to slow down. And say names. So the motion is to extend the ground floor commercial requirement, to edmonds way. …to… on edmonds way to about 102nd place west.
[21:11] seconded by lee hankins.
[21:14] all those in favor? Discussion. Discussion, further discussion. So, I… I doubt anyone's ever going to want to put residential on the ground floor.
[21:24] but I don't like restricting people from doing that if they think that it's commercially viable.
[21:32] and so, I would not vote for making it required residential on the ground floor. Okay.
[21:41] any other discussion?
[21:43] we're voting on making it commercial, required on the first floor.
[21:47] yes, sorry. Required, yeah, commercial.
[21:51] you just want the option to do… it could be commercial, it could be residential. Right. If someone comes along and says, okay, we're gonna put apartments on the ground floor, and I'm gonna put a fabulous restaurant on the fourth floor, because it has a view of something…
[22:05] sure. Works for you, it works for you. Okay.
[22:11] any other discussion?
[22:12] jon milkey: one comment based on, the discussion we had on the, pedestrian routes.
[22:20] your pedestrian cord.
[22:21] jon milkey: would this area automatically be, because it's, with the pedestrian corridor?
[22:30] no, that's… the pedestrian corridor… the major pedestrian corridor only…
[22:37] you know, is a… is a transportation designation, but it… and… and…
[22:42] the effect of that, it only allows you to require ground floor commercial in those locations, so…
[22:52] you know, in… in this case, this is along the major pedestrian corridor.
[22:58] you, your planning board has the authority to designate that for commercial ground floor if they want, but it's not a requirement.
[23:08] jon milkey: okay, I thought because it was a major pedestrian corridor already, that it would be prohibited.
[23:15] jon milkey: from converting these commercial buildings, to ground floor residential.
[23:21] no.
[23:22] jon milkey: okay.
[23:22] so it's still… the underlying zoning still has to, require commercial. It's just a mechanism in which the city's allowed to designate that zoning.
[23:36] jon milkey: okay, thank you.
[23:40] okay, any other discussion?
[23:44] all those in favor of making…
[23:47] ground floor commercial required on edmonds way in our newly adopted nch zone.
[23:53] say aime. Aye. Aye.
[23:57] nay? Nay. Nay. One, so that was 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Ayes, 1 nay. No abstention. Motion passes. Excellent.
[24:08] so, look at that, you got a twofer, brad! That's amazing, yeah. I know. It's great. Just to kind of let you guys know next steps with what this happened, because this is a comp plan amendment, if this was just a zoning text change…
[24:22] planning board would not need to have a public hearing, but there's also a cip, cfp that's coming around. When we're ready to make a recommendation, this is going to get packaged with that. Okay. Because it's the comp plan docket.
[24:32] and then that has a public hearing, so just understand that that's kind of where we're at. This recommendation's not going over there right now. Got it. I will have a discussion with
[24:42] council, so they understand what's happening, but that's… okay. And then, we'll make a formal recommendation as that docket.
[24:49] okay.
[24:52] our next agenda item is washington state legislative updates and udc funding.
[25:32] patients here when we get set up.
[25:36] so, this is a great opportunity to introduce everybody to our new senior planner, andy arts.
[25:44] rt? How do you… how do you pronounce rt? Rt, yeah. All right. Andy comes to us from a… more of an engineering-type background, a systems engineer background.
[25:54] but has been involved, as chair of planning commission in renton for some time, so he's well-versed in a lot of
[26:01] the topics that we discuss.
[26:04] he's, been in maybe about a month or so, I think he could hit that mark, month and a half.
[26:10] he's been compiling a lot of information about udc and mapping out our existing code, and putting on his systems analysis hat, and trying to find all the problems as they approach. Anyways, he's here tonight to… one, just… this is really kind of setting us up for the next two years.
[26:30] of the scope of work that is… coming your way.
[26:34] it's a good transition from the tree code to a look ahead. So, there are many rcws and new bills that we have to… we have to approach, and we have to address. He's gonna highlight those very briefly for you, and then we're going to talk about
[26:52] some of the udc work, some of the work that he's done already.
[26:56] and we'd like to hear feedback on
[27:00] probably kind of that body of work and approaches or thoughts that you may have as we start to formulate a work plan to move forward with.
[27:09] with that, I'll turn it over to andy.
[27:11] awesome, yeah. Yeah. So, there's two parts to this presentation.
[27:16] the first part is the, discussion of the different, sort of, updated, legislation coming out of, milkey. And then the second part is our, proposed, sort of, udc work program. I'll get more into what that means coming forward.
[27:31] but overall, so I'm trying to provide an overview of the city legislation affecting the za regulations, and then provide an update on… or provide information on how that will affect the city's code going forward.
[27:46] once introduce the cdc code that we're looking at, and then discuss any sort of anticipated schedule for future coding events. So right now, this presentation is more for informational purposes only, no actions are required.
[28:00] when they get bored of this time.
[28:04] so this is the overview of all the different rcws that are coming out of olympia. There's about 13 of them now, and these are all,
[28:15] these all, will be applied for, or will be reviewed for a 2027, calendar, with the exception of…
[28:23] the family burial grounds, will be, covered this year.
[28:28] that'll be reflected in the schedule that I'll be presenting in the end. But we decided to break it… to help explain, we decided to break it up into four different, like, overarching…
[28:39] themes for these, these, updated regulations. So, part of it's increasing housing supply through different lot splits and transfer and development.
[28:48] another part is modernizing development code, including things such as the child centers, and setting, as well as parking updates and facade modulation. And there's also some other minor sections there for streamlined, streamline permitting.
[29:03] by updating our permitting processes, as well as looking at, the comp plan at, for the, specifically for the climate element, and what changes would need to be accounted for there.
[29:16] so just diving right into it. So first up are lot splits. This is hb 1096. It's focused on… this is up for the increasing housing supply category.
[29:27] and the purpose of this regulation is to expand housing opportunities by allowing residential lot splits.
[29:35] so this is specifically at, sort of, smaller-scoped, lot splits compared to the subdivision process we're going to look at, which looks at 5 or more.
[29:45] individual plots from a… from a, essentially, a parent property. This will just look at a couple, sort of one or two, division within that plot itself. So the regulation requires… er, states that we have to allow lot splits.
[29:59] and that applications may be reviewed concurrently with residential building permits, so we can't, rather than sort of staggering the review process.
[30:07] so these newly created lots must meet… still meet the minimum density requirements set up by the city, and that the, excuse me, approved splits must have a lot split survey recorded with the county auditor.
[30:23] how does… how does this work with…
[30:25] we changed the housing density to allow up to 4 units per ldr.
[30:30] so, lot.
[30:32] how is this… play with that.
[30:35] so, it would still need to meet the, unidensity requirements for it, but it would just sort of be,
[30:44] if the lot split could not fit that housing density, or could not fit that density within the individual separated lots, it wouldn't be able to go through, essentially, because we still have to meet those housing density requirements.
[30:59] so, to clarify, it's a, streamlined path to a subdivision, but still needs to meet all the requirements of a subdivision. Oh, of the lot itself. Of the unit density of a parent lot. So, when we established parent lot, you had…
[31:17] ldrm, which is 8,000 square feet, still needs to meet those unit density requirements. It just creates an easier mechanism for splitting those off into fee-simple ownership. Got it. So when you lot split, are you then building two?
[31:33] units, or are you building x number of times the number of apartments, or number of condos that are here?
[31:41] the unit density is still contained within the building types that we had, and we… and the unit density we established for parent lots. Okay. So, how it is with middle housing code right now, that's the same.
[31:55] the unit density does not change. However, some of the administrative processes of splitting those into individual
[32:02] lots is slightly different. We just have to make sure that our code is
[32:07] compliant. You know, we do have unit lot subdivision already, and we're going to have to get into some of the nuances between what lot splits are versus unit lot, and see how the, you know, where we need to make some corrections.
[32:21] I think you just said this, I just want to clarify. So, if it's in a region where the zoning is the minimum lot size at 6,000 square feet, the lot would have to be at least 12,000 square feet to be split in two?
[32:36] or do we have to allow the 6,000 square foot lot to be split into two 3,000 square foot lots? Let me say… say it like, like, okay, so there's…
[32:48] let's maybe give an example of cottage housing.
[32:52] those are kind of easier to kind of visualize, right? Like, cottage housing, we have a certain unit density that we allow.
[32:59] and for sake of argument, let's just say we allow four per parent law.
[33:06] got it.
[33:07] the parent lot could be split into the four smaller lots.
[33:13] that are still all contained within that parent lot. The unit density of the parent lot does not change, just the mechanism for creating land ownership opportunities for the individual properties and buildings change.
[33:27] 4 is not a good number, I mean, because you're confusing 4 then with the maximum that you could do on an ldr lot.
[33:34] how about 6?
[33:37] you can't do… I mean… you can't do 6. It's limited to whatever the unit density is. How about 4 plus the community facility that has to be there? The community building could be there. It would probably be on the parent lot, because it would be owning in common. Okay.
[33:54] trying to think of the nuances here. How many derivatives… how many derivatives we can come up with.
[33:59] okay, how about…
[34:02] an attached dwelling unit and a detached dwelling unit. You could keep going down, but it's the same thing as what our ldr is, it's just the mechanism for creating individual ownership opportunities. So, essentially, if you had a single-family
[34:17] one house on a lot that was 8,000 square feet, and you built a dadu. This would allow you to sell the land associated with the dadu.
[34:28] as its own… split lot, yeah. Yeah. Without it…
[34:32] but it's still… the overall parent lot is still meeting that…
[34:36] requirement. Correct. Of 6,000… or 8,000 square feet? Correct. Okay.
