[0:02] Aye, now we're official. I'll call to order the September 3, 2026. Continuation meeting of the

[0:10] Garber Planning Commission, the roll call, Kim Anderson. Here. Katie Cornell. Here. Jim Anderson. Here.

[0:22] Here, Rosie Joe,

[0:26] here, and let me see one member, Rosalyn Schock-Pennygan, so anyway,

[0:38] unless she's joining us online, we haven't even, oh, there she is, with all right.

[0:51] With that, by consensus, we called you here.

[0:58] with that will look for a approval of the minutes from our August 27th meeting.

[1:06] Sir, motion to approve the minutes.

[1:09] Second.

[1:11] Right. Those are all those who favor say aye.

[1:14] Aye.

[1:15] Aye.

[1:15] All right.

[1:17] So this is a continuation on the agenda.

[1:20] This is the situation of the public hearing to consider phase two,

[1:26] developing cold, density and dimensions, land use table.

[1:32] We'll also add to the agenda at the end of public comment period after we've done this.

[1:42] So, the current topic, with that, did you?

[1:52] I think you need a motion on the approving the agenda,

[1:57] especially with the inclusion of public comment at the end.

[2:00] A second and a vote.

[2:02] Okay, is there a motion then to add public comment at the end of this.

[2:09] The public and.

[2:09] I have a motion to add the comments at the end, public comment after, sorry, I motion

[2:20] to do that.

[2:21] Second.

[2:22] All those favour say aye.

[2:24] Aye.

[2:25] All right.

[2:26] So we will proceed with public comment then after the initial topic of the hearing.

[2:38] With that, did you guys want to make any kind of presentation or review the?

[2:45] Yes, we had some materials kind of set the stage.

[2:49] Again, today is intended to be deliberations for the code amendments.

[2:54] Just want to again kind of go over some of the materials we had before as well as kind

[2:58] of explain what you have before you and also there is a kind of a recommendations matrix

[3:05] that we've provided to you.

[3:06] I have a PowerPoint that kind of walks through some of those, what that's intended to do,

[3:11] what that's intended to respond to. We also have some summaries of public comment.

[3:15] Great. Thank you all. With that, please.

[3:19] Thank you very much. For the record, my name is Eric Baker. I'm the Director for the

[3:23] Community Development Department here at Gig Harbor. I have Catherine Schaffer, Principal Planner,

[3:28] Corey Reagan, Senior Planner here with me as well. Again, like I mentioned, this is the

[3:34] the deliberation phase after receiving both written and verbal testimony over the course

[3:42] of the last hearing and then up until Monday.

[3:47] We have kind of gone through and based upon some of the clarifying questions, planning commission

[3:53] requested at the end of the last meeting and kind of review of the public comment that was

[3:58] As received, we provided again a proposed recommendation or a proposed decision matrix

[4:06] for you to look at.

[4:07] That is not intended to be in all-inclusive, that is just what staff generated.

[4:12] It does not, in any way, limit the planning commission's ability to add, change, or remove

[4:19] any of those from it.

[4:20] So I just want to highlight that those are the information in front of you.

[4:24] So I think one of the questions we got from public comment, subsequently to meeting the

[4:31] planning commission meeting.

[4:32] We've also met with some of the people who testified last week, Darren Final in the

[4:38] architect, a series of other architects to kind of try to hopefully address some of the

[4:44] concerns that we heard.

[4:46] The purpose of two way is intended to be focused on housing diversity.

[4:51] The things we're looking to change here are making it easier for properties to develop

[4:56] accessory dwelling units, duplexes, townhomes, cottage housing, and multi-family.

[5:01] In our market that requires providing some kind of regulatory incentive, something you

[5:06] can do that do different when you're doing those that you aren't doing for single family

[5:11] to be able to encourage people to think about those because each of those have a different

[5:15] cost, they're a different animal than the single family.

[5:19] We want to improve consistency with the density allowances of the comprehensive plan in the zoning

[5:24] map. So we adopted the comprehensive plan in 2025. These code changes are part and parcel

[5:30] of that continued discussion to be able to achieve the densities that are significantly higher

[5:36] in the comprehensive plan that have been in the past. Again, do want to highlight that single family

[5:41] development is not proposed to change in much of any way, except for one's place, which we'll

[5:48] talk about in a moment. It's the same standards as today. We're not in any way trying to limit

[5:53] single family, but we are not necessarily trying to incentivize it. And then, lastly,

[6:01] and in many cases, most importantly, we have state mandates that we have to meet to avoid

[6:06] noncompliance. And I'll talk a little more about that in a moment. I guess what? A moment's here.

[6:12] We have a series of state mandates. These state mandates have been coming out since 2021.

[6:18] I have two labeled here in red.

[6:20] Those are the ones that this code is attempting to address most.

[6:25] The first of which is remove barriers to housing for

[6:27] incomes below 80% area median income.

[6:31] That's townhomes duplexes 80 years of multifamily.

[6:34] Then the Housing Accountability Act,

[6:36] which is the hammer, I will call it,

[6:39] if jurisdictions do not address 1220,

[6:42] if we do not remove barriers,

[6:43] And if we do not see progress towards legislative and commerce directed number of housing units by AMI between now in 2029.

[6:56] So if we become noncompliant thus we aren't making progress.

[7:01] We can be found noncompliant and thus unable to achieve a whole host of state funding that we count on on an annual basis.

[7:12] These are just images of the housing types that we are trying to incentivize from town homes,

[7:18] accessory dwelling units, and then varying types of multi-family. This is that table that I was

[7:25] referencing when we're talking about progress towards housing need. These numbers are consistent

[7:31] with the countywide planning policies, but also commerce direction. What it did is it established

[7:37] of total number of housing units. We needed between 2020 and 2044. And then at the time,

[7:44] commerce provided, okay, what type of housing generally fits into these categories.

[7:50] We acknowledge the fact that real estate is location, location, location. However,

[7:55] as the legislatures trying to do this on a statewide basis, they tried to provide some kind of a framework

[8:01] work about what type of housing we should be encouraging to, in theory, meet some of

[8:08] these percentage annual median income. So if you take a look at the slide you have here,

[8:12] single family homes like we have so many of would be considered 120% of area median income

[8:20] and above. The target increase for the 24 year period was 218 units. As you'll note as

[8:29] move down that dark blue row we have 500 of them that were constructed by 2024 and that doesn't

[8:37] include new housing developments of summit point, the reserve, and anything else that's currently

[8:43] in the queue that single family oriented. So what that indicates is that we have exceeded

[8:48] our single family homes, homes that are needed per commerce and state guidance.

[8:55] not great, but not necessarily horrible if we can start to increase the other housing types and

[9:03] those are the ones that are pretty much between 120% of AMI and below. So as you start moving up

[9:08] the table, you start to see moderate middle housing, including town homes and multi-end like garden

[9:15] apartments. Accessory dwelling units come in between a 50 and 80% of area median income and then

[9:22] continue all the way to the end, but then once you get to below 50 percent, you're now largely

[9:28] talking solely about apartments, and that's where you're truly talking about affordable housing

[9:33] versus housing affordability. This whole code is intending to address housing affordability,

[9:39] not how people making 50 percent of area median income can find a home that oftentimes requires

[9:45] public housing, public incentives and a number of other things, but how can our workforce housing

[9:49] live in the community and what types of housing that is.

[9:54] So these are the numbers we need to make progress towards.

[9:57] Failure to make progress is clearly stipulated in the Housing Accountability Act as a reason

[10:02] that A, a jurisdiction will get their housing element reviewed and B, a reason for being

[10:08] found non-compliant.

[10:11] People can argue about the, I guess, the reasonableness of that requirement.

[10:19] But at this point, it is the requirement.

[10:21] Bainbridge Island is currently going through a targeted review.

[10:25] We are paying very, very close attention to the findings of that.

[10:28] Bainbridge has some commonality with Gig Harbor from a socioeconomic status.

[10:33] But I do want to highlight that failure to make progress towards more town homes,

[10:40] accessory dwelling units, and continuing our trajectory of predominantly 90, 95% single family housing

[10:47] will be a problem not today, but not too far off in the future.

[10:54] During my career, any questions about that is that's kind of the boogie man in this whole story,

[11:00] which I don't think I fully have illustrated at the last meeting.

[11:05] Eric, just for clarification, the target that we've met,

[11:11] when you said we've met our target, that being the higher income,

[11:17] at that through 244.

[11:19] That's through 244.

[11:20] So we have eclipsed our 244 number of single-family units by double.

[11:26] And that was before our comp plan was even adopted.

[11:33] Okay. So, again, just to kind of summarize what's in the draft code, we're really focused on the

[11:39] dimensional requirements for housing, for accessory dwelling units, duplexes, townhomes,

[11:44] cottage housing and multi-family. I don't, cottage housing if you remember are the smaller single-family

[11:51] units that are usually located around some kind of a courtyard or common facility. They are oftentimes

[11:59] more affordable than standard single family homes that are on their own lot, oftentimes owned.

[12:06] Some cottage housing is owned in the condominium format, but not always.

[12:11] The code reduced required lot dimensions and allowed smaller lots to be developed through subdivision.

[12:20] Reduced setbacks increased hard surface allowances and increased building heights.

[12:26] Most of these were predominantly focused on people who are developing accessory dwellings

[12:32] due to Plexus Town Homes of Multifamily.

[12:34] It left single family detached construction all but as it is today, largely unchanged.

[12:40] There was a lot of public testimony about that and I'll talk about public testimony here

[12:44] in a moment.

[12:45] One thing I do want to highlight because we also got a lot of public testimony on this.

[12:49] These changes do not replace any of the requirements in the design manual for the historic preservation

[12:55] are height restriction areas. Those areas in the downtown area, they replace, they supersede

[13:04] the standards that we are talking about changing here. There's a part of code that indicates

[13:09] that at any time there are two regulations that conflict the most restrictive applies. In that case,

[13:15] that would be the height preservation area and the height restriction area. So anybody who's concerned

[13:18] that we're changing that in those, like structure heights in those areas, please rest assured that

[13:24] is not what's in this draft. And then all design manual requirements still apply. So everything

[13:29] is in a design manual about what a built what construction should look like pitch grows all those

[13:34] types of things are still in place. Let me pause there if there are any questions.

[13:44] So just to kind

[13:45] of summarize the public comment this is not intended to be exhaustive but I'm trying to kind of work

[13:49] through the themes. We did receive opposition to code revisions that increase density. There is a

[13:55] concerned about the change in community character impacts on infrastructure such as traffic and then any potential impacts on the environment.

[14:04] I do want to highlight on I guess I don't want to highlight anything on that moving on.

[14:11] Another one is will this update really impact affordable housing and that's where it is important to make the distinction between housing affordability and affordable housing.

