1
00:00:02,190 --> 00:00:10,010
Aye, now we're official. I'll call to order the September 3, 2026. Continuation meeting of the

2
00:00:10,010 --> 00:00:22,810
Garber Planning Commission, the roll call, Kim Anderson. Here. Katie Cornell. Here. Jim Anderson. Here.

3
00:00:22,810 --> 00:00:24,390
Here, Rosie Joe,

4
00:00:26,810 --> 00:00:37,960
here, and let me see one member, Rosalyn Schock-Pennygan, so anyway,

5
00:00:38,280 --> 00:00:42,140
unless she's joining us online, we haven't even, oh, there she is, with all right.

6
00:00:51,060 --> 00:00:55,960
With that, by consensus, we called you here.

7
00:00:58,640 --> 00:01:05,560
with that will look for a approval of the minutes from our August 27th meeting.

8
00:01:06,420 --> 00:01:08,880
Sir, motion to approve the minutes.

9
00:01:09,560 --> 00:01:10,140
Second.

10
00:01:11,240 --> 00:01:14,000
Right. Those are all those who favor say aye.

11
00:01:14,380 --> 00:01:14,820
Aye.

12
00:01:15,400 --> 00:01:15,480
Aye.

13
00:01:15,720 --> 00:01:16,600
All right.

14
00:01:17,160 --> 00:01:20,020
So this is a continuation on the agenda.

15
00:01:20,020 --> 00:01:26,260
This is the situation of the public hearing to consider phase two,

16
00:01:26,380 --> 00:01:31,100
developing cold, density and dimensions, land use table.

17
00:01:32,040 --> 00:01:42,840
We'll also add to the agenda at the end of public comment period after we've done this.

18
00:01:42,840 --> 00:01:50,620
So, the current topic, with that, did you?

19
00:01:52,420 --> 00:01:57,540
I think you need a motion on the approving the agenda,

20
00:01:57,540 --> 00:02:00,240
especially with the inclusion of public comment at the end.

21
00:02:00,760 --> 00:02:01,500
A second and a vote.

22
00:02:02,080 --> 00:02:07,020
Okay, is there a motion then to add public comment at the end of this.

23
00:02:09,040 --> 00:02:09,820
The public and.

24
00:02:09,820 --> 00:02:20,160
I have a motion to add the comments at the end, public comment after, sorry, I motion

25
00:02:20,160 --> 00:02:20,800
to do that.

26
00:02:21,660 --> 00:02:21,780
Second.

27
00:02:22,140 --> 00:02:23,820
All those favour say aye.

28
00:02:24,200 --> 00:02:24,520
Aye.

29
00:02:25,620 --> 00:02:26,540
All right.

30
00:02:26,940 --> 00:02:36,820
So we will proceed with public comment then after the initial topic of the hearing.

31
00:02:38,160 --> 00:02:43,780
With that, did you guys want to make any kind of presentation or review the?

32
00:02:45,100 --> 00:02:48,980
Yes, we had some materials kind of set the stage.

33
00:02:49,180 --> 00:02:54,400
Again, today is intended to be deliberations for the code amendments.

34
00:02:54,860 --> 00:02:58,540
Just want to again kind of go over some of the materials we had before as well as kind

35
00:02:58,540 --> 00:03:05,300
of explain what you have before you and also there is a kind of a recommendations matrix

36
00:03:05,300 --> 00:03:06,540
that we've provided to you.

37
00:03:06,540 --> 00:03:10,760
I have a PowerPoint that kind of walks through some of those, what that's intended to do,

38
00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:14,580
what that's intended to respond to. We also have some summaries of public comment.

39
00:03:15,140 --> 00:03:17,700
Great. Thank you all. With that, please.

40
00:03:19,240 --> 00:03:23,840
Thank you very much. For the record, my name is Eric Baker. I'm the Director for the

41
00:03:23,840 --> 00:03:28,460
Community Development Department here at Gig Harbor. I have Catherine Schaffer, Principal Planner,

42
00:03:28,880 --> 00:03:34,800
Corey Reagan, Senior Planner here with me as well. Again, like I mentioned, this is the

43
00:03:34,800 --> 00:03:41,880
the deliberation phase after receiving both written and verbal testimony over the course

44
00:03:42,400 --> 00:03:45,860
of the last hearing and then up until Monday.

45
00:03:47,260 --> 00:03:53,180
We have kind of gone through and based upon some of the clarifying questions, planning commission

46
00:03:53,180 --> 00:03:58,400
requested at the end of the last meeting and kind of review of the public comment that was

47
00:03:58,400 --> 00:04:06,400
As received, we provided again a proposed recommendation or a proposed decision matrix

48
00:04:06,400 --> 00:04:07,180
for you to look at.

49
00:04:07,340 --> 00:04:12,380
That is not intended to be in all-inclusive, that is just what staff generated.

50
00:04:12,740 --> 00:04:18,780
It does not, in any way, limit the planning commission's ability to add, change, or remove

51
00:04:19,260 --> 00:04:20,300
any of those from it.

52
00:04:20,440 --> 00:04:23,440
So I just want to highlight that those are the information in front of you.

53
00:04:24,900 --> 00:04:31,200
So I think one of the questions we got from public comment, subsequently to meeting the

54
00:04:31,200 --> 00:04:32,280
planning commission meeting.

55
00:04:32,420 --> 00:04:38,920
We've also met with some of the people who testified last week, Darren Final in the

56
00:04:38,920 --> 00:04:44,220
architect, a series of other architects to kind of try to hopefully address some of the

57
00:04:44,220 --> 00:04:45,400
concerns that we heard.

58
00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:51,760
The purpose of two way is intended to be focused on housing diversity.

59
00:04:51,760 --> 00:04:56,600
The things we're looking to change here are making it easier for properties to develop

60
00:04:56,600 --> 00:05:01,060
accessory dwelling units, duplexes, townhomes, cottage housing, and multi-family.

61
00:05:01,560 --> 00:05:06,700
In our market that requires providing some kind of regulatory incentive, something you

62
00:05:06,700 --> 00:05:11,420
can do that do different when you're doing those that you aren't doing for single family

63
00:05:11,420 --> 00:05:15,820
to be able to encourage people to think about those because each of those have a different

64
00:05:15,820 --> 00:05:19,460
cost, they're a different animal than the single family.

65
00:05:19,460 --> 00:05:24,260
We want to improve consistency with the density allowances of the comprehensive plan in the zoning

66
00:05:24,260 --> 00:05:30,640
map. So we adopted the comprehensive plan in 2025. These code changes are part and parcel

67
00:05:30,640 --> 00:05:36,040
of that continued discussion to be able to achieve the densities that are significantly higher

68
00:05:36,040 --> 00:05:41,480
in the comprehensive plan that have been in the past. Again, do want to highlight that single family

69
00:05:41,480 --> 00:05:48,140
development is not proposed to change in much of any way, except for one's place, which we'll

70
00:05:48,140 --> 00:05:53,720
talk about in a moment. It's the same standards as today. We're not in any way trying to limit

71
00:05:53,720 --> 00:06:00,860
single family, but we are not necessarily trying to incentivize it. And then, lastly,

72
00:06:01,140 --> 00:06:06,760
and in many cases, most importantly, we have state mandates that we have to meet to avoid

73
00:06:06,760 --> 00:06:11,140
noncompliance. And I'll talk a little more about that in a moment. I guess what? A moment's here.

74
00:06:12,200 --> 00:06:17,700
We have a series of state mandates. These state mandates have been coming out since 2021.

75
00:06:18,140 --> 00:06:20,200
I have two labeled here in red.

76
00:06:20,420 --> 00:06:24,600
Those are the ones that this code is attempting to address most.

77
00:06:25,480 --> 00:06:27,740
The first of which is remove barriers to housing for

78
00:06:27,740 --> 00:06:30,800
incomes below 80% area median income.

79
00:06:31,240 --> 00:06:33,980
That's townhomes duplexes 80 years of multifamily.

80
00:06:34,800 --> 00:06:36,540
Then the Housing Accountability Act,

81
00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:39,160
which is the hammer, I will call it,

82
00:06:39,280 --> 00:06:41,940
if jurisdictions do not address 1220,

83
00:06:42,340 --> 00:06:43,780
if we do not remove barriers,

84
00:06:43,780 --> 00:06:56,180
And if we do not see progress towards legislative and commerce directed number of housing units by AMI between now in 2029.

85
00:06:56,960 --> 00:07:01,300
So if we become noncompliant thus we aren't making progress.

86
00:07:01,960 --> 00:07:11,780
We can be found noncompliant and thus unable to achieve a whole host of state funding that we count on on an annual basis.

87
00:07:12,580 --> 00:07:18,240
These are just images of the housing types that we are trying to incentivize from town homes,

88
00:07:18,420 --> 00:07:25,010
accessory dwelling units, and then varying types of multi-family. This is that table that I was

89
00:07:25,010 --> 00:07:30,730
referencing when we're talking about progress towards housing need. These numbers are consistent

90
00:07:31,170 --> 00:07:37,110
with the countywide planning policies, but also commerce direction. What it did is it established

91
00:07:37,110 --> 00:07:44,430
of total number of housing units. We needed between 2020 and 2044. And then at the time,

92
00:07:44,590 --> 00:07:49,750
commerce provided, okay, what type of housing generally fits into these categories.

93
00:07:50,330 --> 00:07:55,110
We acknowledge the fact that real estate is location, location, location. However,

94
00:07:55,850 --> 00:08:01,470
as the legislatures trying to do this on a statewide basis, they tried to provide some kind of a framework

95
00:08:01,470 --> 00:08:08,010
work about what type of housing we should be encouraging to, in theory, meet some of

96
00:08:08,010 --> 00:08:12,230
these percentage annual median income. So if you take a look at the slide you have here,

97
00:08:12,930 --> 00:08:20,250
single family homes like we have so many of would be considered 120% of area median income

98
00:08:20,250 --> 00:08:29,590
and above. The target increase for the 24 year period was 218 units. As you'll note as

99
00:08:29,590 --> 00:08:37,450
move down that dark blue row we have 500 of them that were constructed by 2024 and that doesn't

100
00:08:37,450 --> 00:08:43,210
include new housing developments of summit point, the reserve, and anything else that's currently

101
00:08:43,210 --> 00:08:48,950
in the queue that single family oriented. So what that indicates is that we have exceeded

102
00:08:48,950 --> 00:08:54,390
our single family homes, homes that are needed per commerce and state guidance.

103
00:08:55,030 --> 00:09:03,070
not great, but not necessarily horrible if we can start to increase the other housing types and

104
00:09:03,070 --> 00:09:08,230
those are the ones that are pretty much between 120% of AMI and below. So as you start moving up

105
00:09:08,230 --> 00:09:15,710
the table, you start to see moderate middle housing, including town homes and multi-end like garden

106
00:09:15,710 --> 00:09:22,510
apartments. Accessory dwelling units come in between a 50 and 80% of area median income and then

107
00:09:22,510 --> 00:09:28,310
continue all the way to the end, but then once you get to below 50 percent, you're now largely

108
00:09:28,310 --> 00:09:33,490
talking solely about apartments, and that's where you're truly talking about affordable housing

109
00:09:33,490 --> 00:09:38,850
versus housing affordability. This whole code is intending to address housing affordability,

110
00:09:39,090 --> 00:09:45,150
not how people making 50 percent of area median income can find a home that oftentimes requires

111
00:09:45,150 --> 00:09:49,910
public housing, public incentives and a number of other things, but how can our workforce housing

112
00:09:49,910 --> 00:09:52,810
live in the community and what types of housing that is.

113
00:09:54,290 --> 00:09:57,030
So these are the numbers we need to make progress towards.

114
00:09:57,270 --> 00:10:02,470
Failure to make progress is clearly stipulated in the Housing Accountability Act as a reason

115
00:10:02,470 --> 00:10:08,570
that A, a jurisdiction will get their housing element reviewed and B, a reason for being

116
00:10:08,570 --> 00:10:09,650
found non-compliant.

117
00:10:11,390 --> 00:10:18,710
People can argue about the, I guess, the reasonableness of that requirement.

118
00:10:19,430 --> 00:10:21,390
But at this point, it is the requirement.

119
00:10:21,750 --> 00:10:24,870
Bainbridge Island is currently going through a targeted review.

120
00:10:25,330 --> 00:10:28,350
We are paying very, very close attention to the findings of that.

121
00:10:28,510 --> 00:10:33,030
Bainbridge has some commonality with Gig Harbor from a socioeconomic status.

122
00:10:33,030 --> 00:10:39,950
But I do want to highlight that failure to make progress towards more town homes,

123
00:10:40,270 --> 00:10:47,810
accessory dwelling units, and continuing our trajectory of predominantly 90, 95% single family housing

124
00:10:47,810 --> 00:10:53,470
will be a problem not today, but not too far off in the future.

125
00:10:54,030 --> 00:11:00,950
During my career, any questions about that is that's kind of the boogie man in this whole story,

126
00:11:00,950 --> 00:11:04,610
which I don't think I fully have illustrated at the last meeting.

127
00:11:05,770 --> 00:11:11,350
Eric, just for clarification, the target that we've met,

128
00:11:11,990 --> 00:11:16,070
when you said we've met our target, that being the higher income,

129
00:11:17,190 --> 00:11:19,230
at that through 244.

130
00:11:19,350 --> 00:11:20,690
That's through 244.

131
00:11:20,870 --> 00:11:26,190
So we have eclipsed our 244 number of single-family units by double.

132
00:11:26,910 --> 00:11:28,870
And that was before our comp plan was even adopted.

133
00:11:33,720 --> 00:11:39,800
Okay. So, again, just to kind of summarize what's in the draft code, we're really focused on the

134
00:11:39,800 --> 00:11:44,640
dimensional requirements for housing, for accessory dwelling units, duplexes, townhomes,

135
00:11:44,780 --> 00:11:51,800
cottage housing and multi-family. I don't, cottage housing if you remember are the smaller single-family

136
00:11:51,800 --> 00:11:59,220
units that are usually located around some kind of a courtyard or common facility. They are oftentimes

137
00:11:59,220 --> 00:12:05,660
more affordable than standard single family homes that are on their own lot, oftentimes owned.

138
00:12:06,160 --> 00:12:11,060
Some cottage housing is owned in the condominium format, but not always.

139
00:12:11,980 --> 00:12:19,600
The code reduced required lot dimensions and allowed smaller lots to be developed through subdivision.

140
00:12:20,760 --> 00:12:26,100
Reduced setbacks increased hard surface allowances and increased building heights.

141
00:12:26,100 --> 00:12:32,000
Most of these were predominantly focused on people who are developing accessory dwellings

142
00:12:32,000 --> 00:12:33,920
due to Plexus Town Homes of Multifamily.

143
00:12:34,500 --> 00:12:40,480
It left single family detached construction all but as it is today, largely unchanged.

144
00:12:40,920 --> 00:12:44,060
There was a lot of public testimony about that and I'll talk about public testimony here

145
00:12:44,060 --> 00:12:44,420
in a moment.

146
00:12:45,540 --> 00:12:48,980
One thing I do want to highlight because we also got a lot of public testimony on this.

147
00:12:49,740 --> 00:12:55,580
These changes do not replace any of the requirements in the design manual for the historic preservation

148
00:12:55,580 --> 00:13:02,500
are height restriction areas. Those areas in the downtown area, they replace, they supersede

149
00:13:04,220 --> 00:13:09,180
the standards that we are talking about changing here. There's a part of code that indicates

150
00:13:09,180 --> 00:13:15,340
that at any time there are two regulations that conflict the most restrictive applies. In that case,

151
00:13:15,500 --> 00:13:18,720
that would be the height preservation area and the height restriction area. So anybody who's concerned

152
00:13:18,720 --> 00:13:24,500
that we're changing that in those, like structure heights in those areas, please rest assured that

153
00:13:24,500 --> 00:13:29,740
is not what's in this draft. And then all design manual requirements still apply. So everything

154
00:13:29,740 --> 00:13:34,280
is in a design manual about what a built what construction should look like pitch grows all those

155
00:13:34,280 --> 00:13:39,660
types of things are still in place. Let me pause there if there are any questions.

