[0:14] Good.
>> All right. Um, I'd like to call this
[0:19] meeting of the planning commission to
order. It's Wednesday, August 5th at
[0:23] 7:01 p.m. Um, I'm Elizabeth Saul. I am
subbing in for our chair Allison Miller
[0:30] is the chair of this meeting. Uh first
item on the agenda is a roll call. So
[0:35] Elizabeth Amanda
[0:41] » and I see online we have James
Whitesides.
[0:46] » Yep. James Whitides.
>> Great. Um and I think that the five of
[0:51] us constituted four. Is that correct?
[0:56] All right. Next item on the agenda is to
review and approve the July 1st, 2026
[1:02] meeting minutes. If everybody had a
chance to verily review the minutes,
[1:07] single page, I move to
um
[1:14] [clears throat]
[1:18] a second. Uh oh, we have five. All
right, go to five then.
[1:24] Okay. All those in favor, I I opposed.
All right, the item passes. And here we
[1:32] are at the top of our meeting. Uh the
public hearing on the 2026 comprehensive
[1:38] plan. So I'm going to get to my things
to the script.
[1:44] Um, so I'd like to open the public
hearing uh at 7:03 p.m. um on August
[1:54] 5th. The purpose of this public hearing
is to approve the comprehensive plan
[2:00] periodic update for 2026.
We'll turn it over to Maggie B for the
[2:07] staff report and recommendation. Right.
I'm gonna go ahead and share screen
[2:12] here. I have uh tries to put together a
little presentation uh or I'd love your
[2:24] hopefully everyone online that
[2:29] James can you see that I'm ready to
share.
[2:34] » Yep.
>> Okay.
[2:36] » We can see it.
>> Okay. I'll try since we don't have a ton
[2:40] of people online, but this since this is
for the record and it's for the comp
[2:43] plan, I just want to walk through even a
document. Um, what I did was try to go
[2:48] through kind of the the big picture um
using some of the slides that are the
[2:53] that consultants have provided to us um
and kind of merge everything into one
[2:59] comprehensive uh overview. So, um, not
going to touch on everything, but, uh,
[3:07] the staff report packet kind of has the
overall summary as well.
[3:14] So, um, for tonight's hearing, I just
kind of wanted to briefly go over the
[3:17] the why. Um, this is my mandated
process. Um, we'll go over some of the
[3:23] growth allocation and the planning
process for 24 and six. some major
[3:28] changes to the plan. We might find out
the big brand element we have um how we
[3:34] are
going to give and stand
[3:43] way too much stuff on my screen here.
I'm sorry I can't.
[3:48] All right, so why are we here? The state
law requires it. So GMA requires all
[3:52] cities periodically review and update
their comp plan. So here we are. uh 10
[3:57] years from now will be clear again. Uh
it is maintain the pretty much the same
[4:03] structure as our 2021 plan but been
substantially rewritten reorganized and
[4:09] expanded throughout the chapters. As you
are all well aware of our statuto
[4:13] deadline for December 31st of this year
reason we're here today because we also
[4:20] have the regulations that correspond
with each regulation. So, uh, this is
[4:24] kind of the first step in that process.
Uh,
[4:28] and so we're hoping to get this moving
forward to be council next month
[4:35] next month.
[4:40] Sorry guys.
Um, so quickly we went through a lot of
[4:44] public engagement dating back to 2024
when we started the raing workshops. Um
[4:50] those kind of were to kick off this
whole process and we have four different
[4:54] workshops all four followed by five plus
community outreach event that we did
[5:02] tonight fair community block party
[5:08] a couple online surveys for how the
parks and red and then how specific to
[5:14] find the element
by
[5:19] um and respect all
[5:26] as far as the timeline uh we've just
prepared and issued the checklist at the
[5:32] end of March March 26 March 2026 sorry
um and then we also issued 60-day notice
[5:40] before required by law and issue between
April
[5:48] the foundation
um their comment period we went through
[5:53] and did not have any file. So that went
through very smoothly. Um we published
[5:59] our meeting and that
[6:08] um again this is the hearing or the
drive recommendation. We're not
[6:15] a recommendation to the council. Um and
so we do have the ability to
[6:23] change it and be able to get some public
feedback
[6:27] um with the goal of in September
adopting the plan. I do think when I
[6:35] originally did this we were shooting
from September 8th. They actually got
[6:38] pushed to September 22nd.
So there is
[6:44] that so keeps us on track. Um, as far as
planning, we're going out to 246. We
[6:50] have that population target for the city
plus our growth area about 3,539.
[6:58] That adds approx 410
residents and for additional housing
[7:04] units of about 365.
Um
[7:09] overall looking at the inventory um and
the pandemic and then under
[7:14] underutilized land um it did show that
we had capacity for that growth and we
[7:20] wouldn't have to adjust our urban growth
boundary. Um we would have accommodate
[7:26] without expanding. Um and because of our
population size, we do not have to
[7:30] address the mandatory housing density
provisions, but we are okay with some of
[7:35] those um
uh big goals and policies to achieve
[7:41] some housing um initiative just by
choice and not by handling.
[7:47] It's really awesome. Um so what's
changing plan and why did revise uh nine
[7:54] chapters and then uh and we have the one
brand new climate resilience element. Um
[8:02] what was interesting is the number of
goals if you remember how much time
[8:06] planning was originally the number of
goals that we basically doubled. Um we
[8:12] added a more consistent numbering format
and then um we do have that ready.
[8:18] Um so there's just not
required optional
[8:26] um
I don't know how much I need to get into
[8:30] this huge uh group here but um climate
resilience we were required to address
[8:38] address um really what we've done into
the facility fairness and environment.
[8:44] Uh so we were looking really at those
hazards like wildfire, snow flooding,
[8:50] extreme heat drought, snow that loss, we
added that severe storms as kind of home
[8:57] right after those. So um that was a
great thing to add um because that is
[9:04] becoming a reality for us. Um and then
uh just looking at our the equitable
[9:11] access to find the information uh and
decision making for all residents. Um
[9:17] there's a separate female staff
reduction set and that applies to cities
[9:22] that are over 6,000 in population. So if
you didn't follow it under that
[9:27] that
[9:31] we did choose to create a single element
but we did incorporate that was like
[9:37] throughout the cont.
[9:45] Um the housing we went home just two
goals um down to six goals. In our
[9:52] current plan, we added new policies, new
barriers. We added um plans for
[9:57] emergency as far as housing, new
workforce housing goals and
[10:03] still
addressing
[10:09] people. Um we expanded to build housing
policies and that was again as a place.
[10:18] Um just some numbers through here. our
additional housing units. We did again
[10:22] 361. We went in and did that deep dive
of if we were to um how's our works
[10:32] um what kind of housing plan would that
be? So I added that number here um
[10:39] 635
um and you'll see that I plan on the
[10:44] extra pages I need
and I do have
[10:49] question about that additional analysis
of
[10:54] you know what how how many people will
be
[10:57] how how many more how student how's
everyone who works here and just a
[11:03] different kind of analysis for what
looking at. So um to look at is that
[11:09] through 61
what we strive for
[11:17] look at there's some analys
[11:27] which is kind of
shows you a big reason why
[11:33] it's income Um
[11:39] here. So uh with our land we uh we have
nine goals. Uh we added longer
[11:47] sustainable building design. Um
added more climate resilience um
[11:56] reference
[11:59] extensions.
Sorry to go ask whe
[12:25] elements um around
those relation
[12:31] Um
and then uh transportation
[12:37] reorganized that added a new wildfire
operation coordination bill. Um added a
[12:43] new standalone parking and move that
from another element
[12:48] where it was more
[12:54] where it should have belonged. Um and
then we did retain that level of service
[12:59] after the same as we've had. Um and then
again US student remains death from uh
[13:05] state highway. We talk a lot about that
services still
[13:14] did expand from one goal to five. We
were we did a lot of work through this
[13:19] as we work through our utility element.
I think we addressed a lot of the the
[13:24] questions.
Um
[13:28] uh
grass wildfire related utility
[13:33] shut off
energy resilient
[13:41] economic development elements. Um we
added another
[13:46] mining
[13:49] strategy there. Um
there was also notes about the the
[13:55] production and number of the we had or
[14:02] um
and then uh yeah part
[14:07] it was down
and then park really expanded along with
[14:13] our post and that was adopted last month
council that we incorporated into this
[14:18] larger expans ethics.
Um it stands
[14:24] and um started our safety private
collaboration.
[14:30] Um talked about how our Spanish visitors
have really impacted our harms as well.
[14:40] Overall just with uh how how we have
complied with state law as far as our
[14:45] review deadline our um adoption or
corporate climate element the housing
[14:51] element requirements
um state
[14:56] participation
plan and then our new um and so there's
[15:03] phone through which is a lot more
detailed um and I know this is just high
[15:07] level one I try to write a lot of stuff
Um but uh we are recommending approval
[15:13] of this. um we have listed back but like
all those corrections things like that
[15:20] obvious
[15:23] and we can still make recommendation
because whatever but tonight um we would
[15:29] recommend
that that you
[15:37] approving it to reounce
recommending approval from city council.
[15:43] Yes. um as drafted and then including
any drafts that you may have that we
[15:47] would attach that
um we did receive one public art that I
[15:54] for you all. I don't know if everyone
had time to look at that
[15:59] and watch your emails. I didn't copies.
Um
[16:04] » I think those are really bad
>> and we we did we'll go over it. Um
[16:10] we'd like some state regulations and we
can kind of talk about it if you have
[16:13] questions. Um anyone didn't get it
[16:20] or decision tonight.
[16:27] But really they had some just uh
comments on the land use settlements. Um
[16:37] immigration housing
[16:42] » they had some comments but
should we speak on now
[16:50] recommendations?