[14:21] Affordable housing requires a very concentrated discussion with housing authorities, non-profits,

[14:28] other support organizations. That is a very different conversation than what we're talking about here.

[14:32] Here we're talking about housing affordability. If a average single-family home goes for about 900,000,

[14:39] and a town home goes for about 500,000, and a condominium goes for about 400,000, yes, 400 and 500,000,

[14:47] Not necessarily going to be affordable to someone making 50% of area median income, but are dramatically more affordable than any new single family home.

[14:56] So again, while it may not get to the low...

[15:01] AMI's, it is moving the needle down, allowing more people who work in our community, people

[15:07] going to downsize, kids who get a good job and want to be able to move out of their parents,

[15:13] their parents' home, have an opportunity in our community. What the code didn't change

[15:19] was a huge chunk of the conversation, which is single-family dwelling standards. Predominantly

[15:24] in the downtown, related to hard surface requirements for small lots, and then set back.

[15:30] I do want to highlight with setbacks, like I mentioned before, the historic preservation

[15:36] requirements in the design manual are the setbacks for the historic preservation area.

[15:42] Anything we're changing here does not change those setbacks. Those are the most restrictive.

[15:47] And then we also received testimony about perceived inconsistencies in the waterfront zones.

[15:52] Those are the zones in Millville that wrap around our harbor

[15:56] that are located on the shoreline and we want to and when they're included in the table they're it appeared that there are some inconsistencies between it and like zones that did not have a particular nexus.

[16:12] We pause there are there any other public comment that we provided that you would like us to highlight at this time.

[16:20] I

[16:23] feel like there's quite a few public comments saying that 40% wasn't enough space to build homes.

[16:31] I heard multiple testimonies communicating that they were asking that to be increased.

[16:38] Yeah, that was a hard surface requirements for small, for small lots.

[16:42] I just want to make sure I hadn't, I hadn't totally left off a piece of public comment.

[16:45] or a topic because we'll get to the matrix that you have before you which addresses most of these

[16:52] here in just a moment.

[16:57] So additionally the planning commission asked a series of additional

[17:00] questions. The questions that came forward were the table is consolidated for clarity but the two

[17:08] rows per zone seems to be more confusing than it needs to be. Why do single family development not

[17:17] have revised dimensional standards. Why did we draw the line at accessory dwelling units,

[17:23] duplexes, getting revised code while single family did not? And that's where we got the

[17:28] testimony about the smaller lots and how that the current code was greatly impacting their

[17:34] developability with or without an accessory dwelling unit. There was a question of how big a house

[17:40] is considered unaffordable. Based upon the table I just showed you from commerce, any single family

[17:46] home at this point is considered unaffordable. The bigger the single family home, the less affordable,

[17:50] the less affordable it would be per the commerce guidance that we are responsible for making progress

[17:56] towards. Then lastly, how do these revisions impact infrastructure capacity in the city?

[18:01] Comprehensive plan did a full capital facilities plan. The use changes are directly consistent

[18:06] with that comprehensive plan. It is just implementing the comprehensive plan that was adopted back in

[18:12] in 2025.

[18:18] So some of the planning commissioners asked,

[18:20] okay, kind of to the Eric,

[18:22] you've indicated that you're concerned

[18:23] that people might be able to build bigger homes

[18:25] if we change the regulations

[18:28] for single family development.

[18:30] It was asked that we provide just some basic illustrations.

[18:34] I will highlight that we have also gotten some blowback

[18:36] on the illustrations we provided so far

[18:38] that they are not comprehensive,

[18:41] that there's a number of different elements

[18:42] that all fit into this depending on where you are

[18:45] in our city. That's why these are illustrations and we do our best, but it is not necessarily

[18:53] the right answer everywhere. It's the back side of providing illustrations.

[18:59] So here you're noticing, this is at R1 zone, so 4 dwelling units an acre, dimensional standards

[19:06] of the lot here is about 12,000 square feet. Here under the current dimensional standards

[19:11] you see a building footprint of about 2,000 square feet in the garage, about 600 square feet.

[19:17] You do have more room except for what you're noting here is that this is bump, close to bumping up

[19:23] against the 30, the 40 percent current hardskate. So you notice with house garage driveway parking,

[19:30] you're at about 4,200 square feet. That's only about 35 percent. So you've got 5 more percent to play with.

[19:36] The patio could be bigger, the house could be a little bigger but not a lot bigger. So again,

[19:40] and on a 12,000 square foot lot,

[19:42] there is an artificial restriction

[19:45] on the size of that lot in today's code.

[19:49] If you are to move to our dimensional standards,

[19:52] increase to 60%, again, this one is right at 60% hardskit.

[19:59] Now you have a building footprint of about 2,800 square feet,

[20:03] which is only, that's for a rambler.

[20:05] So that doesn't include a second story,

[20:09] which while you could not do that in the historic district or in the height restriction area,

[20:12] every other place in R1 you could do it. So you can go up to 35 feet in the R1 zone when you're

[20:20] outside of those two. So you can add a second story onto this. So you can see how the footprint

[20:25] of the building grows substantially with these new or has the opportunity to grow substantially

[20:33] with the ability to utilize those revised standards.

[20:39] However, most of the testimony and some of the illustrations

[20:41] that have been provided in your public comment.

[20:44] Again, thank you very much for people in the public

[20:46] who provided these illustrations one way or another

[20:49] because we have received testimony on both sides

[20:51] of the hard-skate question.

[20:54] It is going to affect the environment

[20:55] as a consistent with historic character, et cetera.

[20:59] But we did receive a lot of testimony

[21:00] as was properly noted that the dimensional standards for a 6,000 square foot lot are very problematic,

[21:10] especially as it applies to hard-skilled. So here you're seeing that if a 6,000 square foot

[21:16] lot is operating under the current proposed changes, you do have a smaller building footprint,

[21:23] you have about 1,500 square foot footprint that is getting a lot closer to a home that is potentially

[21:31] a affordable to a greater amount of the population.

[21:35] In the downtown area, we really recommend the garages

[21:38] are at the back.

[21:40] So you have the, you have to have the driveway

[21:42] that all runs all the way to the back.

[21:43] So what you see here is the ability to have a form,

[21:46] 50 square foot garage, a patio,

[21:48] and a relatively a smaller building footprint at 60%.

[21:54] So the reason I show you this,

[21:56] rather than show you the 40%,

[21:58] which again we've seen how 40% from the various comments has its own issues, is that in the revision

[22:07] matrix that we have before you we are proposing a revision to the hardscape for single family

[22:12] development. I'll cover that in a moment. So are there any questions regarding these three

[22:17] illustrations? We're really trying to do our best though however we cannot guarantee the creativity

[22:24] of the development and any one answer is going to be wrong as often as it is right.

[22:34] Yeah, I had a question.

[22:37] If you go back to the 40% on the 12,000-square fee, what does that look like?

[22:44] Because part of our goals is to make sure that people can add ADUs.

[22:48] Would someone be able to add an ADU with the current metrics and still meet the requirements

[22:55] at the 40 percent?

[22:57] Under current code, no.

[22:59] But under the proposed code, if you add the ADU, you automatically, even if you're building

[23:04] a single family home, if you're adding an ADU, you're automatically moved to the new code.

[23:10] So again, that's kind of the incentive.

[23:12] You can have a bigger home, but you have to have an accessory dwelling unit on the property.

[23:16] it's kind of the incentive without being, well, just an incentive, let's call it that.

[23:21] Without applied to people that currently are already under this standard, that if they wanted to come,

[23:26] like, they're not, it's not a new build. They just currently have houses. If you come in and apply,

[23:30] then their setbacks would be made appropriate. Yes.

[23:39] Looking at like the larger lot sizes,

[23:43] is the increase in development capacity,

[23:50] just like unintended consequence,

[23:53] or is the incentive something else

[23:59] and it's more policy driven, programmatic driven,

[24:03] like you mentioned in ADU or something like that?

[24:07] It's attempting to shift the property owners thought process

[24:12] as who oftentimes sees those other housing types,

[24:14] it's just something that can't be done.

[24:16] So, A, it's intended to make property owners

[24:18] think differently about their property.

[24:20] But also, yeah, if I have the codes of today,

[24:25] very likely a single family home is all I'm gonna be looking at

[24:28] if you adjust those,

[24:29] or if you make it possible to do more with the revised code,

[24:34] we're hoping that folks will take that opportunity

[24:37] to build two three units or a home with an ADU or in certain cases two ADUs if you have

[24:44] enough space. So it's that type of incentive. I sense I missed the answer to the question

[24:50] that one though.

[24:54] I'll take sort of.

[24:59] So yeah, while we are only a component of the housing picture,

[25:03] there's no mission accomplished banner being hung at the end of this code saying, hey,

[25:07] Okay, housing affordability addressed.

[25:10] It is one of what will be 20, 25 steps taken over the course of the next five to six years

[25:15] and a continuous drum beat of housing diversity that hopefully will move the needle on this.

[25:20] We are just trying to step out of the way and at least allow the market to think differently

[25:26] versus saying, well, gig harbors code doesn't let me do ADUs because of X, Y, or Z thus architects

[25:33] don't plan it, plan for it.

[25:35] and it just isn't, it isn't the thing.

[25:37] So we're trying to make it a thing for consideration.

[25:42] Eric, I don't know if this is a question for now or later,

[25:45] but is there a, does the city have data

[25:49] on how many 6,000 square foot lots are out there

[25:54] versus like, I mean, that this code would apply to,

[25:58] or the change in hard-skated would apply to?

[26:01] The number of 6,000 square foot existing lots

[26:04] is relatively small. We don't have a lot of vacant lots period and you're probably looking at

[26:10] 10 to 30. However, this also applies to properties that have been subdivided after the fact.

[26:18] So once you subdivide a piece of property, when you go through a preliminary process,

[26:24] you have to meet your density and you have an option of what your lot sizes should be.

[26:29] You'll note in the table, we are reducing that lot size in many places, 6,000 in south.

[26:36] That could create a whole series of additional lots in the future that these revised codes

[26:40] would apply to.

[26:42] So again, it is also trying to get people to move off of the 10,000 square foot lot.

[26:47] It is to say, okay, we can get down to 6,000 square foot lots and still be able to build a

[26:54] a home that is marketable and is cost effective.

[26:59] Does the city allow building on a lot that's smaller than 6,000 square feet?

[27:04] Yes.

[27:06] You can build on anything that you can get.

[27:08] You can meet zoning building and fire codes.

[27:19] Okay.

[27:20] So everybody should have a copy of what we're calling.

[27:25] What are we calling it?

[27:29] I think I have it.

[27:31] It is the deliberations matrix I'm going to, it looks like this, yes, it looks like this.

[27:44] No, it does not look like that a lot.