156
00:13:44,340 --> 00:13:45,140
So just to kind

157
00:13:45,140 --> 00:13:49,400
of summarize the public comment this is not intended to be exhaustive but I'm trying to kind of work

158
00:13:49,400 --> 00:13:55,500
through the themes. We did receive opposition to code revisions that increase density. There is a

159
00:13:55,500 --> 00:14:03,980
concerned about the change in community character impacts on infrastructure such as traffic and then any potential impacts on the environment.

160
00:14:04,900 --> 00:14:09,060
I do want to highlight on I guess I don't want to highlight anything on that moving on.

161
00:14:11,060 --> 00:14:20,580
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.

162
00:14:21,220 --> 00:14:27,700
Affordable housing requires a very concentrated discussion with housing authorities, non-profits,

163
00:14:28,260 --> 00:14:32,780
other support organizations. That is a very different conversation than what we're talking about here.

164
00:14:32,940 --> 00:14:38,820
Here we're talking about housing affordability. If a average single-family home goes for about 900,000,

165
00:14:39,200 --> 00:14:47,060
and a town home goes for about 500,000, and a condominium goes for about 400,000, yes, 400 and 500,000,

166
00:14:47,060 --> 00:14:55,240
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.

167
00:14:56,060 --> 00:14:59,980
So again, while it may not get to the low...

168
00:15:01,320 --> 00:15:07,540
AMI's, it is moving the needle down, allowing more people who work in our community, people

169
00:15:07,540 --> 00:15:12,780
going to downsize, kids who get a good job and want to be able to move out of their parents,

170
00:15:13,080 --> 00:15:19,400
their parents' home, have an opportunity in our community. What the code didn't change

171
00:15:19,400 --> 00:15:24,740
was a huge chunk of the conversation, which is single-family dwelling standards. Predominantly

172
00:15:24,740 --> 00:15:30,340
in the downtown, related to hard surface requirements for small lots, and then set back.

173
00:15:30,340 --> 00:15:35,620
I do want to highlight with setbacks, like I mentioned before, the historic preservation

174
00:15:36,640 --> 00:15:42,240
requirements in the design manual are the setbacks for the historic preservation area.

175
00:15:42,520 --> 00:15:46,200
Anything we're changing here does not change those setbacks. Those are the most restrictive.

176
00:15:47,660 --> 00:15:52,580
And then we also received testimony about perceived inconsistencies in the waterfront zones.

177
00:15:52,920 --> 00:15:56,620
Those are the zones in Millville that wrap around our harbor

178
00:15:56,620 --> 00:16:11,320
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.

179
00:16:12,700 --> 00:16:20,080
We pause there are there any other public comment that we provided that you would like us to highlight at this time.

180
00:16:20,080 --> 00:16:20,840
I

181
00:16:23,300 --> 00:16:31,360
feel like there's quite a few public comments saying that 40% wasn't enough space to build homes.

182
00:16:31,620 --> 00:16:37,320
I heard multiple testimonies communicating that they were asking that to be increased.

183
00:16:38,220 --> 00:16:41,240
Yeah, that was a hard surface requirements for small, for small lots.

184
00:16:42,000 --> 00:16:45,960
I just want to make sure I hadn't, I hadn't totally left off a piece of public comment.

185
00:16:45,960 --> 00:16:52,820
or a topic because we'll get to the matrix that you have before you which addresses most of these

186
00:16:52,820 --> 00:16:53,760
here in just a moment.

187
00:16:57,290 --> 00:17:00,150
So additionally the planning commission asked a series of additional

188
00:17:00,150 --> 00:17:08,590
questions. The questions that came forward were the table is consolidated for clarity but the two

189
00:17:08,590 --> 00:17:17,270
rows per zone seems to be more confusing than it needs to be. Why do single family development not

190
00:17:17,270 --> 00:17:22,770
have revised dimensional standards. Why did we draw the line at accessory dwelling units,

191
00:17:23,070 --> 00:17:28,710
duplexes, getting revised code while single family did not? And that's where we got the

192
00:17:28,710 --> 00:17:34,190
testimony about the smaller lots and how that the current code was greatly impacting their

193
00:17:34,190 --> 00:17:40,050
developability with or without an accessory dwelling unit. There was a question of how big a house

194
00:17:40,050 --> 00:17:46,070
is considered unaffordable. Based upon the table I just showed you from commerce, any single family

195
00:17:46,070 --> 00:17:50,830
home at this point is considered unaffordable. The bigger the single family home, the less affordable,

196
00:17:50,850 --> 00:17:56,090
the less affordable it would be per the commerce guidance that we are responsible for making progress

197
00:17:56,090 --> 00:18:01,190
towards. Then lastly, how do these revisions impact infrastructure capacity in the city?

198
00:18:01,870 --> 00:18:06,290
Comprehensive plan did a full capital facilities plan. The use changes are directly consistent

199
00:18:06,290 --> 00:18:12,570
with that comprehensive plan. It is just implementing the comprehensive plan that was adopted back in

200
00:18:12,570 --> 00:18:13,170
in 2025.

201
00:18:18,180 --> 00:18:20,000
So some of the planning commissioners asked,

202
00:18:20,080 --> 00:18:22,060
okay, kind of to the Eric,

203
00:18:22,340 --> 00:18:23,620
you've indicated that you're concerned

204
00:18:23,620 --> 00:18:25,680
that people might be able to build bigger homes

205
00:18:25,680 --> 00:18:27,420
if we change the regulations

206
00:18:28,020 --> 00:18:29,680
for single family development.

207
00:18:30,340 --> 00:18:33,840
It was asked that we provide just some basic illustrations.

208
00:18:34,400 --> 00:18:36,720
I will highlight that we have also gotten some blowback

209
00:18:36,720 --> 00:18:38,840
on the illustrations we provided so far

210
00:18:38,840 --> 00:18:40,960
that they are not comprehensive,

211
00:18:41,220 --> 00:18:42,760
that there's a number of different elements

212
00:18:42,760 --> 00:18:45,060
that all fit into this depending on where you are

213
00:18:45,060 --> 00:18:52,620
in our city. That's why these are illustrations and we do our best, but it is not necessarily

214
00:18:53,070 --> 00:18:58,180
the right answer everywhere. It's the back side of providing illustrations.

215
00:18:59,340 --> 00:19:06,340
So here you're noticing, this is at R1 zone, so 4 dwelling units an acre, dimensional standards

216
00:19:06,340 --> 00:19:11,740
of the lot here is about 12,000 square feet. Here under the current dimensional standards

217
00:19:11,740 --> 00:19:17,100
you see a building footprint of about 2,000 square feet in the garage, about 600 square feet.

218
00:19:17,620 --> 00:19:23,520
You do have more room except for what you're noting here is that this is bump, close to bumping up

219
00:19:23,520 --> 00:19:30,000
against the 30, the 40 percent current hardskate. So you notice with house garage driveway parking,

220
00:19:30,380 --> 00:19:35,840
you're at about 4,200 square feet. That's only about 35 percent. So you've got 5 more percent to play with.

221
00:19:36,140 --> 00:19:40,860
The patio could be bigger, the house could be a little bigger but not a lot bigger. So again,

222
00:19:40,860 --> 00:19:42,500
and on a 12,000 square foot lot,

223
00:19:42,500 --> 00:19:45,100
there is an artificial restriction

224
00:19:45,430 --> 00:19:48,020
on the size of that lot in today's code.

225
00:19:49,660 --> 00:19:52,580
If you are to move to our dimensional standards,

226
00:19:52,580 --> 00:19:58,740
increase to 60%, again, this one is right at 60% hardskit.

227
00:19:59,300 --> 00:20:03,080
Now you have a building footprint of about 2,800 square feet,

228
00:20:03,660 --> 00:20:05,560
which is only, that's for a rambler.

229
00:20:05,840 --> 00:20:09,020
So that doesn't include a second story,

230
00:20:09,020 --> 00:20:12,440
which while you could not do that in the historic district or in the height restriction area,

231
00:20:12,900 --> 00:20:20,140
every other place in R1 you could do it. So you can go up to 35 feet in the R1 zone when you're

232
00:20:20,140 --> 00:20:25,300
outside of those two. So you can add a second story onto this. So you can see how the footprint

233
00:20:25,920 --> 00:20:33,340
of the building grows substantially with these new or has the opportunity to grow substantially

234
00:20:33,340 --> 00:20:38,840
with the ability to utilize those revised standards.

235
00:20:39,640 --> 00:20:41,860
However, most of the testimony and some of the illustrations

236
00:20:41,860 --> 00:20:44,040
that have been provided in your public comment.

237
00:20:44,640 --> 00:20:46,680
Again, thank you very much for people in the public

238
00:20:46,680 --> 00:20:49,040
who provided these illustrations one way or another

239
00:20:49,040 --> 00:20:51,460
because we have received testimony on both sides

240
00:20:51,460 --> 00:20:53,620
of the hard-skate question.

241
00:20:54,200 --> 00:20:55,580
It is going to affect the environment

242
00:20:55,580 --> 00:20:57,980
as a consistent with historic character, et cetera.

243
00:20:59,000 --> 00:21:00,700
But we did receive a lot of testimony

244
00:21:00,700 --> 00:21:10,160
as was properly noted that the dimensional standards for a 6,000 square foot lot are very problematic,

245
00:21:10,500 --> 00:21:16,480
especially as it applies to hard-skilled. So here you're seeing that if a 6,000 square foot

246
00:21:16,480 --> 00:21:23,380
lot is operating under the current proposed changes, you do have a smaller building footprint,

247
00:21:23,660 --> 00:21:30,400
you have about 1,500 square foot footprint that is getting a lot closer to a home that is potentially

248
00:21:31,160 --> 00:21:35,280
a affordable to a greater amount of the population.

249
00:21:35,900 --> 00:21:38,920
In the downtown area, we really recommend the garages

250
00:21:38,920 --> 00:21:39,520
are at the back.

251
00:21:40,240 --> 00:21:42,100
So you have the, you have to have the driveway

252
00:21:42,100 --> 00:21:43,680
that all runs all the way to the back.

253
00:21:43,780 --> 00:21:46,260
So what you see here is the ability to have a form,

254
00:21:46,460 --> 00:21:48,140
50 square foot garage, a patio,

255
00:21:48,380 --> 00:21:53,680
and a relatively a smaller building footprint at 60%.

256
00:21:54,180 --> 00:21:55,900
So the reason I show you this,

257
00:21:56,260 --> 00:21:58,360
rather than show you the 40%,

258
00:21:58,360 --> 00:22:07,560
which again we've seen how 40% from the various comments has its own issues, is that in the revision

259
00:22:07,560 --> 00:22:12,720
matrix that we have before you we are proposing a revision to the hardscape for single family

260
00:22:12,720 --> 00:22:17,600
development. I'll cover that in a moment. So are there any questions regarding these three

261
00:22:17,600 --> 00:22:24,540
illustrations? We're really trying to do our best though however we cannot guarantee the creativity

262
00:22:24,540 --> 00:22:33,500
of the development and any one answer is going to be wrong as often as it is right.

263
00:22:34,820 --> 00:22:37,180
Yeah, I had a question.

264
00:22:37,780 --> 00:22:44,000
If you go back to the 40% on the 12,000-square fee, what does that look like?

265
00:22:44,060 --> 00:22:47,980
Because part of our goals is to make sure that people can add ADUs.

266
00:22:48,580 --> 00:22:55,320
Would someone be able to add an ADU with the current metrics and still meet the requirements

267
00:22:55,900 --> 00:22:57,220
at the 40 percent?

268
00:22:57,620 --> 00:22:58,960
Under current code, no.

269
00:22:59,680 --> 00:23:04,780
But under the proposed code, if you add the ADU, you automatically, even if you're building

270
00:23:04,780 --> 00:23:10,460
a single family home, if you're adding an ADU, you're automatically moved to the new code.

271
00:23:10,860 --> 00:23:12,240
So again, that's kind of the incentive.

272
00:23:12,780 --> 00:23:16,280
You can have a bigger home, but you have to have an accessory dwelling unit on the property.

273
00:23:16,280 --> 00:23:20,960
it's kind of the incentive without being, well, just an incentive, let's call it that.

274
00:23:21,140 --> 00:23:26,560
Without applied to people that currently are already under this standard, that if they wanted to come,

275
00:23:26,780 --> 00:23:30,560
like, they're not, it's not a new build. They just currently have houses. If you come in and apply,

276
00:23:30,940 --> 00:23:33,240
then their setbacks would be made appropriate. Yes.

277
00:23:39,890 --> 00:23:43,390
Looking at like the larger lot sizes,

278
00:23:43,390 --> 00:23:50,350
is the increase in development capacity,

279
00:23:50,630 --> 00:23:52,610
just like unintended consequence,

280
00:23:53,670 --> 00:23:59,350
or is the incentive something else

281
00:23:59,350 --> 00:24:03,430
and it's more policy driven, programmatic driven,

282
00:24:03,630 --> 00:24:06,850
like you mentioned in ADU or something like that?

283
00:24:07,450 --> 00:24:12,110
It's attempting to shift the property owners thought process

284
00:24:12,110 --> 00:24:14,250
as who oftentimes sees those other housing types,

285
00:24:14,250 --> 00:24:15,610
it's just something that can't be done.

286
00:24:16,590 --> 00:24:18,810
So, A, it's intended to make property owners

287
00:24:18,810 --> 00:24:20,310
think differently about their property.

288
00:24:20,930 --> 00:24:24,830
But also, yeah, if I have the codes of today,

289
00:24:25,210 --> 00:24:28,070
very likely a single family home is all I'm gonna be looking at

290
00:24:28,070 --> 00:24:29,390
if you adjust those,

291
00:24:29,690 --> 00:24:34,530
or if you make it possible to do more with the revised code,

292
00:24:34,870 --> 00:24:37,210
we're hoping that folks will take that opportunity

293
00:24:37,210 --> 00:24:44,510
to build two three units or a home with an ADU or in certain cases two ADUs if you have

294
00:24:44,510 --> 00:24:50,130
enough space. So it's that type of incentive. I sense I missed the answer to the question

295
00:24:50,130 --> 00:24:50,630
that one though.

296
00:24:54,850 --> 00:24:56,130
I'll take sort of.

297
00:24:59,030 --> 00:25:03,190
So yeah, while we are only a component of the housing picture,

298
00:25:03,450 --> 00:25:07,370
there's no mission accomplished banner being hung at the end of this code saying, hey,

299
00:25:07,370 --> 00:25:09,370
Okay, housing affordability addressed.

300
00:25:10,070 --> 00:25:15,390
It is one of what will be 20, 25 steps taken over the course of the next five to six years

301
00:25:15,390 --> 00:25:20,570
and a continuous drum beat of housing diversity that hopefully will move the needle on this.

302
00:25:20,710 --> 00:25:26,870
We are just trying to step out of the way and at least allow the market to think differently

303
00:25:26,870 --> 00:25:33,850
versus saying, well, gig harbors code doesn't let me do ADUs because of X, Y, or Z thus architects

304
00:25:33,850 --> 00:25:35,470
don't plan it, plan for it.

305
00:25:35,470 --> 00:25:37,630
and it just isn't, it isn't the thing.

306
00:25:37,930 --> 00:25:40,290
So we're trying to make it a thing for consideration.

307
00:25:42,130 --> 00:25:45,370
Eric, I don't know if this is a question for now or later,

308
00:25:45,630 --> 00:25:49,250
but is there a, does the city have data

309
00:25:49,250 --> 00:25:54,910
on how many 6,000 square foot lots are out there

310
00:25:54,910 --> 00:25:58,250
versus like, I mean, that this code would apply to,

311
00:25:58,970 --> 00:26:01,190
or the change in hard-skated would apply to?