I think I am sorry I just want to make
[16:55] sure I got on the record that they did
that we did receive this last time you
[16:59] discussed it. Um and then we discussed
that
[17:01] » that is the only public comment I
received aside from comments from the
[17:06] the concludes my presc
[17:13] if there are questions I as far as
process um I I think now we open it up
[17:19] to no first we ask if there's any
questions to the staff what it says here
[17:24] oh questions of the staff regarding
process or
[17:35] » I don't
[17:39] mean James
um I have questions
[17:46] um regarding process and I I sent them
in to Celeste and you like late last
[17:53] week so I understand you guys didn't
have too much time to review
[17:59] some of them um like things like that
which hopefully we can resolve. Yeah.
[18:09] » And then some of them were uh I'm trying
to find my email.
[18:16] There we go. Um
[18:22] okay.
Um,
[18:26] one of my questions was about um, GMA
requirements and the the funding
[18:34] requirements for for GMA that they be
funded in order to appear in here. We
[18:40] have several TBD funings in the in the
plan. Yeah, that's okay. We did discuss
[18:46] that. Okay. with um the public
department about it and it's pretty fun
[18:51] that I can find that and the department
of commerce have not they've seen this
[18:56] they've looked through the red draft and
they they give us some feedback but not
[19:00] not all that um that we have
incorporated and so um from my
[19:05] understanding it's fine to have that in
there the way that it's
[19:11] for the department conference we're not
going to get things or any
[19:16] Um, okay.
That's not what it says in code, but I
[19:22] as long as fine with it, that's great.
The other uh one I had a question about
[19:28] was about the the to see between the
transportation elements, transportation
[19:33] improvement plan, the capital facilities
element. I know that and I I dug deep
[19:38] into some
reds. I got into a deep black hole of
[19:44] online food on Friday. Um, and it looks
like we have a history of approving the
[19:49] transportation improvement plan in like
this spring in order to be able to
[19:54] submit it. Uh, we could submit it by
August 1st and I don't think we did that
[19:58] this year. I saw a record of just
got adopted. I saw that it got there was
[20:06] a hearing on it but not not a hearing
sorry a study session where it got
[20:11] presented almost.
I will but anyone can get back
[20:19] and I have money
is just whatever. Yeah, because the
[20:24] money I mean the year the money is spent
sometimes that would be weird like when
[20:29] you receive the money you spend the
money and I understand that that
[20:33] but the total dollars amounts being
different and the project must be
[20:37] different
and so the adopted change that we're
[20:44] going to put in the
but
[20:49] we have right there but so look at
and make sure they make adjustments to
[20:55] the language
for consistency.
[20:59] But the tip that was adopted, do we have
is that what was in the plan or
[21:07] I sent them?
>> All right,
[21:12] cool.
Um,
[21:17] my actual question.
Uh, all right.
[21:23] Let's go. Uh, we can now open this for
public comment.
[21:29] Do we have anybody see
person? So,
[21:35] » um, I was just gonna sit in. So, I know
this is coming to council. It's not, you
[21:40] know, going on. Um
I do have
[21:46] so at this point
>> if you state your name.
[21:48] » Oh yeah.
>> You need me to go somewhere. Is this
[21:52] okay?
>> Right there we are.
[21:54] » I can hear you.
>> See Christ 583.
[21:58] Um
I think that uh referencing RC's 3 RC3
[22:06] is the lighter. Um, I think they have
some legitimate concerns. Um, I don't
[22:13] really know how to address those. I
think I got the gist that they were
[22:19] concerned about
the density issue which [clears throat]
[22:23] has always been there and how to um
balance that with the state requirement
[22:31] allows you know um
use to come in. Um,
[22:37] so
I guess my concern is that
[22:43] there's no
there's no safeguard to keeping those
[22:48] ADUs
even though part of the process was
[22:54] increase the number of supplies so you
have a better chance of affordable
[22:57] housing when actually what it very
likely happened and has some cases to
[23:03] say
some lower price than being bought out
[23:07] for second home.
So, how do you do how do you control
[23:12] that? You don't. I don't. But that is a
that's kind of an unintended consequence
[23:17] of providing just lower smaller lower
price
[23:23] and I've been aware of that all the way
along. That was one of my concerns with
[23:27] that. But how do we if it's public
property you don't have any control on
[23:34] but that you know it just sort of I know
that's happening so that for now it's
[23:41] public
>> all right thank you we have anybody
[23:44] online
[23:50] so I'm just
here
[23:54] » all right Marco please provide your name
and address and make your
[23:59] » Sure. Um, my name is Marco Aurelio. I
live at 149 West Benton Street and uh
[24:06] I'd just like to comment on the um the
density issue and housing in general. I
[24:12] know there's a mandate in the uh in the
comprehensive plan to include housing
[24:16] for workforce. I saw the 80% of the uh
average median income in that. So since
[24:23] the Widner group has been building in
Levvenworth from the behind Safeway
[24:29] which we still had a comprehensive plan
at that time and now the new the new
[24:34] development by uh the reindeer farm
there on Chumstick that equals 580 plus
[24:40] units. Okay, that's about the biggest
density Levvenworth has ever experienced
[24:44] in its entire existence and represents a
40% growth in Levvenworth. And I had
[24:50] made a motion when I was on city council
to impose uh inclusionary housing, which
[24:56] is a Washington state law I think you're
all familiar with in that growth. And it
[25:01] would have represented the largest
increase if we had imposed 10 or 20% of
[25:06] that mandated workforce housing would
have represented the largest workforce
[25:12] housing or even affordable housing in
the history of Levvenore. And I'm
[25:17] curious why that never happened.
[25:24] When I made the motion, it was rejected
by council. But why didn't the planning
[25:28] commission support imposing workforce
housing exclusionary policy on the
[25:35] widener committee, the widener
development group, telling them they had
[25:39] to build workforce housing or they can't
build in in love as a percentage of
[25:43] their growth?
[25:46] » Uh, thank you for your comment, Marco.
Do we have anybody else online?
[25:52] Um I I have Dory
and Dorothy, if you want to speak, I can
[25:59] allow you to talk and uh you want to
unmute yourself and then state your
[26:04] name, address,
I'll give you a few seconds.
[26:11] » Hi. Um can you hear me?
>> Yeah, we can hear you.
[26:16] » Okay. Um, my name's Dorothy Johnston. I
live at 10404 Eagle Creek Road.
[26:24] And um, I just was um, listening in to
make sure that the comment letter uh,
[26:31] written and submitted by residents
coalition of Chalan County RC3 that that
[26:37] had been received and that everyone had
a chance to review that. And I
[26:42] appreciate um um that some of the folks
have actually read that and are
[26:49] commenting on it. That's pretty much all
that I have right now.
[26:55] » Thank you, Dorothy. Anybody else?
[27:07] » TC, would you like to make a comment? So
state your name, your address.
[27:21] All right, we'll assume that you do not
wish to speak. Uh
[27:27] you're not muted. Um all right. Well, we
are going to then close public comment.
[27:32] Uh public comment is still at this time.
Um all right, commission. Is there any
[27:37] discussion or motion on the
recommendation of
[27:42] plan
to
[27:46] fix
[27:57] I if the the comments that particularly
influen
[28:04] are interesting to me because it feels
as if me and the council here in the
[28:11] last 12 months have touched on really
all of these items sometimes in deep
[28:17] discussion
and had
[28:21] had there been
uh approval of our minutes or
[28:28] action, you know, the people here from
the RC3 actually, you know, listening to
[28:32] what was happening in council meetings.
I think so much of this has been touched
[28:36] on. Yes, there's some great ideas here,
but it feels like great ideas coming
[28:40] from an area where we have put in some
serious time and effort already. And so
[28:46] I I well I don't disagree with some of
the things that they're saying in here.
[28:50] I feel like that uh the commission has
torn over quite a few of these items and
[28:56] you know the ideas of um that are put
forth in here while you know very good
[29:03] are feel a little old in and I'm you
know I haven't been on the commission
[29:07] for too long but we've discussed a lot
of these items uh multiple times and in
[29:11] them and so this I struggled with these
comments only because I feel like had
[29:17] anybody from the RC3 been president in
any of our meetings, they would have
[29:21] really heard some deep and thoughtful
discussion about the subtitles as
[29:25] opposed to kind of putting them on us
like late in the thing some like as
[29:29] something we missed when I feel a lot of
these things, not all of them by any
[29:32] means, but a lot of these things were
things that this commission has not only
[29:37] looked over but thought through and so I
just wanted to, you know, make sure that
[29:42] everyone knows that these are items that
we have not only looked at but in depth
[29:48] and I understand why there might be some
frustrations as to where
[29:55] our recommendations are going as opposed
to what may have been said by the
[30:00] community in the 2024 forum or a lot of
other items of fear. But, you know, I
[30:05] just although I hear them, I feel like,
you know, he me, not just me, but
[30:12] together have really gone gone over a
lot of.
[30:17] And I just want to put it out there that
I feel like we have not not covered
[30:22] everything, but, you know, taken an
in-depth look at a lot of.
[30:27] » Yeah, that's a really uh thoughtful
point, and I I wanted to address a
[30:33] couple of things. But they did bring up
that maybe they're not there. Um like
[30:39] like the the whole idea of of a you know
neighborhood feel or keeping things like
[30:45] they are now is is not we can't do that.
We're going to have by the Department of
[30:50] Commerce to take those languages out of
our thought because it it creates
[30:54] barrier for people that are trying to
build something a little more
[30:57] affordable. And so we have to balance
all of these things together. We have to
[31:01] balance like the parks and the housing
and our our commercial zones and it's
[31:06] all like the tourism like it is all you
know sometimes they they pull against
[31:11] each other.
um can look like we're not missing when
[31:14] we you know we really are like you were
saying it's it's um it's a it's a
[31:20] balance and I I think we've spent a lot
of time um trying to figure out figure I
[31:27] think you guys
hour to hour
[31:30] » I I think that we need to be very
careful when we do try to preserve a
[31:38] neighborhood's character
Um because
[31:43] often preserving a neighborhood
character is preserving the racial
[31:49] makeup of that neighborhood
which is not what we want. want to be
[31:56] more inclusionary,
whether it is
[32:00] of other races other than white and
Asian uh or um
[32:09] you know different abilities uh
different income levels. Um, so
[32:17] yes, we need to be able to offer housing
that is affordable to people who earn
[32:25] different incomes.