[27:46] It's in the agenda pack, everyone has the agenda.

[27:52] Everybody up on the dius have that, it's also been looking on the website.

[27:58] So in the deliberations, matrix staff, again, met with local architects, we did some assessment

[28:04] of how many lots we have out there and how big a specter building large homes in places

[28:12] we, again, are not trying to encourage large homes, not trying to discourage, but not

[28:18] saying, hey, wouldn't be great if that house was bigger.

[28:22] So what we're looking at is in the table, one of the things that you indicated is having

[28:28] two rows per column is a problem, that just is confusing.

[28:33] Not to mention the fact that it only really applies to four of the zones because the ability

[28:38] to build single family in commercial zones, in public institution zones, in a number of these

[28:44] other zones just isn't the thing.

[28:46] It the densities don't match the highest and best uses not going to be a residential piece.

[28:53] So in what we've done is we are proposing that in the R1, R2, RB1, and waterfront residential

[29:01] zone, A, we collapse all of the zones.

[29:05] I'll show you what it kind of looks like here in a minute.

[29:08] And reflect the different development standards differently where single-family development

[29:15] Instead of being its own row is now just a second number in the same row with a footnote that footnote number seven

[29:23] Which I'm certain is going to be a very popular number for conversation between now and through council and

[29:29] clarify that footnote number seven is

[29:33] That is put after the second number in that row

[29:37] Applies to single-family homes on lots over 6,000 square feet

[29:42] If you remember, most of the testimonies about the difficulty in building single-family

[29:47] homes with current code on lots less than 6,000 square feet.

[29:52] So this revision, and this revision to the footnote, instead of creating the, if you're

[29:58] are doing duplexes.

[30:00] And above, you get new code. If you're doing single family of any kind, you get the old code. This now creates a six that a lot size component based upon the illustrations I showed you, where if you're on a smaller lot, again a lot size that is consistent with what we are promoting to start with. You are able to utilize the new setbacks, the new heartscape requirements to be clear. You'd be able to go from 40% to 60% if you're on a lot less than 6,000.

[30:30] square feet even if you're doing a single family development.

[30:34] Purpose of this is to address the existing challenges of small lot development that

[30:38] has been well documented while also limiting the probability of significantly larger and

[30:44] likely less affordable housing.

[30:46] So again, it isn't saying all single family units may be operating contrary to where commerce

[30:53] wants to go, but it is indicating that we don't, that larger ones could be a problem.

[31:00] What that ultimately looks like, I mean, I'm sure the screen are people having problems

[31:06] envisioning it.

[31:16] So with the classy and the footnote Eric basically eliminate the single family designation

[31:21] totally.

[31:22] It would it would eliminate the row.

[31:24] So if you can see the screen I got here, let me see if I can blow this up, sure I can blow

[31:29] it up.

[31:32] So the columns you see up there is the way that it reads today.

[31:39] You

[31:43] get the two rows that basically established the two different types.

[31:48] What the revised would do is put everything in one column but create a single family component

[31:54] to that.

[31:55] Basically highlighting that single family or so into footnote 7, which I'll show you

[32:00] here in a minute, basically indicates that you have to meet today's code.

[32:06] So if you're not greater than 6,000 square feet, you have today's code.

[32:13] If you are smaller than 6,000 square feet or doing ADUs, do duplexes, dryplexes, all the

[32:20] things all the way up to multifamily, you're utilizing the top numbers.

[32:24] So for the purposes of maximum impervious surface, if you are doing, if you're on a lot less

[32:31] than 6,000 square feet or you're doing a duplex, you can go to 55% impervious surface.

[32:36] and 60% hard surface. If you are over 6,000 square feet, you are beholden to previous code.

[32:47] Footnote number seven has been clarified. To read single-family dwelling is defined

[32:53] and we have a definition for it. So you know exactly what we're talking about. So it isn't like,

[32:58] well, this feels like single-family. It's like, no, it's for that definition.

[33:02] and that number is required for development of single-family dwellings on existing legally established

[33:07] lots greater than 6,000 square feet of lot area. Yes, ma'am.

[33:14] Is it a 6,000 square feet like a hard

[33:18] limit? Like what if you're 6,000 one? You're out. Ultimately you're going to have to establish

[33:25] a number and there's always going to be a person one foot over the number. So I actually originally

[33:30] And then I said, well, what if some of these are a little bit off?

[33:32] Let's go with 6100.

[33:33] But I know there's a 6105 size lot out there, and then they're going to say, what about

[33:38] me?

[33:39] But what you will note in the R1 zone is that 6,000 square feet is consistent with the

[33:44] minimum lot area that we're proposing for all new construction.

[33:48] So again, we are that that number previously was what, seven, eight, seven thousand.

[33:53] So we're reducing the allowed size of the lot.

[33:57] And if we are encouraging people to build at a smaller size,

[34:01] we should be assuming that, yes, that is the,

[34:03] that we should be allowing more development on lots of that size.

[34:08] And to, to make sure on the same page.

[34:11] Yes.

[34:11] This is what you guys are proposing.

[34:13] This is for us.

[34:14] We can, we can propose something different.

[34:16] Of course.

[34:17] But, of course.

[34:17] So, it's not really hard.

[34:19] It's just, you, the important that we pick a hard line.

[34:22] Yes.

[34:23] But you're recommending six thousand.

[34:24] These are only our recommendations at this point.

[34:33] So, I'll stop the share and go back to the PowerPoint.

[34:36] Are there any other questions?

[34:37] I know this is absolutely as clear as mud, but again,

[34:43] the purposes of this are to address some of the concerns

[34:46] we had about hard-scape requirements and the need for 60%

[34:50] of available space.

[34:52] A lot of the conversation was in the downtown,

[34:57] but that also applies to development of pretty much

[35:01] any lot less than 6,000 square feet. You need to be able to maximize the amount of space

[35:05] that you have within that footprint to be able to build housing in a manner that is affordable.

[35:12] Code that is changed but is not used is not useful.

[35:18] Come on. It's going to be supposed to

[35:20] share again.

[35:24] Question. Yes, please.

[35:26] Earlier you were saying how the more restrictive overlay of the historic district supersedes

[35:32] any of these changes. So it's us increasing at 260% even actually affecting the historic

[35:41] district. Yes, the historic district does not cover hardscape. It does not cover a lot. It does

[35:46] not cover a lot sizes. Instead, it covers setbacks and building height. Those are those are the things

[35:52] that are included in the design manual. So the hardscape would change in that area, but not setbacks or

[36:02] building hearts.

[36:07] And for just a clarification in the historic district, the current hardskap is 60%.

[36:13] The current hardskap is 40% in this dark district. For R1, for

[36:22] waterfront, most of the waterfronts, yes.

[36:27] So long and short, from a lot of the public comment

[36:30] that we received, we saw the concerns related to the development of the 6,000 square foot lot.

[36:35] And we attempted to find a new line in which we are drawing and we could find arguments regarding housing affordability that you can still develop single family homes on lots less than 6,000 square feet that can be considered affordable, even if they are again single family.

[37:00] Could you just maybe briefly talk about the definition of single family?

[37:04] So in other words, if what would you need to do to house a design, I mean simplistically to consider it a multiple dwelling unit.

[37:16] I will.

[37:19] I will read to you the definition of single family.

[37:22] So we have an idea what code requirements are if you were putting multiple.

[37:28] I wanted to be considered a multi dwelling unit.

[37:31] one moment. I apparently look like a hacker. So it is, it's giving me a moment. There we go.

[37:38] Yes, everybody. We are finished.

[37:53] You can do it.

[37:56] While you're working on that, I have a similar thing.

[38:00] Has there been any thought to changing the term of single family housing to

[38:06] align better with the screw of her all idea of making more diverse housing. I looked up, I saw that Seattle uses the term neighborhood residential rather than a single family home.

[38:19] Or is that beyond the scope of this one little code update so you can? Is that a comprehensive planning issue?

[38:27] It, not necessarily, but we do have a series of definitions beyond just single-family dwelling.

[38:34] So I can kind of read, we have single-family, we have duplex, foreplex, triplex, we have

[38:40] dwelling attached, we have dwelling multifamily.

[38:43] So we have a number of different classifications, all of which appear in our allowed use table.

[38:49] And most of all of these are allowed in almost all residential zones, including commercial

[38:53] zones.

[38:55] The definition of dwelling unit single family means a detached residential structure with one dwelling unit containing but one kitchen designed for and occupied by one family.

[39:05] So if you were to add a second kitchen, you would be an accessory dwelling unit, not very likely.

[39:11] If you added another whole set of living amenities, you would either have an accessory dwelling unit or you could be a duplex, which is defined as.

[39:25] Means a building designed exclusively for the occupancy by two families, living independently

[39:30] of each other.

[39:31] A duplex can share a wall, ceiling floor, or any other shared roof assembly, including

[39:36] breezeways, but cannot have interior openings between the dwellings.

[39:41] And the definitions continued down from there.

[39:45] So obviously, most of your question is going to be what's going to take from a building standpoint.

[39:49] point. Once you get into common wall construction, there's a lot of additional firewall amenities

[39:55] that are necessary. Same goes for accessory dwelling units. So a lot of that is in something

[40:01] that we are not currently amending. Sure. So a single family resident could be considered

[40:10] a multi dwelling unit if it had two kitchens, essentially, but still shared some living space.

[40:15] At that point, if it had two kitchens, it would no longer be a single family.

[40:19] It would now be either duplex or an accessory dwelling unit.

[40:25] I'm aware of properties in gigabur that have family rooms with baby kitchens and them, let's say downstairs.

[40:33] There's still considered single family dwelling.

[40:37] Let me see if we generally kitchen usually requires a certain number of amenities.

[40:44] it doesn't just a sink.

[40:46] Not like a kitchenette.

[40:48] A kitchenette wouldn't qualify

[40:49] in the full kitchen, right?

[40:51] Yeah, it has to be a full area.

[40:52] Kitchen, defund.

[40:54] Means a place where food is cooked and prepared

[40:56] and contains the facilities and equipment used

[40:58] for preparing and serving food,

[40:59] such as a gas or electric range.

[41:02] Free standing burner, warming oven or microwave

[41:06] is not considered a ranger or an oven.

[41:08] A kitchen sink, a refrigerator freezer,

[41:15] which a refrigerator freezer is an upright refrigerator or freezer that fits under the counter.

[41:21] That fits under the counter such as the type found in offices is not sufficient to be considered a kitchen.

[41:27] And an electric outlet of 220 voltage and plumbing and stand pipes for equipment and facilities normally found in a kitchen.

[41:34] So yes, you are correct. There's a whole number of people who have like a wet bar.

[41:40] That would not can be considered a kitchen that needs to be pretty robust, the type of thing you would normally find.