[34:44] but the eighth… the dado lot is not necessarily…
[34:50] meeting the minimum lot size of the zone.
[34:54] no, I mean, it's similar to, like, our prd, our planned residential development process right now. It's something that we've been doing, I think, since the 70s or 80s.
[35:03] there's a few… there's actually quite a few around where you had a large piece of land a long time ago, and… and they…
[35:10] retained the overall unit density for the entire parcel, but then they organized them a little bit differently. This allowed them to maybe stay away from steep slopes, or avoid waterways, or streams, or things like that. So each individual
[35:25] single-family home that was built there isn't subject to all the same setbacks for their lot, because their lot really just encompasses their house and their garage and maybe their driveway, or something like that.
[35:36] but then the rest of it's shared in common with… underneath an hoa.
[35:40] so…
[35:41] and I don't want to get too in the weeds, because I know you're, you know, we're going to talk about this more in depth, but I think a scenario would be, okay, now I've…
[35:50] I've sold the dadu, and it has its own lot.
[35:54] is that person allowed to also build a dadu on that lot? Or after it's sold, does it go back to the parent lot? Is the parent lot in… like, how would that work, right? Because the parent lot would still allow for up to 3?
[36:10] yeah, it doesn't come its own parent lot. No, I know it doesn't come its own parent lot, but if it was part of a parent lot, and that… and the person that bought the small one said, okay, well, I want to build another one.
[36:21] how does that work? I don't know that we're going to have the answer for that question. Yeah, I mean, these are some of the things that we're going to have to untie. Yeah, so I think those would be the kind of scenarios that we would be… but the original parent law stays the parent law in perpetuity?
[36:35] okay. So… when you sell a house, it's by lot number.
[36:41] parcel. Parcel number. So, if you lot split.
[36:45] would the split portion that you put the dadu on get its own parcel number? Yeah, it's its own tax id number, yeah. Yes? That's part of the purpose of doing this, yes. You create a taxable lot, you create a new…
[36:59] you know, a mechanism of ownership. Right, so if it has its own parcel number, how then is its own… is it its own
[37:08] I'm sorry, how does it… and then is it part of the parent bot?
[37:12] if you've now split it off officially with its own parcel number, for tax purposes and for ownership purposes.
[37:21] how, then, is it part of the original lot?
[37:24] it is… it was created subject to the unit density of that original plot, and that… or there's…
[37:33] you know, legal…
[37:35] things that are put in there. Legal description's part of it. So we might need a little, title.
[37:40] debrief when this comes back of how title, parcels, ownership works, I think is… would be helpful. Okay. It's a whole other thing. Yeah.
[37:54] one last clarification. It sounds like we're going to have an increase in…
[38:02] 2,000 and 3,000 square foot lots.
[38:07] parcels.
[38:10] is that right, or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
[38:14] I guess it…
[38:17] I guess you could say that in terms of, you know, even how we allow our unit lots right now. I could pull up some examples if you guys want to see. I could show you on our…
[38:28] gis map, how they look. If you have one handy, that would be helpful. Yeah, give me a second and I'll navigate there.
[38:36] should we go through the other items?
[38:38] yeah. We want to have a fight about this one.
[38:43] and you'll see this is how we do. You give us, like, a little bit of a nibble, and then we're like, here's 7 questions for you. Luckily, I didn't have to fly far. This is, you know, kind of in the same area where we're looking. Okay. Now, this is a prd, but this, I think, exemplifies what it is, right? Here's your standard.
[39:05] you know, this is… everyone has their own setbacks, everyone has their own… you know, lot size.
[39:11] here's a different option. This option here, in particular.
[39:16] these don't all meet the minimum lot size themselves, but when you take them all collectively with the total lot.
[39:25] around here, if I highlight on…
[39:28] selecting other things. I turn off the zoning layer first.
[39:44] so…
[39:50] I can't… for some reason, it insists that I want to look at this, but…
[39:54] I think you get the picture there.
[39:56] right?
[39:58] this is all owned in common.
[40:00] there's a stream that goes through here. There's a reason why they did this prd a long time ago. Now, this is a big example.
[40:07] a smaller example, imagine the same kind of thing, except for
[40:11] you know, this is the parent lot, and then your adu, or whatever unit it is, is like one of these.
[40:19] whereas the entire parcel meets the unit density requirement, but then there's an ownership opportunity for someone that lives in an adu.
[40:31] I know the sun was going down. It's like a really confusing person. So,
[40:39] any more questions or examples you want on this? No, I think we're good.
[40:45] thank you.
[40:52] john, when we're sharing a presentation, I won't be able to see your hand, so feel free to…
[40:58] speak up if you have questions or comments, okay?
[41:01] jon milkey: will do, thanks.
[41:04] so yeah, so the main action for this one is just to update the ecdc, establish these review procedures, as well as amend the subdivision and zoning regulations, as well as answer those questions about title ownership and parcels.
[41:18] so next up is housing… is the housing accountability act, sb5148. And this was meant to improve accountability and consistency with, utilizing local housing policies. So our… the city has to submit the housing element and regulations to commerce for a compliance check.
[41:37] and the, compliance has to be,
[41:42] meet the gma housing goals and requirements, commerce regulations, cepa requirements, and stepped housing requirements, as well as gma co-living density, and parking requirements.
[41:52] we must also require affordable housing… the affordable housing developer to sign a covenant or deed restriction that maintains that affordability for up to at least 25 years.
[42:03] and, if I may, just to kind of tie this back to our previous conversations about middle house.
[42:09] commerce is establishing a test, basically, for our…
[42:15] housing element and our design… our zoning
[42:19] requirements to make sure that what we're actually adopted is feasible.
[42:24] so there's a feasibility test that our code is gonna have to go through at some point.
[42:30] and, you know, we will address that when it needs to be addressed. Currently, there's, it was enacted, it's a commerce thing. We're waiting on commerce to do the policy development, the program development, and then it'll be triggered by updates to the housing element.
[42:47] or, if someone challenges us on our zoning designation.
[42:51] requirements.
[42:55] what's up?
[42:57] okay?
[42:59] any questions here? No questions?
[43:01] oh, there you go, john.
[43:03] jon milkey: yeah, when,
[43:05] jon milkey: for… for middle housing, when we were, it's now able to, construct four… four units on a parcel if one of those units is affordable, and that was a 50-year
[43:18] jon milkey: does that remain at 50, and then other existing units, are at 20… greater than or equal to 25?
[43:27] yes, that is still a requirement of the middle housing elevent.
[43:33] jon milkey: okay, thanks.
[43:34] yeah, this doesn't change that.
[43:41] so next one is the transit oregon development,
[43:47] rcw, that's hb1491, and this was meant to encourage higher density residential and mixed-use development near major transit stations. Now, this actually only applies to a couple smaller locations in edmonds, mainly the edmonds station
[44:01] the sounder amtrak, as well as the 238th street southwest and highway 99 intersection, or the, swift, like, brt bus.
[44:11] so this would, in effect, require that we increase the floor area ratio for the station areas by 2… to 2.5 for the bus station, and for 3.5 for the train station, with an added 1.5 bonus for affordable housing.
[44:29] the main issue here is that we don't account for fourier ratios in our code, so we're gonna have to do some
[44:36] extrapolation kind of workaround to see how we do these, or how we set up the…
[44:42] sort of setbacks in density for these, properties.
[44:47] and, just before I move on, who understands floor area ratio, or would like a brief explanation of it? Explanation, please. Okay, so… I was gonna say, it's not in our code, we know nothing about it. A floor area ratio of what? Means you cover up 100% of the property.
[45:04] with one story.
[45:06] ratio of 2 means you cover up the entire parcel with two stories, and so on and so on. Now, if you only… if setbacks come into play, you push that up.
[45:17] right? So, if setbacks come into play, and just say you've taken out, let's just use easy math, 50% of the lot area, because it's taken up with setbacks, then that means
[45:28] a one floor ratio would be two stories.
[45:30] and the two-floor ratio would be 4 stories.
[45:33] and so on. So, those are some of the considerations that we'll have to make around that, and it may be different for different areas, because highway 99, it may be more appropriate for 6 or 7 stories, whereas
[45:45] you know, some of the other locations, we might want to be a little bit more sensitive about that.
[45:50] and these new numbers, the 2.5, 3.5s, those are…
[45:59] we have to allow at least 2.5?
[46:04] do you also allow development code that
[46:10] allows that to be achieved. Maximum 2.5. Yeah.
[46:14] but I think, I mean, I think the biggest…
[46:16] area of concern is probably the train station, and the waterfront, and… correct, yeah. Yeah, I think that's…
[46:23] that will be the biggest part of that discussion, I'm sure. Okay. For the… it was very specific for in terms of the bus stations, in terms of, like, the frequency for the, like, the bus routes, but for train stations, it was just really any train station that
[46:35] handles passenger service would have to meet this. Sir, what's the radius outside those? I think it was a quarter mile for the bus station, and I think half a mile.
[46:47] virtual station.
[46:49] we'll have to… yeah, I mean, the waterfront… are there exceptions for…
[46:57] critical areas? Waterfronts? Yes, yeah. Yes. Oh. Oh, okay.
[47:01] yeah. I mean, these, yeah, typically will follow, sort of, yeah, growth areas, sort of restrictions on us, as well as the landmark properties and some sort of things.
[47:11] and just clarifying, these numbers are 2.5, 3.5. We could do 3 and 4 if we wanted to. Of course, yeah.
[47:21] so…
[47:23] so this includes also a 20-year tax exemption for the formal housing, mfte, multifamily housing within the station area, and a 50% reduction of impact fees for street, bicycle, and pedestrian projects in the station area. We are also not required to allow off-street parking.