312
00:26:01,990 --> 00:26:04,790
The number of 6,000 square foot existing lots

313
00:26:04,790 --> 00:26:10,210
is relatively small. We don't have a lot of vacant lots period and you're probably looking at

314
00:26:10,950 --> 00:26:17,410
10 to 30. However, this also applies to properties that have been subdivided after the fact.

315
00:26:18,170 --> 00:26:23,490
So once you subdivide a piece of property, when you go through a preliminary process,

316
00:26:24,090 --> 00:26:29,030
you have to meet your density and you have an option of what your lot sizes should be.

317
00:26:29,030 --> 00:26:35,250
You'll note in the table, we are reducing that lot size in many places, 6,000 in south.

318
00:26:36,010 --> 00:26:40,950
That could create a whole series of additional lots in the future that these revised codes

319
00:26:40,950 --> 00:26:41,790
would apply to.

320
00:26:42,510 --> 00:26:47,170
So again, it is also trying to get people to move off of the 10,000 square foot lot.

321
00:26:47,650 --> 00:26:54,550
It is to say, okay, we can get down to 6,000 square foot lots and still be able to build a

322
00:26:54,550 --> 00:26:58,570
a home that is marketable and is cost effective.

323
00:26:59,510 --> 00:27:04,050
Does the city allow building on a lot that's smaller than 6,000 square feet?

324
00:27:04,650 --> 00:27:04,750
Yes.

325
00:27:06,070 --> 00:27:08,570
You can build on anything that you can get.

326
00:27:08,790 --> 00:27:13,030
You can meet zoning building and fire codes.

327
00:27:19,880 --> 00:27:20,300
Okay.

328
00:27:20,680 --> 00:27:25,320
So everybody should have a copy of what we're calling.

329
00:27:25,660 --> 00:27:26,860
What are we calling it?

330
00:27:29,180 --> 00:27:30,660
I think I have it.

331
00:27:31,600 --> 00:27:40,020
It is the deliberations matrix I'm going to, it looks like this, yes, it looks like this.

332
00:27:44,120 --> 00:27:45,540
No, it does not look like that a lot.

333
00:27:46,880 --> 00:27:48,920
It's in the agenda pack, everyone has the agenda.

334
00:27:52,240 --> 00:27:56,800
Everybody up on the dius have that, it's also been looking on the website.

335
00:27:58,200 --> 00:28:04,620
So in the deliberations, matrix staff, again, met with local architects, we did some assessment

336
00:28:04,620 --> 00:28:12,600
of how many lots we have out there and how big a specter building large homes in places

337
00:28:12,600 --> 00:28:18,400
we, again, are not trying to encourage large homes, not trying to discourage, but not

338
00:28:18,400 --> 00:28:20,680
saying, hey, wouldn't be great if that house was bigger.

339
00:28:22,020 --> 00:28:28,360
So what we're looking at is in the table, one of the things that you indicated is having

340
00:28:28,360 --> 00:28:33,320
two rows per column is a problem, that just is confusing.

341
00:28:33,780 --> 00:28:38,820
Not to mention the fact that it only really applies to four of the zones because the ability

342
00:28:38,820 --> 00:28:44,700
to build single family in commercial zones, in public institution zones, in a number of these

343
00:28:44,700 --> 00:28:46,080
other zones just isn't the thing.

344
00:28:46,080 --> 00:28:53,580
It the densities don't match the highest and best uses not going to be a residential piece.

345
00:28:53,980 --> 00:29:01,380
So in what we've done is we are proposing that in the R1, R2, RB1, and waterfront residential

346
00:29:01,380 --> 00:29:05,460
zone, A, we collapse all of the zones.

347
00:29:05,560 --> 00:29:07,600
I'll show you what it kind of looks like here in a minute.

348
00:29:08,800 --> 00:29:15,440
And reflect the different development standards differently where single-family development

349
00:29:15,440 --> 00:29:23,520
Instead of being its own row is now just a second number in the same row with a footnote that footnote number seven

350
00:29:23,520 --> 00:29:28,260
Which I'm certain is going to be a very popular number for conversation between now and through council and

351
00:29:29,300 --> 00:29:32,560
clarify that footnote number seven is

352
00:29:33,880 --> 00:29:37,180
That is put after the second number in that row

353
00:29:37,840 --> 00:29:42,820
Applies to single-family homes on lots over 6,000 square feet

354
00:29:42,820 --> 00:29:47,740
If you remember, most of the testimonies about the difficulty in building single-family

355
00:29:47,740 --> 00:29:51,500
homes with current code on lots less than 6,000 square feet.

356
00:29:52,740 --> 00:29:58,800
So this revision, and this revision to the footnote, instead of creating the, if you're

357
00:29:58,800 --> 00:29:59,820
are doing duplexes.

358
00:30:00,270 --> 00:30:30,170
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.

359
00:30:30,170 --> 00:30:33,090
square feet even if you're doing a single family development.

360
00:30:34,150 --> 00:30:38,370
Purpose of this is to address the existing challenges of small lot development that

361
00:30:38,370 --> 00:30:44,010
has been well documented while also limiting the probability of significantly larger and

362
00:30:44,010 --> 00:30:45,550
likely less affordable housing.

363
00:30:46,090 --> 00:30:53,010
So again, it isn't saying all single family units may be operating contrary to where commerce

364
00:30:53,010 --> 00:30:59,090
wants to go, but it is indicating that we don't, that larger ones could be a problem.

365
00:31:00,290 --> 00:31:06,350
What that ultimately looks like, I mean, I'm sure the screen are people having problems

366
00:31:06,350 --> 00:31:07,450
envisioning it.

367
00:31:16,680 --> 00:31:21,520
So with the classy and the footnote Eric basically eliminate the single family designation

368
00:31:21,520 --> 00:31:22,240
totally.

369
00:31:22,700 --> 00:31:24,300
It would it would eliminate the row.

370
00:31:24,600 --> 00:31:29,820
So if you can see the screen I got here, let me see if I can blow this up, sure I can blow

371
00:31:29,820 --> 00:31:30,000
it up.

372
00:31:32,560 --> 00:31:36,420
So the columns you see up there is the way that it reads today.

373
00:31:39,580 --> 00:31:40,180
You

374
00:31:43,310 --> 00:31:47,230
get the two rows that basically established the two different types.

375
00:31:48,910 --> 00:31:54,830
What the revised would do is put everything in one column but create a single family component

376
00:31:54,830 --> 00:31:55,570
to that.

377
00:31:55,810 --> 00:32:00,050
Basically highlighting that single family or so into footnote 7, which I'll show you

378
00:32:00,050 --> 00:32:06,990
here in a minute, basically indicates that you have to meet today's code.

379
00:32:06,990 --> 00:32:12,810
So if you're not greater than 6,000 square feet, you have today's code.

380
00:32:13,430 --> 00:32:20,150
If you are smaller than 6,000 square feet or doing ADUs, do duplexes, dryplexes, all the

381
00:32:20,150 --> 00:32:23,290
things all the way up to multifamily, you're utilizing the top numbers.

382
00:32:24,370 --> 00:32:31,330
So for the purposes of maximum impervious surface, if you are doing, if you're on a lot less

383
00:32:31,330 --> 00:32:36,970
than 6,000 square feet or you're doing a duplex, you can go to 55% impervious surface.

384
00:32:36,970 --> 00:32:46,030
and 60% hard surface. If you are over 6,000 square feet, you are beholden to previous code.

385
00:32:47,010 --> 00:32:53,830
Footnote number seven has been clarified. To read single-family dwelling is defined

386
00:32:53,830 --> 00:32:58,390
and we have a definition for it. So you know exactly what we're talking about. So it isn't like,

387
00:32:58,450 --> 00:33:01,390
well, this feels like single-family. It's like, no, it's for that definition.

388
00:33:02,090 --> 00:33:07,110
and that number is required for development of single-family dwellings on existing legally established

389
00:33:07,110 --> 00:33:11,770
lots greater than 6,000 square feet of lot area. Yes, ma'am.

390
00:33:14,250 --> 00:33:17,670
Is it a 6,000 square feet like a hard

391
00:33:18,270 --> 00:33:25,250
limit? Like what if you're 6,000 one? You're out. Ultimately you're going to have to establish

392
00:33:25,250 --> 00:33:30,090
a number and there's always going to be a person one foot over the number. So I actually originally

393
00:33:30,090 --> 00:33:32,210
And then I said, well, what if some of these are a little bit off?

394
00:33:32,290 --> 00:33:33,050
Let's go with 6100.

395
00:33:33,610 --> 00:33:38,330
But I know there's a 6105 size lot out there, and then they're going to say, what about

396
00:33:38,330 --> 00:33:38,530
me?

397
00:33:39,110 --> 00:33:44,070
But what you will note in the R1 zone is that 6,000 square feet is consistent with the

398
00:33:44,070 --> 00:33:47,490
minimum lot area that we're proposing for all new construction.

399
00:33:48,050 --> 00:33:53,710
So again, we are that that number previously was what, seven, eight, seven thousand.

400
00:33:53,830 --> 00:33:57,650
So we're reducing the allowed size of the lot.

401
00:33:57,650 --> 00:34:00,910
And if we are encouraging people to build at a smaller size,

402
00:34:01,510 --> 00:34:03,570
we should be assuming that, yes, that is the,

403
00:34:03,890 --> 00:34:07,130
that we should be allowing more development on lots of that size.

404
00:34:08,490 --> 00:34:11,050
And to, to make sure on the same page.

405
00:34:11,270 --> 00:34:11,410
Yes.

406
00:34:11,690 --> 00:34:13,110
This is what you guys are proposing.

407
00:34:13,530 --> 00:34:14,310
This is for us.

408
00:34:14,450 --> 00:34:16,430
We can, we can propose something different.

409
00:34:16,610 --> 00:34:16,750
Of course.

410
00:34:17,070 --> 00:34:17,630
But, of course.

411
00:34:17,870 --> 00:34:19,010
So, it's not really hard.

412
00:34:19,670 --> 00:34:22,330
It's just, you, the important that we pick a hard line.

413
00:34:22,770 --> 00:34:22,870
Yes.

414
00:34:23,030 --> 00:34:24,270
But you're recommending six thousand.

415
00:34:24,810 --> 00:34:27,530
These are only our recommendations at this point.

416
00:34:33,230 --> 00:34:35,770
So, I'll stop the share and go back to the PowerPoint.

417
00:34:36,370 --> 00:34:37,650
Are there any other questions?

418
00:34:37,910 --> 00:34:42,990
I know this is absolutely as clear as mud, but again,

419
00:34:43,150 --> 00:34:46,250
the purposes of this are to address some of the concerns

420
00:34:46,250 --> 00:34:50,170
we had about hard-scape requirements and the need for 60%

421
00:34:50,170 --> 00:34:52,170
of available space.

422
00:34:52,850 --> 00:34:56,410
A lot of the conversation was in the downtown,

423
00:34:57,350 --> 00:35:01,670
but that also applies to development of pretty much

424
00:35:01,670 --> 00:35:05,710
any lot less than 6,000 square feet. You need to be able to maximize the amount of space

425
00:35:05,710 --> 00:35:11,770
that you have within that footprint to be able to build housing in a manner that is affordable.

426
00:35:12,470 --> 00:35:16,270
Code that is changed but is not used is not useful.

427
00:35:18,480 --> 00:35:19,660
Come on. It's going to be supposed to

428
00:35:20,700 --> 00:35:21,520
share again.

429
00:35:24,320 --> 00:35:25,220
Question. Yes, please.

430
00:35:26,140 --> 00:35:32,420
Earlier you were saying how the more restrictive overlay of the historic district supersedes

431
00:35:32,420 --> 00:35:41,180
any of these changes. So it's us increasing at 260% even actually affecting the historic

432
00:35:41,180 --> 00:35:46,540
district. Yes, the historic district does not cover hardscape. It does not cover a lot. It does

433
00:35:46,540 --> 00:35:52,300
not cover a lot sizes. Instead, it covers setbacks and building height. Those are those are the things

434
00:35:52,300 --> 00:36:02,120
that are included in the design manual. So the hardscape would change in that area, but not setbacks or

435
00:36:02,120 --> 00:36:02,780
building hearts.

436
00:36:07,940 --> 00:36:13,960
And for just a clarification in the historic district, the current hardskap is 60%.

437
00:36:13,960 --> 00:36:21,920
The current hardskap is 40% in this dark district. For R1, for

438
00:36:22,820 --> 00:36:25,320
waterfront, most of the waterfronts, yes.

439
00:36:27,710 --> 00:36:30,890
So long and short, from a lot of the public comment

440
00:36:30,890 --> 00:36:35,810
that we received, we saw the concerns related to the development of the 6,000 square foot lot.

441
00:36:35,810 --> 00:36:56,410
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.

442
00:37:00,720 --> 00:37:04,160
Could you just maybe briefly talk about the definition of single family?

443
00:37:04,920 --> 00:37:16,000
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.

444
00:37:16,420 --> 00:37:16,780
I will.

445
00:37:19,170 --> 00:37:21,590
I will read to you the definition of single family.

446
00:37:22,270 --> 00:37:27,150
So we have an idea what code requirements are if you were putting multiple.

447
00:37:28,130 --> 00:37:30,830
I wanted to be considered a multi dwelling unit.

448
00:37:31,770 --> 00:37:37,290
one moment. I apparently look like a hacker. So it is, it's giving me a moment. There we go.

449
00:37:38,690 --> 00:37:41,690
Yes, everybody. We are finished.

450
00:37:53,320 --> 00:37:54,020
You can do it.

451
00:37:56,200 --> 00:37:59,520
While you're working on that, I have a similar thing.

452
00:38:00,700 --> 00:38:06,380
Has there been any thought to changing the term of single family housing to

453
00:38:06,960 --> 00:38:19,120
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.

454
00:38:19,840 --> 00:38:26,160
Or is that beyond the scope of this one little code update so you can? Is that a comprehensive planning issue?

455
00:38:27,760 --> 00:38:34,360
It, not necessarily, but we do have a series of definitions beyond just single-family dwelling.

456
00:38:34,700 --> 00:38:40,700
So I can kind of read, we have single-family, we have duplex, foreplex, triplex, we have

457
00:38:40,700 --> 00:38:43,180
dwelling attached, we have dwelling multifamily.

458
00:38:43,520 --> 00:38:48,600
So we have a number of different classifications, all of which appear in our allowed use table.

459
00:38:49,080 --> 00:38:53,660
And most of all of these are allowed in almost all residential zones, including commercial

460
00:38:53,660 --> 00:38:54,020
zones.

461
00:38:55,020 --> 00:39:05,320
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.

462
00:39:05,980 --> 00:39:10,880
So if you were to add a second kitchen, you would be an accessory dwelling unit, not very likely.

463
00:39:11,800 --> 00:39:22,580
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.

464
00:39:25,110 --> 00:39:30,990
Means a building designed exclusively for the occupancy by two families, living independently

465
00:39:30,990 --> 00:39:31,710
of each other.

466
00:39:31,850 --> 00:39:36,370
A duplex can share a wall, ceiling floor, or any other shared roof assembly, including

467
00:39:36,370 --> 00:39:40,630
breezeways, but cannot have interior openings between the dwellings.

468
00:39:41,310 --> 00:39:43,850
And the definitions continued down from there.

469
00:39:45,090 --> 00:39:49,910
So obviously, most of your question is going to be what's going to take from a building standpoint.

470
00:39:49,910 --> 00:39:55,530
point. Once you get into common wall construction, there's a lot of additional firewall amenities

471
00:39:55,530 --> 00:40:01,110
that are necessary. Same goes for accessory dwelling units. So a lot of that is in something

472
00:40:01,110 --> 00:40:10,030
that we are not currently amending. Sure. So a single family resident could be considered

473
00:40:10,030 --> 00:40:15,130
a multi dwelling unit if it had two kitchens, essentially, but still shared some living space.

474
00:40:15,130 --> 00:40:19,570
At that point, if it had two kitchens, it would no longer be a single family.

475
00:40:19,870 --> 00:40:23,050
It would now be either duplex or an accessory dwelling unit.