[41:48] Everything stands at dishwasher.

[41:51] So without asking for more illustrations, if I just compare the illustration that one of our public comments gave us about a mid block lot about back where with the current 40% which I know there's an exception for this lot.

[42:05] But that the minimum or the max that you could build originally on this was 13,000 square feet

[42:12] compared to the 12,000 square foot law at the 40% the max is 2,000 square feet

[42:19] So am I correct to understanding that

[42:22] With your proposal of blocking anything above 6,000 feet

[42:26] That essentially about 6,000 square feet lot that the range for anyone buying a 6,000 in one square foot law all the way to 12,000 square foot

[42:35] they'll be maxed out somewhere along 13 or square feet to 2,000 square feet is the biggest

[42:39] house bill to build depending on their size with that percentage is that as they get larger the

[42:45] percentage of hard-scape gets larger so I think she was showing the showing some of the illustrations

[42:51] obviously we're not capping out a 12,000 square feet it is anything above 6,000 I do believe the bigger

[42:57] your lot the more square footage you'd be able to build and it also comes down to the configuration

[43:02] your lot, how big your driveway is going to be? How big your garage is? What do you have an outdoor patio?

[43:10] So I do believe the illustration about what can be built on a 6,000 square foot lot is consistent

[43:16] with what we found, but there's a sliding scale on the other.

[43:22] Also, it's just the footprint of the building.

[43:24] You can go up as well. So it's not just a 1300 square foot home. It could be 2600 square feet on that

[43:30] I

[43:34] have a question. The illustration that you showed shows that it's label on

[43:39] Grossdale Street. Could you state whether the illustration or the

[43:44] illustrated property is within the historic district or is that just for

[43:48] purposes of? Yeah, it's not. It's outside the. Thank you.

[43:53] Yeah, the development that has happening within the historic district, especially in

[43:57] the historic district along the waterfront has a lot of other limitations on it.

[44:02] If you're on the waterfront, you have the shoreline designation, which limits what you can do on the property.

[44:07] I've here in the historic district, you have limited setbacks. If you're in the height restriction area, you have a lowered height.

[44:14] Same thing, same in the historic district as well. So all those would still apply.

[44:21] Can you explain the rationale for aligning the waterfront residential zone with the R1?

[44:34] And do we want to move?

[44:38] Yeah.

[44:38] I would like to move there.

[44:40] I already, I'm reading down.

[44:42] Yeah.

[44:43] Sorry.

[44:43] Okay.

[44:44] We will come back.

[44:45] The purposes on the waterfront zones kind of connected to R1 is that the waterfront zones

[44:56] largely already had

[45:00] Of the shoreline, they have the historic preservation, they have the height restriction areas all applying to them as well. They have a lot of other things that are affecting their development above and beyond the changes on, on impervious surface, etc. Obviously, anything that's built on the shoreline is going to have its own challenges with, with affordability. Any time you're buying something by the lineal foot, very likely you're going to be paying a lot more for it, but there is a certain equality component that we have heard from some public comment that

[45:29] that affordable housing and efforts to relax standards should not just be a one part of

[45:36] the city conversation that more affordable housing should be available everywhere.

[45:41] Thus we were looking at sinking up or one and the waterfront zones as it applies to lot

[45:48] size, lot width and impervious surface standards.

[45:52] Some of the testimony, again, was indicating that by focusing things in a particular, in

[45:59] a particular area only is that equal across the city.

[46:08] Again, these changes were not dramatic

[46:10] in nature, but they again were the same that we are proposing for the R1 zone knowing that

[46:17] these three zones are entirely encumbered by either either the shoreline, B, the all of these,

[46:24] yeah, historic preservation, height restriction, and shoreline designation. And some of them,

[46:29] If they have, they're at the mouth of a creek, they get, they get the critical

[46:32] areas ordinance as well.

[46:33] Can you talk to the priority of those like, what beats out what?

[46:38] In general, the most restrictive applies, if you have three different height

[46:44] requirements, the lowest of the three would apply. If you have two different setbacks,

[46:49] the biggest setback would apply.

[46:54] The explanation of wanting affordability across the city and not just, you know, put into

[47:03] one part of the city, it seems unrealistic given that the value of land differs across

[47:09] the waterfront land and such is more expensive and more than something that's not.

[47:16] I totally agree. It goes back to housing affordability versus affordable housing. You're right.

[47:21] affordable housing is not going to locate themselves in the waterfront zone very likely,

[47:26] but a duplex on the waterfront is going to be more affordable than a single family home on the waterfront.

[47:36] And again, with the idea that we are trying to provide greater opportunity across multiple housing types,

[47:44] there is concern that by focusing it in particular areas,

[47:48] I think as one individual entity it created a have or have not environment.

[47:54] Some people had someone get Skig Harbor like it was, everybody else is, they had some

[48:02] other terms, but living a different lifestyle.

[48:15] And then some other proposed changes that are in the matrix is the clarity in location where

[48:20] the new code is going to go, that's the first row, basically saying, hey, we have a number

[48:23] for it.

[48:24] We have a code number for you.

[48:25] And the second of which is when we collapsed everything, there were a number of different setbacks, lot coverages for the public institution zone.

[48:38] So we included a footnote to make it clear that parks and open space is not required to follow those codes.

[48:50] codes. Basically that's how today's code reads. And the purpose being is that trails

[48:56] kiosks of water towers sewer, sewer pump stations, oftentimes they need to be where they

[49:03] need to be. And we wanted to make sure that we were not changing anything. We did not

[49:09] mean to change. And public works very prudently indicated that, hey, you changed something

[49:14] that you were not supposed to be changing for parks and open space open.

[49:18] So

[49:24] kind of going back to, I guess, a way, one moment, are there other components that

[49:30] the Planning Commission would like to cover beyond, not necessarily, I mean, other potential

[49:36] changes, not just changes to the proposed changes?

[49:40] So are there other components that you heard from public testimony, or through your review,

[49:44] you've seen, yeah, but what about the, say, the commercial zone as it applies to building

[49:49] height?

[49:49] Are there any other elements such as that that you saw in the table or any of the proposed

[49:55] changes that you would like to make sure appear on this matrix for some kind of conversation?

[50:00] I saw in the public comments there were written ones that came in in the past beauties talking

[50:09] about some of the other classifications go up to 55% of hard surface but you're

[50:20] allowing for 60. Can you talk a little bit more about maybe your thought

[50:25] process on that and like why you landed where you landed? So yeah the

[50:31] impervious surface number is again the true impervious surface water will not go

[50:35] through it. The difference between a pervious surface requirement which is the 55% in a lot of

[50:41] places and then the 60% which is hardscape that includes all the permeable pavers, all the things

[50:47] that look like concrete or look like pavement but aren't net up at our waters percolating through them.

[50:56] So what the code is trying to do is indicate that okay and pervious surface needs to be limited for

[51:02] or stormwater-related issues.

[51:04] Hardscape is, okay, you can add some additional impervious looking area, but honestly, the

[51:11] quality of life in Gig Harbor has a certain amount of green to it.

[51:15] So even if it is permeable, it isn't landscaping, it isn't something green.

[51:21] So it's more of an aesthetic or design element, which is why it caps out at 60% in certain

[51:28] places.

[51:29] other places it caps out at 80%. Is that like the like if you were put rocks on the side of your

[51:37] driveway or something? Is that what you're talking about? For a hardskate? Yeah. That would be

[51:42] the pavers that then have grass kind of moving around or on the outside. The water percolates down,

[51:49] hits a sandy layer underneath and then slowly moves its way down to either a rain garden or ultimately

[51:56] out to a ditch with a system that's located under the ground to treat the water.

[52:02] Okay.

[52:05] And I may have explained this before, I feel like I'm beating the horse. Since these

[52:10] favors wick water way, if you will, or provide for water drainage, why do we feel like we have to

[52:17] classify that as a hard surface versus letting somebody use those for a driveway surface, let's say?

[52:23] People are able to utilize it for a driveway surface, they can use it for all the various

[52:29] things.

[52:29] They just don't get additional credit beyond 60% for them because ultimately they aren't

[52:36] the aesthetic design element of some kind of greenery or something that does not look

[52:41] like pavement.

[52:42] So it's a more of an aesthetic decision than functional decision.

[52:48] Yeah, the impervious surface is a functional decision, which is covered by our capital facilities

[52:53] plan and then the additional is allowed but up to a point with everything that isn't allowed to

[53:01] be a hard surface is again more of a design quality of life type element. It does to me seem to be

[53:11] a way though that there could be some potential middle ground you know because the papers that allow

[53:18] grass to grow are more attractive than just a hunk of concrete. So you know

[53:25] maybe allowing those to be included as not in the hard surface calculations

[53:31] is that something we could consider? Is that just crazy? That crazy idea?

[53:36] Definitely not crazy. Definitely not crazy. The downside is the greener those look,

[53:40] the less they're working. So that is, I don't know if you ever noticed that

[53:44] lawn if you don't aerate it and water doesn't know is percolate through it quite as well so the

[53:49] prettier the the pavers look oftentimes the less they work but no it's not a crazy it's not a

[53:55] crazy idea it just isn't something that was in the previous code that we operated off of.

[54:03] We could go back and have a conversation with stormwater about it but they are again very they want

[54:08] to make sure that the impervious surface limit is definitely adhered to the

[54:13] hard-scape components beyond that is again more of a quality-of-life aspect.

[54:19] It just seems to me that it could solve some of the design problems that I've

[54:23] heard from several residents that it's limiting their ability to build the

[54:27] size house that they need because we're counting that driveway. It reduces the

[54:32] size of the structure so. I would say definitively in the 6,000 and smaller

[54:38] or a smaller, definitely.

[54:40] I guess it affects anybody, depending on exactly how big a house they want to build.

[54:45] It could, yeah, it gets in the way of me building a 5,000 square foot home.

[54:49] Yes, it may do that.

[54:50] But again, I go back to the purpose of these changes, which are to again incentivize

[54:56] the other housing types, not necessarily address the single family.

[55:04] Eric, for clarification, just broadly speaking that the code's not considering, we talk about

[55:13] affordability and we talk about different duplexes, triplexes and such. We're not trying to

[55:22] differentiate from people who are buying versus people who want to rent. We're just saying housing,

[55:30] housing and if you buy it, if you build it to live in it versus you buy it to sell it versus you buy it to rent it all that counts in our unit and in our goal and the target it's yes, especially because those circumstances change from owner to owner renter to renter.

[55:49] So yeah, when we look at land use, it truly is land use, not people use, I guess.

[55:55] I'm sorry, that that came off sounding. It's not it did it didn't mean to be would pending projects be governed by phase two in which ones any pending projects, such as the harbor winds project or at this point,

[56:12] the let's say harbor winds harbor winds is a subdivision.