[47:39] within the station area, and there are also infrastructure grants available for the station development.
[47:45] andy, since the air kicked on, can you, increase your volume just a little bit? Sure, yeah. Thank you. So… now it's stopped. What are you saying about parking?
[47:55] situation, if you have a 3.5 at a train station.
[47:59] you have to provide on-site parking.
[48:01] oh… so… we're not required to provide,
[48:08] parking for on-site, it's only on off-street parking that's all required.
[48:15] I think you said that backwards. May not require off-street parking, so you do not… yeah, so you, you, you will not have to have a parking lot.
[48:24] on these parcels.
[48:26] that are subject to this code.
[48:30] at all.
[48:33] sure. Okay.
[48:35] aren't you glad you're moving to idaho? No, I'm just kidding. Well, only because the parking would… crease.
[48:41] street parking.
[48:43] potentially valuable.
[48:46] parking would increase… if you had to build parking into the… onto the lane, onto the lot, then the far would track going higher.
[48:55] yes.
[48:57] so, I'm thinking about a bit of sounding wrong. Yeah, yeah.
[49:00] this was, essentially a huge push from olympia to try to really increase our density while also using, providing transit options to residents here, so…
[49:11] so… in part because of this whole floor area ratio, metric, and the fact that the…
[49:21] bus station areas is independent of the zone itself. We'll pretty much
[49:26] require, or motivate us to essentially establish a trans area development overlay that applies to any of the zones within that… those areas for the ert station and the edmond station. So that's going to be some extra information with the rfr as well, because it's not just one zone we can apply to everything, it's…
[49:45] so, it's more additional, like, factors that go into the creation of the of the setup.
[49:52] okay.
[49:55] any other questions before we move on?
[49:58] okay.
[50:01] next up is step housing. So this is encouraging, supportive transitional, emergency, and permanent supportive housing.
[50:09] by reducing local regulatory barriers. So it essentially has us…
[50:16] states that we have to allow transitional corporate housing, where residences and hotels are allowed.
[50:21] and provide… and allow for indoor… allow for indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing where hotels are allowed.
[50:30] so we actually already have a bit of code that sort of describes this. It's just making sure that the, uses, that we currently, or uses in these zones match what is required here.
[50:44] and so this is different than what we… because we talked about this and had a recommendation. Was that earlier this year or last year? I guess it was probably last year.
[50:52] any insight as to how this is different?
[50:59] I think it's mostly just the actual uses associated with it, so we have to provide it, make sure it's, to be, make sure it's included in these specific, zones where these are allowed. Yeah, I think for the most part, we're mostly compliant. I'm gonna have to really dig into some of the smaller nuances, but I don't think this one is going to be a heavy lift. This is probably going to be…
[51:19] an easier one for us to tackle. Okay.
[51:25] cool. Yeah, this one's supposed to, like, focus on, like, the siting and permitting design review type of pieces of it.
[51:39] one thing I see potentially up there is that previously, step housing was allowed in all areas where hotels were allowed.
[51:47] in that first one, it says now where residences or hotels are allowed.
[51:52] that's correct. So is it now adding step housing to, like, ldr communities? Yes.
[51:59] when… when, that's different. It requires additional zones if there's not enough capacity within, you know, within the
[52:10] you know, based on the projected need within the areas that are already providing
[52:14] so if you don't have enough hotels… or areas that allow for hotels. Oh, areas that allow for hotels. Then you have to expand. Got it. Then you've got to expand into… so that's some of the analysis that you have to do, I think we're okay, but… okay.
[52:26] and we probably don't have to allow it in all residential areas.
[52:33] we just have to allow enough areas to provide steadfastness.
[52:40] I think we can get creative.
[52:42] about where we allow motels. Yep. Okay. Okay. That might be the easier solution. Okay, I just wanted to highlight it was slightly different.
[52:51] it's a little bit different. It is a little bit different. Yeah, yeah, it is a little bit different.
[52:55] and there's… very different.
[52:57] but there's things that we're gonna have to… nice, nick.
[53:00] there's things that we're gonna have to… to… verified,
[53:05] and do the analysis on, just to even see if, you know, what we would have to approach with. Yeah, I mean, so many of these, you have to interpret, like, okay, what does this really mean, and how does it apply to us, and then bring it to us, and that's… yeah. That's a whole endeavor in itself. Yep. Right now, we're just setting it all up, so you're prepared. Yeah.
[53:25] getting us all the curtains. Yeah.
[53:31] so besides that, the, so we are able to impose reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity use requirements for these.
[53:39] and we have to ensure regulations are not more restrictive than other types of lodging or residential development in that same zone.
[53:48] okay. Otherwise, pretty straightforward, in terms of the allowed, like, not allowed in critical areas sort of thing, so…
[53:54] next up is religious affordable housing.
[53:58] hb1859. So this is, meant to expand affordable housing on religious property, by providing a density bonus for affordable housing, by… hosted by a religious organization.
[54:15] so, the current setup that we have that is requ… is…
[54:22] sort of required by the regulations is at least 50% of housing set aside for low-income households, with an ami of,
[54:31] look… most 80%?
[54:34] or 20% for households with an ami of, at most, 50% would receive a density bonus.
[54:40] and this is slightly different from what we allow now, where, in terms of… it's… for rentals, specifically, it's 50% of rental units have to meet, 60% of ami, so it gives them slightly more
[54:55] income to work with for getting these density bonuses.
[55:00] does the state dictate what that density bonus is, or is it high level, you have to allow a density bonus?
[55:08] oh, I think it's more just high-level low-density about us. I don't remember seeing anything that's support. Yeah, so whatever the underlying zone is. So, most of churches are located in low-density residential, which is historically where they've been located. Not all, but most.
[55:23] so in those ones,
[55:25] for example, you know, you could build up to 4 units, you know, when you're meeting affordability requirements, and they're probably going to meet affordability requirements through this mechanism. So, in some world, they could get up to 8 units.
[55:39] on a, you know, whatever the… parent lot sizes.
[55:44] for those church properties. What dictates that it's double?
[55:48] so density bonus.
[55:52] 50% for households. I thought it was… maybe it's… maybe it's,
[55:56] maybe it's just one and a half, so…
[55:59] that's what I was asking. If the state is dictating what that density increases, or if it, like, bumps to the next
[56:07] I'm sorry.
[56:09] obviously, it seems to just vote for the next…
[56:14] density bonus we have. I didn't see anything in there prescribing a specific density bonus for it.
[56:19] does the religious organization.
[56:22] need to retain ownership?
[56:25] could this be a developer that participates with it?
[56:30] religious organization, and really…
[56:33] I'd love to get back to on that one. I'm pretty sure they have to retain ownership, but I'll double-check to make sure.
[56:38] that's a good question.
[56:54] I wonder if we have a long time. Yeah, this one is…
[56:58] yeah. 2034, so this is, like, this is the longest time. Should we just punt that, or… it's… it's scheduled to be punted. We have some time. Okay. It's puntable. It's individual to be punted. Okay.
[57:13] so next up is family bureau grounds, and this one, as I mentioned before, is… not huntable. Not huntable. Definitely not puntable. We'll be seeing some updated regulations on this, or some updated code on this coming out in the next few months or so. Somebody's got grandma on ice.
[57:29] I'm just waiting.
[57:36] yeah, so the idea is to allow property owners to establish friendly burial grounds on their own private property. So there are some borough guidelines associated with that. They're allowed to construct mausoleums, or columbaria, and the burial grounds must comprise less than 10% of the parcel.
[57:53] this is just idle curiosity, apologize. Is there any requirements of how the body is prepared? Is this, like, only for cremation?
[58:04] no! No, no, this is the whole… whatever you've got.
[58:08] okay, can… okay. Are we going to talk about this in more depth? It's our next… it's our next item, so I don't know if we actually get to talk about… so, do you have to retain the burial ground if you transfer the property, sell the property? Exactly. Yeah. That's interesting. You have… mausoleum on wheels.
[58:31] the previous owner does have the option of taking the body with them, essentially, and they have to disclose if there is a burial ground on the site, to meet your insurrection.
[58:42] but if they choose not to take part of the different… so, I believe the chair had the, the new owner would then be able to,
[58:55] if so, if the sentence not provided by the property owner, the property owner may position a superior court to write an order, to have the bodies moved.
[59:08] it's a future business. Wow.
[59:11] okay. We can write ordinances to regulate, or purpose that via salvation burial grounds. And we haven't… the current interim ordinance is to prohibit this? Correct.
[59:23] is it human only, or could it extend to pets?
[59:26] pets are… pets are… I think you can bury your pet right now. You can bury your pet right now.
[59:33] yeah, so this one just flies the humid zone.
[59:39] but yeah, we'll be able to cover more about this in the next item, though, so I don't spend too much time here.
[59:45] yeah, we'll come back to that.
[59:51] next up, it is child care center siting.
[59:55] let me just fix it up.
[1:00:01] oh, here we go, okay. So, the… this… the purpose of this, regulation was to improve access to childcare by reducing zoning restrictions. So we have to allow child care centers as outright permitted uses in all zones except industrial zones, light industrial zones, and open spaces.
[1:00:19] we may impose reasonable restrictions on permits, such as pickup, drop-off, and, like, screening.
[1:00:27] we also may, provide… so we also have to provide conditional use approval of a child care center in an industrial or a light industrial zone, unless, it is in or around high hazard facilities.
[1:00:41] so, we do somewhat meet a lot of these as it is. Most ones already allow,
[1:00:47] these charter centers to be built, however, many are listed as conditional uses rather self-right.