And doing that is offering different
[32:31] options of housing. And part of that is
also
[32:40] doing housing that is smaller or or just
different options.
[32:47] And so we just
we do want to be more inclusion. We want
[32:52] to make certain that all of our
neighbors are welcome in our food.
[33:00] Absolutely. And I know that one of the
other things I mentioned withinary
[33:04] zoning and I don't think that the comp
plan now sort of us doing that. It's not
[33:11] it's not like we're not allowing it.
It's just I know that the mayor has
[33:14] talked about it a lot. It's um it is
very difficult in a town size um to get
[33:23] something.
>> I would say we're exploring lots of
[33:25] different ways to
require the inclus of affordable housing
[33:32] in our council
[33:36] the one specific option.
[33:41] » Yeah.
[33:46] » See, that's precisely
to say I I just want I just want the
[33:51] constituency to know and understand that
like not only have we looked at a lot of
[33:55] these things, we have looked at every
angle to try to figure out a good way to
[34:00] include these things and bring them into
the comp plan to bring them into the
[34:03] vision of where Dworth is headed. You
know, and if you would review our
[34:09] minutes, you'll see you can really see
what we have done or what we have
[34:13] discussed and where you know what
avenues we have looked at which it feels
[34:18] to be a lot of a lot of the different
things to to you know to address some of
[34:23] the huge needs which are you know
brought out and some for sure. there
[34:27] just, you know,
[34:31] feels like it's been as
in in a lot of in in a lot of what I
[34:37] see.
>> I'll just refer to one other thing that
[34:39] I, you know, based on the like community
feel and listen, I feel like well,
[34:45] there's an offsides. I feel like
some of these comments that are brought
[34:50] in here are talking about wanting to be,
you know, closer with our neighbors,
[34:55] which actually if you have density, you
have more neighbors, you can be more
[34:58] close. So, like I that's like the sort
of comment that I would, right? But um
[35:02] and I I think that you've done a lot in
our design uh you have designed for
[35:10] triplexes and multi multi-unit um
buildings to
[35:16] research from many different places. ask
the public at, you know, you guys had
[35:21] staff had a a great display at uh one of
the community open houses and received a
[35:26] lot of feedback there and then sort of
revamped our our design requirements as
[35:33] far
>> resial
[35:36] design standards. Thank you for the
direct title. Um we had several meetings
[35:40] about that. So, I refer to that uh those
those meetings those updated uh design
[35:46] requirements which hopefully both
balance the the the need to house young
[35:51] people or accommodate young people in
our communities while also making sure
[35:55] that we um feel cohesive in the
community and that the community doesn't
[36:01] the built community doesn't feel out of
line. Um
[36:08] um you know neighbors neighborhoods
themselves
[36:14] in my neighborhood um we have had two
community events within the last month.
[36:22] We had a backyard uh
concert theme and then
[36:31] um and then we had um you know a
neighborhood barbecue.
[36:37] That is a part of how neighborhoods
bring neighbors together. So what it
[36:44] takes then is actual neighbors
doing that
[36:50] and
that's not the plan but
[36:56] that is you know something that
neighbors need to take responsibility
[37:01] for themselves.
All right. Um do we have any discussion
[37:06] um not related necessarily to the
comments that we received but just about
[37:10] the plan and of itself or the motion
[37:17] James has his hands up
and sorry James doesn't notice your hand
[37:23] » yeah no no worries I I think it's um
I think it's important for us to remind
[37:29] the public and remind everyone that the
comp plan is meant to open doors for us
[37:32] and provide opportunity community to
write code, but the city council scopes
[37:38] what the planning commission deals with.
So in all of these scenarios like it
[37:42] returns to the commission to decide what
our scope is and we right now are trying
[37:46] to deliver um on most of the areas that
have been raised as comments and I think
[37:52] the comp plan is this is this comp plan
is more holistic than anything has been
[37:56] before and gives us more opportunity and
I think everyone should view it as that
[38:01] and make sure that we don't feel like
it's pushing us in a in a direction.
[38:04] It's actually just leaving more doors
open for the city planners and the
[38:09] planning commission to work with the
council to deliver better code. And
[38:14] again, planning commission's
responsibility is code. And I think it's
[38:18] very incumbent on the public to
understand what our role is and that we
[38:20] don't decide our own docket.
[38:31] If there's no
[38:35] planning
recommend to the city council 26
[38:45] draft and with the discuss
[38:50] format spelling
[38:55] there a second.
All right. Any more discussion before we
[39:00] vote? All right. All those in favor? I I
[39:07] » change.
All right.
[39:12] Um so the vote was 1, two, three, four,
five to zero for approval. Um
[39:21] and the motion carries.
All right. At this time, we'll close the
[39:25] public hearing on the plan periodic
update for 2026.
[39:36] All right.
Can't believe we have anything else in
[39:40] our agend [laughter]
[39:46] that didn't take as long as I thought. I
added a lot a lot. I'm very ambitious
[39:52] for the August meeting, too, just
because we have so much.
[39:55] » We do have a lot. It's all really
exciting. All right. So, um I like how
[40:00] you added um like gave these giant
chunks of ABC D under five. So, we'll
[40:08] get to
Yes, I did. Thank you for
[40:19] 7:40.
Um, okay. So, we'll go to item five in
[40:24] our agenda. Development regulations
review and discussion. Let's go to item
[40:28] 5 a code of update. Uh, all right.
Maggie. Yeah. What? Well, I'm asking for
[40:36] your thoughts. We had a deep dive on
this and about 11 was like the single
[40:41] event. Um and so the thing with that the
intent of the original the way I got
[40:47] that was I
[40:51] population estimates both for money and
getting back
[40:58] and getting back housing
as well. um it doesn't much way to do it
[41:06] and I would this is my recommendation to
kind of what I'm running around but
[41:12] » we can discuss in
perfect specific to us which is what we
[41:18] building situation any so yes
>> and then the second portion
[41:25] you the way I have it is by their
community
[41:30] » I how they
>> why it
[41:35] » right now I don't even think I don't
know true
[41:39] » yeah because what if if and when there
was to be an annexation and we l to then
[41:44] that's something that can be dealt with
permit by permit case by case at that
[41:48] » we have drafted for annexation when we
bring in
[41:53] we will address this now
>> so let let the people in charge a bit
[41:58] deal with them now when when it becomes
nec necessary. We can look at it and if
[42:02] it's already filled, that sounds like
we're already
[42:06] » comfortable with that.
>> Yeah, I agree.
[42:10] » And I know but the council had directly
mess
[42:18] preapproved
plans
[42:21] there. I know something about
>> Allison was going to draft a memo and
[42:25] she never looking forward to reading.
Okay. So
[42:29] » I the more come
is I believe in April instead of six
[42:36] months. So I get to October. So we have
a hearing and oh just
[42:43] » I remember the memo was going to say
something along the lines like we're not
[42:46] going to pursue anything that has to do
with trying to tag something for any
[42:52] amount of time or any reason. And you
know, we also talked about a gray area
[42:56] regarding like, let's just say that you
built the ADU and want to live in it and
[43:00] not your house. Are we now going to
control how they rent their house out
[43:02] because they built the ADU? Like, and so
like I struggled with the idea of we we
[43:08] struggled with the idea of how how you
would even start down there. And so we
[43:12] all said she she would draft some sort
of like verbiage or language that would
[43:16] help us tell the city council that
that's not something that we thought
[43:18] that made sense for us to even engage in
because once you start down that path
[43:23] how even how you start and then where
where does it end? So
[43:29] » and what was what's the time frame on
that again?
[43:31] » I think
[43:35] » okay you need to see something for the
September then if not earlier.
[43:41] Okay. I I don't want to
[43:47] We have a 4% count and what I have on
the agenda with council at our next to
[43:53] discuss that sites and then to kind of
give my idea like hey I'm not going to
[43:59] have anything.
I was hoping I have at least I go on
[44:06] that piece and then I need discuss
[44:12] » universally in favor of not having
so
[44:17] um and so
>> see they'll try and summarize a little
[44:21] bit of the discussion I'm
>> a little fuzzy on it but basically
[44:28] you know it's some cost from the city
it's already taken doesn't matter how
[44:31] many people use it. So, there's really
no paying from the city. You know, they
[44:37] people do
pre-approved plans to save a little bit
[44:42] of money. Um, but
housing is housing trying to support
[44:49] more housing. We're trying to support
types of different kind of housing
[44:54] for that. Uh, another big piece of it is
the breakfast movements
[45:01] lapse on sale of a property and so
you know in our thought
[45:10] the next owner probably won't be allowed
to have directives there. So the sale
[45:15] would if they were able to get on that
date from that go away
[45:24] go back.
>> Yeah. And you know, I think that the
[45:29] city benefits by having more
ADUs
[45:35] and that's why the program is
development begin with and we don't
[45:39] really see
Ben breakfast as a negative you know we
[45:44] don't want Ben breakfast that's a
different discussion
[45:47] but I I think we don't see the use of
plans
[45:56] that may or may not be everybody like
this. That is
[46:00] as a a negative.
>> I think the other when you say housing
[46:03] is housing uh one aspect of that that
we're going to be maxing out our our
[46:09] friend percentage. So like the we're
basically there and so if if that one a
[46:17] three plan ADU becomes a bed breakfast
that means that the next ADU or next
[46:24] thing that's built is not going to be so
like there's still going to be the same
[46:27] number of bed breakfast no matter
or not.