476
00:40:25,350 --> 00:40:32,770
I'm aware of properties in gigabur that have family rooms with baby kitchens and them, let's say downstairs.

477
00:40:33,510 --> 00:40:36,610
There's still considered single family dwelling.

478
00:40:37,090 --> 00:40:43,790
Let me see if we generally kitchen usually requires a certain number of amenities.

479
00:40:44,950 --> 00:40:46,390
it doesn't just a sink.

480
00:40:46,850 --> 00:40:48,270
Not like a kitchenette.

481
00:40:48,410 --> 00:40:49,730
A kitchenette wouldn't qualify

482
00:40:49,730 --> 00:40:51,110
in the full kitchen, right?

483
00:40:51,250 --> 00:40:52,630
Yeah, it has to be a full area.

484
00:40:52,930 --> 00:40:53,870
Kitchen, defund.

485
00:40:54,850 --> 00:40:56,790
Means a place where food is cooked and prepared

486
00:40:56,790 --> 00:40:58,690
and contains the facilities and equipment used

487
00:40:58,690 --> 00:40:59,950
for preparing and serving food,

488
00:40:59,950 --> 00:41:01,530
such as a gas or electric range.

489
00:41:02,570 --> 00:41:06,330
Free standing burner, warming oven or microwave

490
00:41:06,330 --> 00:41:07,970
is not considered a ranger or an oven.

491
00:41:08,650 --> 00:41:11,850
A kitchen sink, a refrigerator freezer,

492
00:41:15,870 --> 00:41:20,930
which a refrigerator freezer is an upright refrigerator or freezer that fits under the counter.

493
00:41:21,450 --> 00:41:26,750
That fits under the counter such as the type found in offices is not sufficient to be considered a kitchen.

494
00:41:27,730 --> 00:41:34,170
And an electric outlet of 220 voltage and plumbing and stand pipes for equipment and facilities normally found in a kitchen.

495
00:41:34,730 --> 00:41:39,430
So yes, you are correct. There's a whole number of people who have like a wet bar.

496
00:41:40,190 --> 00:41:47,350
That would not can be considered a kitchen that needs to be pretty robust, the type of thing you would normally find.

497
00:41:48,090 --> 00:41:49,370
Everything stands at dishwasher.

498
00:41:51,410 --> 00:42:05,350
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.

499
00:42:05,350 --> 00:42:11,830
But that the minimum or the max that you could build originally on this was 13,000 square feet

500
00:42:12,510 --> 00:42:19,290
compared to the 12,000 square foot law at the 40% the max is 2,000 square feet

501
00:42:19,870 --> 00:42:21,810
So am I correct to understanding that

502
00:42:22,470 --> 00:42:26,470
With your proposal of blocking anything above 6,000 feet

503
00:42:26,990 --> 00:42:34,730
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

504
00:42:35,350 --> 00:42:39,970
they'll be maxed out somewhere along 13 or square feet to 2,000 square feet is the biggest

505
00:42:39,970 --> 00:42:45,390
house bill to build depending on their size with that percentage is that as they get larger the

506
00:42:45,390 --> 00:42:51,390
percentage of hard-scape gets larger so I think she was showing the showing some of the illustrations

507
00:42:51,390 --> 00:42:57,850
obviously we're not capping out a 12,000 square feet it is anything above 6,000 I do believe the bigger

508
00:42:57,850 --> 00:43:02,270
your lot the more square footage you'd be able to build and it also comes down to the configuration

509
00:43:02,270 --> 00:43:08,710
your lot, how big your driveway is going to be? How big your garage is? What do you have an outdoor patio?

510
00:43:10,430 --> 00:43:16,210
So I do believe the illustration about what can be built on a 6,000 square foot lot is consistent

511
00:43:16,210 --> 00:43:19,730
with what we found, but there's a sliding scale on the other.

512
00:43:22,030 --> 00:43:24,230
Also, it's just the footprint of the building.

513
00:43:24,750 --> 00:43:30,970
You can go up as well. So it's not just a 1300 square foot home. It could be 2600 square feet on that

514
00:43:30,970 --> 00:43:31,390
I

515
00:43:34,430 --> 00:43:39,230
have a question. The illustration that you showed shows that it's label on

516
00:43:39,230 --> 00:43:44,130
Grossdale Street. Could you state whether the illustration or the

517
00:43:44,130 --> 00:43:47,250
illustrated property is within the historic district or is that just for

518
00:43:48,270 --> 00:43:53,150
purposes of? Yeah, it's not. It's outside the. Thank you.

519
00:43:53,710 --> 00:43:57,970
Yeah, the development that has happening within the historic district, especially in

520
00:43:57,970 --> 00:44:02,190
the historic district along the waterfront has a lot of other limitations on it.

521
00:44:02,190 --> 00:44:06,990
If you're on the waterfront, you have the shoreline designation, which limits what you can do on the property.

522
00:44:07,690 --> 00:44:14,050
I've here in the historic district, you have limited setbacks. If you're in the height restriction area, you have a lowered height.

523
00:44:14,530 --> 00:44:20,730
Same thing, same in the historic district as well. So all those would still apply.

524
00:44:21,550 --> 00:44:32,890
Can you explain the rationale for aligning the waterfront residential zone with the R1?

525
00:44:34,270 --> 00:44:38,050
And do we want to move?

526
00:44:38,270 --> 00:44:38,450
Yeah.

527
00:44:38,690 --> 00:44:40,030
I would like to move there.

528
00:44:40,270 --> 00:44:42,050
I already, I'm reading down.

529
00:44:42,230 --> 00:44:42,770
Yeah.

530
00:44:43,010 --> 00:44:43,290
Sorry.

531
00:44:43,790 --> 00:44:43,990
Okay.

532
00:44:44,310 --> 00:44:45,990
We will come back.

533
00:44:45,990 --> 00:44:56,730
The purposes on the waterfront zones kind of connected to R1 is that the waterfront zones

534
00:44:56,730 --> 00:44:59,970
largely already had

535
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:29,880
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

536
00:45:29,880 --> 00:45:36,720
that affordable housing and efforts to relax standards should not just be a one part of

537
00:45:36,720 --> 00:45:41,160
the city conversation that more affordable housing should be available everywhere.

538
00:45:41,760 --> 00:45:48,640
Thus we were looking at sinking up or one and the waterfront zones as it applies to lot

539
00:45:48,640 --> 00:45:51,060
size, lot width and impervious surface standards.

540
00:45:52,140 --> 00:45:59,100
Some of the testimony, again, was indicating that by focusing things in a particular, in

541
00:45:59,100 --> 00:46:04,840
a particular area only is that equal across the city.

542
00:46:08,830 --> 00:46:10,630
Again, these changes were not dramatic

543
00:46:10,630 --> 00:46:17,870
in nature, but they again were the same that we are proposing for the R1 zone knowing that

544
00:46:17,870 --> 00:46:24,150
these three zones are entirely encumbered by either either the shoreline, B, the all of these,

545
00:46:24,550 --> 00:46:29,390
yeah, historic preservation, height restriction, and shoreline designation. And some of them,

546
00:46:29,390 --> 00:46:32,290
If they have, they're at the mouth of a creek, they get, they get the critical

547
00:46:32,290 --> 00:46:33,230
areas ordinance as well.

548
00:46:33,390 --> 00:46:37,490
Can you talk to the priority of those like, what beats out what?

549
00:46:38,590 --> 00:46:44,010
In general, the most restrictive applies, if you have three different height

550
00:46:44,010 --> 00:46:49,170
requirements, the lowest of the three would apply. If you have two different setbacks,

551
00:46:49,590 --> 00:46:52,270
the biggest setback would apply.

552
00:46:54,600 --> 00:47:03,410
The explanation of wanting affordability across the city and not just, you know, put into

553
00:47:03,410 --> 00:47:09,590
one part of the city, it seems unrealistic given that the value of land differs across

554
00:47:09,590 --> 00:47:15,010
the waterfront land and such is more expensive and more than something that's not.

555
00:47:16,350 --> 00:47:21,450
I totally agree. It goes back to housing affordability versus affordable housing. You're right.

556
00:47:21,450 --> 00:47:25,670
affordable housing is not going to locate themselves in the waterfront zone very likely,

557
00:47:26,730 --> 00:47:35,710
but a duplex on the waterfront is going to be more affordable than a single family home on the waterfront.

558
00:47:36,390 --> 00:47:43,930
And again, with the idea that we are trying to provide greater opportunity across multiple housing types,

559
00:47:44,390 --> 00:47:48,090
there is concern that by focusing it in particular areas,

560
00:47:48,090 --> 00:47:54,290
I think as one individual entity it created a have or have not environment.

561
00:47:54,790 --> 00:48:02,590
Some people had someone get Skig Harbor like it was, everybody else is, they had some

562
00:48:02,590 --> 00:48:04,450
other terms, but living a different lifestyle.

563
00:48:15,170 --> 00:48:20,210
And then some other proposed changes that are in the matrix is the clarity in location where

564
00:48:20,210 --> 00:48:23,930
the new code is going to go, that's the first row, basically saying, hey, we have a number

565
00:48:23,930 --> 00:48:24,230
for it.

566
00:48:24,330 --> 00:48:25,390
We have a code number for you.

567
00:48:25,390 --> 00:48:37,830
And the second of which is when we collapsed everything, there were a number of different setbacks, lot coverages for the public institution zone.

568
00:48:38,670 --> 00:48:50,590
So we included a footnote to make it clear that parks and open space is not required to follow those codes.

569
00:48:50,590 --> 00:48:56,090
codes. Basically that's how today's code reads. And the purpose being is that trails

570
00:48:56,090 --> 00:49:03,690
kiosks of water towers sewer, sewer pump stations, oftentimes they need to be where they

571
00:49:03,690 --> 00:49:09,170
need to be. And we wanted to make sure that we were not changing anything. We did not

572
00:49:09,170 --> 00:49:14,250
mean to change. And public works very prudently indicated that, hey, you changed something

573
00:49:14,250 --> 00:49:18,950
that you were not supposed to be changing for parks and open space open.

574
00:49:18,950 --> 00:49:19,890
So

575
00:49:24,400 --> 00:49:30,860
kind of going back to, I guess, a way, one moment, are there other components that

576
00:49:30,860 --> 00:49:36,800
the Planning Commission would like to cover beyond, not necessarily, I mean, other potential

577
00:49:36,800 --> 00:49:39,920
changes, not just changes to the proposed changes?

578
00:49:40,440 --> 00:49:44,140
So are there other components that you heard from public testimony, or through your review,

579
00:49:44,320 --> 00:49:49,480
you've seen, yeah, but what about the, say, the commercial zone as it applies to building

580
00:49:49,480 --> 00:49:49,780
height?

581
00:49:49,780 --> 00:49:55,560
Are there any other elements such as that that you saw in the table or any of the proposed

582
00:49:55,560 --> 00:50:00,560
changes that you would like to make sure appear on this matrix for some kind of conversation?

583
00:50:00,760 --> 00:50:09,160
I saw in the public comments there were written ones that came in in the past beauties talking

584
00:50:09,160 --> 00:50:20,680
about some of the other classifications go up to 55% of hard surface but you're

585
00:50:20,680 --> 00:50:25,020
allowing for 60. Can you talk a little bit more about maybe your thought

586
00:50:25,020 --> 00:50:31,040
process on that and like why you landed where you landed? So yeah the

587
00:50:31,040 --> 00:50:35,780
impervious surface number is again the true impervious surface water will not go

588
00:50:35,780 --> 00:50:41,060
through it. The difference between a pervious surface requirement which is the 55% in a lot of

589
00:50:41,060 --> 00:50:47,560
places and then the 60% which is hardscape that includes all the permeable pavers, all the things

590
00:50:47,560 --> 00:50:55,240
that look like concrete or look like pavement but aren't net up at our waters percolating through them.

591
00:50:56,620 --> 00:51:02,340
So what the code is trying to do is indicate that okay and pervious surface needs to be limited for

592
00:51:02,340 --> 00:51:03,640
or stormwater-related issues.

593
00:51:04,880 --> 00:51:11,640
Hardscape is, okay, you can add some additional impervious looking area, but honestly, the

594
00:51:11,640 --> 00:51:15,220
quality of life in Gig Harbor has a certain amount of green to it.

595
00:51:15,720 --> 00:51:21,180
So even if it is permeable, it isn't landscaping, it isn't something green.

596
00:51:21,900 --> 00:51:28,940
So it's more of an aesthetic or design element, which is why it caps out at 60% in certain

597
00:51:28,940 --> 00:51:29,240
places.

598
00:51:29,240 --> 00:51:36,620
other places it caps out at 80%. Is that like the like if you were put rocks on the side of your

599
00:51:37,260 --> 00:51:42,000
driveway or something? Is that what you're talking about? For a hardskate? Yeah. That would be

600
00:51:42,520 --> 00:51:49,360
the pavers that then have grass kind of moving around or on the outside. The water percolates down,

601
00:51:49,480 --> 00:51:56,340
hits a sandy layer underneath and then slowly moves its way down to either a rain garden or ultimately

602
00:51:56,340 --> 00:52:02,020
out to a ditch with a system that's located under the ground to treat the water.

603
00:52:02,520 --> 00:52:02,620
Okay.

604
00:52:05,230 --> 00:52:10,690
And I may have explained this before, I feel like I'm beating the horse. Since these

605
00:52:10,690 --> 00:52:17,730
favors wick water way, if you will, or provide for water drainage, why do we feel like we have to

606
00:52:17,730 --> 00:52:23,750
classify that as a hard surface versus letting somebody use those for a driveway surface, let's say?

607
00:52:23,750 --> 00:52:29,150
People are able to utilize it for a driveway surface, they can use it for all the various

608
00:52:29,150 --> 00:52:29,470
things.

609
00:52:29,470 --> 00:52:36,510
They just don't get additional credit beyond 60% for them because ultimately they aren't

610
00:52:36,510 --> 00:52:41,830
the aesthetic design element of some kind of greenery or something that does not look

611
00:52:41,830 --> 00:52:42,350
like pavement.

612
00:52:42,830 --> 00:52:47,230
So it's a more of an aesthetic decision than functional decision.

613
00:52:48,230 --> 00:52:53,490
Yeah, the impervious surface is a functional decision, which is covered by our capital facilities

614
00:52:53,490 --> 00:53:01,870
plan and then the additional is allowed but up to a point with everything that isn't allowed to

615
00:53:01,870 --> 00:53:11,310
be a hard surface is again more of a design quality of life type element. It does to me seem to be

616
00:53:11,310 --> 00:53:18,010
a way though that there could be some potential middle ground you know because the papers that allow

617
00:53:18,010 --> 00:53:25,270
grass to grow are more attractive than just a hunk of concrete. So you know

618
00:53:25,270 --> 00:53:31,510
maybe allowing those to be included as not in the hard surface calculations

619
00:53:31,510 --> 00:53:35,870
is that something we could consider? Is that just crazy? That crazy idea?

620
00:53:36,130 --> 00:53:39,770
Definitely not crazy. Definitely not crazy. The downside is the greener those look,

621
00:53:40,150 --> 00:53:44,270
the less they're working. So that is, I don't know if you ever noticed that

622
00:53:44,270 --> 00:53:49,130
lawn if you don't aerate it and water doesn't know is percolate through it quite as well so the

623
00:53:49,130 --> 00:53:55,350
prettier the the pavers look oftentimes the less they work but no it's not a crazy it's not a

624
00:53:55,350 --> 00:54:02,330
crazy idea it just isn't something that was in the previous code that we operated off of.

625
00:54:03,470 --> 00:54:08,930
We could go back and have a conversation with stormwater about it but they are again very they want

626
00:54:08,930 --> 00:54:13,710
to make sure that the impervious surface limit is definitely adhered to the

627
00:54:13,710 --> 00:54:19,050
hard-scape components beyond that is again more of a quality-of-life aspect.