[1:00:57] what would the, like, regulations around pickup and drop-off look like?
[1:01:02] like, you can't have them on certain streets, or…
[1:01:07] yeah, so it would probably just be, sort of focused on,
[1:01:13] provide… or limited parking in the area, too, so you have a spec… like, a specific designated area for, vehicles coming in and out to their kids.
[1:01:24] is child care center well-defined in our community?
[1:01:28] yes. Such that somebody couldn't take advantage of this, build offices, call it. Correct, yeah, no, it does… yeah, we do specify that it has to be, like, a daycare center if it has a certain number of, like, occupants that are a certain age and such.
[1:01:44] oh, I can bring that forward for the next discussion that this time this comes around.
[1:01:50] the child care and child care centers in residential areas now, operating under conditional use permit.
[1:01:58] pay traffic impact fees.
[1:02:01] that's a good question.
[1:02:03] I'm… not sure, I'd have to look at the whole table of traffic impact fees. Okay.
[1:02:09] yeah, yeah, it's not something I do too often, but…
[1:02:13] would a child care center con, conform with, mixed use or, you know, in neighborhood centers and hubs? Could it be on the ground floor as a business?
[1:02:24] yep.
[1:02:25] currently, and there's actually one in westgate right now. Yeah, makes sense. So it's commercial.
[1:02:31] yeah, it's commercial.
[1:02:34] okay. Enterprising.
[1:02:36] you don't need to look it up for me now, brad. I'm just curious. I am too now. Answer questions.
[1:02:42] you know, just revenue generating.
[1:02:49] do you hold off now? No, go ahead. We'll get there. All right.
[1:02:54] so next up is residences in commercial zones, sb 6026, the, purpose of increasing housing opportunities by allowing residentials… residential development in commercial areas. So this one gets…
[1:03:07] somewhat confusing. And we're actually… the action for us at this point is really just waiting for policy guidance from commerce.
[1:03:15] mainly because the description included states that we're not required to provide housing where in…
[1:03:24] areas… in total… when the total area is greater than 40%,
[1:03:29] zone for commercial or mixed use. And it gets complex in how they define what they mean by total area, as well as, like, where they define a percentage. So it could be potentially a lot?
[1:03:42] or it could be a whole zone. Exactly. So, we're still waiting on feedback from this point, so… yeah, if I can, I could add some background to this. So, this is similar to the one that we just addressed, right? You know, we're just choosing ourselves here. When we were talking about, the major pedestrian corridor.
[1:04:01] yeah, this is another piece of legislation that further tries to constrict our ability to require ground floor commercials.
[1:04:10] when they were developing this, they… the way that they had approached it,
[1:04:15] was kind of vague. I think it said, like, 25% of mixed-use areas or zones.
[1:04:22] but 25% of mixed-use zones, I don't know what they mean, like, individual zone districts, individual, like, you know, looking at the whole square footage, or just looking at, like, so, say, for instance, in our bd zone downtown, you only require ground floor commercial for, like, the first 45 feet.
[1:04:40] the rest of the lot allows residential or whatever.
[1:04:44] is it just that piece?
[1:04:46] that where ground floor commercial is required. So, when we're…
[1:04:51] going around and around with the lobbyists, I said, you guys, they need to make this a little bit more specific.
[1:04:57] so… what was adopted, it was… 40% of… total acreage.
[1:05:05] which still leaves some policy questions, like, you cannot require more than 40% of total acreage of these mixed-use zones.
[1:05:15] well…
[1:05:17] you know, commerce was initially saying, well, you know, it's going to be too much work to try to analyze
[1:05:22] where it's required and where it's not. It's like, no, the costs are too… too big. And just using edmonds as an example, now, say, for instance, we
[1:05:30] we don't require ground floor commercial along highway 99, but maybe someday we want to.
[1:05:35] if a really deep lot, like the ones we have on 99, you have to include that whole lot, that would make it hard to continue to
[1:05:44] require ground floor commercial in smaller areas, like the bd zone or downtown.
[1:05:48] so, I think we've convinced them that that's just a gis,
[1:05:53] analysis. It's not that difficult to do, and give us the option to calculate it either way we want. So, if they're going to allow us to calculate it where it's just
[1:06:03] that area that we require ground floor commercial.
[1:06:07] there's not gonna be much for us to do.
[1:06:09] except for proof to commerce that… we're not exceeding that 40%.
[1:06:15] if…
[1:06:17] it's calculated different, I still don't think we have much to do. Unless, in the future, at some point, we want to say.
[1:06:23] highway 99, we think we need to require a ground floor commercial along a certain percentage of that ground floor.
[1:06:30] for economic reasons or some other types of reasons. Then, at that point, we will have to redo that analysis and show it to commerce. But I think right now, even as it is, we're compliant, but I just want them to be specific about what we're measuring and develop policy for that.
[1:06:47] a lot of variables. You wouldn't implement this the same in downtown.
[1:06:54] you'd have different languages.
[1:06:55] well, this would be citywide.
[1:06:59] so it's a limitation citywide, but you have very different situations to try to apply this to.
[1:07:05] it's a matter of how it's calculated and the policy that commerce is going to take. I'm trying… I'm working with commerce to develop a policy that
[1:07:15] allows us to do the calculation just where we're requiring ground floor commercial, not for the full depth of a lot.
[1:07:22] which seems to make sense.
[1:07:25] nfa…
[1:07:27] support that, and at least it seems like cities, you know, have kind of signed on to that letter.
[1:07:32] to count… to commerce, that there's support for that approach.
[1:07:38] then, you know, we could just simply show, hey, our bd zones are 10ch is where we require it.
[1:07:45] we're below that 40% threshold.
[1:07:49] again, for us, either way, it doesn't make a huge difference, but in the future, it may.
[1:07:55] unless they allow us to be more flexible in how we
[1:07:59] show that we're meeting that requirement.
[1:08:06] there are no other questions. Very topic next, parking code updates.
[1:08:12] the purpose is to minimize parking requirements to improve housing affordability.
[1:08:16] so, specifically, this is done by,
[1:08:24] preventing us from requiring no more than a half parking space per family-family tolling unit, and one parking space per single-family home.
[1:08:33] we're also not allowed to require minimum parking for residences that are less than 1,200 square feet, and multifamily that is less than 3,000 square feet.
[1:08:42] as well as for non-residential ground floor uses and mixed-use zones.
[1:08:49] so, my first thought was, this is… our current code has, for the dadu,
[1:08:56] code, as if you build a second dadu, you're required to provide one parking space, but since our dadus are 1,200 square feet or smaller, that would negate that code requirement. Correct.
[1:09:08] and then non-residential ground floor uses in mixed-use zone, that would be… if you…
[1:09:17] are going to build a… in an nch, ground floor commercial, and then… condos, apartments, whatever, above it.
[1:09:27] your parking requirements would be calculated on the residential units only, but you would not be required to provide any parking for the businesses that are on that ground floor. That is correct.
[1:09:40] interesting.
[1:09:48] yeah, we'll look forward to that one. Parking's a hot button.
[1:09:54] okay.
[1:09:58] okay, next is facade modulation setbacks. This one is also… we can definitely punch down the longest road we can find and not have to worry about it.
[1:10:10] yeah, we had a hold, setback, we saw a modulation. Wouldn't be modulation?
[1:10:14] stepping back to building issues.
[1:10:18] so, yes, part of that is for the, setbacks, changes the actual setback requirements for, these specific projects.
[1:10:27] but it also limits the, so current… many codes, including ours, requires multiple materials be used when, develop… creating these developments, so this would essentially limit the number of things required in creating these.
[1:10:41] it also calls for updating parking requirements as well, specifically for affordable housing, for modular housing, passive construction.
[1:10:49] too sure what that one is. And then mass timber construction.
[1:10:54] so the intent of this is to reduce development costs to…
[1:10:57] increase affordability? Correct. Yeah, so by essentially limiting the number of material, or the amount of materials that you would need, or the variety of materials you would need, and maximizing the, essentially, developments
[1:11:10] area, or build an area within a lot, you could increase affordability for the developers there. So it's suggesting that you eliminate requirements for modulation or setbacks? Essentially.
[1:11:26] yeah, so, I think… I think we're gonna need to get… maybe creative about how we…
[1:11:32] look at folk and, and, orientation.
[1:11:36] requirements for prominent entries, windows, and things like that.
[1:11:45] but it's going to take away some of our ability to require very different forms. Step backs on upper levels.
[1:11:53] and… dictating a certain number of materials we use.
[1:11:59] don't.
[1:12:00] yeah.
[1:12:01] we're gonna deep dive into… I'm… guidelines.
[1:12:07] yeah, unless he told this, I think I'm boobied idaho, too.
[1:12:12] just put a big box. This is another punt. I mean, yeah, we've got time, it's okay.
[1:12:19] yeah, this one's pretty far out.
[1:12:24] so next, I mean, philosophically, as architects in urban plot, we talk about placemaking, you know.
[1:12:31] thinking about that, people, in fact, works.
[1:12:34] not just the buildings, but the open space, the green space, and… to me. Well, it's saying that the city can't require it. Hopefully, we have architects that do value that kind of stuff, and I think that there are many out there. I think there's also many out there that
[1:12:53] design from a computer without, I think, really taking into context everything that's around it, so…
[1:13:00] you know, cities have always tried to limit the bad actors.
[1:13:04] but in doing so, they've probably also…
[1:13:09] limited some creativity from people that know what they're doing.
[1:13:14] it'll be striking a balance between… and I did… I've tried to pull some examples of this, but more of this is done, like, tastefully, essentially. So this is, a pure mass timber construction,
[1:13:26] I believe this might have been from uw, but if not, I know that uw does have several buildings that use this master administration sort of setup.