[46:34] So you guys don't have can I can I Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. This is the discussion.
[46:40] Okay. So So you guys don't have an issue
with they take the pre-approved plans
[46:47] that
uh saves [clears throat] them quite a
[46:50] bit of money actually.
I my my my field for sure and whether
[46:55] they use it for commercial enterprise or
they use it for real housing. Good point
[47:00] for you because it will be housing.
>> Don't we have an example? Let's let's
[47:05] talk about the example Simon's given us.
So Zeke like in some cases people need
[47:11] to be able to use a pre-approved plan
because it's a cost-saving measure to be
[47:15] able to stay in their home because they
need an alternative income source. So we
[47:20] can't be restrictive on the use
[47:25] » in that sense. Yeah. Um well actually I
would disagree with you. I think that
[47:30] why we why we came up with that plan was
specifically to promote
[47:35] those folks who wanted to not get real
creative but have just a stock idea for
[47:41] a unit. uh after saving some money that
would be providing
[47:46] smaller units more affordable but for
housing like long rent like 30day plus
[47:53] wasn't
for adding helping folks out I get your
[47:58] point J but still it's still
there's money money in bed and breakfast
[48:04] is very substantial and I my personal my
perspective I don't want to subsidize
[48:11] that
I said we're going to put that um it
[48:14] could stay a bad breakfast forever and
never does become really kind of
[48:19] housing. So I think if we're going to
help the housing situation even a little
[48:24] bit by fuel
uh you you could have these have a plans
[48:33] that that would ease your cost but you
got you got to provide some housing
[48:37] directed. That's where we're at. Not
down the road. And uh so
[48:43] part [clears throat] of my thing I think
it brought up was if in fact people shut
[48:48] off as an ADU and then they change it to
a better electricity. Okay, this hasn't
[48:54] been done yet, but so if you change it,
then you pay back what you what you save
[48:59] on change. You know, money you save by
going to that plan, you owe back um and
[49:07] most way you don't get a big savings
like that uh for commercial property.
[49:13] That's that's coming from you.
[49:18] My feeling is that most bed and
breakfast if you're required to live
[49:21] there aren't necessarily giant
commercial enterprises. They're
[49:26] supplemental income people.
Um
[49:30] and the I think it would be different if
we were um the city was actually paying
[49:37] something for each of those. But the
fact that the money in the cost
[49:43] um and that I think that the more people
that use those plants better because
[49:48] that means that the production of of
housing is is
[49:54] granted it might not be housing for
people living here right now but that
[49:58] makes the production of housing less
expensive on the um so I I would
[50:06] any any hurdles or anything that we're
going to people go through in order to
[50:11] um to do that I think is mental if I'm a
person who um might be able to rent out
[50:18] um uh rent out at a good rate on uh my
ADU in the beginning then that tenant
[50:26] leaves and I need to find I haven't
found another tenant might be off season
[50:31] it might be something something might
not find a big tenant I would love to
[50:35] have the option to fill that space to be
able to make mortgage payment payment on
[50:40] on the loan gap of that ADU through some
other means to have that option. So
[50:46] procluding that option seems like makes
the financial calculus a filing at all.
[50:55] » I would disagree. I my my only argue I
hear where Steve is coming from. My only
[51:00] argument is this. We have a cap on.
>> It doesn't matter what units are bed and
[51:06] credits. We have this many units and we
have a total cap on betting. My my
[51:12] argument is who cares which which ones
of those are right now. Yes, the city
[51:19] created an idea of helping infill
housing by creating accessory dwelling
[51:25] unit pre-planned units. Okay, that idea
they can't control the use and
[51:31] utilization of the idea. And
[clears throat] so the idea was put out
[51:34] there by the city of Grey and use and
utilization as everyone has talked about
[51:40] is different across the board and trying
to tell someone okay we're going to help
[51:46] you out to the tune of x amount of
dollars in plans and pre-ermitting and
[51:52] you are still going to go out there and
spend a quarter of a million dollars to
[51:55] build said a new or whatever the cost
might be for you. how how they can
[52:01] directly use that in any time frame
doesn't make sense to me. Especially if
[52:06] we have an overall path, if there was no
overall cap on bed and breakfast units,
[52:11] then I would say absolutely we can't
just be uh assisting commercial
[52:16] enterprise as he says. But since there
is an overall cap, I I don't understand
[52:20] why it matters which units are bed and
breakfast as long as we have a cap on
[52:25] the overall units that are
that would be my my right because if
[52:30] there's a if there's a hard and fast
number on that in a permitting process
[52:33] they go go through. Can you can you
demonstrate why it matters which ones
[52:39] are that would be my that would be my
only argument to your comments.
[52:44] » Right. Right. But every time you build
one, you're up over every time you build
[52:50] an ADU. [clears throat]
You're increasing the overall supply and
[52:54] so you are going to increase the bed and
breakfast supply more bed and breakfast
[52:59] are going to be built as no because
breakfast are not based off the bed and
[53:04] breakfast are based off of a certain we
we discussed this in the last one that
[53:07] we were talking about. are based off a
certain specific amount, not necessarily
[53:11] the overall stock because we don't bring
the uh apartments into housing stock for
[53:16] bed and breakfast or anything like that.
So, I believe the stock is specific to
[53:20] what it is. So, uh building more than
fill housing in the ADU portion doesn't
[53:24] necessarily increase the stock to
increase the percentage uh that 4%
[53:29] number to a more larger number of
housing units if I remember correct.
[53:34] » It would take a lot of it would take a
lot of housing units too. I think this
[53:37] is Zeke, this is part of the thing like
if we would have to see massive jumps in
[53:41] housing units in order to see the total
number of ADUs allowed change
[53:45] substantially.
I I forgot what the number was, but it's
[53:48] something like 40 new units to even move
it one one more ADU allowed in town.
[53:55] » Um it's it's very narrow.
[54:00] » Anyway, that's my perspective.
>> Okay. um discussion.
[54:03] » Yep.
I'll have that session feedback. I know
[54:08] that I can language I have support
[54:15] and then I take back to them on how I
was going to ask you. Um so we're
[54:23] changing how we're going to what's going
to make our count. That's what I
[54:26] understand. We're not going to include
it. Before somehow multif family was
[54:30] being included and now it's
>> should be. So
[54:35] » yeah,
>> what are we going to what do we where
[54:38] are we getting our stock number
>> from the um the office of financial
[54:42] management their um population estimate
for housing units. They take the census
[54:47] data plus all the data we report monthly
to them for housing. We're taking the
[54:52] single unit. So how many individuals
notes
[54:59] or housing
>> straight up positive
[55:03] » um and of those 4%. So if an ADU is
added that would
[55:09] be I mean it could be a unit but
>> and it is a living unit. So, so we added
[55:15] 40 ADUs, it would add one permit for one
one more existing
[55:21] » uh uh
>> it takes a lot of
[55:26] to%
[55:37] and it was it was not index
had been updated and it would not
[55:43] accurate.
>> It's not
[55:46] » nothing is going to be 100% but this is
a lot more accurate based on fact data.
[55:52] We are reporting
personally are reporting to um the
[55:57] office.
>> Okay. based on the public issuing
[56:01] permits were on. So every April I would
report
[56:09] and based on that
I feel pretty confident
[56:15] » basically it's real life. We know where
the source is. Perfect.
[56:22] » I mean, yeah, everything's
>> Well, this is an antidote, folks.
[56:27] » We started this. I had one bed and
breakfast in my neighborhood. Now I have
[56:31] four.
>> Are they Are they I have a question. Are
[56:35] they a problem? Because I have three in
my neighborhood and one right here. Not
[56:38] a problem.
>> And I have no issues with it at all. So,
[56:42] you know, like I don't disagree with
you. They are popping up everywhere.
[56:45] when you look at the like before we both
lived here for extended period of time I
[56:50] would agree with but I I don't see any
issue with it yet I haven't seen one
[56:54] even small issue with it
>> I would agree I haven't had fact I know
[56:58] every there
>> me too I'm the same way but it's just
[57:02] like they are spreading and
>> we are almost at our path
[57:07] » yeah and I Zeke I I think it's important
too to acknowledge Zeke that the cold
[57:12] beds problem for us is not necessarily
in ADUs it's and second homes that are
[57:16] empty. Like we have a we have we're
we're we're fighting the ADU problem
[57:21] over or sorry the B&B problem and we
have a very strong position to maintain
[57:27] control I feel. Um I think the rest of
the commission agrees that our position
[57:31] is very strong to main control of B&Bs
but we have no control over empty second
[57:36] homes
>> and that's an even bigger problem for
[57:38] our community. [snorts]
>> Oh, I totally agree. Okay, it's pretty
[57:42] awesome.
Yeah, you can't even talk to those
[57:47] » four on my screen.
>> Yeah.
[57:49] » All right, I think we're ready to close
item number 5A and move on to item 5B,
[57:58] parking code update. Uh, Commissioner
Parabar uh drafted the
[58:04] » Yes, I did. And quickly
>> I was in in our packing
[58:09] um with three different ways to consider
calculating. Maggie, did you want to say
[58:14] anything before? No, I I'd love to start
with any question and then because mine
[58:20] are just very very draft based on state
law.
[58:26] So I rather start.
>> All right. Simon fe and the parking
[58:30] programs. I uh was uh tasked with
putting together an idea of uh coming up
[58:36] with what the cost of a fee what a fee
and new structure might look like and
[58:39] what the cost might look like. Um
because we had an amazing parking plan
[58:44] provided um in February, I was able to
use all of that data, we provide a
[58:49] pretty concrete idea of what uh for easy
proposal to the uh city council of what
[58:56] a fee and loop program would look like,
how that would um easily easily be
[59:01] calculated, how that will take shape.