[56:15] The subdivision would have to adhere to the existing lot size, lot width areas because

[56:22] they're vested to the old code.

[56:25] But if they were subdividing into lots, 6,000 square feet or less, and we changed them,

[56:33] changed the setbacks for those, they would be able to utilize the new code setbacks when

[56:38] they applied for the building permits.

[56:40] Thank you.

[56:44] In other projects that are in the works most of the projects are either vested or under construction at this point, the ones that are on a construction at this point.

[56:55] Anyone who has an active building permit is vested to the old code. Any existing lot say in summit point on the west side of the highway or the reserve of peacock hill could come in and utilize the new code if they have not applied for their building permit until the new code is adopted.

[57:13] So,

[57:16] what I'm getting on this while a lot of the public testimony has been really been

[57:20] focused on existing lots.

[57:22] This code change has a effect far beyond what we have in our current supply and could

[57:29] apply to any new subdivision moving forward in a way that from an affordability standpoint

[57:33] is perceived as positive, from an affordability standpoint.

[57:40] From housing affordability or really an affordable housing perspective, you know, I'm in support

[57:47] Or, you know, I'm supportive of like creating this flexibility and I hear I see that you're kind of trying to do this balance.

[57:54] But how are we making sure that creating more flexibility actually leads to the intended impact, which is more housing diversity.

[58:11] And how is the city going to track this?

[58:15] Like, what, I mean, how will we know it's doing

[58:19] what it's intended to do?

[58:22] Monitoring.

[58:23] One of the key components of this end,

[58:25] what is also required by state statute,

[58:27] is us to monitor not just on an annual basis,

[58:30] but on a monthly basis, the number of units,

[58:32] the number of permits that are coming in

[58:35] and the types of units that they are

[58:36] and generate a report that is available to the public.

[58:41] So there is a certain component of, I won't say, leap of faith, but there is a certain

[58:47] amount of, okay, we're allowing this level of flexibility.

[58:50] Your concerns are in need to be considered.

[58:54] What happens if what we intended to do here is not what the market does.

[58:58] In which case we need to be prepared to look at the monitoring data, return to council and

[59:03] say, we plan for it to do this, it's doing this. We need to change course. Or we did this and

[59:13] look what it's generating. If we did this plus something else, we could speed that along. So the

[59:20] monitoring goes both ways. It's not, it's not just an uh-oh. It is a, here's how potentially we could

[59:26] make this better and more available. But it's really going to take projects on the ground to see

[59:32] those types of things if

[59:37] we

[59:40] what is the difference between I guess there's two

[59:45] parts doing nothing then what are the outcomes mean you know can we not get

[59:50] to the to to the target numbers by by doing nothing um secondly what if you

[59:56] know I guess really where I keep coming back to

[1:00:00] Is that 6,000 or smaller lot? And, you know, is that really the, the sweet spot of, like, where the change needs to be made is making that a lot size that is buildable for, you know, what somebody can comfortably live in? I don't know what that, what that number is, but it's, it's definitely more than 1,000, probably less than 2,000.

[1:00:27] So just trying to figure out, you know, to the commissioner's question like how much do what's the levers that really that the city is predicting that if we adjust these levers, this is kind of where what we could hope to accomplish to get to our target because I always think if this was could somebody who could a builder right now do some of this work without us making any changes, and if they could I assume the reason they're not is because there's not a buyer.

[1:00:56] or there's not a demand for that product.

[1:01:00] The hard-scape requirement is a definitive cold water on our densities.

[1:01:08] Again, let's say folks are generally looking for a minimum 1,500 square feet for anything

[1:01:12] they're going to buy.

[1:01:13] Let's just say that.

[1:01:15] Obviously, you're going to need 3,000 square feet to be able to have two and more than

[1:01:20] that the hard-scape requirement for most of our zones,

[1:01:22] sitting at 40%, is it's called water

[1:01:25] and undoing anything other than a single family.

[1:01:29] And in certain cases, based on the testimony,

[1:01:31] it even keeps some single family projects

[1:01:33] from moving forward.

[1:01:36] I guess I would add that the various toggle switches

[1:01:40] that we're looking at is we do know

[1:01:43] how much an average single family home goes for

[1:01:46] and it is outside the range.

[1:01:48] we know that townhomes that are currently available for sale in our community are substantially less,

[1:01:55] and we do know that condominiums that aren't with Gorge's views are less than that.

[1:02:01] So by encouraging the possibility of additional development to come forward

[1:02:09] that are those other lower price points will affect the market, not necessarily to an affordable

[1:02:16] housing component, but definitely keeping the 900,000 number at average home price from going up

[1:02:26] dramatically because there are a lot of homes going on the market now that are running 1, 3, 1, 5.

[1:02:32] We need to provide housing opportunities that are again closer to the 500 number and we'd need to

[1:02:39] find a way to encourage folks to do it. Otherwise, there's a possibility the state may come and tell

[1:02:45] us that we have to do more. Don't just raise the ceiling, raise the floor, which has a effect on single family development period.

[1:02:56] But what currently is in the code that is preventing builders, the, the, the, the, um, impervious surface.

[1:03:05] Okay, hard scape in the, hard scape in the setbacks.

[1:03:08] access. Yeah. Um, yeah, I think that's it. At least the way I look at it, we're trying

[1:03:17] to get more units on less space. Essentially, it's density. More units in, in a, well,

[1:03:26] I should say, it'll set area. And, you know, this is a nudge. It's not a solution, but it's

[1:03:31] a nudge in that direction, but it's at least from my perspective. Yeah.

[1:03:36] So Mr. Reagan just brought up a one other thing that's in the code is that additionally we are

[1:03:43] exempting duplexes from density density is another thing that slows down development.

[1:03:49] We're not allowing people to build duplexes on a single lot without necessarily needing to make

[1:03:53] density. So that is another incentive that is in this draft.

[1:03:58] It's awesome.

[1:04:01] One of my from my experience in housing and just talking to a lot of people

[1:04:07] has there been consideration to lowering the cost of permits for smaller homes versus

[1:04:12] bigger homes because one of my understandings is that if an average I'm making up a number

[1:04:18] here, but if the average cost of a permit for a single family home runs around $50,000,

[1:04:22] it's roughly what I've been hearing around the streets, not talking about the car bar,

[1:04:26] But is that a lot of times then people want to recruit that money by building a bigger house they can sell it for more?

[1:04:31] So I'm kind of curious on the back end if we're looking at other ways like cave organa for one incentive sizes.

[1:04:37] If you build a duplex or if you build a only this size house, your permits less.

[1:04:42] So those margins are still okay.

[1:04:45] Otherwise the temptation will be to just build the bigger house.

[1:04:49] So I mean, have we given consideration to that?

[1:04:52] That would be one of the 25 different things that we need to be doing and we are currently

[1:04:58] doing it and have been doing it since 2024.

[1:05:02] Honestly, when it comes to fees, if you ask most developers, if they can get a predictable

[1:05:07] and speedy review of their permit, the fee is not the problem.

[1:05:11] It is the fact that carrying cost of the land, from the time they buy the property to the

[1:05:16] time they can sell the subdivision is where the costs are accelerated. So we have worked

[1:05:23] very, very hard to ensure that we are speeding the time from the first time the application

[1:05:30] comes in to the time that the application is approved. Again, every month is tens of thousands

[1:05:37] of dollars that need to be amortized across the price. So most of our efforts aren't necessarily

[1:05:42] focused on waving fees at this point is once you wave fees often times it has an impact

[1:05:46] on the staffing necessary.

[1:05:48] And I will say that customer service is one of the things we pride ourselves in.

[1:05:52] Customers are always standing by, there's always somebody at the counter, you're never going

[1:05:56] to come in and say, well, I guess I can't talk to anybody, we're always going to be here.

[1:06:00] But we really are focusing our energies on making sure the permit process is moving as fast

[1:06:05] as possible.

[1:06:06] And we are getting some positive feedback.

[1:06:08] Nobody wants to get a permit.

[1:06:09] no one woke up in the morning going, gosh, I'd really like to come down to the Civic Center

[1:06:13] and apply for a permit. But we are trying to make it as understandable and as easy as possible

[1:06:20] with, again, a strong customer service and efficiency lens. The downside, customer service and

[1:06:25] efficiency tend to run against one another. Online permitting, very efficient. A lot easier for people to

[1:06:32] do it. From a customer service component, the blinking cursor isn't exactly the warmest way for people

[1:06:37] to go through what is a relatively difficult process. So it, unlike everything else we're talking about,

[1:06:43] is the Ivan Eul.

[1:06:48] Could you speak a little bit to why we're going to a 75 max hard surface

[1:06:55] recommendation in R2, but we have 60 for R1 and R3. What's the difference there? One more.

[1:07:13] Let's try this again.

[1:07:19] Let's go back to the one.

[1:07:21] Okay, in general,

[1:07:23] what we're talking about in previous surface,

[1:07:24] are we talking about hard surface?

[1:07:26] Well, I was talking about max hard service,

[1:07:28] but you could either either way works well.

[1:07:31] So what we have here is for R3,

[1:07:36] I'm reading here that we have 85% hard surface for R3

[1:07:40] and we have 75% for R2 and then 60% for R1.

[1:07:45] The purpose of that gradient increase

[1:07:48] is that the density increases dramatically between there.

[1:07:52] So you're talking about more units.

[1:07:54] In the R1, you're trying to fit four-doll units per acre,

[1:07:57] six to 12 in R2, and now you're looking at 12 to 32.

[1:08:01] So now you're talking about town homes and multi-family,

[1:08:04] which generally are more land intensive

[1:08:07] and landscaping still a requirement but there's less ability to wrap a

[1:08:14] multi-family project around a green space.

[1:08:20] Are you looking at a different

[1:08:21] document? No, I was looking at the wrong line item that makes more sense to me.

[1:08:25] Thank you. I'm going to bet that's because there are two rows, not one row, which is

[1:08:31] rather confusing matters. Which again is one of the proposals.

[1:08:39] I would like to make

[1:08:41] a motion to pause our deliberations from five to 10 minutes, open it up for public comments.

[1:08:47] So that way, if people can make their comments and weave if they want to, rather than holding

[1:08:51] them hostage for another hour or so while we talk about this stuff, I think that will work

[1:08:57] out great as long as, again, what's being testified on is not related to what we're talking

[1:09:03] about here.

[1:09:06] So again, the public comment is intended to be related to all topics that aren't what

[1:09:11] we're talking about here because the theory public comment ended last Monday at noon

[1:09:16] on this topic.

[1:09:17] Gotcha.

[1:09:18] Yeah.

[1:09:18] So I think, well,

[1:09:24] did you have anything else to cover on the matrix here?