[1:13:36] so they want to sort of create an open space for the student residents there.
[1:13:42] and it's not universal to all construction, it's just these construction types.
[1:13:47] at the same.
[1:13:49] always.
[1:13:51] so that limits it quite a bit. Yeah.
[1:13:59] okay, so next up is, land use permit updates.
[1:14:05] so there are two bills, including this one, but they pretty much supplied to the permitting process for us. We've sort of grouped them together here. The first is stimulating the permitting process for hb2418.
[1:14:17] that goes about essentially defining, some of the, sort of parameters and characteristics for a permitting process. These includes, includes changing how the types of project permits are defined. And by that, essentially, it…
[1:14:31] I mean that, essentially, it redefines project permits to exclude permits issued for bringing a development into compliance with state and local codes, as well as assessing capabilities for civil plans
[1:14:45] or capabilities and soil plans for water, sewer, and stormwater utilities in special purpose, and public utility districts.
[1:14:54] additionally, it looks to find the determination completeness
[1:14:59] other verses across the board, so that it clarifies that it's a measure of the application's procedural completion.
[1:15:08] it also includes, clarification for permitting deadlines, as well as applicable entities and refund policies, and allows applicants to waive review deadlines as well.
[1:15:19] and it modifies the deadlines for defined complex infrastructure applications, which is a different type it also defines there as well.
[1:15:27] and it identifies a designated permit official with final admin authority on residential project permits and cepa reviews.
[1:15:40] okay. Yep.
[1:15:43] yeah, so this one's definitely much more of a… definition, kind of.
[1:15:49] regulation or anything else.
[1:15:53] then the next one is sb5611, and this is just looking to encourage, the use of binding site plans when,
[1:16:03] particularly, conversion of submarines.
[1:16:08] so for providing site plans, commercial zones include multifamily residences.
[1:16:12] nope.
[1:16:16] multi-builder residences, are conditionally permitted within commercial zones when done through a binding site plan.
[1:16:25] the binding site plan permitting process also adds, is added to a list of processes and regulations that must be applied equally between cics and other forms of ownership, so it's another sort of minor definition in detail. And the permit processing timeframes are applied equally to bsps as they are
[1:16:42] to subdivisions.
[1:16:45] I just want to encourage using these final site plans compared to the subdivision process for short flat subdivision process.
[1:17:01] right? Good.
[1:17:05] and then the last one for this is the climate element. Just… the purpose is just to clarify that we have to incorporate a climate element in our comprehensive plan, where we have to plan for ghc emission reductions, climate change resilience, environmental justice, and transportation impacts.
[1:17:25] so this is something that we already have. We have a climate element, we just need to update it. There is money from commerce, about $500,000 for this work. We just need to apply for the grant. That's a body of work that's gonna…
[1:17:38] encompass a couple-year process of doing all this calculation, public engagement, stakeholder engagement.
[1:17:46] and then, you know, whatever implementing code that would have to go.
[1:17:50] based on the policy and direction that the comp plan takes, so… yeah, for those who were here during the comp plan update, we punted, and said, okay, we don't have to worry about this one as one of the elements, so…
[1:18:04] now here it is. It's back. 2029 looks like a really long way away. I mean, when it comes to… it's 3 years away. There's a lot to do, so…
[1:18:14] part of the plan, is
[1:18:18] creating systems that will reduce the consumption of gasoline and natural gas in edmonds.
[1:18:24] if you want to just pretend to do that, you can do it pretty quickly. If you want to actually do that, it's going to require at least 5 years of education, and we don't even have 5 years left, so…
[1:18:36] we don't have enough time to do this appropriately.
[1:18:41] to do… to enact a climate action plan takes 5 years, or to… a plan that will reduce
[1:18:50] consumption of gasoline and natural gas. But the… I guess what I'm trying to say is you need 5 years of education to actually see the reduction, or just to develop the plan?
[1:19:00] five years to develop the plan, because you need to have the
[1:19:04] citizens on board with the plan that you developed. Got it. Rather than, we just made it up on our own, now you guys have to believe us, that's what I think you're doing. Got it. So where it's worked out well is, like in bellingham.
[1:19:18] is they took 5 years to educate everyone, and then created their plans based on what the citizens were asking for.
[1:19:26] and the result is good.
[1:19:30] it's still not done. They haven't… you can go up there, lots of gasoline cars. But, it is something the citizens are on board with, because it was done with them.
[1:19:42] we're not gonna do that. We're gonna…
[1:19:45] this is what's gonna happen. They never know.
[1:19:49] sorry, sir.
[1:19:51] well, with that, that tends to be my area.
[1:19:56] yeah.
[1:19:58] okay?
[1:19:59] any other comments, questions, climate action plan?
[1:20:04] okay.
[1:20:05] alright, so that was the last one, so this is just the actual timeline we have set up, for reviewing these for next year. So, as you can see here, we've got the first
[1:20:17] I want to say, are all part of this 2027 omnibus amendment package, and we'll be bringing forward to you at the same time. We've, sort of dedicated 5 different discussion days, as well as 2 public hearings, for, looking for a final recommendation from the board. And these would include all these different forms amendments as part of that package.
[1:20:37] and that would essentially start from january 13th to april 28th, is how long it would have to do that, or to go through the whole process.
[1:20:47] that'd be a problem.
[1:20:48] after that would be the sub-housing update, and that would run from may 12th to july 28th, roughly. That's when we're looking to get our, code updates there.
[1:20:59] then parking updates would follow afterwards. So you notice the much longer-range ones, like the facade update, the climate element, update, and emergence property affordable housing are all, stated for 2028.
[1:21:13] and…
[1:21:14] you know, we understand that it looks like a lot when you're looking at all these together like this.
[1:21:18] I think lot splits is probably going to be the one that really requires some… a lot more setup.
[1:21:26] in terms of getting everybody up to speed.
[1:21:29] some of these other ones are more nuanced requirements that probably are really targeted codes that have to change to meet
[1:21:40] what is being required. And it's not up for really local choice, it's just, you know, this is kind of the changes we need to make.
[1:21:48] so, if I'm looking at this, and if we are looking at the end of the year and we're having time, we will reserve some meetings to
[1:21:55] really get into, like, lot splits and some of the more complicated ones, but the other ones that are in there, permit process updated, we did do a lot of permit process updating already. Childcare siting is not going to be a huge lift. There'll be some questions around it, but
[1:22:10] the housing afford… accountability act, that's… that's a comp plan thing, that's a policy thing that is actually…
[1:22:19] more of a commerce thing, and how we're going to comply with that. They haven't stated quite yet. If they come out with something during this period, then we will, look at,
[1:22:31] if there's requirements for us to… that we have to modify, but…
[1:22:35] you know, as of now, I think that we're… I think that we're okay, until we modify our comp plan.
[1:22:42] the commercial zone updates, that is, we're waiting on policy guidance from commerce, that might just be an exercise of showing them it's less than 40%.
[1:22:52] so, and then the binding site plans. It'll be a nuanced discussion, we'll have a little bit more time if we need to, but it's… you know, the big one here, I think, is the lot splits, and that's going to be the one that really occupies the most space. Is there a strategy here to packaging them all together, or why would we not
[1:23:10] pull out something like lot splits to have its own
[1:23:15] you know, or package lot splits with something else, just to reduce the amount of
[1:23:22] stuff in one plan, in one public hearing, in one recommendation, and, you know, is there…
[1:23:31] the thought behind that is kind of like I just laid out. Most of these other ones are going to be really targeted and highly specific to something. If we were to pull out one, we could pull out lot splits, I, you know, you could run those as two separate things if you wanted to.
[1:23:46] our suggestion was just to kind of package them together, so we're doing one sepa determination, we're doing one process, and these then… it reduces the amount of, like, each one of these has to have their own public hearing, each one of these has to have, you know, it consolidates all that work.
[1:24:05] leaves more time for discussion, less time for… administrative process.
[1:24:11] how's everybody feel about that?
[1:24:13] good? No objections? Great.
[1:24:16] so, omnibus package is where I'd like to approach these as we go forward into the future. Here's all the things we're going to need to consider this year. Let's talk about them, let's get into it, and then at the end, we can
[1:24:28] do the public hearing on that whole package, and move that whole package forward. Got it. Now, if it's something like middle housing or those things… right. …that's a little bit more of a challenge. Okay. I know we're getting short on time, so I'll let him kind of get into updating on the udc and where he's at, and…
[1:24:45] and what to expect going forward.
[1:24:50] so yeah, the next step is the udc program, and this includes the interim next steps for what gets set up for the code changes going forward.
[1:25:02] it's kind of… it's a lot. There we go.
[1:25:05] so, to better explain this, I think it'd probably be best to start with what the edmonds development code is today. So the modern version of the ecdc dates back to the 1950s.
[1:25:16] it was primarily formed based on the post-war boom, as well as the establishment of the edmonds ferry service, that connects to the surrounding islands.
[1:25:26] robert's,
[1:25:30] so, edmonds says, at the time, edmonds code relied heavily on use-based zoning, to define how the city would grow. This code has been updated incrementally, due to new state requirements, local policy changes, development standards, and permitting requirements.
[1:25:43] now this framework and method of updating code is pretty common across american cities. However, over several decades, it has meant that new regulations are added to the city code, and that when they are, then it's created a very different regulatory…
[1:25:58] so, sorry. The new regulations are in the city code, however, the base version… the base framework of this edmonds code was created at a very different regulatory environment, and the philosophy on how we built cities was very different back then.