And then I put in also um a couple of
[59:07] you know obvious uh ideas and then an
opinion as well um of the fee and lube
[59:13] program by um looking over how I how I
put this together. I you know kind of
[59:19] double down on the idea of that because
we've had uh pretty much the most recent
[59:26] idea of cost you can here at the city.
We know what a park install cost. We've
[59:32] I mean the the numbers are here. It's
it's about 100,000 and I feel like that
[59:37] is if you ask me that's the idea. That's
that's where we should sell. Um that I
[59:43] understand that it seems high but so
does the cost of parking. So is the
[59:47] value of a parking stall um in
Levvenworth and I don't think we should
[59:53] you know in the idea of trying to help
development short the idea of driving in
[59:58] any. So, you know, if you read through
my book proposal here and kind of see,
[1:00:03] you can see what the cost of it is to
the developer and the idea of it, but
[1:00:07] what the real cost of it is, especially
uh, you know, the cost what the city has
[1:00:11] to pay to put forth something like that.
I think that that's really where we
[1:00:15] should start. I'm absolutely uh willing
to come off that point. I just feel
[1:00:20] strongly that the proposal that was, you
know, put forth really talks truly to
[1:00:26] what to
and how important parking is inside of
[1:00:31] city rooms 11 in the commercial district
question about that. Um, and I didn't go
[1:00:36] back and read the study.
>> That's okay.
[1:00:39] » But I think you would have. Um, so the
100,000 and especially compared to the
[1:00:45] number two thing that we're getting to
on land value cost the 100,000 the cost
[1:00:49] for the city to construct
>> that was an average. So I took
[1:00:52] » of the different Yeah. Y of the of the
garage. Does that also include the land
[1:00:58] value?
No, I don't think so because I I I
[1:01:02] believe that the city owned all the land
underneath their proposed structures.
[1:01:06] So, I was just going off of I was just
going to the land
[1:01:10] » the cost of the city to build, which is
actually perfect because if we already
[1:01:14] own the land, then we really truly know
cost of construction as opposed to what
[1:01:18] the land value might be extracted.
>> But you could also say that the
[1:01:22] opportunity like the opportunity cost
plus the cost would be more than enough.
[1:01:26] » Certain certainty,
>> right?
[1:01:29] Certainly. Okay. Absolutely. If you
added the land in there, u you could
[1:01:33] easily you could you could absolutely
you could absolutely add the land
[1:01:36] possibly.
>> Oh, please.
[1:01:41] » Yeah, Simon. So, the number the number
is interesting. Um
[1:01:47] to me, the kind of the fee the fee
structure being like almost an exact
[1:01:52] half cost of of what we think it would
cost to build parking spots. Um,
[1:01:59] is there precedent for that? I didn't
catch that in in what I read.
[1:02:02] » I I I miss what you're saying. I I uh in
the in the cost to construct method,
[1:02:08] which was my first one, it averaged out
98,000. That was what I thought the
[1:02:13] city's cost to construct was. I offered
other ideas. I was just trying to put
[1:02:18] forth I thought this was honestly, guys,
I thought this was going to the city
[1:02:21] council. So I tried to I tried to talk
to somebody who didn't know anything
[1:02:27] about what we were talking about if that
makes sense. So I tried to lay it out in
[1:02:32] okay here's a cost to construct method
here's about what the developer might
[1:02:36] think the cost to construct is here is
what other people are doing in ideas and
[1:02:42] then trying to meld them all together.
In no way am I saying that the we should
[1:02:46] we should have half the cost to
construct at all. James, I'm actually
[1:02:49] saying that we should be uh fully behind
the number one, the cost to construct
[1:02:54] method, as it's based off of the the ARC
the ARC February report.
[1:03:01] » Okay. All right. Yeah, I'm I'm just uh
catching up on reading this. I didn't
[1:03:05] » No, I apologize.
>> I read it I read it a couple days ago
[1:03:08] and have uh emptied my brain a couple
times since then. So
[1:03:12] » So So I If you're asking me what I'm
behind, it's number one. I think that I
[1:03:16] think the cost is $99,000. And I think
that that's where we should start. If
[1:03:20] there might be incentives uh put on that
or if you're doing things that the city
[1:03:25] would like you to do or the direction
we're going if there needs to be you
[1:03:28] need to bring in a little bit of the
idea of uh the you know uh discount
[1:03:34] developer discount table bring that in.
That's totally okay. But you know for as
[1:03:39] far as me and Lou I believe that $99,000
should be our starting. That was that
[1:03:43] was the gist behind this and I just
trying to put
[1:03:47] » uh to someone who had never heard what a
loo was before and explain it in them.
[1:03:56] » Oh, sorry.
>> I think the adjustment scheme could get
[1:04:00] really complex. That's why I'm I I was
just looking at the option two again,
[1:04:05] rereading that. Um, so yeah, I think a a
flat baseline with with maybe very
[1:04:10] simple adjustments allowed,
>> including like maybe a a total project
[1:04:14] cost scheme, but I don't know what that
would look like.
[1:04:17] » That's fair. Absolutely.
>> Uh, please can you tell us what the city
[1:04:22] said?
>> Yeah, so they they really appreciated
[1:04:26] this and I think for people that did
understand construction, they were like
[1:04:30] definitely not number two. That is not
that problem. Yeah, but that would be
[1:04:34] what what I think it should
>> precisely right. That's why I put for
[1:04:37] put it forth so you could see what where
different minds are coming from in the
[1:04:40] real estate.
>> I think uh council
[1:04:44] you have developed and has no parking in
commercial like that number one is
[1:04:50] what is norm.
>> That's right. Uh there was there was
[1:04:56] discussion about and and there were
against here but there was discussion
[1:05:02] about okay they pay the fee and over the
city build parking then the city gets
[1:05:07] the residence from that
>> right
[1:05:09] » and so should there be an adjustment
then they're like but they get the
[1:05:12] benefit of not having parking
>> well they also get the benefit of this
[1:05:15] of the space in the building that might
be a floor space or whatever that might
[1:05:19] be that could be beneficial to the
building itself right and so
[1:05:22] » and and you know he brought up earlier.
He said, "Well, what about the owner
[1:05:26] getting the money for the parking?" And
I'm like, "The issue here is is we are
[1:05:30] talking about the parking that makes the
business happen, not extra parking that
[1:05:35] the owner might get some money out of,
right?" And so the whole idea is that
[1:05:39] you you you as the business necessitate
the parking so that your business would
[1:05:44] function, not so that you can make a
couple extra bucks off of it, right? And
[1:05:47] so, and so you either look at it as a
sunk cost of I'll never have this
[1:05:52] business space, this floor space, but
I'll have parking, or you pay the
[1:05:56] onetime fee in Lua. That's why it kind
of feels like a bit of a slap on the
[1:06:00] wrist. And then you get the opportunity
of having that floor space in perpetuity
[1:06:06] in your building, which you would hope
is much more beneficial than the parking
[1:06:11] space of which you're willing to pay.
But they also get to decide that size,
[1:06:15] right? But no, that's not true because
there are some property owners that are
[1:06:20] forced into paying this fee because they
can't. There there are there are a few
[1:06:25] property owners that are now with the
closing of Front Street that that's
[1:06:28] going to be imperfect duty. There will
be some disenfranchised people. Maybe
[1:06:33] that's where the developer table comes
in and says, "Well, since there's no
[1:06:37] vehicle access to your property, we're
willing to make a deal." But that could
[1:06:41] be on a case-by case basis as opposed to
[1:06:49] I feel like like I'm not a big fan of
the discount table because we just bring
[1:06:54] it hard, but I feel like that
justification might
[1:07:00] » like if you physically cannot put in a
parking space,
[1:07:06] you're not charged.
And that would be easy to
[1:07:10] » it' be easy to write the code. He's in
determinist
[1:07:19] James.
[1:07:22] » James, go for it.
>> I'm just getting lazy and not putting my
[1:07:26] hand down, but it this is a good
discussion.
[1:07:29] » Um I I was curious um
is a big slap on the the one time fee.
[1:07:37] That's a big like onetime fee.
with the finance.
[1:07:41] » Well, but that's what I'm that's what
I'm wondering. It's like maybe what we
[1:07:44] would consider it is actually we could
consider instead of a one time fee some
[1:07:48] sort of like payment scheme over time or
something else or rental. We we
[1:07:54] discussed this and what it gets into uh
well I shouldn't say we we as a council
[1:07:59] we as a commission have discussed this
idea before and what it what it gets
[1:08:02] best into is this uh gray area at the
city of who's controlling this who's
[1:08:06] watching these things who's looking over
things do these
[1:08:10] » you have to charge them
>> and so and and so the idea of a one-time
[1:08:14] fee that feels pretty aggressive
>> they and a developer is absolutely
[1:08:20] willing to pay this for sure. Uh there
is like if you if you call cities who
[1:08:24] have implemented these sort of fees and
talk to people, you will find that the
[1:08:28] developers just look at it as an
opportunity cost and that's how it works
[1:08:32] and it just gets paid. Especially in an
area like Levwood where you really want
[1:08:37] the floor space. You don't want you
don't you you would rather have the
[1:08:41] floor space. That's that's because
that's how you rent out. You don't rent
[1:08:44] parking spaces. That's a bonus to
everybody. You rent the you rent the
[1:08:48] floor space. And I feel like if you were
a developer, this would be something
[1:08:52] that, you know, it sounds it sounds
large, which it is large. And the cost
[1:08:55] of the city is that large. And this
money then gets to be taken and put into
[1:08:59] the fund that directly affects our
parking, which is huge. Now, this isn't
[1:09:03] going to happen all the time, but when
it does, bang. I mean, this is a lose to
[1:09:08] our parking, which is very we need that.
So,
[1:09:12] » I mean, you saw a
very
[1:09:17] tear down
to that model
[1:09:22] or between where it's going from
something.
[1:09:25] » It's not and that's where I where
[1:09:34] like what is that?