628
00:54:19,430 --> 00:54:23,170
It just seems to me that it could solve some of the design problems that I've

629
00:54:23,170 --> 00:54:27,550
heard from several residents that it's limiting their ability to build the

630
00:54:27,550 --> 00:54:32,410
size house that they need because we're counting that driveway. It reduces the

631
00:54:32,410 --> 00:54:38,090
size of the structure so. I would say definitively in the 6,000 and smaller

632
00:54:38,090 --> 00:54:39,910
or a smaller, definitely.

633
00:54:40,430 --> 00:54:44,470
I guess it affects anybody, depending on exactly how big a house they want to build.

634
00:54:45,710 --> 00:54:49,070
It could, yeah, it gets in the way of me building a 5,000 square foot home.

635
00:54:49,190 --> 00:54:50,370
Yes, it may do that.

636
00:54:50,850 --> 00:54:56,470
But again, I go back to the purpose of these changes, which are to again incentivize

637
00:54:56,470 --> 00:55:00,750
the other housing types, not necessarily address the single family.

638
00:55:04,080 --> 00:55:13,320
Eric, for clarification, just broadly speaking that the code's not considering, we talk about

639
00:55:13,320 --> 00:55:22,080
affordability and we talk about different duplexes, triplexes and such. We're not trying to

640
00:55:22,080 --> 00:55:30,840
differentiate from people who are buying versus people who want to rent. We're just saying housing,

641
00:55:30,840 --> 00:55:48,480
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.

642
00:55:49,200 --> 00:55:54,560
So yeah, when we look at land use, it truly is land use, not people use, I guess.

643
00:55:55,860 --> 00:56:11,430
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,

644
00:56:12,370 --> 00:56:15,770
the let's say harbor winds harbor winds is a subdivision.

645
00:56:15,770 --> 00:56:22,450
The subdivision would have to adhere to the existing lot size, lot width areas because

646
00:56:22,450 --> 00:56:23,990
they're vested to the old code.

647
00:56:25,710 --> 00:56:32,830
But if they were subdividing into lots, 6,000 square feet or less, and we changed them,

648
00:56:33,390 --> 00:56:38,090
changed the setbacks for those, they would be able to utilize the new code setbacks when

649
00:56:38,090 --> 00:56:39,350
they applied for the building permits.

650
00:56:40,010 --> 00:56:40,830
Thank you.

651
00:56:44,120 --> 00:56:54,620
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.

652
00:56:55,420 --> 00:57:13,100
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.

653
00:57:13,100 --> 00:57:14,080
So,

654
00:57:16,900 --> 00:57:20,500
what I'm getting on this while a lot of the public testimony has been really been

655
00:57:20,500 --> 00:57:21,820
focused on existing lots.

656
00:57:22,520 --> 00:57:29,380
This code change has a effect far beyond what we have in our current supply and could

657
00:57:29,380 --> 00:57:33,800
apply to any new subdivision moving forward in a way that from an affordability standpoint

658
00:57:33,800 --> 00:57:37,400
is perceived as positive, from an affordability standpoint.

659
00:57:40,400 --> 00:57:47,560
From housing affordability or really an affordable housing perspective, you know, I'm in support

660
00:57:47,560 --> 00:57:53,760
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.

661
00:57:54,400 --> 00:58:09,820
But how are we making sure that creating more flexibility actually leads to the intended impact, which is more housing diversity.

662
00:58:11,380 --> 00:58:14,240
And how is the city going to track this?

663
00:58:15,020 --> 00:58:19,860
Like, what, I mean, how will we know it's doing

664
00:58:19,860 --> 00:58:21,020
what it's intended to do?

665
00:58:22,300 --> 00:58:22,780
Monitoring.

666
00:58:23,180 --> 00:58:25,120
One of the key components of this end,

667
00:58:25,180 --> 00:58:27,000
what is also required by state statute,

668
00:58:27,200 --> 00:58:29,760
is us to monitor not just on an annual basis,

669
00:58:30,020 --> 00:58:32,600
but on a monthly basis, the number of units,

670
00:58:32,620 --> 00:58:35,000
the number of permits that are coming in

671
00:58:35,000 --> 00:58:36,560
and the types of units that they are

672
00:58:36,560 --> 00:58:40,780
and generate a report that is available to the public.

673
00:58:41,600 --> 00:58:47,480
So there is a certain component of, I won't say, leap of faith, but there is a certain

674
00:58:47,480 --> 00:58:49,700
amount of, okay, we're allowing this level of flexibility.

675
00:58:50,080 --> 00:58:53,820
Your concerns are in need to be considered.

676
00:58:54,380 --> 00:58:57,840
What happens if what we intended to do here is not what the market does.

677
00:58:58,360 --> 00:59:03,200
In which case we need to be prepared to look at the monitoring data, return to council and

678
00:59:03,200 --> 00:59:13,280
say, we plan for it to do this, it's doing this. We need to change course. Or we did this and

679
00:59:13,280 --> 00:59:20,100
look what it's generating. If we did this plus something else, we could speed that along. So the

680
00:59:20,100 --> 00:59:26,280
monitoring goes both ways. It's not, it's not just an uh-oh. It is a, here's how potentially we could

681
00:59:26,280 --> 00:59:32,180
make this better and more available. But it's really going to take projects on the ground to see

682
00:59:32,180 --> 00:59:33,980
those types of things if

683
00:59:37,050 --> 00:59:37,490
we

684
00:59:40,210 --> 00:59:45,130
what is the difference between I guess there's two

685
00:59:45,130 --> 00:59:50,390
parts doing nothing then what are the outcomes mean you know can we not get

686
00:59:50,390 --> 00:59:56,550
to the to to the target numbers by by doing nothing um secondly what if you

687
00:59:56,550 --> 00:59:59,970
know I guess really where I keep coming back to

688
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:26,400
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.

689
01:00:27,380 --> 01:00:56,380
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.

690
01:00:56,400 --> 01:00:58,820
or there's not a demand for that product.

691
01:01:00,480 --> 01:01:07,260
The hard-scape requirement is a definitive cold water on our densities.

692
01:01:08,320 --> 01:01:12,780
Again, let's say folks are generally looking for a minimum 1,500 square feet for anything

693
01:01:12,780 --> 01:01:13,440
they're going to buy.

694
01:01:13,840 --> 01:01:14,480
Let's just say that.

695
01:01:15,920 --> 01:01:20,380
Obviously, you're going to need 3,000 square feet to be able to have two and more than

696
01:01:20,380 --> 01:01:22,820
that the hard-scape requirement for most of our zones,

697
01:01:22,940 --> 01:01:25,920
sitting at 40%, is it's called water

698
01:01:25,920 --> 01:01:28,580
and undoing anything other than a single family.

699
01:01:29,360 --> 01:01:31,180
And in certain cases, based on the testimony,

700
01:01:31,360 --> 01:01:33,100
it even keeps some single family projects

701
01:01:33,100 --> 01:01:34,520
from moving forward.

702
01:01:36,600 --> 01:01:40,620
I guess I would add that the various toggle switches

703
01:01:40,620 --> 01:01:43,100
that we're looking at is we do know

704
01:01:43,840 --> 01:01:46,600
how much an average single family home goes for

705
01:01:46,600 --> 01:01:48,740
and it is outside the range.

706
01:01:48,740 --> 01:01:55,620
we know that townhomes that are currently available for sale in our community are substantially less,

707
01:01:55,960 --> 01:02:00,600
and we do know that condominiums that aren't with Gorge's views are less than that.

708
01:02:01,360 --> 01:02:08,680
So by encouraging the possibility of additional development to come forward

709
01:02:09,300 --> 01:02:16,060
that are those other lower price points will affect the market, not necessarily to an affordable

710
01:02:16,060 --> 01:02:26,480
housing component, but definitely keeping the 900,000 number at average home price from going up

711
01:02:26,480 --> 01:02:31,740
dramatically because there are a lot of homes going on the market now that are running 1, 3, 1, 5.

712
01:02:32,320 --> 01:02:39,240
We need to provide housing opportunities that are again closer to the 500 number and we'd need to

713
01:02:39,240 --> 01:02:45,940
find a way to encourage folks to do it. Otherwise, there's a possibility the state may come and tell

714
01:02:45,940 --> 01:02:55,720
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.

715
01:02:56,180 --> 01:03:04,960
But what currently is in the code that is preventing builders, the, the, the, the, um, impervious surface.

716
01:03:05,780 --> 01:03:08,380
Okay, hard scape in the, hard scape in the setbacks.

717
01:03:08,380 --> 01:03:17,440
access. Yeah. Um, yeah, I think that's it. At least the way I look at it, we're trying

718
01:03:17,440 --> 01:03:26,560
to get more units on less space. Essentially, it's density. More units in, in a, well,

719
01:03:26,560 --> 01:03:31,960
I should say, it'll set area. And, you know, this is a nudge. It's not a solution, but it's

720
01:03:31,960 --> 01:03:36,000
a nudge in that direction, but it's at least from my perspective. Yeah.

721
01:03:36,000 --> 01:03:43,760
So Mr. Reagan just brought up a one other thing that's in the code is that additionally we are

722
01:03:43,760 --> 01:03:48,660
exempting duplexes from density density is another thing that slows down development.

723
01:03:49,160 --> 01:03:53,200
We're not allowing people to build duplexes on a single lot without necessarily needing to make

724
01:03:53,200 --> 01:03:58,340
density. So that is another incentive that is in this draft.

725
01:03:58,920 --> 01:03:59,540
It's awesome.

726
01:04:01,660 --> 01:04:06,960
One of my from my experience in housing and just talking to a lot of people

727
01:04:07,420 --> 01:04:12,940
has there been consideration to lowering the cost of permits for smaller homes versus

728
01:04:12,940 --> 01:04:18,280
bigger homes because one of my understandings is that if an average I'm making up a number

729
01:04:18,280 --> 01:04:22,380
here, but if the average cost of a permit for a single family home runs around $50,000,

730
01:04:22,380 --> 01:04:26,260
it's roughly what I've been hearing around the streets, not talking about the car bar,

731
01:04:26,260 --> 01:04:31,280
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?

732
01:04:31,680 --> 01:04:37,240
So I'm kind of curious on the back end if we're looking at other ways like cave organa for one incentive sizes.

733
01:04:37,900 --> 01:04:42,240
If you build a duplex or if you build a only this size house, your permits less.

734
01:04:42,760 --> 01:04:45,100
So those margins are still okay.

735
01:04:45,400 --> 01:04:48,880
Otherwise the temptation will be to just build the bigger house.

736
01:04:49,340 --> 01:04:51,620
So I mean, have we given consideration to that?

737
01:04:52,140 --> 01:04:58,080
That would be one of the 25 different things that we need to be doing and we are currently

738
01:04:58,080 --> 01:05:00,900
doing it and have been doing it since 2024.

739
01:05:02,220 --> 01:05:07,560
Honestly, when it comes to fees, if you ask most developers, if they can get a predictable

740
01:05:07,560 --> 01:05:11,040
and speedy review of their permit, the fee is not the problem.

741
01:05:11,580 --> 01:05:16,400
It is the fact that carrying cost of the land, from the time they buy the property to the

742
01:05:16,400 --> 01:05:23,720
time they can sell the subdivision is where the costs are accelerated. So we have worked

743
01:05:23,720 --> 01:05:30,200
very, very hard to ensure that we are speeding the time from the first time the application

744
01:05:30,200 --> 01:05:37,440
comes in to the time that the application is approved. Again, every month is tens of thousands

745
01:05:37,440 --> 01:05:42,380
of dollars that need to be amortized across the price. So most of our efforts aren't necessarily

746
01:05:42,380 --> 01:05:46,960
focused on waving fees at this point is once you wave fees often times it has an impact

747
01:05:46,960 --> 01:05:48,280
on the staffing necessary.

748
01:05:48,820 --> 01:05:52,060
And I will say that customer service is one of the things we pride ourselves in.

749
01:05:52,620 --> 01:05:56,100
Customers are always standing by, there's always somebody at the counter, you're never going

750
01:05:56,100 --> 01:06:00,180
to come in and say, well, I guess I can't talk to anybody, we're always going to be here.

751
01:06:00,580 --> 01:06:05,360
But we really are focusing our energies on making sure the permit process is moving as fast

752
01:06:05,360 --> 01:06:06,080
as possible.

753
01:06:06,420 --> 01:06:07,940
And we are getting some positive feedback.

754
01:06:08,200 --> 01:06:09,300
Nobody wants to get a permit.

755
01:06:09,300 --> 01:06:13,080
no one woke up in the morning going, gosh, I'd really like to come down to the Civic Center

756
01:06:13,080 --> 01:06:20,180
and apply for a permit. But we are trying to make it as understandable and as easy as possible

757
01:06:20,180 --> 01:06:25,680
with, again, a strong customer service and efficiency lens. The downside, customer service and

758
01:06:25,680 --> 01:06:32,060
efficiency tend to run against one another. Online permitting, very efficient. A lot easier for people to

759
01:06:32,060 --> 01:06:37,720
do it. From a customer service component, the blinking cursor isn't exactly the warmest way for people

760
01:06:37,720 --> 01:06:42,940
to go through what is a relatively difficult process. So it, unlike everything else we're talking about,

761
01:06:43,120 --> 01:06:44,740
is the Ivan Eul.

762
01:06:48,920 --> 01:06:55,160
Could you speak a little bit to why we're going to a 75 max hard surface

763
01:06:55,160 --> 01:07:02,940
recommendation in R2, but we have 60 for R1 and R3. What's the difference there? One more.

764
01:07:13,580 --> 01:07:14,560
Let's try this again.

765
01:07:19,390 --> 01:07:20,490
Let's go back to the one.

766
01:07:21,450 --> 01:07:22,850
Okay, in general,

767
01:07:23,090 --> 01:07:24,410
what we're talking about in previous surface,

768
01:07:24,410 --> 01:07:25,750
are we talking about hard surface?

769
01:07:26,410 --> 01:07:28,150
Well, I was talking about max hard service,

770
01:07:28,310 --> 01:07:30,610
but you could either either way works well.

771
01:07:31,310 --> 01:07:36,330
So what we have here is for R3,

772
01:07:36,670 --> 01:07:40,490
I'm reading here that we have 85% hard surface for R3

773
01:07:40,490 --> 01:07:45,110
and we have 75% for R2 and then 60% for R1.

774
01:07:45,630 --> 01:07:47,870
The purpose of that gradient increase

775
01:07:48,300 --> 01:07:51,890
is that the density increases dramatically between there.

776
01:07:52,390 --> 01:07:53,810
So you're talking about more units.

777
01:07:54,410 --> 01:07:57,250
In the R1, you're trying to fit four-doll units per acre,

778
01:07:57,790 --> 01:08:00,910
six to 12 in R2, and now you're looking at 12 to 32.

779
01:08:01,490 --> 01:08:04,030
So now you're talking about town homes and multi-family,

780
01:08:04,390 --> 01:08:07,110
which generally are more land intensive

781
01:08:07,110 --> 01:08:14,050
and landscaping still a requirement but there's less ability to wrap a

782
01:08:14,050 --> 01:08:17,210
multi-family project around a green space.

783
01:08:20,080 --> 01:08:21,160
Are you looking at a different

784
01:08:21,160 --> 01:08:25,120
document? No, I was looking at the wrong line item that makes more sense to me.

785
01:08:25,360 --> 01:08:30,300
Thank you. I'm going to bet that's because there are two rows, not one row, which is

786
01:08:31,260 --> 01:08:36,320
rather confusing matters. Which again is one of the proposals.

787
01:08:39,900 --> 01:08:41,260
I would like to make

788
01:08:41,260 --> 01:08:47,000
a motion to pause our deliberations from five to 10 minutes, open it up for public comments.

789
01:08:47,260 --> 01:08:51,540
So that way, if people can make their comments and weave if they want to, rather than holding

790
01:08:51,540 --> 01:08:57,000
them hostage for another hour or so while we talk about this stuff, I think that will work

791
01:08:57,000 --> 01:09:03,620
out great as long as, again, what's being testified on is not related to what we're talking

792
01:09:03,620 --> 01:09:04,260
about here.