[1:09:28] No, that covered the breadth of it.

[1:09:30] And it really is being able to work through for the planning commission on how they would

[1:09:36] like to proceed forward, making changes, making decisions, all of that.

[1:09:40] So it is kind of the nuts and bolts.

[1:09:43] Right.

[1:09:44] So I guess the simple solution or the, I guess, simple or straightforward solution would

[1:09:51] be we would motion to adopt staff's recommendations on the update to phase two, a code update and move on from there, that would be the simple path forward, unless somebody has a proposed change to make to the to the

[1:10:21] we have to take a motion to either approve this

[1:10:27] or make amendments from here.

[1:10:30] So that's.

[1:10:33] If we do want to, I guess,

[1:10:35] how many folks want to make public comment today

[1:10:37] on things that are not related to what we're talking,

[1:10:39] what we've been talking about over the last 20 minutes?

[1:10:45] We could pause and take the gentleman's testimony

[1:10:48] unless the gentleman is okay with hanging out and watching the end of this and then talking and speaking.

[1:10:54] I like your first choice.

[1:10:59] I definitely appreciate how painstaking this must be for people who want to talk about something else.

[1:11:05] Right.

[1:11:08] Okay, well, let's do that then.

[1:11:10] When we recess for 10 minutes and then we'll take public comments and then return to our deliberations.

[1:11:15] some good everybody. There wasn't a really emotion made. It wasn't second. All right.

[1:11:26] Okay. We'll recess for 10 minutes.

[1:12:15] No, there's a name on that, but you know, it's an interviewer that was going on in the

[1:12:22] interview.

[1:12:23] It's called Mr. Goldberg, but I don't think he's going to give it.

[1:12:27] Everybody's required, you know.

[1:12:29] I mean, I know that.

[1:12:30] It's not an option.

[1:12:33] But the hard ones, you know, scrolls.

[1:12:36] And then it happens.

[1:12:36] I've been blessed here for a whole day.

[1:12:38] And then it's going on.

[1:12:39] It's a lot of stuff.

[1:12:41] and now where you can't build it, what will happen?

[1:12:45] What will happen?

[1:12:48] What will happen?

[1:12:49] There will be no problem.

[1:12:53] This is a very bad problem.

[1:12:56] That's something that you have to have in mind.

[1:13:00] So, in this case,

[1:13:05] something that you want to do,

[1:14:01] I think you are thinking, if you have questions, you're going to

[1:14:37] Do you have a garage?

[1:14:38] 30x

[1:14:40] 40x

[1:14:40] 30x

[1:14:41] 30x

[1:14:42] 30x

[1:14:43] 30x

[1:14:44] 30x

[1:14:45] 30x

[1:14:51] 30x

[1:14:52] 30x

[1:14:58] 30x

[1:17:31] Okay, is everybody back with us? I'm not sure that was 10 minutes or not, but I think we're close. All right.

[1:17:41] They don't delay. Yeah, exactly. Okay, well, I guess we'll pause our deliberations in on the base to a code update and invite our public up for a comment period. I guess I have that whole field read.

[1:18:02] but I think we've heard it before.

[1:18:05] Yeah.

[1:18:06] My name is Karl Moral.

[1:18:09] I live in Buriali, Gugoon.

[1:18:11] And some of this may be information that I'm not clear

[1:18:14] on, you know, pick it up from the AI or online or whatever.

[1:18:19] But my understanding is the planning commission

[1:18:22] is supposed to set rules for long-term vision

[1:18:25] where roads could be built and transportation priorities

[1:18:28] shape our future growth.

[1:18:30] And I don't think that's really happening.

[1:18:32] at this particular point. We have a capacity density problem, yes, and I know we have to do it

[1:18:38] by law, we're required to do that. But other areas should also be addressed first.

[1:18:44] Gig Harbor is older than any other community on the peninsula and actually in Washington State.

[1:18:50] Drive times have become longer due to a 25% increase in population from 2010 to 2024. An example

[1:18:59] That would be a domino's driver now takes 15 to 20 minutes longer to get to their destination

[1:19:05] than they did back in 2010.

[1:19:09] Congestion occurs all the way on Highway 16, all the ramps will watch it, burn them,

[1:19:14] harbor view, impacting generally about 15 to 25 extra minutes during peak hours.

[1:19:21] 44% of our population is 55 years older and likely needs emergency medical services.

[1:19:30] Transportation improvement program, TIP, of Gekarber has repeatedly cited that as well.

[1:19:37] Increased traffic volumes, our city cannot approve new development and less public facilities,

[1:19:45] especially roads are in place when development arrives part of as part of the

[1:19:51] growth management program. Development must not outpace infrastructure. Bottom line

[1:19:58] negative emergency response times, unsafe evacuation roads, overloaded roads,

[1:20:03] increased traffic beyond our adopted standards. Please be proactive and keep our

[1:20:09] community safe thank you thank you sir

[1:20:17] yes sure yeah I'm Karen McDonald and I just

[1:20:24] wanted to say that I don't think there's any affordable property in Geekarber and I think

[1:20:32] it all of you should recognize that you know this is just a community that everybody wants to live

[1:20:38] in because it's so special and the other thing I wanted to say and I kind of feel bad about

[1:20:44] saying it but I really wish you would not give incentives to developers to build. They aren't the

[1:20:54] ones that need affordable. I'm sorry and we're not taking commentary on the subject at hand tonight.

[1:21:00] Oh well I didn't hear you talk about that tonight so I'm just talking about it because I heard

[1:21:05] had it before. Thank you.

[1:21:10] All right then. We will continue the deliberations in on the

[1:21:16] base to a code update. Housing diversity. I did want to start. Does anybody else or were there

[1:21:25] any more specific questions in for Eric or Steph? I want to pile on to a question that was asked

[1:21:32] earlier about the 6,000 square feet. I know we're making educated best guesses, if you

[1:21:40] will, that might be too strong. But how confident are we that that's a good place to start?

[1:21:47] It seems like it's a high number compared to some of the other communities.

[1:21:52] It is a, for again, the lower density zone, taking a look at it. It is 6,000 for R1, but

[1:22:00] that then graduates down to 4,000 square feet

[1:22:04] as you get into the higher density zones.

[1:22:07] 6,000 square feet is the historic density,

[1:22:11] or the historic plating pattern in a lot of ways.

[1:22:15] So we feel confident that from a community,

[1:22:19] from a historic community component,

[1:22:22] it is a good number for single family.

[1:22:24] When we get to the 4,000s and less, yeah, we could go lower.

[1:22:28] For some jurisdictions have no minimum lot size.

[1:22:31] There are other avenues to get to those types of things.

[1:22:34] We do feel confident that this is a good balance between the state mandates to again make progress

[1:22:41] while still attempting to maintain some of the historic plating pattern and characteristics.

[1:22:48] So I feel as confident as I can on these numbers.

[1:22:53] The more I work in this, the more I understand that I can absolutely guarantee very little.

[1:23:06] On that note, would you be able to communicate to me from start, from fresh, the reasoning

[1:23:14] behind limiting the setbacks at 40% above 6,000 that doesn't lend to just because we don't

[1:23:26] want people to build bigger homes. Is there other reasoning behind that lid being there besides

[1:23:32] that promise? Yeah, just the purposes. We want to alter code that has a reasonable expectation that

[1:23:41] folks will think about more density, not necessarily just the same density. And I think one of the

[1:23:50] The concern is that with lower setbacks, more hardscape, people may elect on a larger lot to build a much larger home.

[1:24:01] When we present these changes to the Department of Commerce, they're going to look at us and say you're doing the opposite of what the state statute is requiring.

[1:24:09] and ultimately, lots that could potentially be considered at some point for duplexes or an ADU,

[1:24:16] instead just end up being a single family home, just one that is larger and likely at a higher

[1:24:22] price point that, again, doesn't make progress towards our numbers, yet we made a change to code

[1:24:29] that allotted it.

[1:24:34] We aren't trying to tell people exactly how big of a home that they can or

[1:24:38] cannot construct, construct beyond what was already been in code, but we again are in the,

[1:24:47] we're responsible for trying to move the needle. And if the needle is already pointing to large

[1:24:52] single-family homes, we need to be trying to direct things, the opposite direction, because

[1:24:58] ultimately we need to be showing progress to avoid negative impacts.

[1:25:03] might there be environmental considerations, you know, that also lead to limiting impervious

[1:25:18] surface?

[1:25:20] We just adopted the critical areas ordinance which again provide additional protection for

[1:25:26] or about three to 400 acres of available land in gig harbors.

[1:25:32] So there's already a good amount

[1:25:33] that has been addressed through that.

[1:25:36] We have a stormwater code

[1:25:37] that is one of the more progressive in the area.

[1:25:40] So the any new development is going to be developing

[1:25:43] and treating their stormwater at levels

[1:25:46] beyond what historic development in gig harbors has been doing.

[1:25:51] We did do a full analysis when we did our comprehensive plan

[1:25:54] when we increased our densities.

[1:25:56] Again, when we increased our densities, we had the expectation that codes were going

[1:26:00] to be changing, that we're going to increase the amount of potential impervious surface.

[1:26:05] When we changed the critical areas ordinance, we definitely injured that we were going to

[1:26:10] be able to meet these as, again, several hundred acres was being impacted on their

[1:26:17] developability.

[1:26:19] Also in the capital facilities plan, we went through and did a full analysis to ensure

[1:26:22] that even built out at maximum densities that we are going to be able to have water, sewer, and schools transportation for these.

[1:26:34] So we believe that these changes that we are proposing today have been fully vetted through the comprehensive plan.

[1:26:42] They are going to increase density. They are going to increase the possibility of additional impervious surface on what land is left.

[1:26:50] But we have a number of codes in place that doesn't include the shoreline management program to ensure that we are preserving the environment.

[1:27:02] On top of all this, once we address the housing situation, we will be bringing a draft climate element to the planning commission which further protects the environment, addressing things such as climate resiliency level rise, water intrusion, and everything else.

[1:27:19] So, we're kind of book ending this housing conversation that is going to increase density

[1:27:26] with two environmental protection elements, critical areas on one end, climate change

[1:27:31] on the other, to ensure that we are achieving that balance.

[1:27:37] I had one more on the break, I asked a question, I wanted to bring it to the record, which

[1:27:42] was I had asked when did it change to 40 for single-family homes when it was 60 prior

[1:27:48] and you said 2000 or roughly so the just looking historically to our

[1:27:55] concerns today it was at 60 they used to be able to build at that hard

[1:28:01] surface until 2024 I think my house that I live in was in under that old code

[1:28:08] but did we actually see once we made that lower did the implications like

[1:28:16] do people start building smaller homes in gig harbour after we made that lower? Did it actually

[1:28:21] make the impact that it was trying to make and do we set the improve the concern that people

[1:28:25] will just build bigger homes because of the more space if that was already the law for all that time

[1:28:31] anyway? For my understanding, I can't say what the code was before 2004, so I don't know what it was.