>> I didn't even get into that. That one
[1:09:36] scares me a lot. But I'll let the city
deal with that because they've already
[1:09:40] created that
>> you're looking at like well it was a
[1:09:43] market before now it's going to be a
restaurant or is it or going to be a
[1:09:47] assembly state like a theater or
something where have a lot more people
[1:09:54] but that 50%
[1:10:00] I look like
[1:10:07] like we have our all of our parking use
is kind of broken out. So, it's easy to
[1:10:11] do on a case- by case basis, but it
really puts the illness on the city
[1:10:15] council or excuse me, on the city
employees, which is kind of a tough
[1:10:19] extra, you know, I that's that's one of
the reasons that I remember that we
[1:10:22] talked about not trying to implement
because what Elizabeth says makes sense.
[1:10:26] They should be kind of charged yearly
for this, right? But it's like that
[1:10:30] would be the best way, but how on earth
can we implement that? And who's going
[1:10:33] to make sure that that fee structure?
That's exactly right. One and all. And
[1:10:38] so, yes, it does feel large. I
understand that the council uh the
[1:10:42] commissioners might, you know, see that
and be like, whoa. But the truth is is
[1:10:46] while while being large, it's absolutely
worth it to a developer, especially. So
[1:10:51] if a developer was going to come in and
buy a building at a million half $2
[1:10:55] million and make a $2 million change, I
can tell you from $4 million of money,
[1:11:00] $100,000 for $200, what may even
$300,000 of the parking fee will just be
[1:11:06] an opportunity cost in the overall, you
know, or they'll figure out a way around
[1:11:11] it.
So yeah, that's been asking
[1:11:18] that often.
>> Well, what where it happens right now is
[1:11:25] everything that gradual
or when I think that expanding that's
[1:11:32] where I want to talk about
[1:11:38] to where like it increases the amount of
time
[1:11:44] Yeah,
>> that's fair.
[1:11:46] » Um,
>> if the change in use increases the
[1:11:48] parking capacity that need then that's
when this would come,
[1:11:52] » right?
>> Not 50% but if the change in use decides
[1:11:57] because the use is going to decide the
parking necessity is that how the
[1:12:00] downtown commercial works anyway
[1:12:05] the list
of use.
[1:12:11] So right now you're not an expansion of
[1:12:19] tell.
>> So what if I were to buy uh the Peter
[1:12:25] James gallery turn it into two hotels
and then that would change the use of
[1:12:30] the pizza. The motel are different
because no matter where you are, that's
[1:12:34] why parking or
hotel hotel
[1:12:41] » really
>> that's where
[1:12:46] they can.
>> Okay. So if they can they can't even go.
[1:12:51] » Okay. which is why we have those like
small slippery parking lot things
[1:12:56] through the hotel
[1:13:00] parking spots.
[1:13:04] So um we uh move to review the changes
to the parking code. Yeah. I think again
[1:13:11] this is like a first step. Yep. Uh so
like on page
[1:13:17] I think again
right
[1:13:23] you guys
um sense the first page of pageap
[1:13:34] 14
[1:13:40] and this came
[1:13:45] from the group about right based on that
we don't have to change this and maybe
[1:13:54] it's um
it's not working but I guess that what
[1:14:00] we're trying to say here is
I think I'm not in the right place where
[1:14:06] » it's page six of 59.
>> Okay, I see. Okay. So then it talks
[1:14:12] about purpose of the chapter is to
assure an adequate number of environment
[1:14:29] development costs housing
minimize services
[1:14:39] for RCW. you about that
I had to add
[1:14:47] but I just that was just something to
kind of show that we're looking at
[1:14:53] you scroll through um I
bureau
[1:15:01] um I still work with but I think shared
parking is kind of this big deal because
[1:15:07] of
mixeduse development now. And so the
[1:15:13] idea was to
instead of just having
[1:15:20] parking,
[1:15:26] I'm thinking like garage
parking garage.
[1:15:39] So maybe something's over on them.
Um anyway, the idea here is that
[1:15:47] and there's different hours
might be able to get a reduction. I I
[1:15:53] love the idea of the shared reason. I
like that we're not going to require
[1:15:58] that you hire out a qualified
professional unless you have a
[1:16:02] production of greater than something. Um
I might even that far. Uh
[1:16:12] but the other thing that I would think
is in B one we say that uh in greed use
[1:16:22] the same parking provided and loading
stalls provided the hours of operation
[1:16:26] not overlap. That's going to be very few
times. I think what we care about is
[1:16:30] that their peak hour doesn't overlap,
right? So that mean um because that's
[1:16:38] just qualify almost everything to say
their hours.
[1:16:41] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. Service the service too.
[1:16:45] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. Big service hours would be
[1:16:48] perfect. That way gives everybody the
opportunity to do their own thing,
[1:16:54] » right?
[1:16:58] Sorry I'm talking. Yeah. That was the
coffee. If you look at the what I
[1:17:03] crossed out in the red, that's the exact
coffee that was in there. So I said I
[1:17:10] So instead of um what what would you
like to say
[1:17:16] peak hours peak
hours of operation?
[1:17:25] Anything else?
>> The hours of peak parking demands do not
[1:17:29] overlap.
[1:17:44] Well,
>> does it matter too much? I mean, I guess
[1:17:49] certainly I look at it as okay, what are
the uses? What hour do they
[1:17:56] think there's a lot of common sense
stuff and ULI has papers about this sort
[1:18:01] of thing.
We don't need to I would expect that
[1:18:05] they
>> so there is a way to uh quantify it
[1:18:08] without the business
like telling you what they think it is
[1:18:12] as opposed to what being deemed to be I
guess is my
[1:18:16] » and number D s talks about that there's
this share parking manual methodology
[1:18:20] which if they post something greater
than 25% they have to get it qualified
[1:18:25] actually to do that might
>> or more than five spaces or something
[1:18:32] like that. Like if it's 25% of like two
spaces is like so think we probably want
[1:18:39] to add and this is only for shared like
shared parking.
[1:18:42] » I know but like you know there's a lot
of places that are like small businesses
[1:18:46] next to each other like the
opthalmologist and the chiropractor and
[1:18:50] the you know they don't each like you
know all the spaces all the time. Um,
[1:18:57] » but they also don't own the building and
they don't control the parking spaces
[1:19:01] necessarily.
>> Fair enough. That's an example. Um and
[1:19:05] so that actually is I guess an issue of
like yeah the building use and the
[1:19:11] building permit that's what really so
right now we're doing the change we're
[1:19:16] going to look at that doesn't reduce
[1:19:28] any change of occupancy that more
[1:19:34] there.
[1:19:40] » Yeah.
says meeting
[1:19:43] » but but to some extent I mean with the
idea of like what we were coming up with
[1:19:48] or discussing at prior meetings of the
not having any parking minimums and
[1:19:54] letting the market decide the building
developer is deciding somewhat but they
[1:20:00] can take responsibility for whether they
can rent out the area to so I
[1:20:06] » and also I would double down what
Elizabeth is saying there to the fact
[1:20:09] that wouldn't we want leave the use and
the usability to the landlord. Like if
[1:20:16] the landlord wants to do triple end
leases and the uses are going to change,
[1:20:19] we want to have some something more
guard rail in place as opposed to
[1:20:23] specific to each use. If those uses
change, does that mean our parking
[1:20:27] requirements for a building that's
already in place are going to change?
[1:20:31] » How Yeah. How would that I mean, how
would we I think that's an enforcability
[1:20:35] issue.
>> Exactly. That's I agree with James. I I
[1:20:38] hear what we're saying. I just don't
know how on earth we could begin to
[1:20:42] enforce those changes of use as the
building mors or whatever it
[1:20:47] » that's
when they're adding
[1:20:53] whatever
>> okay
[1:20:56] » they already have like
>> okay
[1:20:58] » so right now that would
>> that would happen yeah so see there's a
[1:21:03] lot of if ends or plus there's so little
chance of these small things happening
[1:21:08] And this is anywhere. So I was thinking
we had something that was developed out
[1:21:12] by state
and they do a multiuse something. This
[1:21:17] could really useful if they operate
different hours or they're trying you
[1:21:22] know they have
a giant don't want more
[1:21:28] see that a lot of places are getting
wiped out. We also have like how we this
[1:21:35] is a big deal. We also as we go larger
in this you'll see we have a policy to
[1:21:41] subgr
[1:21:48] and C4 covers us because the community
development director and the public
[1:21:52] works director have to approve the
arrangement. So we are I guess we're
[1:21:58] we have finally said I guess people that
matter the people that look at this
[1:22:03] every day and say
yeah
[1:22:06] » I my question is what is the difference
between B and C
[1:22:10] » I think E was I don't know I think B was
just left over I think I added all the
[1:22:17] shared I was like
in
[1:22:22] the same thing event isn't supposed to
be because I think Joy is more like this
[1:22:28] church the church operates on Sundays
but this building over here operates
[1:22:33] during the week and so they got so good
in it so we use their
[1:22:37] » and the peak hours thing can be with the
uh we operate the dentist office here in
[1:22:41] the morning and the restaurant and bar
at night and you know we don't
[1:22:45] » I I was just wondering if um we could
have it all under you know join you
[1:22:53] owners refer to two more land uses
parcels of land or two or more land uses
[1:22:58] within a development
and make it
[1:23:03] » yeah one set of subullets is what I was
thinking
[1:23:08] » just add another add another comma to
see where it covers like the
[1:23:23] cuz I think we want the same
things.
[1:23:41] » No, don't. Great. You have everything.
You have everything there. You have
[1:23:45] everything there.
>> Um, but that makes complete sense.
[1:23:49] That's fine. Purpose of a first draft.
And then we have the study if they want
[1:23:54] to go higher agreement.
Yeah. And I would like to
[1:24:02] I like that it's a reported agreement. I
like that it's reported but the can we
[1:24:08] say greater than 25% or a certain number
of spaces
[1:24:21] I think that
easier.