793
01:09:06,140 --> 01:09:11,400
So again, the public comment is intended to be related to all topics that aren't what

794
01:09:11,400 --> 01:09:16,820
we're talking about here because the theory public comment ended last Monday at noon

795
01:09:16,820 --> 01:09:17,600
on this topic.

796
01:09:17,740 --> 01:09:17,900
Gotcha.

797
01:09:18,380 --> 01:09:18,700
Yeah.

798
01:09:18,940 --> 01:09:22,520
So I think, well,

799
01:09:24,610 --> 01:09:27,030
did you have anything else to cover on the matrix here?

800
01:09:28,190 --> 01:09:30,270
No, that covered the breadth of it.

801
01:09:30,270 --> 01:09:36,370
And it really is being able to work through for the planning commission on how they would

802
01:09:36,370 --> 01:09:40,450
like to proceed forward, making changes, making decisions, all of that.

803
01:09:40,770 --> 01:09:42,250
So it is kind of the nuts and bolts.

804
01:09:43,390 --> 01:09:43,670
Right.

805
01:09:44,070 --> 01:09:51,810
So I guess the simple solution or the, I guess, simple or straightforward solution would

806
01:09:51,810 --> 01:10:21,370
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

807
01:10:21,370 --> 01:10:26,230
we have to take a motion to either approve this

808
01:10:27,490 --> 01:10:30,530
or make amendments from here.

809
01:10:30,870 --> 01:10:31,330
So that's.

810
01:10:33,210 --> 01:10:34,990
If we do want to, I guess,

811
01:10:35,110 --> 01:10:37,330
how many folks want to make public comment today

812
01:10:37,330 --> 01:10:39,430
on things that are not related to what we're talking,

813
01:10:39,550 --> 01:10:41,410
what we've been talking about over the last 20 minutes?

814
01:10:45,230 --> 01:10:48,930
We could pause and take the gentleman's testimony

815
01:10:48,930 --> 01:10:53,830
unless the gentleman is okay with hanging out and watching the end of this and then talking and speaking.

816
01:10:54,190 --> 01:10:55,170
I like your first choice.

817
01:10:59,050 --> 01:11:05,790
I definitely appreciate how painstaking this must be for people who want to talk about something else.

818
01:11:05,830 --> 01:11:05,970
Right.

819
01:11:08,010 --> 01:11:10,190
Okay, well, let's do that then.

820
01:11:10,310 --> 01:11:15,350
When we recess for 10 minutes and then we'll take public comments and then return to our deliberations.

821
01:11:15,350 --> 01:11:25,210
some good everybody. There wasn't a really emotion made. It wasn't second. All right.

822
01:11:26,070 --> 01:11:27,610
Okay. We'll recess for 10 minutes.

823
01:12:15,780 --> 01:12:22,940
No, there's a name on that, but you know, it's an interviewer that was going on in the

824
01:12:22,940 --> 01:12:23,200
interview.

825
01:12:23,960 --> 01:12:26,820
It's called Mr. Goldberg, but I don't think he's going to give it.

826
01:12:27,500 --> 01:12:28,940
Everybody's required, you know.

827
01:12:29,160 --> 01:12:29,900
I mean, I know that.

828
01:12:30,620 --> 01:12:31,760
It's not an option.

829
01:12:33,500 --> 01:12:35,800
But the hard ones, you know, scrolls.

830
01:12:36,020 --> 01:12:36,440
And then it happens.

831
01:12:36,640 --> 01:12:38,320
I've been blessed here for a whole day.

832
01:12:38,480 --> 01:12:39,380
And then it's going on.

833
01:12:39,960 --> 01:12:41,160
It's a lot of stuff.

834
01:12:41,160 --> 01:12:44,980
and now where you can't build it, what will happen?

835
01:12:45,640 --> 01:12:46,460
What will happen?

836
01:12:48,100 --> 01:12:48,920
What will happen?

837
01:12:49,460 --> 01:12:50,720
There will be no problem.

838
01:12:53,220 --> 01:12:54,860
This is a very bad problem.

839
01:12:56,340 --> 01:12:59,980
That's something that you have to have in mind.

840
01:13:00,040 --> 01:13:03,740
So, in this case,

841
01:13:05,780 --> 01:13:07,480
something that you want to do,

842
01:14:01,660 --> 01:14:07,280
I think you are thinking, if you have questions, you're going to

843
01:14:37,280 --> 01:14:38,000
Do you have a garage?

844
01:14:38,560 --> 01:14:38,880
30x

845
01:14:38,880 --> 01:14:40,200
30x

846
01:14:40,200 --> 01:14:40,660
40x

847
01:14:40,660 --> 01:14:41,480
30x

848
01:14:41,480 --> 01:14:42,300
30x

849
01:14:42,300 --> 01:14:43,780
30x

850
01:14:43,780 --> 01:14:44,540
30x

851
01:14:44,540 --> 01:14:44,620
30x

852
01:14:44,620 --> 01:14:44,960
30x

853
01:14:44,960 --> 01:14:45,340
30x

854
01:14:45,340 --> 01:14:45,980
30x

855
01:14:51,750 --> 01:14:52,870
30x

856
01:14:52,870 --> 01:14:53,590
30x

857
01:14:58,850 --> 01:14:59,970
30x

858
01:17:31,730 --> 01:17:39,430
Okay, is everybody back with us? I'm not sure that was 10 minutes or not, but I think we're close. All right.

859
01:17:41,800 --> 01:18:02,900
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.

860
01:18:02,900 --> 01:18:05,100
but I think we've heard it before.

861
01:18:05,620 --> 01:18:05,880
Yeah.

862
01:18:06,420 --> 01:18:09,540
My name is Karl Moral.

863
01:18:09,700 --> 01:18:11,000
I live in Buriali, Gugoon.

864
01:18:11,820 --> 01:18:14,600
And some of this may be information that I'm not clear

865
01:18:14,600 --> 01:18:18,840
on, you know, pick it up from the AI or online or whatever.

866
01:18:19,340 --> 01:18:22,020
But my understanding is the planning commission

867
01:18:22,020 --> 01:18:24,700
is supposed to set rules for long-term vision

868
01:18:25,100 --> 01:18:27,800
where roads could be built and transportation priorities

869
01:18:28,340 --> 01:18:29,600
shape our future growth.

870
01:18:30,140 --> 01:18:32,180
And I don't think that's really happening.

871
01:18:32,180 --> 01:18:38,120
at this particular point. We have a capacity density problem, yes, and I know we have to do it

872
01:18:38,120 --> 01:18:43,480
by law, we're required to do that. But other areas should also be addressed first.

873
01:18:44,180 --> 01:18:49,580
Gig Harbor is older than any other community on the peninsula and actually in Washington State.

874
01:18:50,640 --> 01:18:59,120
Drive times have become longer due to a 25% increase in population from 2010 to 2024. An example

875
01:18:59,120 --> 01:19:05,460
That would be a domino's driver now takes 15 to 20 minutes longer to get to their destination

876
01:19:05,890 --> 01:19:07,540
than they did back in 2010.

877
01:19:09,100 --> 01:19:14,540
Congestion occurs all the way on Highway 16, all the ramps will watch it, burn them,

878
01:19:14,880 --> 01:19:21,060
harbor view, impacting generally about 15 to 25 extra minutes during peak hours.

879
01:19:21,060 --> 01:19:30,200
44% of our population is 55 years older and likely needs emergency medical services.

880
01:19:30,900 --> 01:19:37,020
Transportation improvement program, TIP, of Gekarber has repeatedly cited that as well.

881
01:19:37,660 --> 01:19:45,360
Increased traffic volumes, our city cannot approve new development and less public facilities,

882
01:19:45,360 --> 01:19:51,260
especially roads are in place when development arrives part of as part of the

883
01:19:51,260 --> 01:19:58,080
growth management program. Development must not outpace infrastructure. Bottom line

884
01:19:58,080 --> 01:20:03,460
negative emergency response times, unsafe evacuation roads, overloaded roads,

885
01:20:03,700 --> 01:20:09,560
increased traffic beyond our adopted standards. Please be proactive and keep our

886
01:20:09,560 --> 01:20:13,340
community safe thank you thank you sir

887
01:20:17,150 --> 01:20:24,610
yes sure yeah I'm Karen McDonald and I just

888
01:20:24,610 --> 01:20:32,290
wanted to say that I don't think there's any affordable property in Geekarber and I think

889
01:20:32,290 --> 01:20:38,350
it all of you should recognize that you know this is just a community that everybody wants to live

890
01:20:38,350 --> 01:20:44,290
in because it's so special and the other thing I wanted to say and I kind of feel bad about

891
01:20:44,290 --> 01:20:54,740
saying it but I really wish you would not give incentives to developers to build. They aren't the

892
01:20:54,740 --> 01:21:00,640
ones that need affordable. I'm sorry and we're not taking commentary on the subject at hand tonight.

893
01:21:00,920 --> 01:21:05,260
Oh well I didn't hear you talk about that tonight so I'm just talking about it because I heard

894
01:21:05,260 --> 01:21:07,200
had it before. Thank you.

895
01:21:10,550 --> 01:21:15,410
All right then. We will continue the deliberations in on the

896
01:21:16,010 --> 01:21:25,090
base to a code update. Housing diversity. I did want to start. Does anybody else or were there

897
01:21:25,090 --> 01:21:32,090
any more specific questions in for Eric or Steph? I want to pile on to a question that was asked

898
01:21:32,090 --> 01:21:40,830
earlier about the 6,000 square feet. I know we're making educated best guesses, if you

899
01:21:40,830 --> 01:21:47,250
will, that might be too strong. But how confident are we that that's a good place to start?

900
01:21:47,650 --> 01:21:51,350
It seems like it's a high number compared to some of the other communities.

901
01:21:52,370 --> 01:22:00,790
It is a, for again, the lower density zone, taking a look at it. It is 6,000 for R1, but

902
01:22:00,790 --> 01:22:03,470
that then graduates down to 4,000 square feet

903
01:22:04,220 --> 01:22:06,250
as you get into the higher density zones.

904
01:22:07,130 --> 01:22:10,790
6,000 square feet is the historic density,

905
01:22:11,230 --> 01:22:13,610
or the historic plating pattern in a lot of ways.

906
01:22:15,530 --> 01:22:18,710
So we feel confident that from a community,

907
01:22:19,890 --> 01:22:22,150
from a historic community component,

908
01:22:22,230 --> 01:22:24,250
it is a good number for single family.

909
01:22:24,790 --> 01:22:28,190
When we get to the 4,000s and less, yeah, we could go lower.

910
01:22:28,190 --> 01:22:30,430
For some jurisdictions have no minimum lot size.

911
01:22:31,570 --> 01:22:34,570
There are other avenues to get to those types of things.

912
01:22:34,870 --> 01:22:41,850
We do feel confident that this is a good balance between the state mandates to again make progress

913
01:22:41,850 --> 01:22:47,990
while still attempting to maintain some of the historic plating pattern and characteristics.

914
01:22:48,310 --> 01:22:53,670
So I feel as confident as I can on these numbers.

915
01:22:53,670 --> 01:23:04,150
The more I work in this, the more I understand that I can absolutely guarantee very little.

916
01:23:06,280 --> 01:23:14,720
On that note, would you be able to communicate to me from start, from fresh, the reasoning

917
01:23:14,720 --> 01:23:26,140
behind limiting the setbacks at 40% above 6,000 that doesn't lend to just because we don't

918
01:23:26,140 --> 01:23:32,280
want people to build bigger homes. Is there other reasoning behind that lid being there besides

919
01:23:32,280 --> 01:23:41,540
that promise? Yeah, just the purposes. We want to alter code that has a reasonable expectation that

920
01:23:41,540 --> 01:23:50,360
folks will think about more density, not necessarily just the same density. And I think one of the

921
01:23:50,360 --> 01:24:00,940
The concern is that with lower setbacks, more hardscape, people may elect on a larger lot to build a much larger home.

922
01:24:01,560 --> 01:24:09,440
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.

923
01:24:09,440 --> 01:24:16,380
and ultimately, lots that could potentially be considered at some point for duplexes or an ADU,

924
01:24:16,900 --> 01:24:22,780
instead just end up being a single family home, just one that is larger and likely at a higher

925
01:24:22,780 --> 01:24:29,080
price point that, again, doesn't make progress towards our numbers, yet we made a change to code

926
01:24:29,080 --> 01:24:31,380
that allotted it.

927
01:24:34,080 --> 01:24:38,700
We aren't trying to tell people exactly how big of a home that they can or

928
01:24:38,700 --> 01:24:47,200
cannot construct, construct beyond what was already been in code, but we again are in the,

929
01:24:47,600 --> 01:24:52,320
we're responsible for trying to move the needle. And if the needle is already pointing to large

930
01:24:52,320 --> 01:24:58,980
single-family homes, we need to be trying to direct things, the opposite direction, because

931
01:24:58,980 --> 01:25:03,720
ultimately we need to be showing progress to avoid negative impacts.

932
01:25:03,720 --> 01:25:18,200
might there be environmental considerations, you know, that also lead to limiting impervious

933
01:25:18,460 --> 01:25:19,160
surface?

934
01:25:20,400 --> 01:25:26,960
We just adopted the critical areas ordinance which again provide additional protection for

935
01:25:26,960 --> 01:25:32,300
or about three to 400 acres of available land in gig harbors.

936
01:25:32,440 --> 01:25:33,440
So there's already a good amount

937
01:25:33,440 --> 01:25:35,640
that has been addressed through that.

938
01:25:36,020 --> 01:25:37,200
We have a stormwater code

939
01:25:37,200 --> 01:25:39,760
that is one of the more progressive in the area.

940
01:25:40,220 --> 01:25:43,820
So the any new development is going to be developing

941
01:25:43,820 --> 01:25:46,180
and treating their stormwater at levels

942
01:25:46,180 --> 01:25:51,180
beyond what historic development in gig harbors has been doing.

943
01:25:51,900 --> 01:25:54,800
We did do a full analysis when we did our comprehensive plan

944
01:25:54,800 --> 01:25:56,280
when we increased our densities.

945
01:25:56,280 --> 01:26:00,280
Again, when we increased our densities, we had the expectation that codes were going

946
01:26:00,280 --> 01:26:04,460
to be changing, that we're going to increase the amount of potential impervious surface.

947
01:26:05,200 --> 01:26:10,720
When we changed the critical areas ordinance, we definitely injured that we were going to

948
01:26:10,720 --> 01:26:17,660
be able to meet these as, again, several hundred acres was being impacted on their

949
01:26:17,660 --> 01:26:18,520
developability.

950
01:26:19,080 --> 01:26:22,980
Also in the capital facilities plan, we went through and did a full analysis to ensure

951
01:26:22,980 --> 01:26:33,140
that even built out at maximum densities that we are going to be able to have water, sewer, and schools transportation for these.

952
01:26:34,940 --> 01:26:41,660
So we believe that these changes that we are proposing today have been fully vetted through the comprehensive plan.

953
01:26:42,360 --> 01:26:50,660
They are going to increase density. They are going to increase the possibility of additional impervious surface on what land is left.

954
01:26:50,660 --> 01:27:00,920
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.

955
01:27:02,120 --> 01:27:19,820
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.

956
01:27:19,820 --> 01:27:25,960
So, we're kind of book ending this housing conversation that is going to increase density

957
01:27:26,480 --> 01:27:31,720
with two environmental protection elements, critical areas on one end, climate change

958
01:27:31,720 --> 01:27:35,060
on the other, to ensure that we are achieving that balance.