[1:26:14] yeah, and, you know, I know that we've discussed this at length, but it's, you know, we have a code that's been piecemealed together over years, and you guys have dealt with it, right, and struggled with it. So, the unified development code, in short, is, is…
[1:26:29] let's… let's… redo the whole thing.
[1:26:32] not necessarily starting from scratch, but let's format it, let's get the language right, let's make sure that things
[1:26:40] are properly referenced, and we have all the definitions that we need, and we start to untie some of the
[1:26:48] chasing our tail type things that we encounter, from both,
[1:26:53] from both a project, planner that wants to, build a project, an architect and
[1:26:59] developer, and also implementation from, you know, different
[1:27:05] divisions that haven't maybe kept up with updates, and their code now is in conflict with existing code.
[1:27:12] so, unified development code is an approach that many cities around here have taken, and across the country, they're starting to move more in this direction.
[1:27:23] anyways, go ahead.
[1:27:24] so yeah, I can speed it up a bit, too, so I'll have to get into all this. But the… so, main way this is done is, probably for us, has been use space codes. We defined the individual types of zones that we allow, whether it's commercial, residential, or open space, or so forth, as well as the permitted uses and conditional uses that are allowed in each one of those.
[1:27:42] that isn't the only method that is available to us for defining how, a civic code is set up.
[1:27:49] in addition, there's also more formal form-based code, which defines the overall, sort of parameters of how you'd expect to see, a city being developed. So it would include setbacks and building orientations, frontage types, and so forth.
[1:28:07] and we sort of… we do both things already in our code as it is. However, to find a more, we have these general design standards.
[1:28:17] that…
[1:28:19] essentially meet this form-based code, while also defining use-based code in separate sections. However, at this point, none of those really
[1:28:26] are well coordinated with each other. They sort of act independently from each other, and we have tacked on different, regulations depending on what's been passed down to us from olympia, or depending on policy changes we want to see enacted as well from the city.
[1:28:43] but these don't really talk to each other all that well. We have… we were trying to make… we made some progress in better…
[1:28:49] coordinating this in term… for a few of our zones, for instance, for low-density residential, the nch zones, and cg zones, where you'll see specific design standards and site standards that are incorporated with these zones as a way of creating how
[1:29:05] or defining how this community and neighborhood should feel at the time while you're going through them.
[1:29:10] but those are, like, individual and sort of one-off cases, and they haven't really been applied across the city, and they're still lacking some instances, too, of covid is kept in other places that aren't found in these sections.
[1:29:28] so the idea is, sort of, as part of this unified development, is to start standardizing and, compiling these different, sort of, code into a more usable format for everybody to work from.
[1:29:40] so this is… this is form-based code and use-based code. They're essentially two different tools that we use to define the city code itself. But you can sort of understood that udc is more of a sort of framework that we would use these tools, and so,
[1:29:58] so it defines, like, how those are structured and organized, and where they would apply at a given time.
[1:30:06] so the idea is to use udc, to integrate these, these code, formats into one unified framework, where they're organized by standards, by topic, and how they apply to each, zone, district, and overlay, and how they get set up.
[1:30:24] so the main benefit for this is that it creates a more streamlined and 4-year decoding framework.
[1:30:29] for applicants to work from, for staff… city staff to work from, and pretty much everybody in between. Anybody who has to work with the same code would have a better experience of it, because these… all the code that they have to refer to is all co-located in one spot.
[1:30:45] and it is a just more streamlined approach from the workflow. So, are you starting with a standardized udc framework that ties those two form-based u-space together? Or are you… are you creating it from scratch?
[1:31:02] sort of mostly from scratch, where we are referring to other, cities that have done work on ibdc as well, and we're looking at other guides that have been available that sort of cover ibc's setup.
[1:31:15] so there's not one standard format that you just apply everything to? No, if you look across… yeah, if you look at… well, if you look at unified development code across different cities.
[1:31:28] they all organize them a little bit different.
[1:31:32] let me just kind of give you an example of
[1:31:36] some issues within our existing code.
[1:31:41] this started, we were talking about wmu earlier, back when we were working on that, 2010 and 11,
[1:31:49] there was a desire to… to create wider sidewalks and a more enhanced streetscape.
[1:31:55] bulk.
[1:31:56] engineering wasn't necessarily on board, and public works wasn't on board at the time, but planning knew that you needed wider sidewalks if you're going to have those kind of buildings and those kind of uses on the street. So, streetscape requirements got put in a zoning code where it had always existed within the framework of
[1:32:15] engineering and public works.
[1:32:18] and it superseded what they're doing for that zone. So now you have streetscape standards here, you have streetscape standards here, one that supersedes the other.
[1:32:28] and then, over time, that also gets replicated in cg, that gets replicated in nch, because
[1:32:35] one code is moving… is advancing and moving forward faster than the other one, and the framework of the other one is what complicates the ability for them to even consider doing this, because they regulate based upon street type or land use, but it was based upon 1960 and not
[1:32:54] 2010-11.
[1:32:56] 20, yeah, 2020. So net… so it is…
[1:33:01] taking those pieces apart, and putting them back together, and then putting them together where they all speak together the same.
[1:33:07] now, you've seen it done in different ways,
[1:33:11] another example that I could say is in ldr zone, we've developed a suite of building types, middle housing building types.
[1:33:20] those were created at the time because, you know, that was envisioned as a separate whole
[1:33:26] section, where you have all the building types across the city that are allowed.
[1:33:31] and then within the zone districts, you just reference up to these different building types that are cloud, because it's just on a table, because x, x, x, you could do this, you cannot do this.
[1:33:40] same with frontage types.
[1:33:43] and streetscape.
[1:33:46] types?
[1:33:47] all of those would exist.
[1:33:49] together.
[1:33:50] and then you have a condensed zoning code that is mostly tables and, you know, probably some graphic illustrations of different design standards or whatever else we think is important to include in there.
[1:34:07] but I'd say there's… we've been scanning all across the country, and, you know, we've landed on
[1:34:14] a couple of really good examples, I think south bend, indiana, one that I've brought up in the past, done a really good job.
[1:34:19] it's created by opticos.
[1:34:22] but, you know, I think it's a good framework to use and to maybe start from, but I don't think
[1:34:29] maybe we're trying to create something that's even better than that, I think.
[1:34:33] so it's a big challenge, but…
[1:34:38] yeah, I'd say even locally, looking at different udcs, there's not a specific current… they all have the same things in them, for the most part, but they're not organized the same way.
[1:34:47] I think how you stack it is important.
[1:34:50] it should… it should… you should have two pages in the beginning. If you're… if you're picking up this code to begin with, and you don't know anything about it.
[1:34:57] here's your steps of walking through here. And then you know exactly what you need to go to.
[1:35:04] I have two questions.
[1:35:06] is the idea of a form-based code is…
[1:35:11] independent of a unified development code, or to use a unified development code, you really have to switch to form-based
[1:35:19] you could do it, either way. The regulating framework
[1:35:25] is… is kind of how… it's just kind of how you approach it. Okay.
[1:35:29] you know, form-based, here's your building types, here's your frontage types.
[1:35:33] those are all defined… yeah. …in a section.
[1:35:36] the use-based one, you're gonna have a use… you still have use tables, it'll be a hybrid approach. We're not gonna completely get rid of uses, but it's going to be form-based driven.
[1:35:50] basically, you know, for the building types themselves, instead of just a used table.
[1:35:56] euclidean-type zoning is what they call it, you know, separating out industrial uses and residential uses, because, you know.
[1:36:03] wants to live next to that. That's one thing. That's how, you know, this whole thing got started in ohio, I think.
[1:36:09] with…
[1:36:12] an approach that, okay, let's look at building scale. Let's look at, you know, how those buildings relate to the street. Let's look at how that street and those
[1:36:20] frontage, you know, the entrances to those buildings relate to the street. Let's look at the streetscape, and does that streetscape support those buildings? It's looking at all those different components as each individual forms.
[1:36:33] and using that as your regulating tool that, instead of just… single-family residential.
[1:36:40] industrial.
[1:36:42] retail, you know, like, commercial, like, things are becoming more mixed-use. We've moved more to a mixed-use thing, and that's why we have form-based code within our code. So what does that… how does that interact with comp plan?
[1:36:55] well, I think it depends on the approach that we wind up taking. I think…
[1:36:59] the approach would be to retain
[1:37:02] the existing framework that we have, just put it into a new system, in terms of how we're regulating it.
[1:37:09] we'll probably continue using most of the same names. We might condense some of the bc, bp, you know, those, like, fragment-type things.
[1:37:16] maybe even some of the rm zones, like, what do we want these to be? Like, is this…
[1:37:20] you know, should this be its whole own piece, or is this just a residential zone that is a little bit higher density than our low density residential?
[1:37:30] so…
[1:37:31] you know, some of those things we could consider, those can be topics that we address, but really, we're not looking at changing those aspects of it, like the uses and the existing form, but we're looking at
[1:37:42] a framework that acknowledges that spectrum and is consistent across all of our code.
[1:37:48] in some cases, too, it might actually be easier to trace to the comp plan and other plans as well. This is because of how, when you break up the code to different portions, whether it's through districts or sub-districts or overlays, it allows us to essentially take apart
[1:38:04] the portion of the comp plan that we're concerned about, for instance, whether it's providing more transit-oriented development and sustainability, or providing more environmental protection, for critical areas, and allows us to map that directly onto you.
[1:38:20] zones across the board, rather than sort of tucking that into each individual part and replicate it across different sections. So you could have, like, an overlay that is specifically for, as discussed in one of the,
[1:38:31] the regulation updates would be the transit redevelopment overlay, and that would apply to any sort of zones that are within a quarter mile or half mile of those station areas. Or you could have, like, a waterfront overlay, where it would apply to any of the waterfront or, zones that but the, the south here.