[1:28:38] I just remember that these things kind of came into play. There was a big code update that was done

[1:28:43] of 2004 that these types of things popped up. Obviously, the historic character of development

[1:28:49] in gig harbour has stayed at a particular level. The number of I won't utilize the

[1:28:56] pejorative term, but the large homes that you see in a lot of other affluent communities,

[1:29:01] we don't see here in gig harbour. You see them in a lot of other locations. I believe that

[1:29:08] code was an impact on that. I think the historic preservation area was another component that

[1:29:17] has also limited that. So I do believe that regulations do have the ability to address particular

[1:29:27] development issues. And I do believe that that code served its purpose. Unfortunately,

[1:29:34] it has served its purpose at a level which again also had an impact on density. So we became a single

[1:29:43] family community, single family is largely what you had outside of a few multifamily view properties.

[1:29:52] Eric, can you just confirm for me so that I know I'm reading this correctly that in the R1 zone for

[1:29:58] a lot size at 6,000.

[1:30:05] Yes, the proposal for any existing lot, 6,000 square feet or less, would be 60% hard surface in the R1 zone.

[1:30:18] For the R2 zone, it looks like it also would be 60%.

[1:30:24] So, the road that then on our, that is, you know, the R1 that has a 40% maximum part

[1:30:35] of service, how is that single family R1 different than the road above it?

[1:30:41] That is for existing single family lots that are greater that are, when this was originally constructed,

[1:30:49] That was for all single family development under the new proposal. It would only apply to single family development greater than 6000 square feet

[1:31:10] This usually brings us into the awkward Robert rules of order component of things as

[1:31:17] Ultimately if the council is going to move through deliberations in a way that allows Dana to be able to document

[1:31:24] The easiest way to have these conversations, again, this is not intended to dictate any

[1:31:29] kind of outcome, but it's just to make it clear, is the original draft was August 17th.

[1:31:35] So oftentimes what a body will do is they will make a motion to approve that draft and

[1:31:42] then make a series and then don't vote on it, but then make a series of motions to amend.

[1:31:48] And then you vote on each amendment.

[1:31:49] The amendments get cataloged and then at the very end after you've made all the amendments you want to make you vote on the main motion with all the amendments in place.

[1:32:01] So given that, is there a motion to approve the, well, is it eight?

[1:32:10] August 17th.

[1:32:11] 2026 draft of the phase two a co-development housing

[1:32:15] versus emotion to approve the August 17th, 2026 draft.

[1:32:26] Second, what's the date?

[1:32:28] OK, is there a second?

[1:32:29] So we will, we don't vote on that.

[1:32:33] No, no, no, no.

[1:32:34] Now, who would like to amend the August 17th and then you

[1:32:38] entertain individual motions about what those amendments look

[1:32:42] look like if it helps and the planning commission is supportive, they can run through the

[1:32:51] rows of the matrix and then amend those as they move along or they could propose their

[1:32:56] own motions entirely at a whole cloth.

[1:33:00] I guess a simple solution we need motion to amend for the recommendation matrix provided

[1:33:12] by staff of 9-3-2026.

[1:33:18] Would there be a motion to do that?

[1:33:21] I move that we accept the planning commission's recommendation matrix dated 9-3-2026 for

[1:33:27] for the phase 2A Code Development Draft dated 817-2026.

[1:33:33] That's right.

[1:33:33] I second.

[1:33:34] There's second.

[1:33:35] OK.

[1:33:36] Then we would vote on that amendment.

[1:33:40] At this point, now what you have is you have this document

[1:33:46] that has been amended with this document.

[1:33:49] Right.

[1:33:49] But now if anybody wants to make amendments to this document,

[1:33:52] they should be making additional amendments.

[1:33:55] OK.

[1:33:55] And if there's no amendments to that, then we would approve the attachment of this document.

[1:34:02] These two connected together.

[1:34:19] Okay, then.

[1:34:23] Anyone?

[1:34:24] You're.

[1:34:26] So

[1:34:37] I think we can just call the question.

[1:34:43] This is where you make a motion to make an amendment. Is that correct?

[1:34:48] Yeah.

[1:34:48] Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I like to motion to increase the minimum lock area to for the R1. I'm at the 60 max hard space to 8,000 square feet.

[1:35:04] You're talking about the law area.

[1:35:07] How do I word that to include lots larger than the 6,000 to include. Yeah. How do you word that?

[1:35:16] That you'd be amending footnote number seven to say instead of 6,000 square feet to say 8,000 square feet.

[1:35:26] Thus any projects that are under 8,000 square feet that are single family get to utilize the new code.

[1:35:34] Anything over 8,000 square feet would have to utilize the old code.

[1:35:39] Yes, that's correct.

[1:35:40] I

[1:35:42] don't have to speak that.

[1:35:44] I don't have to speak that.

[1:35:45] Did I restate it?

[1:35:49] Yes.

[1:35:52] Or what's that?

[1:35:55] And then you would be looking for a second.

[1:36:10] I'll second that motion because well,

[1:36:13] I think 6,000 are going up to over 6,000.

[1:36:19] Like even a 7th and a hurry,

[1:36:23] 1,000 square foot.

[1:36:24] but it's still pretty small.

[1:36:26] And I think that anybody in that range as well,

[1:36:28] it's still gonna have a very hard time

[1:36:31] getting their development within that box of only 40%.

[1:36:38] Is there, all right, so we had a second,

[1:36:39] so that's on the table.

[1:36:41] Is there any other comments, questions,

[1:36:43] or deliberations on that?

[1:36:44] Oh, make a comment.

[1:36:45] My motion is that okay, is that correct?

[1:36:47] I just think like you said,

[1:36:49] it's giving more opportunity, more flexibility,

[1:36:51] does make housing cheaper

[1:36:52] when we could make it make it really difficult to fit into boxes that normally increases costs.

[1:36:59] And so I just believe that this will actually get more room for those single family homes to be made cheaper for people.

[1:37:06] And still limits it from just having excessive lots and not meeting our goals as my comment.

[1:37:18] My comment on that would be the larger you allow the lot sizes to have more impervious surface that's the less, less housing and less affordability or do you get.

[1:37:33] If you're allowing, if you're requiring more units per lot size are not requiring, but allowing more units per lot size.

[1:37:42] You actually have the chance of having more

[1:37:47] units and more affordably units that way that would be my comment. I would I would vote against

[1:37:53] The 8,000 foot amendment and keep it at 6.

[1:38:01] I second that

[1:38:07] So then if we want to change could we go back and vote on all these? Yeah

[1:38:12] Yeah, yeah, you'll go on your vote on each amendment. The amendments are there. That wouldn't either be voted down or voted. Yeah, yeah, ultimately someone calls the question.

[1:38:22] Oh, so if it doesn't get, yeah, so if it's voted down, it would just stay $6,000.

[1:38:29] But you're free to comment and deliberate before we vote.

[1:38:33] Yeah.

[1:38:34] Is there any other comments then on this motion or any of the others?

[1:38:39] Well, and for clarification for staff is that on a lot that's more than 6,000 square feet.

[1:38:46] You can get more hard surface, but you have to add an ABU.

[1:38:55] Was that question directed at staff?

[1:38:57] We were talking amongst ourselves.

[1:39:03] Yes, what was the question I apologize?

[1:39:06] I was questioned, I was that under the proposal and in order to get for a lot more than six

[1:39:16] hours a square feet, you can get more hard surface, but you have to add an AVU.

[1:39:20] You would have to be something other than a single family.

[1:39:22] Yes.

[1:39:23] Correct.

[1:39:26] Oh, sorry.

[1:39:27] Is it okay to make another comment?

[1:39:29] I think, you know, it was brought up earlier about one of our goals is that we have seniors

[1:39:33] that might be wanting to downsize and move into smaller homes and we have people with disabilities

[1:39:38] and things like that. So I know one of the comments is that we can just build up. People can build

[1:39:44] two stories, but if somebody does need a home for that's one story, their max becomes 1300 square

[1:39:51] feet. And so I think that doesn't allow for any families, it doesn't allow for diversity,

[1:39:57] it doesn't allow for anyone with disabilities. I just think that giving more room and increasing

[1:40:02] to 8,000 allows people more flexibility to build a home that they need that can fit multiple diverse

[1:40:08] people. And it doesn't necessarily always increase, I mean, it not a lot sizes can be broken down

[1:40:17] into six feet, there's six thousand square feet. So, so meaning it's not that then you just make all

[1:40:22] the lots bigger, it's that there are some lots that are just already that size and being sold. And so

[1:40:27] I don't think it will prevent further density because it's not for just subdivisions,

[1:40:32] it's just for someone buying a single family a lot there might only be a lot of 8,000 square feet

[1:40:37] not at six and then limits their ability to build what they need. Especially if that

[1:40:42] lot is in the high restricted zone they can't even go to stories. So there's those situations as well

[1:40:50] which I think would be most of the things in the city proper. And unless I'm just missing it like

[1:40:59] I mean, we talked about this early on, it's 6,100 square feet or 6,150, or I mean, I don't

[1:41:04] know the, I mean, you're not, they're still not room to put an ADU to get to that bonus,

[1:41:10] you know, hard, you know, maximum, hard surface.

[1:41:19] So, I think what I'm proposing is not, see if I got you right, I'm not, there already

[1:41:25] is an exemption to add the ADU, and then you go to 60% what I'm trying to do is raise

[1:41:29] the ceiling that you can not have to have the exemption so you can just build a house larger than

[1:41:34] 1300 square feet because 1300 square feet is really small. I have three kids. That doesn't fit my

[1:41:40] family. But it's a 1300-foot footprint. It could be two stories. Not if I have a child who has a

[1:41:48] disability or is in a wheelchair and things like that. There's a lot of people that can't have two

[1:41:53] story. As previous comment of her and all their

[1:41:56] community, I get restrictions. Well, it's, I mean, it also

[1:42:02] gear up assuming like a really long driveway, what if you have a short

[1:42:07] driveway, then you you have more room for house or you forego the

[1:42:13] back patio. And I mean, you could have more house. If you make

[1:42:20] different choices? I know. I think you

[1:42:28] guys don't understand how small it's 6,000 square foot

[1:42:31] lot is.

[1:42:34] I always speak from personal experience. I think my lot that is still vacant is about 7,000

[1:42:41] square feet. I have a super short driveway that gets to the garage at the very front of the property

[1:42:48] and I had to reduce the overhangs at my house because I was too far over and my house,

[1:42:55] including the garage is like 1,400 square feet and it's not large and it's I am at the

[1:43:00] what are all maximum of 40%.