[1:24:27] Yeah,
[1:24:30] they always have the ability to
I'm just thinking about small uses.
[1:24:38] I'm just thinking about who aren't going
to want to hire qualified professionals
[1:24:42] but they demonstrate all this right
[1:24:49] only up to 25%. So this they only have
but a lot of those are only
[1:25:03] if they're sharing two parking spaces
and they have like if someone requires
[1:25:07] two and they want to share three parking
spaces that
[1:25:15] I guess if they can show the
[1:25:20] » if they can't meet if they can't meet
like a few of the if they meet a few of
[1:25:24] the criteria under B then they wouldn't
even have to worry about 50% of the have
[1:25:29] to pay for study no A
>> well they can only get 25% of no it said
[1:25:35] up to it's up to 20 I guess that's the
difference between B and C is that C um
[1:25:43] » B is broad and C says specifically two
or more 25%
[1:25:48] further studies indeed
[1:25:59] I guess the question is do we want to
push people towards the study or do we
[1:26:02] want to let no
>> let let there be a gray area that is I
[1:26:06] mean we put a lot of gray area on our
city officials to uh you know um see
[1:26:11] these things of the peress and figure
them out
[1:26:14] » without giving you guys like specific
guidance. And so I worry that this might
[1:26:19] put more on this on you than necessary.
>> 50% seems like a big number to have.
[1:26:23] That's why I was wondering where No,
there's not. I'm just using the example
[1:26:29] of two two uses each required two spots.
I think they want to share one shared
[1:26:36] three spots
and then they would have to I don't
[1:26:41] think that's going to happen very often.
I think they should have to I mean like
[1:26:44] I think about my chiropractor
they go in 157
[1:26:50] minutes early I don't have
[1:26:54] know
[1:27:08] » they don't share office.
[1:27:14] » What is our only mixeduse? Is it is it
the dentist office out there? The kids
[1:27:20] in the dentist office area and the
investor zone. Is that our true?
[1:27:25] » I mean, we've got buildings that are all
the same like the right building.
[1:27:29] » Yeah, it's about
>> certainly, but they are under that
[1:27:34] parking department. So, it's almost like
you have a point to talk about. I hear
[1:27:37] what you're saying. I'm just saying like
what
[1:27:41] » that's little ones where there's a
restaurant that you know like a held
[1:27:46] above.
>> Yeah, absolutely. Sed downtown.
[1:27:50] » Yeah.
[clears throat]
[1:28:04] » I worry about stuff I don't worry about.
So I don't think
[1:28:09] » yeah and again sorry for
brand new I don't for any
[1:28:18] go to the next
>> this is the biggest one that part of
[1:28:23] discussions a lot
[1:28:30] of that work.
So if I scroll down to 14 128
[1:28:37] » sent me but I like the idea of breaking
it down the big paragraph
[1:28:44] in all zoning districts and parking
shall be provided for this chapter
[1:28:50] as always
any new structure.
[1:28:55] Okay, this is the change that
increases parking requirements.
[1:29:01] That makes more sense to me.
>> When it said that the parking
[1:29:04] requirement, let me know exactly what
was so agreement.
[1:29:16] » Should I say the square footage?
>> How would we define size of square
[1:29:22] footage? Whichever one we define, let's
use that. You should experiment because
[1:29:26] the size
>> again just I don't know it's fine
[1:29:32] » and it's square and and there are
multiple square footages. I'm just going
[1:29:35] to go ahead and be hilarious here. We
say GBA or GLM. GLA is all above grade.
[1:29:40] GBA is every bit of square footage.
Doesn't matter if it's below or above.
[1:29:47] » Never heard that before. Gross story.
Can we define that? Okay, perfect. As
[1:29:52] long as we define it. And that's how
it's well that's how our
[1:29:57] that's how our parking is
here.
[1:30:01] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[1:30:02] » So,
>> is that an interior measurement? I've
[1:30:04] never heard that.
>> Yeah, it's um
[1:30:07] » I'm gonna look it up. I'll take
>> I'll see how we find out. But, um
[1:30:16] anyway, that that's clear how it was it
was before. I just feel like this is
[1:30:21] easier. I can watch Central a little
bit, but I definitely sides.
[1:30:28] » It's 80% the rate met.
[1:30:37] » I mean, do you want to make them have
more parking spot?
[1:30:46] I think that's
>> Well, my concern is that
[1:30:50] » Well, my concern is that building
expansions are getting feedback.
[1:30:56] » See, I this is why I made that comment
earlier. So we can exactly we can do all
[1:31:01] these things and then people will try to
figure out a way to kind of start the
[1:31:04] system
in like not just general
[1:31:11] » it gives them that buffer to be able to
add a little bit
[1:31:18] » I don't know I mean you know in my mind
basically grandfathering all these
[1:31:23] businesses
that have never contributed to the
[1:31:28] parking
Fair enough.
[1:31:31] » I'm not saying it's the right way of
looking at it. I'm just saying that
[1:31:36] it's worth talking about.
>> So what? Yeah. Recommendations.
[1:31:46] » Yeah.
>> You know, they make changes that require
[1:31:52] parking. They should pay for the
parking.
[1:31:56] » Yeah. We could say anything that
occasion
[1:32:07] feels more fair to
[1:32:12] » increase.
>> Can we do a hypothetical here? I just
[1:32:17] love to hear how it is. Like if they
went down if it does require more
[1:32:20] parking, why would you charge more?
for increment.
[1:32:28] But do you have to if you have
[1:32:33] » if you did the Pam Oliver in the Tri
which used to be
[1:32:41] anyways
and you you did that and you remodeled
[1:32:45] that building to a brand new but you
didn't change any use. Every every floor
[1:32:51] remained the same rentable space ch
without changing the tachki shop use but
[1:32:58] you remodel your entire building. Okay.
We have no provision in here for just
[1:33:03] remodeling it. Just spending the money
that would make you buying the big room.
[1:33:09] Is that is that correct? Am I right in
saying that? Okay. So So to spend all
[1:33:14] the money remodeling this and then you
can have triple N leases, right? A
[1:33:18] triple N lease is a triple net lease,
meaning that the person that comes in is
[1:33:22] allowed to do whatever they would like
to do inside the walls of your building.
[1:33:26] You allow them full access to do
whatever they want. So
[1:33:30] » thing, but then the
>> but then the people would come in and
[1:33:32] change the use of the building
technically, but we have no way to
[1:33:36] recoup that parking change of use if if
if the if only one tenant were to do it
[1:33:42] at a time. And so I I worry that we are
actually kind of if we are barking is
[1:33:48] what we talk what we call it here and
and so important we're kind of missing
[1:33:52] the boat there. There are ways like
we've discussed there are easy easy ways
[1:33:57] around this thing as a develop
[1:34:04] » any change in the use of occupancy
or any building experience.
[1:34:10] » Oh right.
any change in the use
[1:34:17] increases the bargaining unit.
>> But if you don't change your use as the
[1:34:21] developer when you do the like like I'm
just trying to
[1:34:24] » Well, so if if you only expanded 49% and
that change didn't necessitate no
[1:34:30] parking, you know,
>> the legal process with the city for
[1:34:34] changing
>> I just feel like
[1:34:43] Oh,
there's nothing.
[1:34:59] » All right, let's not let's have one
conversation. Um,
[1:35:03] Maggie, can you repeat your your point
about what happens?
[1:35:07] Okay. So we have two different
[1:35:31] » and the business license the uh the the
tenant applying for the business license
[1:35:36] will will trigger a change of use that
will affect the landlord.
[1:35:41] » I mean, the big
>> Okay. I'm I'm just trying to make sure
[1:35:46] that I understand it. And and Okay.
>> And so then what the the landlord would
[1:35:52] need to do is be able to include the
cost of
[1:35:56] » would need to pay the fee in if
goes down, they don't get that money
[1:36:04] that I
[1:36:07] That's the thing. It's a cash model.
That's the weird thing is the capital
[1:36:10] expense, right?
>> Yes. Absolutely. Yeah. But it would be
[1:36:14] baked in. So they go back.
[1:36:21] Or I guess if you look at it from the
landlord's perspective, if you pay the
[1:36:25] fee in the love, you could offer a
superior rental product to the market
[1:36:32] because you have that already taken care
of. Right. Right.
[1:36:37] » Yeah.
>> Precisely. Precisely. Right. So, so as
[1:36:40] the landlord, your your your economic
benefit of paying the field for the
[1:36:45] change of use would be that you would
have that in perpetuity as a as
[1:36:52] you would own it, but I guess
technically you kind of would be.
[1:36:56] » Yeah. Which brings up another point. I
don't know.
[1:37:01] Well,
probably don't want to go there, but
[1:37:07] does the fee and loo increase over time.
>> Absolutely.
[1:37:13] » If you look at my calculations, you'll
see that if you can base the fee and loo
[1:37:16] off this and then you can periodically
update that. So, so the fee and loo is
[1:37:22] actually especially based off of like
number one in my proposal would be the
[1:37:26] best because that's the easiest thing to
periodically update because there are
[1:37:30] places we can absolutely get gather said
data and do it every 12 months. So you
[1:37:36] can have something to keep
>> in our code
[1:37:42] for the schedule.
>> Yep. Exactly.
[1:37:47] » So the 12 months want to make sure that
that's
[1:37:53] not right because that has to change.
Absolutely. for the way I have
[1:38:04] it
[1:38:11] instead of again my woring
parking outside
[1:38:24] right
I I I
[1:38:29] It's not require we're not going to have
any threshold. Sorry,
[1:38:34] it's just going to say
the amount that's
[1:38:42] that price that I said to criteria
they
[1:38:48] say in this area.
[1:38:53] » Yeah. And the establishment can change.