[1:38:49] so it would allow us to really just sort of be able to create a more comprehensive approach for it, and better integrate these things.
[1:38:58] no more questions at this point. I do have an example up. It is in small font. I didn't realize the size or the screen, but on the left-hand side, you'll see that this is the, udc example from south bend, indiana.
[1:39:13] it's…
[1:39:15] hard to redefine, but I'll just tell you what it has. But the idea is that this is for the standard, sort of, urban neighborhood district, and within that district itself includes all the different, sort of, form-based uses that directly apply here. All within one section, it's very easy to read. It includes, like, site standards and building components, and design, and
[1:39:34] sort of street standards as well, all in one specific place with, different use tables.
[1:39:41] and, measurements and pictures to help describe how this process is all conducted in one sort of integrated, and, for one integrated approach for a user to sort of go through.
[1:39:55] and then, on the right hand, we have the current standards for the neighborhood business zone.
[1:40:00] and this… this is a good example of what we're sort of referring to with the code being in different sections, because if you look, it has several different chapters mentioned for this one zone that exists elsewhere. It also references to…
[1:40:15] other zones in terms when accounting for mixed use. So, like, I believe… if not the business… the neighborhood business zone, at least for nch, references ldr zones when it comes to the actual, sort of, residential development that's allowed in those areas. And, at…
[1:40:34] at face value for just one section doesn't seem that…
[1:40:38] difficult to deal with, but when you're working through these large lists of codes across multiple titles, and they all sort of have the similar theme of sort of referencing, like, referencing each other in a very circular sort of format, or sometimes they don't even really agree with each other, it becomes very…
[1:40:53] cumbersome to work through. So we're trying to…
[1:40:57] untangle everything and streamline it to a way that makes sense for everybody involved.
[1:41:03] are there, like, local cities nearby that are using form-based code now?
[1:41:09] they've sort of implemented parts of it. I believe redmond is doing it, and is planning to do more. There's also…
[1:41:18] it's a case.
[1:41:19] viewers on a bit of… bit of the two.
[1:41:24] and I think bellingham has also done work on it. But they've all sort of taken, like, a piecemeal approach, and haven't really looked at a more comprehensive setup for this. Yeah, for, like, sub-areas, similar to how we've done.
[1:41:34] so… ldr takes a form-based approach.
[1:41:38] nch has a form-based approach.
[1:41:42] former… wmu had a form-based approach.
[1:41:46] cg has a form-based approach.
[1:41:49] but those are… because those are more modern for us, things that we've addressed more recently.
[1:41:55] it's a… it's, it's a…
[1:41:58] I think once you start to go through it, and you actually have to kind of, like, work through two different, like, one code like this, one code structure like this, and especially when, you know, you guys are in the process of birth.
[1:42:11] participating in making changes and amendments to codes, it gets much easier to understand when you're like, I just… we just need to make a change to
[1:42:21] to this one… frontage type.
[1:42:24] well, you make that change to that one frontage type, and it just filters down to everything else that references that frontage type. So, it's a better stack and a more nimble way to make changes, and also gives us more control of
[1:42:39] being able to develop you know, say, instances where…
[1:42:47] I'm just going to take, for example, like, you know, nch, you have some that have ground floor commercial, and some that do not. Maybe you want something different on those ones that do require ground floor commercial. Well, it's kind of difficult, because it's all tied up within
[1:43:00] a broader code.
[1:43:02] but, within a form-based approach, there's… it's easier to kind of tie those two pieces together.
[1:43:10] I think nimble is the good, good way to put it. Yeah, it's more nimble, for sure, and, allows a little bit more,
[1:43:20] I'm trying to think of the word, but a targeted approach to things when we want to make a targeted approach to things.
[1:43:28] we gotta get to dead bodies tonight, so I don't mean to crush you out, but… so, I just… just thinking about, you know, looking at this out, you know, pushing this out, we're kicking off some of the very initial conversations with… with city staff.
[1:43:44] here, in the next month or two.
[1:43:48] and this is just kind of like, here, this is kind of what we're thinking for work plan, what's the feedback, and then, and we're also, you know, looking at compiling best examples from across the country, of different approaches, so we could bring those to the planning board and say, here's some of the different things, you know, what do you guys like about some of these, what do you not like?
[1:44:08] how does that look in terms of a planning board review? I mean, are we, like, gonna be tasked with reviewing the whole code top to bottom, or…
[1:44:19] no, you're not tasked with that. I mean, if you want to, and that's what… if that's your passion, then go for it. But, we… I think we, you know, specific examples, like the one that was back here.
[1:44:32] oh, just too late. So, like, back here, you know, there may be 3 or 4 different examples of these kind of frameworks. I think just getting buy-off on the framework so we could all understand why we're moving in a direction that we're moving would be helpful. Like, how do we, you know, how do we want to
[1:44:50] organize our thoughts around this, right? And it could be… yup.
[1:44:55] how tall are the buildings? It could be uses, it could be… I mean, there's different ways of looking at that, and I think we'll discuss some of those different options. Okay. Layout…
[1:45:06] you know, if you guys like it, great, you know, it's helpful, but I think, really, it's about implementation and what's going to be easier for users, so I think looking at it as a layperson, that makes sense to me, that does not.
[1:45:18] it's, it's helpful.
[1:45:19] we'll be talking about, kind of, the body of work and how, you know, we're thinking these pieces would come through. Okay. When do we want to tackle definitions? Maybe we should do that up front, maybe we should do that later on, but at least we should at least have a general understanding of what those definitions mean before we get into those other pieces. So those are…
[1:45:37] the work plan discussions that we'll bring back to you is probably… I'm envisioning later this year, we'll start having some of those conversations. I mean, speaking of bodies of work… speaking of bodies…
[1:45:48] yeah, dead bodies? You know, I just realized john's been here, and john, we haven't seen if you've been raising your hand, so… I told him to just chime in.
[1:45:59] jon milkey: nope, I'm in complete agreement with changing
[1:46:03] jon milkey: and, the only issue I think people could have is if the form changes, that's fine. If any content within there changes, I'm sure that's when people would want to know, hey.
[1:46:16] jon milkey: you know, if setbacks are changing, or heights are changing, or…
[1:46:20] jon milkey: coverage areas and things like that. So, no, I think everybody would welcome
[1:46:25] jon milkey: and you're the one who gets to reap the benefit of these developers and architects who are coming to you with permits.
[1:46:33] jon milkey: from a new… from a more efficient code.
[1:46:37] right, yeah, so, yes, so that… the idea is truly just to restructure the coach, restructure the code itself, it's not to really change any of the actual, sort of, constraints that we have there, so…
[1:46:51] yes.
[1:46:52] cool, cool. Oh.
[1:46:56] okay, so, family burial grounds. I'll just give it… do you have, what, maybe 10 minutes? Yeah.
[1:47:04] so…
[1:47:05] just a little bit of the primary. This one kind of caught us off guard. We're like, oh, we're looking at, like, housing and other related things, and building, and wait a minute, burying dead people in your backyard. Yes, that is a thing. The state allowed it underneath,
[1:47:21] substitute house bill 2239. We caught it, early on and adopted some interim ordinances to prohibit that until it could be discussed and further fleshed out.
[1:47:35] council's findings at the time that they based that decision off of is it really complicates our, you know, the comp plan that we just adopted. You know, land use expectations. We are more of an urban environment, not necessarily a rural-type environment.
[1:47:52] so they felt the best method… best approach was just to prohibit it until we could discuss it and have that conversation, so…
[1:48:00] here we are.
[1:48:01] having that conversation about burying dead people in your backyard.
[1:48:05] poor fringer. Well…
[1:48:08] yeah, I guess it's challenging. Front yard's kind of hard. And I'll show you just… I have… I have a one-slide presentation. Great.
[1:48:17] cause I know you like that.
[1:48:19] so, gun barrel grounds is a lawful option to dispose of human remains on privately owned property.
[1:48:30] this, it's termed family burial ground, but it's not required to limit, you know, persons that are just, you know, birth or marriage or adoption. It could be your neighbor, I guess.
[1:48:41] sorry. Freeze.
[1:48:47] hedgehops.
[1:48:49] so the family barrel gras must be established on property owned by a natural person, can't be owned by an llc, or a company, or… it's not a graveyard. It's not a graveyard. It can make… occupy no more than 10% of the parcel, must be at least 25 feet from an existing parcel boundary.
[1:49:08] 150 feet from a critical area, 100 feet from a public right-of-way, so that's your front yard thing. Okay. And,
[1:49:16] 100 feet from an existing drinking water well, or 200 feet from an existing drinking water spring.
[1:49:24] mausoleums, columbara, and other structures,
[1:49:28] must meet specified construction requirements, but those are allowed.
[1:49:32] property owners may not sell burial plots or charge fees or goods.
[1:49:38] it…
[1:49:40] especially authorizes cities to regulate and prohibit it if we want to, so that's within our right, that's local choice.
[1:49:48] the policy question is whether it's an appropriate long-term use
[1:49:52] within our predominantly urban environment.
[1:49:58] I kind of already went over some of the conflicts that, you know, were… was discussed by council, ready for my one-slide presentation. This is a very rudimentary picture of what it would look like in terms of
[1:50:13] as soon as I can find it here. Oop, let me pull it up.
[1:50:22] so, let me just share this so everybody at home can see, too.
[1:50:26] should we get the lights off, too, so we can at least set the mood? I mean…
[1:50:38] awesome.
[1:50:40] any current slide. So this is kind of what that looks like.
[1:50:43] this is just an example.