959
01:27:37,400 --> 01:27:42,040
I had one more on the break, I asked a question, I wanted to bring it to the record, which

960
01:27:42,040 --> 01:27:48,240
was I had asked when did it change to 40 for single-family homes when it was 60 prior

961
01:27:48,240 --> 01:27:55,880
and you said 2000 or roughly so the just looking historically to our

962
01:27:55,880 --> 01:28:01,680
concerns today it was at 60 they used to be able to build at that hard

963
01:28:01,680 --> 01:28:08,820
surface until 2024 I think my house that I live in was in under that old code

964
01:28:08,820 --> 01:28:16,460
but did we actually see once we made that lower did the implications like

965
01:28:16,460 --> 01:28:21,500
do people start building smaller homes in gig harbour after we made that lower? Did it actually

966
01:28:21,500 --> 01:28:25,980
make the impact that it was trying to make and do we set the improve the concern that people

967
01:28:25,980 --> 01:28:31,420
will just build bigger homes because of the more space if that was already the law for all that time

968
01:28:31,420 --> 01:28:38,580
anyway? For my understanding, I can't say what the code was before 2004, so I don't know what it was.

969
01:28:38,720 --> 01:28:43,000
I just remember that these things kind of came into play. There was a big code update that was done

970
01:28:43,000 --> 01:28:49,920
of 2004 that these types of things popped up. Obviously, the historic character of development

971
01:28:49,920 --> 01:28:56,040
in gig harbour has stayed at a particular level. The number of I won't utilize the

972
01:28:56,040 --> 01:29:01,000
pejorative term, but the large homes that you see in a lot of other affluent communities,

973
01:29:01,640 --> 01:29:08,000
we don't see here in gig harbour. You see them in a lot of other locations. I believe that

974
01:29:08,000 --> 01:29:17,280
code was an impact on that. I think the historic preservation area was another component that

975
01:29:17,280 --> 01:29:26,680
has also limited that. So I do believe that regulations do have the ability to address particular

976
01:29:27,560 --> 01:29:34,900
development issues. And I do believe that that code served its purpose. Unfortunately,

977
01:29:34,900 --> 01:29:43,160
it has served its purpose at a level which again also had an impact on density. So we became a single

978
01:29:43,160 --> 01:29:49,420
family community, single family is largely what you had outside of a few multifamily view properties.

979
01:29:52,440 --> 01:29:58,140
Eric, can you just confirm for me so that I know I'm reading this correctly that in the R1 zone for

980
01:29:58,140 --> 01:29:59,960
a lot size at 6,000.

981
01:30:05,980 --> 01:30:16,360
Yes, the proposal for any existing lot, 6,000 square feet or less, would be 60% hard surface in the R1 zone.

982
01:30:18,880 --> 01:30:24,620
For the R2 zone, it looks like it also would be 60%.

983
01:30:24,620 --> 01:30:35,600
So, the road that then on our, that is, you know, the R1 that has a 40% maximum part

984
01:30:35,600 --> 01:30:41,180
of service, how is that single family R1 different than the road above it?

985
01:30:41,720 --> 01:30:49,800
That is for existing single family lots that are greater that are, when this was originally constructed,

986
01:30:49,800 --> 01:30:57,660
That was for all single family development under the new proposal. It would only apply to single family development greater than 6000 square feet

987
01:31:10,370 --> 01:31:16,030
This usually brings us into the awkward Robert rules of order component of things as

988
01:31:17,950 --> 01:31:24,230
Ultimately if the council is going to move through deliberations in a way that allows Dana to be able to document

989
01:31:24,230 --> 01:31:29,430
The easiest way to have these conversations, again, this is not intended to dictate any

990
01:31:29,430 --> 01:31:35,570
kind of outcome, but it's just to make it clear, is the original draft was August 17th.

991
01:31:35,930 --> 01:31:42,690
So oftentimes what a body will do is they will make a motion to approve that draft and

992
01:31:42,690 --> 01:31:48,350
then make a series and then don't vote on it, but then make a series of motions to amend.

993
01:31:48,770 --> 01:31:49,890
And then you vote on each amendment.

994
01:31:49,890 --> 01:31:58,410
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.

995
01:32:01,260 --> 01:32:09,150
So given that, is there a motion to approve the, well, is it eight?

996
01:32:10,270 --> 01:32:11,230
August 17th.

997
01:32:11,230 --> 01:32:15,810
2026 draft of the phase two a co-development housing

998
01:32:15,810 --> 01:32:24,110
versus emotion to approve the August 17th, 2026 draft.

999
01:32:26,550 --> 01:32:27,830
Second, what's the date?

1000
01:32:28,150 --> 01:32:28,930
OK, is there a second?

1001
01:32:29,230 --> 01:32:33,480
So we will, we don't vote on that.

1002
01:32:33,640 --> 01:32:34,440
No, no, no, no.

1003
01:32:34,440 --> 01:32:38,980
Now, who would like to amend the August 17th and then you

1004
01:32:38,980 --> 01:32:42,100
entertain individual motions about what those amendments look

1005
01:32:42,100 --> 01:32:51,500
look like if it helps and the planning commission is supportive, they can run through the

1006
01:32:51,500 --> 01:32:56,660
rows of the matrix and then amend those as they move along or they could propose their

1007
01:32:56,660 --> 01:32:59,280
own motions entirely at a whole cloth.

1008
01:33:00,120 --> 01:33:12,460
I guess a simple solution we need motion to amend for the recommendation matrix provided

1009
01:33:12,460 --> 01:33:16,820
by staff of 9-3-2026.

1010
01:33:18,040 --> 01:33:20,040
Would there be a motion to do that?

1011
01:33:21,380 --> 01:33:27,760
I move that we accept the planning commission's recommendation matrix dated 9-3-2026 for

1012
01:33:27,760 --> 01:33:32,500
for the phase 2A Code Development Draft dated 817-2026.

1013
01:33:33,220 --> 01:33:33,420
That's right.

1014
01:33:33,860 --> 01:33:34,340
I second.

1015
01:33:34,860 --> 01:33:35,360
There's second.

1016
01:33:35,980 --> 01:33:36,280
OK.

1017
01:33:36,720 --> 01:33:38,960
Then we would vote on that amendment.

1018
01:33:40,400 --> 01:33:45,920
At this point, now what you have is you have this document

1019
01:33:46,460 --> 01:33:48,840
that has been amended with this document.

1020
01:33:49,000 --> 01:33:49,200
Right.

1021
01:33:49,360 --> 01:33:52,460
But now if anybody wants to make amendments to this document,

1022
01:33:52,980 --> 01:33:54,620
they should be making additional amendments.

1023
01:33:55,240 --> 01:33:55,580
OK.

1024
01:33:55,580 --> 01:34:02,480
And if there's no amendments to that, then we would approve the attachment of this document.

1025
01:34:02,880 --> 01:34:04,560
These two connected together.

1026
01:34:19,870 --> 01:34:20,730
Okay, then.

1027
01:34:23,130 --> 01:34:23,730
Anyone?

1028
01:34:24,610 --> 01:34:24,830
You're.

1029
01:34:26,770 --> 01:34:27,370
So

1030
01:34:37,390 --> 01:34:40,530
I think we can just call the question.

1031
01:34:43,190 --> 01:34:46,810
This is where you make a motion to make an amendment. Is that correct?

1032
01:34:48,070 --> 01:34:48,230
Yeah.

1033
01:34:48,230 --> 01:35:01,370
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.

1034
01:35:04,240 --> 01:35:06,040
You're talking about the law area.

1035
01:35:07,580 --> 01:35:16,260
How do I word that to include lots larger than the 6,000 to include. Yeah. How do you word that?

1036
01:35:16,260 --> 01:35:26,000
That you'd be amending footnote number seven to say instead of 6,000 square feet to say 8,000 square feet.

1037
01:35:26,000 --> 01:35:34,620
Thus any projects that are under 8,000 square feet that are single family get to utilize the new code.

1038
01:35:34,920 --> 01:35:37,920
Anything over 8,000 square feet would have to utilize the old code.

1039
01:35:39,060 --> 01:35:40,320
Yes, that's correct.

1040
01:35:40,320 --> 01:35:40,680
I

1041
01:35:42,700 --> 01:35:43,420
don't have to speak that.

1042
01:35:44,000 --> 01:35:45,300
I don't have to speak that.

1043
01:35:45,500 --> 01:35:47,500
Did I restate it?

1044
01:35:49,060 --> 01:35:49,480
Yes.

1045
01:35:52,060 --> 01:35:53,460
Or what's that?

1046
01:35:55,180 --> 01:35:59,280
And then you would be looking for a second.

1047
01:36:10,740 --> 01:36:13,160
I'll second that motion because well,

1048
01:36:13,540 --> 01:36:19,520
I think 6,000 are going up to over 6,000.

1049
01:36:19,680 --> 01:36:22,900
Like even a 7th and a hurry,

1050
01:36:23,020 --> 01:36:24,000
1,000 square foot.

1051
01:36:24,000 --> 01:36:25,680
but it's still pretty small.

1052
01:36:26,080 --> 01:36:28,520
And I think that anybody in that range as well,

1053
01:36:28,760 --> 01:36:30,280
it's still gonna have a very hard time

1054
01:36:31,160 --> 01:36:35,780
getting their development within that box of only 40%.

1055
01:36:38,080 --> 01:36:39,560
Is there, all right, so we had a second,

1056
01:36:39,760 --> 01:36:40,920
so that's on the table.

1057
01:36:41,100 --> 01:36:42,980
Is there any other comments, questions,

1058
01:36:43,340 --> 01:36:44,800
or deliberations on that?

1059
01:36:44,940 --> 01:36:45,760
Oh, make a comment.

1060
01:36:45,900 --> 01:36:47,460
My motion is that okay, is that correct?

1061
01:36:47,960 --> 01:36:49,340
I just think like you said,

1062
01:36:49,460 --> 01:36:51,280
it's giving more opportunity, more flexibility,

1063
01:36:51,680 --> 01:36:52,880
does make housing cheaper

1064
01:36:52,880 --> 01:36:58,240
when we could make it make it really difficult to fit into boxes that normally increases costs.

1065
01:36:59,040 --> 01:37:05,900
And so I just believe that this will actually get more room for those single family homes to be made cheaper for people.

1066
01:37:06,760 --> 01:37:13,540
And still limits it from just having excessive lots and not meeting our goals as my comment.

1067
01:37:18,950 --> 01:37:32,310
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.

1068
01:37:33,170 --> 01:37:42,790
If you're allowing, if you're requiring more units per lot size are not requiring, but allowing more units per lot size.

1069
01:37:42,790 --> 01:37:46,130
You actually have the chance of having more

1070
01:37:47,630 --> 01:37:53,610
units and more affordably units that way that would be my comment. I would I would vote against

1071
01:37:53,610 --> 01:37:57,070
The 8,000 foot amendment and keep it at 6.

1072
01:38:01,220 --> 01:38:01,960
I second that

1073
01:38:07,020 --> 01:38:12,480
So then if we want to change could we go back and vote on all these? Yeah

1074
01:38:12,480 --> 01:38:21,660
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.

1075
01:38:22,380 --> 01:38:29,760
Oh, so if it doesn't get, yeah, so if it's voted down, it would just stay $6,000.

1076
01:38:29,840 --> 01:38:33,080
But you're free to comment and deliberate before we vote.

1077
01:38:33,360 --> 01:38:33,620
Yeah.

1078
01:38:34,640 --> 01:38:38,420
Is there any other comments then on this motion or any of the others?

1079
01:38:39,500 --> 01:38:46,100
Well, and for clarification for staff is that on a lot that's more than 6,000 square feet.

1080
01:38:46,280 --> 01:38:49,800
You can get more hard surface, but you have to add an ABU.

1081
01:38:55,680 --> 01:38:57,380
Was that question directed at staff?

1082
01:38:57,820 --> 01:39:02,480
We were talking amongst ourselves.

1083
01:39:03,180 --> 01:39:04,660
Yes, what was the question I apologize?

1084
01:39:06,240 --> 01:39:16,620
I was questioned, I was that under the proposal and in order to get for a lot more than six

1085
01:39:16,620 --> 01:39:20,120
hours a square feet, you can get more hard surface, but you have to add an AVU.

1086
01:39:20,300 --> 01:39:22,400
You would have to be something other than a single family.

1087
01:39:22,660 --> 01:39:22,800
Yes.

1088
01:39:23,380 --> 01:39:23,580
Correct.

1089
01:39:26,590 --> 01:39:27,150
Oh, sorry.

1090
01:39:27,450 --> 01:39:28,570
Is it okay to make another comment?

1091
01:39:29,070 --> 01:39:33,530
I think, you know, it was brought up earlier about one of our goals is that we have seniors

1092
01:39:33,530 --> 01:39:38,030
that might be wanting to downsize and move into smaller homes and we have people with disabilities

1093
01:39:38,030 --> 01:39:44,390
and things like that. So I know one of the comments is that we can just build up. People can build

1094
01:39:44,390 --> 01:39:51,190
two stories, but if somebody does need a home for that's one story, their max becomes 1300 square

1095
01:39:51,190 --> 01:39:57,430
feet. And so I think that doesn't allow for any families, it doesn't allow for diversity,

1096
01:39:57,630 --> 01:40:02,850
it doesn't allow for anyone with disabilities. I just think that giving more room and increasing

1097
01:40:02,850 --> 01:40:08,470
to 8,000 allows people more flexibility to build a home that they need that can fit multiple diverse

1098
01:40:08,470 --> 01:40:17,570
people. And it doesn't necessarily always increase, I mean, it not a lot sizes can be broken down

1099
01:40:17,570 --> 01:40:22,090
into six feet, there's six thousand square feet. So, so meaning it's not that then you just make all

1100
01:40:22,090 --> 01:40:27,130
the lots bigger, it's that there are some lots that are just already that size and being sold. And so

1101
01:40:27,130 --> 01:40:32,270
I don't think it will prevent further density because it's not for just subdivisions,

1102
01:40:32,270 --> 01:40:37,310
it's just for someone buying a single family a lot there might only be a lot of 8,000 square feet

1103
01:40:37,310 --> 01:40:41,790
not at six and then limits their ability to build what they need. Especially if that

1104
01:40:42,870 --> 01:40:50,310
lot is in the high restricted zone they can't even go to stories. So there's those situations as well

1105
01:40:50,310 --> 01:40:59,070
which I think would be most of the things in the city proper. And unless I'm just missing it like

1106
01:40:59,070 --> 01:41:04,690
I mean, we talked about this early on, it's 6,100 square feet or 6,150, or I mean, I don't

1107
01:41:04,690 --> 01:41:09,730
know the, I mean, you're not, they're still not room to put an ADU to get to that bonus,

1108
01:41:10,150 --> 01:41:15,290
you know, hard, you know, maximum, hard surface.

1109
01:41:19,380 --> 01:41:25,020
So, I think what I'm proposing is not, see if I got you right, I'm not, there already

1110
01:41:25,020 --> 01:41:29,300
is an exemption to add the ADU, and then you go to 60% what I'm trying to do is raise

1111
01:41:29,300 --> 01:41:34,940
the ceiling that you can not have to have the exemption so you can just build a house larger than

1112
01:41:34,940 --> 01:41:40,200
1300 square feet because 1300 square feet is really small. I have three kids. That doesn't fit my

1113
01:41:40,200 --> 01:41:48,660
family. But it's a 1300-foot footprint. It could be two stories. Not if I have a child who has a

1114
01:41:48,660 --> 01:41:53,100
disability or is in a wheelchair and things like that. There's a lot of people that can't have two

1115
01:41:53,100 --> 01:41:56,180
story. As previous comment of her and all their

1116
01:41:56,180 --> 01:42:02,600
community, I get restrictions. Well, it's, I mean, it also

1117
01:42:02,600 --> 01:42:07,820
gear up assuming like a really long driveway, what if you have a short

1118
01:42:07,820 --> 01:42:13,300
driveway, then you you have more room for house or you forego the

1119
01:42:13,300 --> 01:42:20,500
back patio. And I mean, you could have more house. If you make

1120
01:42:20,500 --> 01:42:25,520
different choices? I know. I think you

1121
01:42:28,470 --> 01:42:31,190
guys don't understand how small it's 6,000 square foot

1122
01:42:31,190 --> 01:42:31,810
lot is.