>> Yeah. And that's that's what matters
[1:38:57] because that's what keeps the whole idea
program up to date because that's why if
[1:39:02] you read the proposal you'll see that
the I mean there is when counties or
[1:39:07] municipalities just put the flat rate on
it and they and no one ever double
[1:39:11] checks the flat rate and then it just
becomes a nonsense thing that's just
[1:39:16] there and those flat rates are terrible.
So doing it this way, like Maggie has
[1:39:21] proposed is absolutely the best and
smartest and most up-to-date way and it
[1:39:26] keeps the municipality. So
>> um I'd like to discuss the lack of edits
[1:39:31] to the next section uh 130 the
elimination. It's just the right
[1:39:37] underneath that sorry
>> um which basically says that when it's
[1:39:43] been provided but an existing user is
added to an existing usage will not be
[1:39:47] eliminated
elimination will result in less cause
[1:39:52] and required chapter. I think there are
several cases where um
[1:40:00] existing uses I mean I just keep
thinking of the hotel ley
[1:40:06] situation that makes sense to develop
front street right like doesn't make
[1:40:10] sense to have street
[1:40:15] » but it doesn't say that they said if
elimination result less for factor I
[1:40:20] mean I think we should extend that to
say it shall not be eliminated. If it um
[1:40:27] basically we need to provide an out
saying they can
[1:40:36] applies to everyone
[1:40:46] constructing not
[1:40:51] status construction
[1:41:01] instead of like instead of constructing
or providing you say instead of
[1:41:06] providing on site. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[1:41:14] But if you have excuse me,
[1:41:24] » that makes sense. I just want to make
Yeah, I just want to make sure
[1:41:30] and and I want to make sure anyone go
into like that's how I would interpret
[1:41:33] it now.
[1:41:44] Yeah.
[1:41:50] » All right. So, we have 150 is the next
place where there's
[1:41:56] Oh, the number.
Yeah. that we're not
[1:42:07] about that
[1:42:12] work in progress that they might but
yeah we did update that yeah so we won't
[1:42:18] dig into that one I I brought this to
council last time they had no concern
[1:42:23] except um and point industrial
look at
[1:42:31] too much.
[1:42:36] » Oh yeah, that much.
[1:42:41] » Hold on. I wouldn't disagree with her,
but the larger the campus, the larger
[1:42:45] amount of employees you're going to
require to run campus in the brewery,
[1:42:48] not maybe not so much because brewing
beer is like a, you know, you do it then
[1:42:52] you wait a little bit until the batch
goes through. But like in other
[1:42:55] situations, you know, the larger you
get, you're scaling probably for
[1:43:01] you might I mean, so maybe the parking
department isn't
[1:43:04] » industrial, they're very likely to want
to be able to to construct the amount of
[1:43:09] parking that they need. I don't know.
industrial things that are built out.
[1:43:13] They know how much like the probably
knows how much parking it needs and then
[1:43:18] it has that facility and it's perfect
facilities when you get that I guess
[1:43:26] maybe just a general industrial maybe we
wouldn't use
[1:43:34] » I would just go I would just lower the
industrial just because I do think that
[1:43:41] there's a purpose to
I just data
[1:43:47] like this. You don't want to do a
millyilly.
[1:43:49] » Yeah.
[1:43:56] This exact
[1:44:00] now I can dig into a lot of other data.
I would just go Yeah, I would I would go
[1:44:05] more
rather than
[1:44:08] you don't want to I'm sitting down.
Yeah. Yeah.
[1:44:13] and I only
[1:44:20] put on
so
[1:44:25] you guys have
I felt like a lot of
[1:44:33] accurate and actually
[1:44:41] make sure that what we start
[1:44:50] and our electric
[1:44:59] 19.
>> Oh, yes.
[1:45:04] » This thing's a nightmare. I'm sorry.
>> 14
[1:45:13] my concern is around one requiring it uh
irrigated landscaping. I feel like there
[1:45:20] should be an option for non-erated
landscaping and also
[1:45:26] you know thinking about issues
landscaping
[1:45:31] and fences.
on a different
[1:45:36] » Okay.
>> This is parking lot actually.
[1:45:40] » Yes.
>> Yes.
[1:45:43] And fences are under
[1:45:49] parking.
>> Yeah.
[1:45:53] permit.
>> Well, there is.
[1:46:01] » So, I did add language about
[1:46:07] » there's something here about
[1:46:11] things, but whatever. I don't
>> talk about different fire departments.
[1:46:18] » Okay, that makes sense. But yeah, like
just thinking about wildfire situations
[1:46:25] in terms of landscape maybe
>> and I thought and I'm sorry I thought I
[1:46:29] updated have this section that talks
about uh choosing trees that are
[1:46:36] specific to the climate and
>> yeah but that's
[1:46:42] » and and trees I'm less concerned about.
>> Sorry, I'm trying to find it. There's a
[1:46:48] reference to trees that go on.
[1:46:54] » Okay.
[1:46:59] [clears throat]
[1:47:07] » That makes sense.
[1:47:12] Like we make sure that
>> Yeah.
[1:47:16] » I'm from doing that. I think
the main thing
[1:47:29] is that there's a certain
[1:47:35] standard. So we have like
applies to everything. Um
[1:47:43] » yeah. So there's a continuous 5 foot
metal undergs
[1:47:49] except on the side
runs.
[1:47:55] » I'm sorry. I know I read something.
>> I'll take this a little more. I'm
[1:48:00] hearing hearing you.
>> Okay.
[1:48:09] » Yeah.
statement and we added like I don't want
[1:48:15] and then saying
[1:48:21] but
[1:48:24] I know whenever I
program here that I I run it by fire and
[1:48:31] I say and I look at our fire
Are you
[1:48:39] » and I have them
make sure that I know last
[1:48:46] what is your
first I think the first round.
[1:48:54] So we are active being very
[1:49:06] um
complex
[1:49:11] farm.
>> Yeah, they requested that I could put in
[1:49:16] some like native plants and not irrigate
it.
[1:49:24] We need to have that so
[1:49:30] they were trying to
[1:49:39] think.
[1:49:43] So yeah, I did put that note on there. I
said this must be like if the plants die
[1:49:49] forever.
So maybe we have if irrigation proposed
[1:49:55] a plan. We need to make sure they have
check
[1:50:06] usually.
[1:50:10] » They do. So you have to have the back.
>> Yeah. So long
[1:50:16] separately
[1:50:25] anywhere
that says
[1:50:33] fire
[1:50:39] and
[1:50:44] Yeah.
[1:51:08] » Yeah.
[1:51:12] Um, moving back up to B who had a
question was about the APA accessible
[1:51:18] parking. Oh yeah, there it seems like
that whole section. I'm not opposed to
[1:51:23] that but should go down where we talk
about
[1:51:29] parking vehicle station.
[1:51:34] Oh yeah, page six. Yeah. And it would
have like
[1:51:45] I think there's that
building
[1:51:50] for
that. But but yeah, I see. Yeah.
[1:51:59] All parking lot is
except there's no minimum number
[1:52:04] parking. That's what I was going to ask.
So like should there be
[1:52:09] well if there's a certain number parking
lot there is parking lot.
[1:52:18] So that's
I guess I could say that when it's
[1:52:26] like
I don't know what it's
[1:52:31] measured I know there are a requirement
[1:52:37] so this
[1:52:44] draft thank you for making a draft I
only
[1:52:48] Thank you for making a draft.
>> This is just like ah um that's Yeah,
[1:52:54] we'll find out. I'll talk to
[1:53:01] » I feel like this is the only thing that
we're gonna last probably going to get
[1:53:04] through. But yeah, is there are there
any other things like to highlight on
[1:53:09] this? Yes. Okay. So, uh,
if we go down to
[1:53:18] 14 127
[1:53:21] the driveway standard
[1:53:26] driveway
[1:53:33] 14127
[1:53:38] and then scroll down
[1:53:42] This is a new state law changes to
driveways but
[1:53:49] this sorry this was something I wanted
in public
[1:53:56] and it actually needs to have some kind
of measured level because it can impact
[1:54:01] the driveways and over
[1:54:06] problems and or too much or not arterial
service, hey
[1:54:17] people
[1:54:20] stand
all
[1:54:24] um so this parking is a requirement
added to parking definition
[1:54:34] whatever
they're already
[1:54:40] Um our miners
residential right now
[1:54:46] we have
so
[1:54:51] um
parking off any out
[1:55:02] there's what we have find
[1:55:09] And we have
um legal nonform services
[1:55:16] area
[1:55:20] requirements
[1:55:27] a little bit saying we already have
[1:55:33] » right Now they have to down up to six
states for resident.
[1:55:40] Um and grass block
outside.
[1:55:58] So improvements things that are required
by state law. Um, that's really what I
[1:56:05] so I can make those recommended. There's
really nothing more
[1:56:19] that um pretty much in your pack
about it was a lot of work. Um, but it
[1:56:26] was really just to show you feel free.
[1:56:35] So, I really want you that she got some
great background
[1:56:42] sheet how they they
[1:56:46] very simple. Um, but anyway, we're still
still going through it. We'll get more
[1:56:52] updates on this stuff. Um I think the
art and public zoning stuff
[1:56:59] and more definition.
[1:57:03] » Perfect. Good.
>> Amazing.
[1:57:19] » Don't worry about it.
>> Okay.
[1:57:21] » Well, if you find anything else, let me
know. I took your comment. I appreciate
[1:57:25] you. Thanks for being here. Dave, I
talked over you or anything. Thanks for
[1:57:29] being here.
>> Um, appreciate entertain a motion to
[1:57:34] » motion. So move.
I like that.
[1:57:38] » I'll second. All in favor? I
>> All right.
[1:57:44] » Thanks for
[1:57:50] » the fe thing. Um I it was just it was
just ideas that I feel
[1:57:55] » I don't have a feeling either way. I
don't want to make it feel like the the
[1:58:00] has to feel the commissioners have a
feeling either way. And with just like
[1:58:02] there's four