[1:50:46] say the steep slopes, you know, the critical area across the street there, that's a steep slope, so it's meant to represent, 150 feet from there.
[1:50:55] and, 100 feet from…
[1:51:03] the street, 25 feet from your neighbors, and less than 10 feet of the overall lot area. Now, this represents about a 10,000 square foot lot.
[1:51:12] so you can see how limiting it is on many lots, and most lots that are less than that are going to have a hard time even locating it. Because this is, once you've extracted all that out, that's the only place that they could go. Got it. But on larger lots or more regular lots, there's a lot more opportunities for that.
[1:51:32] for burying more dead people in your backyard, if you'd like.
[1:51:39] okay. That's where we're at.
[1:51:41] so, what we're asking, from planning board, it's, you know.
[1:51:47] what approach do you want to take?
[1:51:49] permanent prohibition, you know, basically continue on with the interim ordinance. Allow family burial grounds subject to, you know, standards that we could discuss, you know, limiting it to, you know, further restricting it more than it already is.
[1:52:06] these are…
[1:52:09] I do know that council wants to get it back on their agenda. I had to have to look and see how tight we are on schedule. So, if you think it warrants conversation, great, we could have that conversation, we can get into depth about where these things belong.
[1:52:23] or if we are ready to say, not interested.
[1:52:28] then you can do that.
[1:52:30] thoughts, feelings? I feel strongly that the per… we should put in a permanent prohibition. There's nothing more creepy. My grandchildren in my backyard, looking over the fence, seeing a couple of tombstones. That would be like…
[1:52:49] no go. No go for you. I also think it brings up a whole lot of questions about what happens when the property turns over.
[1:52:56] and all of the subsequent things are going to happen as a fallout to that, so my… I'm ready to make a motion to permanently prove… go ahead. Nick?
[1:53:08] if… if lee makes the motion, I'll second it. I think it's inconsistent with what we're doing in edmonds, but
[1:53:16] properties turn over much more frequently than makes sense with having a family burial ground in your ground. The properties are also too small for, like, there's a little cemetery in the back for the
[1:53:30] and then there are all sorts of problems.
[1:53:33] about… ensuring that we don't end up with wildlife disintering
[1:53:41] bodies and vans, bodies frequently have brachial formaldehyde, and so that gets into the groundwater, so it's pollution, it just…
[1:53:54] this is a rural question, I think, not an urban…
[1:54:00] suburban kind of thing to do.
[1:54:03] lee, you want to make a motion? I make a motion, to establish a permanent prohibition on family… on family burial grounds.
[1:54:11] I second the motion. Motion made by lee hankins, seconded by nick maxwell to put a permanent prohibition on family burial grounds. Any other discussion?
[1:54:23] right?
[1:54:24] jon milkey: not for halloween, but just…
[1:54:28] jon milkey: the people who voted for this in our legislature, couldn't we just put some headstones close so they…
[1:54:36] jon milkey: get a feel for what they've passed here.
[1:54:43] I'm curious how this bill came about. Like, what prompted this?
[1:54:49] but… neither. I support…
[1:54:52] the motion, I think beyond it just being creepy, I think it does create a lot of complications for
[1:54:59] turning over and development and just oddities of…
[1:55:04] being able to do anything on the land. Yeah. Interesting that it shows up on the… that it will show up on the form 17 seller's disclosure, too, and that's gonna cause all sorts of mayhem on… in the real estate industry. So, I also support the bush. Okay.
[1:55:21] we'll take a vote. All those in favor of, recommending a permanent prohibition on fair mail burial grounds, say aye. Aye.
[1:55:31] any name?
[1:55:33] none. Motion passes.
[1:55:38] that's funny.
[1:55:39] jon milkey: three, lauren.
[1:55:40] you know, easiest, easiest night of my life, you guys.
[1:55:47] alright. Alright.
[1:55:49] extended agenda? Extended agenda, and I was just looking at this. I think we're possibly making some changes here, but
[1:55:57] enjoy your recess. Thank you. I think it's on the 26th. You guys are not back until september 9th.
[1:56:04] and we've already kind of discussed the zoning map amendments. I will, you know, we'll have to package those up, and I'll figure out when we need to plan those public hearings. I have two penciled in here for the 9th, but I have a feeling that we'll
[1:56:18] hunt that and do it collectively with the cip-cip.
[1:56:22] if I can, as long as I could line that up with council, I think I… the…
[1:56:31] september, is mostly going to be taken up with
[1:56:34] as I've mentioned, cip, cfp stuff.
[1:56:38] and then, looking out towards october, that is currently not showing anything at this point. We are going to have to pick up,
[1:56:47] something that came up, kind of… you know, through…
[1:56:53] a question that a resident asked, but…
[1:56:56] we don't have a process for subdivision vacation, short platification.
[1:57:01] so,
[1:57:03] council will probably adopt an interim ordinance to, you know, at least allow that process to occur. What that is, is when someone doesn't want to
[1:57:12] they've already gone through, recorded it, and then they're like, oh wait, we don't want to be cutting more. Yeah. To allow that to just be…
[1:57:18] yeah, take it away, yeah.
[1:57:20] but, without having to go through a whole…
[1:57:22] long, windy process again. It just kind of streamlines that approach. We're supposed to have that, you know, I guess it's an rcw, but it's never been something we put in our code.
[1:57:34] so that may take, you know, a spot in early october, but then I think we're gonna really start getting into…
[1:57:42] some of the details about lot splits, it's probably going to be a good segue from the conversation of… about,
[1:57:50] short platifications.
[1:57:52] and then, ugc work, and… setting ourselves up for… 2027.
[1:58:00] so, that's where we're at.
[1:58:02] and, yeah.
[1:58:04] john?
[1:58:06] glad to have you here for the time you're here.
[1:58:09] wish you the best, and… idaho. Thank you very much, yeah.
[1:58:15] brief comment. So, I attended the council meeting
[1:58:22] last night, to present our recommendation on the tree code.
[1:58:28] I felt it lacking in the planning board presentation side of things.
[1:58:35] I have talked to brad about potentially having a joint meeting with council, where we can sit down and they can ask their questions, because what we've taken 8 months to digest and make decisions on, they have a much shorter amount of time, and so having a less formal
[1:58:56] conversation in a work session with them, I think, could be really to their benefit. So I think we want to look for that on the extended agenda
[1:59:09] going forward.
[1:59:12] if we can talk to council about maybe doing that. When do they need to make their decision?
[1:59:19] by the end of the year? When do they need to decide? October.
[1:59:23] they need to decide in october? Or they need to figure out if they want to continue the… with the landmark tree interim. Got it. So yeah, they really… they could… they could… they could do… they could extend again. They could extend if they want to. They could stop something different if they want to. There's tools that they have if they want to. Okay. I'm not…
[1:59:42] under the impression that they want to have linked conversations. They don't talk about it very much? Or to kick it back here,
[1:59:50] you know, as I expressed to you, you know, there's… I didn't attend the meeting. I think if I attended, it probably would have been maybe a little bit more smooth, because I could have communicated something that maybe didn't… wasn't understood by others. As you've… as everybody knows here, we've had a lot of turnover in administration.
[2:00:08] historically, what we've done is
[2:00:10] planning board has been there to answer any questions when the recommendation is being presented. I always felt that that was a good handoff.
[2:00:20] a new city administrator, you know, new director, I don't think that that was…
[2:00:27] it wasn't something that's required, so, you know, I don't think that when they were sitting there at the meeting last night, that was intentional, but…
[2:00:35] you know, it wasn't part of it. I also understand that there's a part of the conversation that
[2:00:40] you know, probably didn't…
[2:00:41] wasn't communicated how you felt was best communicated, so… so I think, I mean, I think my biggest concern was that,
[2:00:50] I think that the planning board's recommendation was shadowed by…
[2:00:55] staff recommendation, and not really identified as, this is the planning board's recommendation. I know I see, because they're all, done at the same time. My computer says 859.
[2:01:05] so, you know, I think that was my biggest concern in the way that it was presented last night, is it was really kind of all amassed together, and I think it made it confusing for council to understand they're receiving planning board's recommendation, but they're hearing something different, and then we're not there to explain our reasoning on things, or I should say, I was there to explain our reasoning on things.
[2:01:29] and so I think it just made an already complex topic.
[2:01:36] even more confusing, and then the result of that is you have council members who are saying, I think we should kick this back to planning board to simplify. And I'm sitting there going, no, I don't want it to come back, you know? So, I just think that the way that this
[2:01:53] body of work that we've done was communicated to council could have been much better. I'll have to go, but I haven't listened to it yet, but I'll go back and listen to it. Okay.
[2:02:03] anyways, just kind of next steps from that, the city administrator and, the clerk are now coordinating on developing a policy, and what it may include is it becomes more formal, joint
[2:02:18] joint meeting. That'd be great. I think that's a… I think that's a great mechanism.
[2:02:23] I'll follow up later on, once I have clarity from what they want to do.
[2:02:29] so that we don't have to extend, I'm going to adjourn.
[2:02:32] john, thank you for your service. You have a last parting to chat? I would just say this is my last meeting, and I'm sorry to leave.
[2:02:40] it was unexpected, but we are moving out of state.
[2:02:44] I would just say, I think you guys are doing great work, and it's meaningful work.
[2:02:49] and I have loved being involved, and to the extent that I… could contribute.
[2:02:56] I was happy to do so, but…
[2:02:58] you know, keep doing the great work.
[2:03:00] thank you. Thank you.
[2:03:03] with that… my computer still says 9-0-1. Adjourned at 9-0-1. Thank you.
[2:03:09] jon milkey: thanks, everybody!
[2:03:10] jon milkey: good luck, john.