1123
01:42:34,900 --> 01:42:41,340
I always speak from personal experience. I think my lot that is still vacant is about 7,000

1124
01:42:41,340 --> 01:42:48,070
square feet. I have a super short driveway that gets to the garage at the very front of the property

1125
01:42:48,770 --> 01:42:55,150
and I had to reduce the overhangs at my house because I was too far over and my house,

1126
01:42:55,150 --> 01:43:00,950
including the garage is like 1,400 square feet and it's not large and it's I am at the

1127
01:43:00,950 --> 01:43:03,350
what are all maximum of 40%.

1128
01:43:07,900 --> 01:43:12,000
I'm imagining a scenario that goes to what you're

1129
01:43:12,000 --> 01:43:16,700
speaking to that my elderly parents want to move in with me and I want to have a

1130
01:43:16,700 --> 01:43:22,800
mother-in-law suite if you will. If I if I equip that portion of my home with a

1131
01:43:22,800 --> 01:43:28,500
kitchen that qualifies per the definition but we share the rest of the spaces in

1132
01:43:28,500 --> 01:43:31,600
in the home, is that considered in ADU

1133
01:43:31,600 --> 01:43:34,840
or does it have to be a completely separate unit

1134
01:43:35,520 --> 01:43:36,980
without shared other spaces?

1135
01:43:42,040 --> 01:43:43,420
One moment, let me look up the definition

1136
01:43:43,420 --> 01:43:44,540
of accessory dwelling unit.

1137
01:43:45,580 --> 01:43:49,020
I would also think too that most of the lots in the city

1138
01:43:49,020 --> 01:43:51,960
that are not developed are not developed for a reason

1139
01:43:51,960 --> 01:43:53,860
which is that they're on challenging terrain

1140
01:43:54,600 --> 01:43:56,500
and other aspects like that

1141
01:43:57,240 --> 01:44:00,160
where you would need more flexibility in the way

1142
01:44:00,160 --> 01:44:05,880
that the design or that lot has approached to make it a feasible construction thing.

1143
01:44:07,280 --> 01:44:13,080
I understand you're concerned that we don't want to have a major development then on the other

1144
01:44:13,080 --> 01:44:19,360
side of the highway of several hundred homes that are now on 8,000 square foot lots as I have 6,000

1145
01:44:19,360 --> 01:44:26,820
square foot lots. I guess I'm thinking from the in fill lots which are the concern of the most

1146
01:44:26,820 --> 01:44:32,940
average person is they're thinking about their own private house not from the

1147
01:44:32,940 --> 01:44:39,400
developer aspect of coming in and building 500 homes. So I know we have to weigh

1148
01:44:39,400 --> 01:44:45,800
both of those which I know. People buy building individual homes for

1149
01:44:45,800 --> 01:44:51,160
themselves as is a way less and smaller number and it's not really going to

1150
01:44:51,160 --> 01:44:55,280
affect the housing numbers that we're trying to target overall because it's

1151
01:44:55,280 --> 01:44:59,200
you like two or three home to gear versus the developer coming in and built the 200.

1152
01:45:00,880 --> 01:45:24,780
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.

1153
01:45:26,160 --> 01:45:33,480
to that a 40% max hard since 2004 at least.

1154
01:45:33,960 --> 01:45:37,800
I'm going with that. I'm going to double check that.

1155
01:45:38,440 --> 01:45:47,220
I mean, we have had a lot of house built since 2004 and a lot of single family built since 2004.

1156
01:45:47,620 --> 01:45:51,680
So I don't know what what has been our minimum lot size up to this point.

1157
01:45:52,340 --> 01:45:56,880
Our mental and lot size was 7,000 square feet, a huge chunk of the development that you've

1158
01:45:56,880 --> 01:45:59,380
seen in the community is in Gig Harbor, North.

1159
01:46:00,080 --> 01:46:05,660
Those are in specialized zones called PCD, which again, allowed for additional flexibility

1160
01:46:05,660 --> 01:46:12,420
based upon a holistic master plan, so those aren't necessarily apples to apples in comparisons.

1161
01:46:12,840 --> 01:46:18,160
And we're going to be working on PCD, they were kind of excluded from this code.

1162
01:46:20,000 --> 01:46:23,340
they are in this code. So they have,

1163
01:46:23,520 --> 01:46:24,300
where they're going to be,

1164
01:46:24,420 --> 01:46:28,100
other changes to that's the later down the road.

1165
01:46:28,380 --> 01:46:31,520
That's the downtown business zone, the Judson sub area,

1166
01:46:32,180 --> 01:46:33,360
the PCD zones.

1167
01:46:34,040 --> 01:46:35,300
Yeah, the piece,

1168
01:46:35,460 --> 01:46:37,380
but that's planned community development.

1169
01:46:37,760 --> 01:46:43,040
Those three zones have a lot of specific code that's required to them,

1170
01:46:43,080 --> 01:46:44,300
that's related to master planning.

1171
01:46:45,440 --> 01:46:48,680
So again, not really an apples to apples comparison.

1172
01:46:49,200 --> 01:46:52,000
The accessory dwelling unit going back to your original question.

1173
01:46:52,220 --> 01:46:58,500
Yes, if you have a separate kitchen and you don't have to totally disconnect the unit from the other,

1174
01:46:59,760 --> 01:47:02,600
there are some fire code and some other issues that you'll need to address.

1175
01:47:03,020 --> 01:47:09,120
But the definition of accessory dwelling unit does not require it to be an entirely independent unit like Duplex,

1176
01:47:09,120 --> 01:47:14,360
which is what I described previously and I will do a little bit of research here on exactly

1177
01:47:14,360 --> 01:47:23,270
what the ordinance date on some of these hard-scape questions are.

1178
01:47:24,450 --> 01:47:30,490
I agree with the comments that I think that most of what we're discussing

1179
01:47:31,930 --> 01:47:37,290
is about somebody who's going to be, you know, somebody who's going to occupy the dwelling

1180
01:47:37,290 --> 01:47:51,050
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.

1181
01:47:51,570 --> 01:47:59,530
I don't see on the information that we've been given where at 6,100 square feet, you have enough.

1182
01:47:59,530 --> 01:48:29,210
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.

1183
01:48:29,210 --> 01:48:33,630
Well, you also created a dwelling unit that potentially could be used down the road.

1184
01:48:33,870 --> 01:48:40,690
It might not be used immediately, but the provisions are there to increase the density down the road.

1185
01:48:40,870 --> 01:48:41,650
Yeah, agreed to.

1186
01:48:42,650 --> 01:48:53,190
Is there a separate thing where we could limit the, you call it a PCD versus a PUD development?

1187
01:48:56,410 --> 01:49:01,470
If people are subdividing land, they can utilize the plan due to developments in those

1188
01:49:01,470 --> 01:49:02,030
types of things.

1189
01:49:02,250 --> 01:49:06,690
If they aren't subdividing, I think a lot of this conversation is related to existing

1190
01:49:06,690 --> 01:49:13,330
lots that live down in the historic district, which actually is only about a third of all the

1191
01:49:13,330 --> 01:49:15,670
R1 and R2 zoning in the city.

1192
01:49:16,350 --> 01:49:20,650
Those areas do have height requirements and all the statements made, the height requirements

1193
01:49:20,650 --> 01:49:27,530
are a definite impediment, though there is a lot of remaining land that likely is where

1194
01:49:27,530 --> 01:49:33,530
the subdivisions are going to live, and those subdivisions really are either here at the

1195
01:49:33,530 --> 01:49:38,350
6 to 8,000. I guess from staff's perspective, we aren't as concerned about the numbers

1196
01:49:38,350 --> 01:49:44,650
applied to existing lots as we are to folks who are going to be subdividing new lots, and

1197
01:49:44,650 --> 01:49:52,190
are done so at 8,000 square feet, that is a whole bunch of new larger homes that may

1198
01:49:52,190 --> 01:49:57,550
not necessarily be consistent with housing affordability, though we entirely concur with

1199
01:49:57,550 --> 01:50:02,550
the needs of our disabled and senior communities needing some place to downsize to.

1200
01:50:03,230 --> 01:50:09,010
The Rosedale cottages are an excellent example of that, that type of development is entirely

1201
01:50:09,820 --> 01:50:10,170
allowed.

1202
01:50:11,570 --> 01:50:30,310
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.

1203
01:50:31,190 --> 01:50:35,570
But we'd have to be able to show some kind of nexus between the two of those as to exactly

1204
01:50:35,570 --> 01:50:39,970
why one would be different than the other from a land use perspective, not necessarily

1205
01:50:39,970 --> 01:50:44,910
just a scale scenario.

1206
01:50:45,910 --> 01:50:52,050
We tried to do that when we established the PCD zones in Ging Harbor North because we wanted

1207
01:50:52,050 --> 01:50:54,330
to make sure that that area was substantially different.

1208
01:50:55,350 --> 01:50:59,650
But when you're doing it inside an existing development, nexus becomes a concern.

1209
01:51:00,710 --> 01:51:06,770
I have a question. If we're talking about R1 zoning, anyway, and it's only allowed up to

1210
01:51:07,570 --> 01:51:13,730
four units, then isn't kind of the concern about it preventing the subdivisions being split up,

1211
01:51:13,730 --> 01:51:18,450
kind of irrelevant to the amendment I'm trying to propose, because I'm only making an amendment

1212
01:51:19,110 --> 01:51:25,970
to R1 zones that only allows up to four units in the first place per acre. So I mean, the other,

1213
01:51:25,970 --> 01:51:32,630
I'm not proposing that we change any other of the lot sizes, so only referencing to single family lots anyway

1214
01:51:32,630 --> 01:51:40,350
Not trying to reference to subdivisions letting being split up, but just to the fact that I don't think a 13th or square

1215
01:51:40,350 --> 01:51:45,870
capping the ability to build pass a 13th or square foot is reasonable. I

1216
01:51:45,870 --> 01:51:50,130
Would like to also comment that this was the original when we came in here back in August

1217
01:51:50,130 --> 01:51:52,710
It was all rolled up together in the first place

1218
01:51:52,710 --> 01:51:57,810
But it was only proposed later as a way to prevent people from abusing the new opportunities.

1219
01:51:58,630 --> 01:52:02,850
And so it was, wasn't unreasonable a few weeks ago, if that makes sense.

1220
01:52:03,010 --> 01:52:07,330
And so I'm just asked, I just think to increase that amount for only single family, not for

1221
01:52:07,330 --> 01:52:07,810
sub division.

1222
01:52:07,810 --> 01:52:13,850
So just to clarify, I apologize if I made the sound like I, like the proposal was unreasonable.

1223
01:52:14,330 --> 01:52:17,690
I didn't mean, I didn't mean anything by anything like that.

1224
01:52:17,690 --> 01:52:24,110
But the downside is that once you actually make this decision, you're making it for all

1225
01:52:24,110 --> 01:52:25,110
new building permits.

1226
01:52:25,670 --> 01:52:30,790
So right now you have existing set of lots today.

1227
01:52:31,450 --> 01:52:35,530
But when subdivisions come on, and then when people come in for the individual developments,

1228
01:52:35,710 --> 01:52:37,210
this code will apply to them as well.

1229
01:52:38,030 --> 01:52:42,390
The only way not to do that is if you establish a date, and then if you establish a date, you

1230
01:52:42,390 --> 01:52:43,730
have to go back to the Nexus.

1231
01:52:44,130 --> 01:52:47,130
Why is this date the important one?

1232
01:52:47,130 --> 01:52:52,850
And again, that everything that you folks are talking about is great.

1233
01:52:53,030 --> 01:52:54,550
We're just really here to sit and listen.

1234
01:53:04,660 --> 01:53:08,080
Were there any other amendments or proposals?

1235
01:53:09,100 --> 01:53:13,020
In general, usually someone has to call the question on this amendment,

1236
01:53:13,340 --> 01:53:18,040
in which case then it gets voted on, or people can amend the amendment.

1237
01:53:18,480 --> 01:53:26,280
I guess some confused, we didn't do that one the last one, but the last one is

1238
01:53:26,280 --> 01:53:31,440
rolled into the main motion at the end. She duplicated a lot of the main

1239
01:53:31,440 --> 01:53:35,400
motion in her amendment, so now they're all kind of waiting at the end.

1240
01:53:35,580 --> 01:53:43,240
All right. Well, so we call a question then we vote on this 6,000, 8,000

1241
01:53:43,240 --> 01:53:46,270
Okay, well I'll call a question then.

1242
01:53:48,940 --> 01:53:52,560
I guess I'll use all those in favor.

1243
01:53:53,120 --> 01:53:53,880
Say aye.

1244
01:53:55,020 --> 01:53:55,540
Aye.

1245
01:53:56,480 --> 01:53:56,500
Aye.

1246
01:53:56,500 --> 01:53:56,640
Aye.

1247
01:53:57,580 --> 01:53:57,760
Aye.

1248
01:53:58,040 --> 01:53:58,320
Aye.

1249
01:53:59,060 --> 01:53:59,340
Aye.

1250
01:53:59,740 --> 01:53:59,900
Aye.

1251
01:54:01,300 --> 01:54:01,960
Aye.

1252
01:54:02,840 --> 01:54:03,060
Aye.

1253
01:54:03,380 --> 01:54:03,480
Aye.

1254
01:54:06,700 --> 01:54:07,360
Aye.

1255
01:54:07,360 --> 01:54:08,420
amendment passes.

1256
01:54:12,340 --> 01:54:21,700
So we will amend. So now we still have the motion for it is to see if anyone else

1257
01:54:21,700 --> 01:54:24,440
wants to make any additional any additional amendments.

1258
01:54:41,120 --> 01:54:45,000
You're in none. Yeah, you'd call the question

1259
01:54:45,000 --> 01:54:51,560
on the main motion and the amendment. All the question then on the main motion on the amendment.

1260
01:54:51,560 --> 01:54:52,200
all

1261
01:54:56,270 --> 01:55:24,630
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.

1262
01:55:24,630 --> 01:55:32,530
table with the 8,000 square foot change, all of which will now be documented in this table.

1263
01:55:33,390 --> 01:55:41,330
And what we'll do is we will very quickly document these and if the chair and I can hang

1264
01:55:41,330 --> 01:55:43,910
out for a little bit, we can get you to sign the document.

1265
01:55:44,210 --> 01:55:48,390
Okay, and then that will be forwarded to Council as our recommendation.

1266
01:55:49,710 --> 01:55:50,230
Yes.

1267
01:55:50,230 --> 01:55:58,890
Yes. And I just want to thank you. Code is the most arduous thing to go through. So I appreciate

1268
01:55:58,890 --> 01:56:05,010
your patience with me. And all the thought that you've put into this, again, like I've

1269
01:56:05,010 --> 01:56:07,870
said before, I love work with you guys.

1270
01:56:09,630 --> 01:56:13,770
Thanks, Eric. So that said, any new business,

1271
01:56:20,160 --> 01:56:25,780
any new business in or I guess we will

1272
01:56:25,780 --> 01:56:30,480
will then plan to meet again on our normal schedule time?

1273
01:56:32,140 --> 01:56:35,540
The benefit from you folks concluding today

1274
01:56:36,000 --> 01:56:38,900
is that the 17th you folks are free

1275
01:56:39,480 --> 01:56:41,360
with a return in October,

1276
01:56:41,840 --> 01:56:45,560
starting with phase two B of co-development.

1277
01:56:46,480 --> 01:56:47,460
Okay, thank you.

1278
01:56:47,520 --> 01:56:50,040
Well, with that, is there a motion to adjourn?

1279
01:56:50,300 --> 01:56:51,140
Motion to adjourn.

1280
01:56:51,360 --> 01:56:51,840
I have a second.

1281
01:56:52,400 --> 01:56:53,000
Second.

1282
01:56:53,420 --> 01:56:54,700
All those in favor say aye.

1283
01:56:54,700 --> 01:56:55,060
Bye.

1284
01:56:55,060 --> 01:56:55,320
Bye.

1285
01:56:55,320 --> 01:56:55,520
Bye.