[1:43:07] I'm imagining a scenario that goes to what you're

[1:43:12] speaking to that my elderly parents want to move in with me and I want to have a

[1:43:16] mother-in-law suite if you will. If I if I equip that portion of my home with a

[1:43:22] kitchen that qualifies per the definition but we share the rest of the spaces in

[1:43:28] in the home, is that considered in ADU

[1:43:31] or does it have to be a completely separate unit

[1:43:35] without shared other spaces?

[1:43:42] One moment, let me look up the definition

[1:43:43] of accessory dwelling unit.

[1:43:45] I would also think too that most of the lots in the city

[1:43:49] that are not developed are not developed for a reason

[1:43:51] which is that they're on challenging terrain

[1:43:54] and other aspects like that

[1:43:57] where you would need more flexibility in the way

[1:44:00] that the design or that lot has approached to make it a feasible construction thing.

[1:44:07] I understand you're concerned that we don't want to have a major development then on the other

[1:44:13] side of the highway of several hundred homes that are now on 8,000 square foot lots as I have 6,000

[1:44:19] square foot lots. I guess I'm thinking from the in fill lots which are the concern of the most

[1:44:26] average person is they're thinking about their own private house not from the

[1:44:32] developer aspect of coming in and building 500 homes. So I know we have to weigh

[1:44:39] both of those which I know. People buy building individual homes for

[1:44:45] themselves as is a way less and smaller number and it's not really going to

[1:44:51] affect the housing numbers that we're trying to target overall because it's

[1:44:55] you like two or three home to gear versus the developer coming in and built the 200.

[1:45:00] So, I don't know. But allowing it up to 8,000 would allow a developer to do that. Yeah. I understand. It's a tough balancing act trying to meet both objectives. That's why I question that number. What is the sweet spot? And then some would argue that it should be lower. You know, some communities have lower numbers. So, cause of the fact.

[1:45:26] to that a 40% max hard since 2004 at least.

[1:45:33] I'm going with that. I'm going to double check that.

[1:45:38] I mean, we have had a lot of house built since 2004 and a lot of single family built since 2004.

[1:45:47] So I don't know what what has been our minimum lot size up to this point.

[1:45:52] Our mental and lot size was 7,000 square feet, a huge chunk of the development that you've

[1:45:56] seen in the community is in Gig Harbor, North.

[1:46:00] Those are in specialized zones called PCD, which again, allowed for additional flexibility

[1:46:05] based upon a holistic master plan, so those aren't necessarily apples to apples in comparisons.

[1:46:12] And we're going to be working on PCD, they were kind of excluded from this code.

[1:46:20] they are in this code. So they have,

[1:46:23] where they're going to be,

[1:46:24] other changes to that's the later down the road.

[1:46:28] That's the downtown business zone, the Judson sub area,

[1:46:32] the PCD zones.

[1:46:34] Yeah, the piece,

[1:46:35] but that's planned community development.

[1:46:37] Those three zones have a lot of specific code that's required to them,

[1:46:43] that's related to master planning.

[1:46:45] So again, not really an apples to apples comparison.

[1:46:49] The accessory dwelling unit going back to your original question.

[1:46:52] Yes, if you have a separate kitchen and you don't have to totally disconnect the unit from the other,

[1:46:59] there are some fire code and some other issues that you'll need to address.

[1:47:03] But the definition of accessory dwelling unit does not require it to be an entirely independent unit like Duplex,

[1:47:09] which is what I described previously and I will do a little bit of research here on exactly

[1:47:14] what the ordinance date on some of these hard-scape questions are.

[1:47:24] I agree with the comments that I think that most of what we're discussing

[1:47:31] is about somebody who's going to be, you know, somebody who's going to occupy the dwelling

[1:47:37] And like, where's the balance between what's the number that you can say is 6,000, 7,000, 8,000, but where you can actually put that extra dwelling unit on there to get to the bonus me.

[1:47:51] I don't see on the information that we've been given where at 6,100 square feet, you have enough.

[1:47:59] In a high restricted area that you could get to the maximum hardscape and then also if we're requiring people to build the accessory dwelling unit, maybe they don't necessarily need it, they don't want to rent it out on their property, they don't have somebody, but they're building it to get something that's more important to them that we just increase their cost of building which I think just defeated the affordability.

[1:48:29] Well, you also created a dwelling unit that potentially could be used down the road.

[1:48:33] It might not be used immediately, but the provisions are there to increase the density down the road.

[1:48:40] Yeah, agreed to.

[1:48:42] Is there a separate thing where we could limit the, you call it a PCD versus a PUD development?

[1:48:56] If people are subdividing land, they can utilize the plan due to developments in those

[1:49:01] types of things.

[1:49:02] If they aren't subdividing, I think a lot of this conversation is related to existing

[1:49:06] lots that live down in the historic district, which actually is only about a third of all the

[1:49:13] R1 and R2 zoning in the city.

[1:49:16] Those areas do have height requirements and all the statements made, the height requirements

[1:49:20] are a definite impediment, though there is a lot of remaining land that likely is where

[1:49:27] the subdivisions are going to live, and those subdivisions really are either here at the

[1:49:33] 6 to 8,000. I guess from staff's perspective, we aren't as concerned about the numbers

[1:49:38] applied to existing lots as we are to folks who are going to be subdividing new lots, and

[1:49:44] are done so at 8,000 square feet, that is a whole bunch of new larger homes that may

[1:49:52] not necessarily be consistent with housing affordability, though we entirely concur with

[1:49:57] the needs of our disabled and senior communities needing some place to downsize to.

[1:50:03] The Rosedale cottages are an excellent example of that, that type of development is entirely

[1:50:09] allowed.

[1:50:11] Well, so my question was is there a limit we can quit where like a single lot thing is our 8,000 square foot versus a larger 200 home harbor hills type thing they would be subjected to the 6,000 square foot.

[1:50:31] But we'd have to be able to show some kind of nexus between the two of those as to exactly

[1:50:35] why one would be different than the other from a land use perspective, not necessarily

[1:50:39] just a scale scenario.

[1:50:45] We tried to do that when we established the PCD zones in Ging Harbor North because we wanted

[1:50:52] to make sure that that area was substantially different.

[1:50:55] But when you're doing it inside an existing development, nexus becomes a concern.

[1:51:00] I have a question. If we're talking about R1 zoning, anyway, and it's only allowed up to

[1:51:07] four units, then isn't kind of the concern about it preventing the subdivisions being split up,

[1:51:13] kind of irrelevant to the amendment I'm trying to propose, because I'm only making an amendment

[1:51:19] to R1 zones that only allows up to four units in the first place per acre. So I mean, the other,

[1:51:25] I'm not proposing that we change any other of the lot sizes, so only referencing to single family lots anyway

[1:51:32] Not trying to reference to subdivisions letting being split up, but just to the fact that I don't think a 13th or square

[1:51:40] capping the ability to build pass a 13th or square foot is reasonable. I

[1:51:45] Would like to also comment that this was the original when we came in here back in August

[1:51:50] It was all rolled up together in the first place

[1:51:52] But it was only proposed later as a way to prevent people from abusing the new opportunities.

[1:51:58] And so it was, wasn't unreasonable a few weeks ago, if that makes sense.

[1:52:03] And so I'm just asked, I just think to increase that amount for only single family, not for

[1:52:07] sub division.

[1:52:07] So just to clarify, I apologize if I made the sound like I, like the proposal was unreasonable.

[1:52:14] I didn't mean, I didn't mean anything by anything like that.

[1:52:17] But the downside is that once you actually make this decision, you're making it for all

[1:52:24] new building permits.

[1:52:25] So right now you have existing set of lots today.

[1:52:31] But when subdivisions come on, and then when people come in for the individual developments,

[1:52:35] this code will apply to them as well.

[1:52:38] The only way not to do that is if you establish a date, and then if you establish a date, you

[1:52:42] have to go back to the Nexus.

[1:52:44] Why is this date the important one?

[1:52:47] And again, that everything that you folks are talking about is great.

[1:52:53] We're just really here to sit and listen.

[1:53:04] Were there any other amendments or proposals?

[1:53:09] In general, usually someone has to call the question on this amendment,

[1:53:13] in which case then it gets voted on, or people can amend the amendment.

[1:53:18] I guess some confused, we didn't do that one the last one, but the last one is

[1:53:26] rolled into the main motion at the end. She duplicated a lot of the main

[1:53:31] motion in her amendment, so now they're all kind of waiting at the end.

[1:53:35] All right. Well, so we call a question then we vote on this 6,000, 8,000

[1:53:43] Okay, well I'll call a question then.

[1:53:48] I guess I'll use all those in favor.

[1:53:53] Say aye.

[1:53:55] Aye.

[1:53:56] Aye.

[1:53:57] Aye.

[1:53:58] Aye.

[1:53:59] Aye.

[1:54:01] Aye.

[1:54:02] Aye.

[1:54:03] Aye.

[1:54:06] Aye.

[1:54:07] amendment passes.

[1:54:12] So we will amend. So now we still have the motion for it is to see if anyone else

[1:54:21] wants to make any additional any additional amendments.

[1:54:41] You're in none. Yeah, you'd call the question

[1:54:45] on the main motion and the amendment. All the question then on the main motion on the amendment.

[1:54:51] all

[1:54:56] those in favor say hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. And you're in men opposed. Okay. So that was for the amendment or for the motion. That was mean that that's that wraps everything in a bow. What you've done is you have taken the August 17th draft, you have amended it with the September 3rd draft and then you've amended the amended table.

[1:55:24] table with the 8,000 square foot change, all of which will now be documented in this table.

[1:55:33] And what we'll do is we will very quickly document these and if the chair and I can hang

[1:55:41] out for a little bit, we can get you to sign the document.

[1:55:44] Okay, and then that will be forwarded to Council as our recommendation.

[1:55:49] Yes.

[1:55:50] Yes. And I just want to thank you. Code is the most arduous thing to go through. So I appreciate

[1:55:58] your patience with me. And all the thought that you've put into this, again, like I've

[1:56:05] said before, I love work with you guys.

[1:56:09] Thanks, Eric. So that said, any new business,

[1:56:20] any new business in or I guess we will

[1:56:25] will then plan to meet again on our normal schedule time?

[1:56:32] The benefit from you folks concluding today

[1:56:36] is that the 17th you folks are free

[1:56:39] with a return in October,

[1:56:41] starting with phase two B of co-development.

[1:56:46] Okay, thank you.

[1:56:47] Well, with that, is there a motion to adjourn?

[1:56:50] Motion to adjourn.

[1:56:51] I have a second.

[1:56:52] Second.

[1:56:53] All those in favor say aye.

[1:56:54] Bye.

[1:56:55] Bye.

Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript