[0:05] All right, I've got 630 on the dot, so we will call to order the finding commission, regular meeting for September 14, 2016. We'll start with the roll call.

[0:17] Eric Warner, Richard Craig, Josh Canabi, Patrick Costerman, we know Doug is out today, Gabrielle

[0:29] Braley, and Michelle Petterson here.

[0:37] All right, so our local, then we'll start with the introduction of our members.

[0:43] Sure she can start with our introductions.

[0:45] We just off.

[0:46] Thank you.

[0:47] We're excited to introduce Chris Holland.

[0:51] He comes to us from the City of Mary's Tool.

[0:55] And he has our new planning manager from the City.

[0:59] So he comes to us with quite a bit of experience.

[1:03] Mary's Bill is a good-sized city with a lot of growth.

[1:07] So he has been a fan for about 20 plus years.

[1:11] 25 years with Mary's Will, two weeks away, so I'm going to listen here.

[1:16] So Chris, do you want to just say a few words by yourself?

[1:19] Sure.

[1:20] So Chris Holland, born and raised an average, I said, I, my first planning job, I got a degree

[1:28] from Eastern Washington University in urban region planning, and my first planning job was actually

[1:33] with Mary from Triumph, I was at it for two meters in her.

[1:37] I moved over to Mary'sville and gradually worked my way up as a finding manager.

[1:41] I was a finding manager for, I could get at the last 16 years there.

[1:45] So, as far as land use reviews and things like that go,

[1:50] I'm pretty experienced, I think.

[1:53] Over the last four years, I permitted over 5 million square feet of industrial space

[1:57] and in Mary'sville and all sorts of choppy centers.

[2:02] A lot of dealers that code amendments and all that.

[2:07] So anyways, I hope to bring my experience to the stand with and help the traditional way I can.

[2:13] It's great to be here, you know, all of you.

[2:16] My pretty client, which means it is my seven weeks.

[2:19] Thank you very much.

[2:20] Welcome.

[2:22] Yeah, we were pretty excited to have Chris join us.

[2:28] We did this side to change the senior plan and position to the planning and planning manager

[2:34] to help us with some transitional planning and transitional staffing, so we're excited to have it.

[2:46] You'll be seeing a lot more of you as a year goes on.

[2:53] All right.

[2:55] Let's see.

[2:56] Public request and comments.

[2:57] Anybody online?

[2:58] I do not.

[2:59] I have nobody in the room.

[3:02] Promote the minutes.

[3:03] Plenty commission meeting minutes.

[3:04] From 7.13, 20.26, are there any additions, corrections, additions?

[3:12] Everybody love it.

[3:15] There are motion to accept the minutes as written.

[3:20] I make a motion.

[3:22] Set the minutes as written.

[3:24] So we have motion to accept the final commission minutes as written.

[3:28] You have a second.

[3:30] Oh, I'm bigger.

[3:31] But I'm in your post.

[3:34] All right.

[3:34] We will accept the financial mission minutes for 7, 13, 20, 20, 20,

[3:42] Un-init business.

[3:43] So I don't have anything to miss it for unfinished business.

[3:47] So we can roll into our new business, starting with the legislative code

[3:51] amendments.

[3:52] Board of Fisher.

[3:53] Thank you.

[3:57] Just to, just to back up just a little bit of unfinished business.

[4:01] we're still working on in climate change work that you've been discussing the last couple months.

[4:09] So probably we've been bringing stuff back to you in terms of policies and that October.

[4:15] So you're not done with that, but these are not so work to do, just get in a break that's

[4:20] loud. So new business, what we're doing is, hopefully finishing out some of the last pieces of

[4:29] municipal code of the project. We have about four pieces that has left and now we're going

[4:35] to talk about the legislative code of admit and the parking code of admit that. So I did break

[4:43] and break them down into two different presentations but they're going to be in your packet

[4:47] and this is what I'm really glad we're processing them at the same time. However, they're not

[4:59] time. So if we want to process a legislative member full differently from the party, we can

[5:06] do that. As you may recall, some of them because that we've had in the past had to be processed

[5:13] together, because it was a lot of interplay between them. That's not the case with these two.

[5:20] So Audrey has put up the presentation and you should have a copy of the presentation in front of you.

[5:28] So make a little easier for you to follow along with.

[5:32] And so as we sit on the agenda,

[5:36] we're going to start with our legislative code amendments.

[5:40] Our legislative code amendments are really a procedural code pretty much in terms of how do we process changes to our

[5:50] or municipal code in those type of things.

[5:55] So the legislative code on it, we've broken it into five different sub-sexuals.

[6:01] The first one is our zoning and unified development code amendment.

[6:05] So it's basically how do we amend the code?

[6:08] Most of you have been through this process.

[6:12] A lot to last two and a half years, so we shouldn't be surprised.

[6:15] We're doing that.

[6:17] And then the comprehensive plan and then the process.

[6:20] And you may recall we adopted the compound in 2024.

[6:25] And that was a quite a lengthy process.

[6:28] But the code really couldn't spell out all the steps that we need to do to

[6:33] adopt any amendments to our code and our pipeline.

[6:38] The next one is annexations.

[6:41] The city doesn't has a process, a lot of annexations

[6:44] in the last few years, I think we've had one annexation in the eight years, eight and

[6:50] half years I've been here. We have another one that's potentially coming our way, and so the

[6:57] annexation process really describes only one process, and the multiple processes that are

[7:04] allowed by state law, because it's one that's used the most.

[7:09] So, specific reasons and development agreements are in this code package.

[7:15] We're going to have this necessarily legislative, and they were, some of these were getting a little mixed up in our existing code, so we broke them out,

[7:23] and so each one has its own set of rules and processes to follow.

[7:27] There's probably some overlap in terms of those.

[7:30] Processes, but at least we're not confusing. Is this a kind of movement and is this a result, you know, those type of thing?

[7:38] Which we have those type of conversations in the past.

[7:43] So the intent is to really separate and have distinct consequences for each one, and so it helps eliminate a lot of confusion.

[7:54] So, the existing code, as you've been recall, we're moving with a lot of this leftover

[8:00] to handle 18.

[8:02] I need to do a five-development code.

[8:04] This is no different.

[8:06] You can see we have an existing 17155156 and 158.

[8:12] It really touched the lot of these legislative changes.

[8:15] The site specific reasons were invented in the code of maintenance process for

[8:19] So we talk about codependence and type of that results or map changes and it was really messy and so another reason why they're separating it out.

[8:29] And then development and treatments were elsewhere in the coded multiple places.

[8:36] So what you're going to see here in this is the general provision.

[8:41] includes the legislative actions and then the site specific

[8:46] resource development payments as part of the permitting process.

[8:54] I don't know if I'll be recall but we did redo the permit process.

[8:57] That was one of our very first things that we did in the United

[9:00] Development Code and we identified those specific items of the council

[9:06] had a forwarding over and that was the site specific

[9:09] reasons for the development of the climate. And those are really the only two permit

[9:13] actions they have action, because it really is they have discretion over those actions,

[9:21] whereas other permit decisions are, if it makes code, we have to improve them. And so those

[9:26] were the type 1, 2, and 3s.

[9:31] So I'm going to go through the legislative code amendment and each one

[9:38] And if you want to ask questions in between you can, otherwise we could go through it until I get to be in.

[9:44] Valerie, I'm comfortable with you now.

[9:47] So the first legislative code event that we have before you is the code implement process itself.

[9:55] But if there's a picture on our website that has our municipal code on it, you can see there's 18 pedals in there.

[10:02] But this section really focuses on Title 17 and Title 18.

[10:11] So just to clarify, you're like, oh, we're moving everything over to 18. Why are we keeping 17? Title 17, we're keeping me because at the end of all of this will be the shoreline regulations and also be separate.

[10:24] And so we have to keep that title as well.

[10:27] I have some kind of general questions I laid out that's pretty similar to all of the five

[10:34] sections.

[10:35] It's really who can initiate an amendment?

[10:39] Code amendments?

[10:41] And we'll put in our component amendments.

[10:44] These are public documents.

[10:45] They are created and adopted by the Council policies of what are community wants and we'll be

[10:57] What is in the policies and guidance of our component?

[11:03] And it should reflect that in the component process,

[11:07] and the intent is to reflect the desires of the community.

[11:11] As a planning commission, you can sort of sign our appointed

[11:16] to be those representatives of our community to bring in

[11:22] concerns or thoughts or comments or anything like that

[11:25] that will help guide the development of these codes.

[11:30] So why do we do them?

[11:31] We have a lot of reasons why code events happen.

[11:34] Cones are not typically,

[11:37] let's get us a static.

[11:38] They're pretty stable, but there are reasons to change codes.

[11:43] That has, you've experienced a lot of this

[11:46] over the last few years,

[11:47] where I keep saying, the state's still this,

[11:48] we gotta do this.

[11:51] That was just a second point,

[11:52] interest conference last week and they were talking about over the last five years, the

[11:58] legislature has adopted like 27 housing bills. So a lot of work, a lot of changes in a

[12:06] lot. And so we do a lot of work to implement those cuts when we're here, but it's

[12:12] state regulations or federal regulations or implementing policies of a complaint. So there's

[12:22] The code itself has a list of the criteria for approval of the code of minutes.

[12:31] When you see your findings of that, then it's typically attached to the tail end of

[12:38] our ordinances.

[12:39] There's a section in it that says criteria.

[12:42] And we list those criteria.

[12:44] And when you're adopting, or if you should say adopting, when you're recommending a adoption

[12:49] to the city council that criteria is really important.

[12:54] You know, we drafted for you, but if you have changes or suggestions, that's what we want to use.

[13:01] So, and they really, um, are around consistency with the public health and safety,

[13:09] say, lost federal laws and public policies.

[13:13] And then finally, what is the process?

[13:16] So,

[13:20] for the Title 17 and Title 18, you're always still still the planning commission.

[13:27] So the planning commission, as I mentioned, your job is really to review that and make comments

[13:33] and suggestions about, what is the effect on the community, what are you hearing from the community?

[13:39] What do you want the city to look like in five years or 10 years?

[13:43] And that's really what your job is to make that recommendation.

[13:47] And then those recommendations go to the council.

[13:51] And when I say for the most part, that's what you do.

[13:54] Because there are sections of the municipal code, you know,

[13:58] at Title 1, 4, 8, whatever.

[14:01] Those amendments, who go directly to council,

[14:04] enable their own public hearing.

[14:06] But the built environment is a lot of what you look at as planning delicious.

[14:12] You

[14:17] have any questions about COVID-19

[14:21] in your old life, or some of some of some of the

[14:24] things.

[14:26] The next one is the coppire, and it really has something very similar, and I'm not going

[14:32] to go through all the details on this because there's almost verbatim, but one of the things

[14:37] that's important is when we look at our coppire, our coppire is a 20-year look into

[14:43] the future, and we have to update the coppire every time.

[14:48] We have a periodic review of the five-year period, and then the full review of the ten you did.

[14:53] But given that it's still not meant to be a static document.

[14:57] It is meant to be...

[15:00] The change and updated to follow the desires of the keeping and how we want to see it grow.

[15:07] So state law says that we can't abandon our content more than once a year.

[15:12] You know, a good cycle for minor amendments, as usually about every two years or so.

[15:21] But we do have the mandate to the five year of the ten year time.

[15:26] What I wanted to show you was that we have this content process, it's a two-step process, and the flow truck, though, we added some flow trucks to this section, because people had so many questions to fuse about the process.

[15:44] You know, it's written out in the code. It's a lot easier for some people to look at a flow truck than it is to read, you know, having a bureaucratic code.

[15:53] So we wanted to try and make that easier.

[15:56] So the first step in that process is the dotted.

[16:01] I don't know how perfect you've probably been through the dotted process,

[16:04] but we didn't do it the last couple years because we were already in the midst

[16:08] of a co-plan update.

[16:10] But the dotted is an opportunity for the public to

[16:16] formally request changes to either the codependent process,

[16:22] and we are in the process of opening up that dot get right now.

[16:26] And we've we sent it out for two months to allow for people to suggest changes.

[16:33] And then we take those changes or those requests that we analyze and consider how does it trick with a

[16:46] And then we bring us forward, we click about, we bring forward to the planning commission and you have an opportunity to review those and comment on and make recommendations whether this is something

[17:01] of a viable project or a viable request that we should do something with or maybe it's not

[17:08] something that we want to pursue at this time. And then we take that recommendation to the

[17:16] Council and then the Council holds a hearing on the document I'm going to ask. So that document

[17:23] includes the public requests, as I said, but also the city can come from staff, become from

[17:31] the planning commission, and so it can include all requests for amendments. So if the council

[17:37] approves that, gocket list, this is where some people get confused. It's not approval of the request.

[17:46] It's an approval of that request to move forward as part of the complement of the process.

[17:53] So then, because of the initial review that we do, it's like, is this something we should

[17:58] do or is this not something we did?

[18:00] We don't put the amount of the energy and analysis into the bucket that we do to the

[18:06] complement.

[18:08] And so, if it gets put on the final bucket, that means all of those items are going to get

[18:14] the in-depth evaluation, analysis, and recommendations to the plan and permission.

[18:22] And then we go through that whole compound process where we do analysis, we can see if I

[18:27] reviewed a statement or a bit of policy I've reviewed on it, but I can mention the public hearing,

[18:34] make sure our recommendation and then it goes to council, council, holds the public hearing,

[18:40] and then makes a final decision.

[18:42] So that's kind of a big picture.

[18:44] That process could take several years or one of the smaller in between years, you know,

[18:52] that could take about a year to get through that whole cycle.

[18:58] You may have seen stuff at the county level.

[19:00] They take a couple years.

[19:02] They usually have really big issues on their document.

[19:05] So that could take a while.

[19:08] So that's kind of a complicated process.

[19:13] There are more questions on that.

[19:18] You're also smarter though.

[19:21] So the next one I've got is annexations.

[19:26] The planning commission may sometimes get involved with annexations and may not

[19:31] other times.

[19:33] As you may recall with the content of amendment, we adopted pre-zoning for a Rubin

[19:43] assist it with the proposed zoning in that area, don't have to go through the planning

[19:52] commission process, but if they're proposing changes to the cloud plan, maybe they're changing

[19:58] the zoning to their changing,

[20:04] the land use designation for the cloud plan, all that has to

[20:08] through that content process. And so you may see requests that are part of an annexation.

[20:18] annexation, as I mentioned, we had the state has several types of annexation,

[20:26] or code is focused mostly on the petition method. And the petition method is where you have certain

[20:33] percent of the property owners that own either 10% of the assessed value within that

[20:41] but within that expectation or 60%. So you can say the 10% or the 60% petition. So the

[20:49] initial one is 10%. So you'd have to get 10% of the property owners valuation.

[21:02] That's

[21:03] those people who own 10% of the valuation.

[21:10] That's clear, because it gets a little confusing

[21:12] to the public's inputs. So that goes forward. They submit that and then that goes to the council.

[21:19] The council holds a public meeting on that and considers whether or not they wish to

[21:24] move to proceed with the annexation. annexations are always council discretion. They can

[21:32] prove it or not approve it at any point in this process.

[21:38] So after that public meeting and say they accept the petition,

[21:43] the 10% then it goes back to the developer or property

[21:48] on whoever is proposed to you.

[21:50] Then they have to get 60% of the assessed value for the signatures.

[21:57] And then it goes after that, it goes to a public hearing with the council.

[22:04] If the council accepts it at that time, they approved typically a resolution that goes.

[22:12] It's excuse me, it's a resolution of the city's intent to annex.

[22:17] And that goes to the boundary of the board.

[22:20] The boundary of the board, it's the most kind of boundary of the board, has two options.

[22:24] They look at it and say, yes, it's a success.

[22:32] And we don't need to have a hearing on it and we can send a letter to our support. Or they can decide to hold their own public hearing and go through that process.

[22:41] The last annexation we had, it was a pop-up, an idiot, one property owner was within

[22:50] the side, our urban growth area, and the boundary of the board declined to do a hearing

[22:56] and just sent us a letter saying, yes, go ahead and report.

[23:01] But it really is up to them, they give to me that decision.

[23:03] And once the boundary viewboard reviews it, it goes back to the council and then the council

[23:11] adopts an ordinance, accepting the annexation.

[23:18] So at that point, the council is not obligated to accept it, they could still deny it at

[23:23] that point, but it's quite a waste to the process, but they do have got that right.

[23:32] And then what's the ordinance adopted? Then it goes through and we have to notify the state when you set it back to the county and all of the legal boundaries of the city get changed.

[23:45] So it's quite an end up the process.

[23:48] It can take, I think the last one we did, it took a little over a year to do.

[23:55] And it was a pretty simple one.

[23:57] There's a lot of work at a finding, or at this level,

[24:01] at a state level, to try and find easier ways

[24:07] to do that annexation.

[24:09] The intent of the Gross Management Act

[24:11] is that our urban group values, the city,

[24:15] annexes up to our urban group values, not beyond the exit.

[24:20] A lot of cities are not annexing those areas.

[24:24] There's a lot of reasons for that, a lot of financial reasons for that.

[24:30] So there is some talk of the administrative level about user ways to want to make the process easier.

[24:39] And then is there a way to make it a little more financially viable?

[24:44] which was a who determines the urban growth area or what determines the urban

[24:50] areas of the city. Is that the state? Is the state say this is how far you

[24:56] can go or question. So when the growth of natural act was adopted, I think the

[25:07] First, initialist was 1990, and then there was a big fall of 2001.

[25:14] So after GMA was adopted, all the cities and counties got together and really looked

[25:21] at our boundaries and potential growth.

[25:26] So 1990, what is that 30 years ago?

[25:29] Those urban growth boundaries were set then, okay, one time, one, two, five, four.

[25:37] And what's happened is through that document process that we talked about in the top line.

[25:42] There's ways to request amendments to the urban growth boundaries.

[25:48] It's not easy.

[25:50] We have another layer of planning.

[25:53] You may recall when we were doing the top line.

[25:55] So, start with a group management app, and then it goes to a regional planning of a very

[26:01] process of transportation, and it's true that you just have a regional council, but it goes

[26:07] down to countywide, excuse me, pointing policies, and then it comes down to the city.

[26:14] So, there's a lot of regional and countywide policies that talk about when you can change

[26:20] those urban buildings and then we can't. And really is that maintaining the growth within the cities and not having, you know, a spillover into the regional, the rural areas.

[26:35] So those are, those are, an amendment requested a county level to change those urban buildings.

[26:44] So, an excitation can only be done within that urban closed area that is currently in place.

[26:52] Yeah, somebody could apply for it, but we wouldn't process it, we wouldn't recommend it, but that way to live.

[27:03] State law did change.

[27:05] Don't worry about the last year, you're going to allow for easier transfer of urban properties.

[27:12] This is a good example, we considered this this year.

[27:19] Our northern urban growth boundary, where shank is, when it goes down to pioneer highway.

[27:27] It's really difficult for us to get sewer out there, because of topography to inflow.

[27:35] So, maybe we should submit a request to change that urban growth boundary,

[27:40] and push it over to the east where it's easier. So, yeah, we got 64 of them, you know,

[27:47] but 32 and I'll let that make sense to do that. We decided not to do that this year,

[27:55] maybe something that the city might want to consider either of the five year update of the 10 year.

[28:02] But the state allowed for equal transfer.

[28:07] right yeah so there's some little bit of flexibility that's coming to

[28:12] some of the state laws I don't I don't expect that they will allow for expansion

[28:22] of UGA's in this next cycle. The push at the state level has been up, not out.

[28:33] Yeah. And you see that a lot with the last conference update that they really were pushing

[28:41] population in our transportation corridors. You know, we're putting a lot of money into

[28:47] rapid transit the sounder and all of that. So that's what it really pushed a lot of the

[28:53] world.

[28:59] I do want to note that I just want to make it clear that this,

[29:07] well, chart has

[29:08] a couple of years ago, because it's so 60% of the property owners. It means 360% of the

[29:15] system value. So Mickey and her office is making some changes to their settings and how

[29:21] quite yet. So what I was telling you about the evaluation and what's on the chart for

[29:28] the different.

[29:36] So now the next couple are the type 4 council improvements. The

[29:44] first one we've got for you is the site specific results. And let's have the

[29:49] intensity to confuse the public. There are two types of results. There's a

[29:55] It feels like it's hot in the middle. That's where if you are somebody

[30:00] Passing for change in ZOMA and co-authentic dimension of a piece of property. So it goes with a co-planet amendment, for an example.

[30:13] Somebody has a commercial piece of property, and she said it. I'm just making this happen. And they want that to be changed to residential.

[30:25] That's the compliment because you're changing the land use designation from one being put another thing.

[30:33] A site specific reason and why this is that it falls into a more of the permanent level process is if you're requesting a reason that is consistent with the compliment.

[30:48] So, I just took a snippet out of the comp plan, some of this graphic, thank you, read it.

[30:55] So, we have load and see residential, we have medium-down see residential, and you can see this two different zoning.

[31:02] So, let's just take the type one, the load and see residential. There's two zoning districts in there.

[31:07] We have it both forms of homo and a nine six-cell.

[31:12] So a scientific reason would be if somebody had a 12-folder zone property and they wanted to

[31:19] resort to a nine six.

[31:22] That doesn't require a change in the context of this patient in the same, but they're changing the zoning designation.

[31:31] Now there's so lot of different rules that you can't do, you know,

[31:36] reasons and isolation of each other and all that type of stuff.

[31:40] But that really is the difference between site-specific and content.

[31:48] This used to be more common prior to the growth management at when I first started planning.

[31:55] I don't know about Chris.

[31:56] Our content, our live content, the math was totally different than our own math, where I worked.

[32:07] There was no consistency between that.

[32:12] So, so those type of reasons happen a little bit more often.

[32:17] Now, with the graph management act that say they have to be consistent with each other,

[32:24] more rare.

[32:24] I don't, I don't think that process decides to submit the result in 15 years.

[32:32] I think it's going to quite well.

[32:37] So that is a permanent process.

[32:40] It goes, that process would go through a planning commission review and recommendation,

[32:46] and then with the Council final action on that.

[32:49] So that's why it's a type for it.

[32:51] Again, anything that changes your comp plan for your zoning, anything like that is always

[32:56] to go to the council at the end of the day.

[33:00] And then the next one is a development agreement.

[33:05] A development agreement is really focused on one particular project.

[33:12] Maybe multiple lots, but it's a project that's being done by the developer.

[33:17] And it is a creation of a contract between that developer and the city.

[33:22] We're signing this agreement, says this is what you're going to be allowed to do on this property.

[33:27] This is how you're going to develop that property, and this is how long this agreement is going to last.

[33:33] It gets recorded.

[33:36] It goes through the planning and it goes to the council.

[33:40] And then it gets recorded and it gets the property.

[33:43] So it doesn't go with the developer, it goes with the land.

[33:46] So the developer comes in and they want to do, you know, ABC development, each and they sell it.

[33:55] that contract goes with it. You may have heard it on news, there was a bunch of stuff about

[34:02] city of Clellum. They had a developmental degree in it. It was, well, I think they signed it for

[34:09] 20 years. It was a long time and it was previous councils then a bit signed it.

[34:18] And then the developer, a new developer came in and wanted to pick up that developmental

[34:24] event and the city clearly all didn't want that anymore. And the court in the event of

[34:30] going to court and the court said, you signed this contract, this is a really, really

[34:33] binding to the contract, and you have to audit it. So cities that give a little more cautious about

[34:44] signing some of these agreements. And if they are doing that, we're just talking with my

[34:50] finder, it appears, they're talking about maybe keeping those data

[34:54] in the round of about the open print.

[34:57] So there's advantages to both sides.

[35:02] You hear from developers all the time that they

[35:05] want predictability and they want certainty.

[35:10] Developing agreements do that.

[35:12] It allows for a phased project or a product or phased

[35:16] over multiple years. It provides some certainty for a development that they come in and

[35:24] they start a project, but it might take, you know, three or four years to go through it

[35:28] at five years to go through it. He gives them that certainty.

[35:32] So the sensitivity is just benefits because we can ask for, it's a negotiation, that's a contract.

[35:38] We can ask for different things. We may ask for, you know, better.

[35:43] And only standards, I shouldn't say that.

[35:49] Architectural standards, or more open space,

[35:53] fluctuation of uses, you know, as long as they're allowed to be mental.

[35:58] So there's benefits to both sides, but it also needs to be just very carefully considered.

[36:05] Because once that document is signed, it's binding.

[36:13] And that's another reason why it's a kind of forward, because it's a contract.

[36:17] and so Council are the only ones that can bind the city to the decision.

[36:26] Okay, so that gets me through the sections of the phone.

[36:31] There are some other sections that I didn't have in the presentation.

[36:35] There's a test to do with cleaning up definitions,

[36:38] moving up the nations around and up the type of things.

[36:42] So we have two options with this one.

[36:45] I mean, we didn't, we didn't, we didn't, we didn't want to be fun.

[36:49] And I think, you know, as, you know, the introduction.

[36:53] But as I mentioned before, it's a very precise role.

[36:56] It's a heavily-related role, a regulated role.

[37:00] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[37:00] The RCW is on, but in the back.

[37:03] So, you know, we've got the revised codes,

[37:05] Washington, and Washington, and Washington.

[37:06] It's state last on how we used to be fun.

[37:09] So, we have an option, option one.

[37:13] So as we can bring it back again for a second reading for a new option too, we can bring it back for another reading but also for the public hearing of the same time.

[37:25] So what's that?

[37:26] I'm going to open it up to the additional questions.

[37:30] General circumstances, or thoughts on how you'd like to proceed.

[37:36] Let's go. The commissioner. So there's any questions about the federal material?

[37:46] No problems.

[37:49] Do you have details on what specific is changing as on your third slide that briefly covers it?

[37:56] But pretty much what you were covering is to give us a better understanding of each one of the

[38:04] effects. So,

[38:12] this we are deleting old codes and writing

[38:15] only once and we're rewriting everything so that it is reader friendly.

[38:21] It's not a lot of, it's a kind of text-free changes, it's more of its procedural,

[38:28] making sure that it was closed correctly in that pedestal. So, I'm happy to provide

[38:34] more detail on that next time, but I also have what you'll see in the, so if you go to

[38:46] exhibit a pinch 21, the same way, but

[38:52] we have two highlighters that we use on these code

[38:56] limits. One has kind of a yellow highlighter that brings out significant issues and then the

[39:07] So we don't have any yellow highlighters in these ones because it's mostly procedural and it has to do with

[39:17] What section of code did we move it from or what are we doing or if it was consistent with

[39:24] You know other procedures just looking at page 27 of 75 under the docket and it says those consolidates to make a proposal and that good

[39:36] So the section that was also rewritten in the clarity.

[39:40] So there's not a lot of significant changes.

[39:43] There's more making the code clear,

[39:50] dividing out some of the conflicting sections.

[39:54] So if you take a look at that,

[39:57] that's we purposely didn't do the track changes on use codes

[40:02] because it would have been a nightmare, but it would have been changed.

[40:08] But like in the, if you go to the parking code,

[40:18] just give me a hand, just show me the difference.

[40:22] We have quite a few proposed changes, and there's some yellow highlighters in here.

[40:27] Those are yellow highlighters, are policy issues that we need to work through.

[40:40] Yeah.

[40:40] Let's take my comment to be heard by if we move forward through a public hearing, would your

[40:45] presentation be similar?

[40:48] Because I'm always concerned, what's the public going to see with this?

[40:51] Like, are you telling me a whole bunch of policy change?

[40:54] What do you want me to get out of it?

[40:56] And I know you discussed the process, right?

[41:00] We're changing the process.

[41:01] Yeah.

[41:01] So I do like how the slides are set up to show the process.

[41:04] I don't know if I'm kind of stuck on what we would get from a public to say that works and that doesn't work or it's just like

[41:13] Do's overdoing

[41:16] That's kind of a

[41:17] We'll kind of deep back

[41:19] We'll walk from the

[41:21] Public right over here

[41:26] So the process is laid out pretty much by state law that we have to do and most time we've been making that in a reader for me

[41:34] so

[41:36] One, we have to hold a public hearing because it's a change to the municipal code that is part of the year by development curve.

[41:45] Two, I would be looking for some of these processes that don't make sense.

[41:49] It's not clear.

[41:53] There's some changes that should be added to the steps of the amendment process.

[42:02] So I'd be looking for those type of, we can't change the general practice of how do we do it in a minute, but we could certainly add additional detail if it's not clear.

[42:18] We came reword the criteria if that's not clear enough in terms of what you review it is.

[42:29] Sometimes, when we have this language about,

[42:33] it has to be, you know,

[42:34] that's to protect what I help well for and say things.

[42:37] I'm just showing that as an example.

[42:39] You know, maybe there's some desire to expand on that.

[42:44] What does that mean?

[42:46] You know, does that help?

[42:49] The process is going to stay the same.

[42:52] It's just happening.

[42:52] I think that's the process.

[42:54] The process is nothing like what changed from how we currently do things to what we're

[43:00] proposing for the change because the only change it's really obvious is like we're going

[43:04] from 17 with 18, that's just the big change, but the process itself has not changed.

[43:12] It's clearly a language, I guess one of the most significant changes, like I said was putting

[43:19] the each one of these in their own section.

[43:25] Separating out the codependent process from the

[43:31] resoul process.

[43:35] Is it all mixed sense?

[43:37] You know what I'm saying?

[43:37] I like how you have it laid out.

[43:39] I'm just looking for what would change.

[43:42] That's not the change.

[43:43] I think that's where, like, an explanation of front or something,

[43:47] that didn't really change except when from 1718,

[43:49] I'm going to go through things that like this.

[43:51] And here's not a book.

[44:01] I provide more detail for you on that.

[44:07] I guess you're looking for our option.

[44:08] We're going to go.

[44:09] Yeah, I'm happy if you want to have a greater discussion

[44:12] about that next time.

[44:14] We can do that.

[44:17] Or we could do that with a public hearing.

[44:19] And so to you, how you want to proceed?

[44:23] I would probably go with the public hearing

[44:25] but I'll let everybody else.

[44:27] I feel the same way.

[44:29] I think we could do it at the same time.

[44:33] I don't think we'll get a whole lot more out of re-reviewing this.

[44:39] We probably more of the same, but I think we go into public hearing.

[44:43] Then we sell our opportunity to ask questions if we have...

[44:45] Of course.

[44:46] And you have to always have the option to continue that public hearing as well.

[44:57] Right?

[45:00] You know, as much time as you need to review it and be comfortable with it.

[45:07] And I think public hearing would be good, but as Patrick was saying, I agree that to try to get more detail on what change, because most of the criteria is just saying that it's some vastly rewritten, but we can't see what the differences and what the benefits are.

[45:27] is what I was kind of looking for.

[45:43] I also don't want to slow down the process either.

[45:45] So I think it's going to go to public areas. Just keep it moving forward.

[45:51] There we go.

[45:53] Okay.

[45:54] So we're going to go ahead and move forward with the public hearing.

[45:58] You'd like more detail on what changes.

[46:00] And then I just heard about what is the benefits of the changes.

[46:07] So, that's what I'll put together for you in the next video just.

[46:12] Pretty good.

[46:14] That worked for you.

[46:16] Okay.

[46:28] So that wrapped up that one, and next we'll go into the $40 minute.

[46:40] Parking because it's a little more complicated.

[46:43] That's okay.

[46:48] So in general, the parking contaminants were pulling that same format.

[46:55] We're following the same guidance that we have had before.

[47:01] It's not this entire municipal code process of simplifying the language,

[47:05] the legalizing language, maybe a reader friendly.

[47:12] One of the goals that we need to look at with the preppy code is,

[47:17] you have to find the balance.

[47:20] And this, this is where it gets probably a little trickier between, we have a left parking over parking under parking.

[47:30] We're trying to find that sweet spot in the parking regulations based on different uses.

[47:36] So, this code really talks about the parking stall standards, was a dimensional required

[47:46] of parking lot development standards, as well as the number of stalls per use.

[47:57] One of the things that we are looking at there is many landscape links in the live

[48:01] protection, so that all the landscaping of one section and you don't have landscaping

[48:08] in the parking.

[48:12] So we are looking at that.

[48:18] One of our goals, as I mentioned, is to simplify

[48:23] the code as much as possible, and so parking itself. So in the legislative code, we added

[48:28] flow of trust to help people understand the process, here we've been trying to add some tables.

[48:33] to help can elicit the general damage,

[48:39] not different,

[48:41] but the dimension standards.

[48:44] So what you have here is we added a table,

[48:48] and let me see if I can,

[48:50] that's going to be in your packet,

[48:54] the summary, it's on page 49,

[48:58] but for any of you who are quoted,

[49:00] So it's on page 60 of 75.

[49:06] In the parking code, you are seeing some trap changes in some comments

[49:10] because we had it reviewed by our senior attorney.

[49:14] And I think Chris, we have some comments in for the question.

[49:17] So you can see that this one requires kind of a more

[49:22] unconcidivation before we proceed to adhering on this one.

[49:28] But the dimensional standards, we're trying to consolidate

[49:32] into one spot. So it has our regular parking standards. As a residential standards and it has

[49:38] our non-residential standards. One of the things that we made some small minor changes to when

[49:45] we were doing the missing metal housing, you might remember there was a state lot of change that said

[49:50] you couldn't, that the parking still had to be 8 by 18 where our code was 8 to help by 18. So we had

[50:01] of a parking column. And then we also added in the accessible parking

[50:07] and state numbers. I don't think that's right now in our code and stuff

[50:12] that we are crushingly talking to people about. So those are a couple of new items

[50:20] that we added to the eventual standards.

[50:25] They review our parking amendment.

[50:31] There's some things

[50:31] So it happened pretty regularly in the city in our planning department when projects come through.

[50:40] There's a section that comes in and allows for developers to ask for deviations or reductions.

[50:47] And we get this pretty, it's a pretty common request when we have an immediate and large size projects.

[50:57] And they asked to reduce the amount of parking.

[51:00] And we have two ways to do that.

[51:02] We can have them do a parking step,

[51:05] based on their particular use and

[51:10] projection of parking,

[51:12] projection of traffic.

[51:15] And we also have the ability to reduce

[51:18] the parking stop by the Institute of

[51:24] traffic engineers. We always just call it the ITE manual. And that's a really big manual. It has a

[51:33] summary of all these different uses. And I don't have like shopping malls, and then they

[51:40] could have minor shopping malls. I mean, it's a big box, a big book. Now, it has all these different

[51:45] uses that you could take down. And kind of nationalized standard number of installs or trips,

[51:52] legal trips that are generated by these type of uses.

[51:58] What we have found over the years is that our parking count

[52:03] is almost always higher than the ITE manual.

[52:09] And so we see reductions happen in quite a bit from that.

[52:15] So if the approach is that we're doing these reductions,

[52:19] then maybe we should be looking at our parking standards

[52:22] and see if they are too high and should be adjust those.

[52:26] So that's one of the items that we gave to the...

[52:30] It's on us for us to look at the parking, our parking stand and the relationship to the ITE manual to see where we fit.

[52:41] And that's that whole discussion at the very beginning of, like, how do we find the balance between what our codes are, what the ITE manuals are, you know.

[52:51] We don't want to over park the site, but we don't want to under park it either.

[52:56] So, do you have data on deviations then? Because if you say the contractors are given the deviations,

[53:03] they're actually asking for how those deviations would affect.

[53:10] Are they asking for like bigger spaces, smaller spaces?

[53:13] Smaller? Always smaller. Always smaller.

[53:16] Yeah.

[53:16] So they could fit more in.

[53:17] Yeah.

[53:19] I can put together a kind of summary of the deviations over the last five years of the next week.

[53:25] I think that'd be a great data point.

[53:27] But we've got to know what everybody's asking for versus what we're saying, the restrictions are.

[53:35] Okay. Yeah, that's a lot of time.

[53:37] That's an easy one.

[53:39] I want to be as well.

[53:48] The packet, there's a table.

[53:51] It's quite a big table.

[53:54] And that table has the uses.

[53:57] It has what the existing code is.

[53:59] has what the proposed code is and what the differences.

[54:08] So if you look at page 51 of 75,

[54:12] this looks like this building.

[54:16] And so that goes for real.

[54:20] All of the changes.

[54:23] And some of them are new uses.

[54:26] Some of them are changed.

[54:27] Some of them were deleted.

[54:28] deleted from the headband changed, but this is really kind of the bulk of what the changes are in a parking.

[54:41] So

[54:44] is that the actual table that you sent in?

[54:48] Yeah, okay.

[54:50] So we shouldn't look through this.

[54:52] We could go through this a little bit more or you can take the next month and really kind of do a deep dive into it.

[55:00] I think this is one part of the book about discussions in my life.

[55:08] In terms of the code amendment itself, there are some new sections or amended sections that we have.

[55:15] We added a section on our, or excuse me, electric vehicles.

[55:19] We didn't have that in a code before.

[55:22] That's obviously a new technology since the last time the code is updated.

[55:26] So there's information in there in terms of it's allowed as a one to one.

[55:35] So if you're required to have 10 parking spaces and you put two of those as electric vehicles is still only 10 spaces.

[55:43] So it's inclusive of those.

[55:45] There's three different levels for electric vehicles.

[55:49] There's level one through three.

[55:51] And basically is following how fast those vehicles charge.

[55:55] So level 1 is a slow level 2 is a medium and level 3 is a really fast charging, but there's some restrictions on where the fast charging can go.

[56:06] This was an interesting thing. I didn't know anything about this until it was two years

[56:11] night. Some of those fast chargers over heap, I guess, and can cost fires if we didn't

[56:20] can find space. So that's why there's only allowed in open parking lots and not in the ground

[56:27] facility. So there's a whole section on that. There's a new section on temporary parking.

[56:35] This is some things, this is a section that we added specifically because of the issues

[56:42] that were experienced over the last few years with special events, some of our parks

[56:48] and it will overflow parking.

[56:50] So we want to provide some flexibility to allow temporary parking or early to find events.

[57:01] It's a special event, whether it's to be a private event, to be a intelligent event, as well as some of our parks.

[57:13] You have been to Heritage Park when some of the games have been over, and there's like parking everywhere.

[57:21] You know, along levers around on the fields itself, it gets a little crazy, so we want

[57:28] to be able to allow some flexibility there.

[57:33] And then the down-to-how mixed use districts has had working requirements and other sections

[57:43] of the codes, so we're just going to consolidate all of the parts into that one particular place.

[57:49] We didn't make any changes, major changes to that,

[57:52] but we did pull it over from different parts of the code.

[57:59] There are some existing sections of the code

[58:03] that I would really like to highlight for you.

[58:07] So you know that we didn't get rid of these.

[58:12] So there's an upstream parking requirements

[58:14] in terms of how far away the parking styles

[58:18] have to be from the use, or that's into the code that's existing, I think it can't

[58:25] be any more than five hundred feet from the original use, and so a lot of these were just

[58:30] reworked into the flying language. We have joint use and shared property ingredients.

[58:38] So that

[58:38] could be where you have mixed use projects or really a good example of this, where you have maybe

[58:46] have a date-time use, even use, and instead of having both a date-time and even, which

[58:54] you could like double your parking requirements, it allows you to be sure parking.

[59:03] We have, we still have a parking administration, administrative parking on that, but even though

[59:11] We are looking at ITE Danielas head of the base for a parking and maybe times when administrative amendments might be necessary through a parking study.

[59:24] We also several years ago adopted an inception to allow for preservation of critical areas or trees.

[59:35] And so we're pulling, we're keeping that section, and then just standard loading areas and vehicle access.

[59:47] We just included that in the code again, just cleaned up the way we entered it.

[59:55] So that's kind of a summary of the ordinance itself.

[59:58] I'm truly excited.

[1:00:00] You guys should probably get into the details of that big table. So, it's up to you. If you want to take this home as far as working, and you guys do pretty good at that, if you want to get into the details of that table, let's say thing.

[1:00:18] I would recommend that we continue into October as part of these work sessions style and I don't think I just don't think we're ready to hold a public hearing on this yet.

[1:00:36] I'm happy to follow your answer's recommendations if you like the public comments.

[1:00:42] First, to consider that it's probably your deliberations if you do that as well.

[1:00:47] I know we did that a couple times with some of the email, let's say.

[1:00:55] Oh, Patricia heard that.

[1:00:56] I'd like to have questions.

[1:00:58] I'd like to have questions.

[1:00:59] I'd like to go around.

[1:01:01] I'd like to have questions.

[1:01:02] I'd like to have questions.

[1:01:03] I'd like to have questions.

[1:01:04] Yep.

[1:01:05] So Patricia,

[1:01:10] with ITE, is there anything that is specific to Stample?

[1:01:16] has there been any parking studies, anything outside of ITE that's specific to Stanley?

[1:01:23] The ITE is not jurisdictional, it is, it may look at all these different projects

[1:01:35] or whatever, it will come up with these kind of natural standards,

[1:01:42] we have some specific projects

[1:01:47] So parking studies that I could hold data from that.

[1:01:53] And as I, after Andre sent this out,

[1:01:57] I just heard drive and walk.

[1:02:00] And there's a big difference between personal and residential.

[1:02:04] And I think on the residential side,

[1:02:07] I honestly feel that we are under requiring parking

[1:02:15] because of how many cars are to drive ways, how much street parking is being used, and that is in

[1:02:22] every residential neighborhood. And as I was looking through the table, I'm seeing that okay,

[1:02:30] that there's a little bit of reduction, but for the most part it stays the same, where first I think that's a

[1:02:37] a little bit of a mistake. So, and, and the wise ask you, there's, there's anything specific to

[1:02:44] city of Stanwood, because I think Stanwood is very unique, where the ITE manual is not

[1:02:52] focused on us. And I think it's because Stanwood, we have restaurants and grocery stores, but

[1:02:58] some of these that run in Costa Rica, or Target, or Walmart, everybody has to drive out of town,

[1:03:03] which is fine, but there's so many houses that have cars, further I think because of the housing

[1:03:11] crisis, I think that people are staying more multi-generational and kids are staying in houses

[1:03:18] longer, so there's a lot more people staying in houses, and as a drove around Stanwood around

[1:03:26] and we'll just say the Cedar Home area.

[1:03:29] I see that, there's houses that people are parking on their lawns

[1:03:34] because there's no parking on the street available

[1:03:36] and there's so many people that live there.

[1:03:39] I see driveways that have four or five cars

[1:03:41] and then additional cars on the street.

[1:03:44] So I think that is a great time to look at parking in a hole

[1:03:52] but more on the residential side than I think we're going to

[1:03:54] we're going to have to look at that longer. Secondly, on the EV side, I like where you're doing

[1:04:02] different stages, but also I think that should have a category for EV ready in civil states

[1:04:09] that I work in with other jurisdictions. They have a requirement for EV ready, so that basically

[1:04:16] the wiring is there and up to the developer or future need that they can put in a sort of level

[1:04:23] chargert, what do I think is good to try to do?

[1:04:26] Yeah, one more thing, we didn't put in a requirement for any stations.

[1:04:33] Now, the building code requires all new buildings, like residential, all of the garages

[1:04:41] are being embedded in the building that they handle, but we didn't put in with the parking lots.

[1:04:48] Is that something that you're interested in?

[1:04:50] I think of the commercial side where you have to kind of look at that.

[1:04:55] Yeah, so state law requires certain number of eating stations. And then I thought we had

[1:05:00] reference CRCW and the co-dependent dot go back and forth. Yeah, I thought that should look at that.

[1:05:07] But anyways, it's really specific. I'm wondering what it's based on the used category

[1:05:13] and then when it's required. So we have to follow state law and as far as

[1:05:19] you in a commercial business. So we make sure we look at that as part of the

[1:05:25] review and approval process. As far as residential is concerned, unfortunately,

[1:05:30] the legislature is tired of hands. You can only require two parking stalls per second.

[1:05:35] But as we're reviewing that, we can adjust that. That's part of why we're having these discussions.

[1:05:43] Well,

[1:05:48] they were just talking about this as a binder and just talking, so like there was a code or a law, a bill that was being considered during the last legislative session that applies to cities greater than it gets 30,000, so we're not there yet.

[1:06:08] But they also represent it as we're just saying that bill's going to come back and it will be in the 27th session whether you're looking at really restricting the members, the stalls that a city can fire.

[1:06:31] So currently, the state law says we can't require more than two.

[1:06:36] Two, you have to allow for tandem parking, and you can only require one for any of you.

[1:06:44] And so that's what the code is in many of the shared access.

[1:06:47] What is the state law?

[1:06:49] So other areas we're looking at reducing it.

[1:06:53] So due places we're being reduced.

[1:06:56] There's other categories.

[1:06:58] There's dwelling in a city family, yes, that's staying up to there's no change to that.

[1:07:03] But, and I'm not an expert at it.

[1:07:06] I'm just...

[1:07:06] Okay.

[1:07:07] Drive around, going, there's a lot of people in this family.

[1:07:09] Yes.

[1:07:10] They don't use their surroundings either.

[1:07:12] So, for starters, for storage.

[1:07:16] I have to say, in my neighborhood, I've come here with a few people

[1:07:20] that are quite kind of in my garage.

[1:07:23] So, what I'll do is, we'll do a semi-a-versus state law,

[1:07:26] requirements and pull those bills and bring those.

[1:07:30] And then we'll also

[1:07:36] try to predict from our association, Washington State's and municipal research of, you know, where we think that's going to go with the 27th legislative.

[1:07:56] I think your problem addresses, they did fix that, the requirement is for a minimum, not a max of that.

[1:08:04] Because you're talking about, you know, it's like, yeah, there's a minimum of two parking spaces, but I need sex.

[1:08:10] And it says if the maximum is not addressed.

[1:08:15] I think the minimum needs to be what that further, because that's we're seeing more and more people with a single family at home and how many family homes have more than two cars.

[1:08:33] And I try to take that kind of, okay, a single family dwelling, like, okay, two cars, right, no change there, but there's people in the backyard cars, so that's where the, that's a state law, right, so we can't, we can't, we can't, we can't, we can't, we can't, we can't, we can't, we can't, we can't, so we do require the 20 video for the distance between the garage and the right way to allow it for a partner.

[1:09:02] the rest of the way in addition to the garage problems because the garage should be utilized

[1:09:09] before you go.

[1:09:10] Technically, it's happening.

[1:09:11] And you can't obstruct the sidewalk and all of the stuff they're doing.

[1:09:14] So it's the state saying it's a maximum of two cars per single family hole.

[1:09:18] And we can't require more than two per unit, but it seems like a unit in Max and

[1:09:24] what they in the unit.

[1:09:25] No, they can have big and provides lunches they like, but they're not going to, but they're

[1:09:29] going to.

[1:09:30] Yeah.

[1:09:30] It's what we also see too, which, and I think I made some notes in the codependent, is those

[1:09:39] town-home units and things like that, their garage doors on it is why it is what a park install

[1:09:46] should be. And then a lot of times they'll have like their hot water heater or stitters or

[1:09:53] the door that opens right into it and can't even actually really park a car and because it's not

[1:09:58] because of the other things that are in there, so when the reviewing building from there,

[1:10:04] it's what you need to take that into consideration as well and say, no, your garage needs to

[1:10:10] meet the minimum standards for the hard two vehicles.

[1:10:16] So, and again, I think, I think I need

[1:10:19] some notes in the combinator that,

[1:10:24] so as a suggestion to, so when we're reviewing stuff, we can go,

[1:10:31] you have to plan this. I see that same exact name, okay. So that's there. Then how does it look around the mixed use areas?

[1:10:46] Is that parking over under? Is that real crowded? That's one thing that you haven't really analyzed.

[1:10:55] I think we'll look at there.

[1:10:56] For me, I drove around the multi-use, around taco time,

[1:11:03] and I'm going to go to that area before coming here.

[1:11:09] And the parking lot seemed to be a little fuller,

[1:11:11] but not overly, not, I didn't think it was that bad,

[1:11:16] but that's a beautiful one.

[1:11:17] Yeah, we haven't received any complaints about that.

[1:11:20] I mean, it used to be a sea of parking

[1:11:23] before those next few buildings went in, you know, have all of the property had, I mean,

[1:11:31] the bank, when they did that, they had the foresight to do parking, to do parking

[1:11:38] in the greenlands along all of those. So, you know, you still have, like, just a bunch of empty parking

[1:11:46] to know they're being used and let's say they're probably around 80% full. So I don't think

[1:11:54] they're under part but they are not like in them. Yeah, I mean you can't always get a front row

[1:12:02] seat, right? Yeah. But there's a future product. I think is it called Viking Millage where

[1:12:09] that's no longer going to be in this specific building of apartments, right? Yes, so they have to

[1:12:15] part of the department, Sam, part of the town homes,

[1:12:18] and that part of the commercial uses.

[1:12:21] So the cyber-considering, at least when we reviewed it,

[1:12:26] they're utilizing the garage as an apartment space,

[1:12:29] and there's no street parking,

[1:12:31] which our promise back then was nobody ever does that.

[1:12:36] Yeah, they have a pocket.

[1:12:38] Alex, I'm working part of the market part,

[1:12:40] don't think I'm going to return or whatever else.

[1:12:42] So yeah, I don't know what's true.

[1:12:44] Yeah, I do.

[1:12:46] This is a tough subject,

[1:12:52] because some of the bigger cities

[1:12:56] are like, you know, they're reducing significantly

[1:13:00] in the parking environment.

[1:13:02] But one of the suburban cities,

[1:13:04] recently, the playground, because I've been talking

[1:13:06] up there, they're struggling with this as well.

[1:13:09] Because, you know, this is not a one-size-fits-all

[1:13:13] I guess the state's trying to teach it as a one-size-fits-all, but it's really not.

[1:13:20] So urban has a lot of different parking needs, like downtown Seattle.

[1:13:27] We don't have, I mean, we want to be a walkable community, but we're not, you know, people don't

[1:13:33] walk to the store here, right?

[1:13:35] Yeah, they get that card and they go to Hague, so if we go to, you know, PLC, right?

[1:13:42] We're working out a walkability, we're working out, you know, telling you if it gets to

[1:13:47] our sidewalks.

[1:13:49] But people typically, you know, like a, you know, according to their mom to the grocery store

[1:13:53] and all their, you know, the grocery stuff.

[1:13:57] And as a bedroom community, everybody's driving to work.

[1:14:03] Yeah.

[1:14:04] Yeah.

[1:14:05] I think it's just unfortunate that they legislate with sports this month.

[1:14:09] It's all, it's just, we're not Seattle, you know, we're not ever, you know, anything like that and so like, yeah, it's disappointing that, you know,

[1:14:24] in Mary's, but we had a change in for three to two, we required three minimum for the single family and to have to take that away.

[1:14:34] One thing that we do, but really closely on is if the road has parking on and to stator the driveways to make sure that we can maximize the on street parking.

[1:14:44] So it's something to consider to live the road section that allows for parking on and that we when the reviewing a plan set to make sure that these driveways are offset some can actually park on the street.

[1:14:57] It worries they, you know, sometimes they kind of combine in.

[1:15:00] And there's on that room to, yeah, maybe, actually, right at the point, we asked that.

[1:15:04] So we also, when we were working on our engineering standards, we're looking at the side of the street that has the fire hydrant.

[1:15:15] And there's a parking lot on the other side. Yeah, because otherwise, you're doing this and sitting on it to the offset.

[1:15:27] So I guess the bottom line is there still is local control over parking, but there's some limited areas where the state is saying, you have to do this.

[1:15:41] And I anticipate we're hearing that the development committee is kind of really hard with the max legislative session to try to reduce parking for residential even more.

[1:15:54] So don't be surprised, would you just learn about that from us?

[1:15:59] Yeah, so in the first week, it married a woman allow for tan and party to count as a stall.

[1:16:06] And now the state says, you have to allow.

[1:16:09] And tan can be more than two. It can be a line of five.

[1:16:13] And it's like, well, that doesn't really work.

[1:16:17] You know, so it's even two.

[1:16:19] I haven't seen work successfully.

[1:16:22] So, basically, people have a 10-in garage and they've been into that for, you know, whatever

[1:16:27] they're strogians, right?

[1:16:30] If they use their garage and all, they use it for the front, but people don't like it.

[1:16:35] I'm going to.

[1:16:36] Music or cars?

[1:16:37] Yeah.

[1:16:44] So, it's almost why note,

[1:16:50] this is the required, it's almost like just reference the RCC of what

[1:16:55] state requires and then almost have like a city recommendation is okay the state says too

[1:17:00] but we say we recommend for or what have you but it's yeah it's kind of sad but it

[1:17:12] residential parking of a problem here I think our job as the planning commission is the note

[1:17:18] as not the city experts that this is the problem and just give me feedback from the community

[1:17:25] to the staff. Because another thing I noticed with that was like, do you talk about all the extra

[1:17:31] parking, people parking on grass and all that stuff? People are parking on the stop signs,

[1:17:36] right at the corner. There's no 50 foot buffer. If there's sidewalk, there's a curb, there's a car.

[1:17:43] Yeah. Yeah, there's a couple neighborhoods like a little drive through that some people park right

[1:17:47] up to the crosswalks. And so if you're coming, can't see you, you know, somebody if they're walking.

[1:17:54] Yes, according, it's just like they'll just pop out, you know, especially kids with e-bikes, yeah, and that's even more dangerous and yeah,

[1:18:22] yeah, we all

[1:18:22] home for all what are those going to be part of the story or behind the

[1:18:28] commercial. Yeah, I did one thing that we can do and what I've done in the past

[1:18:34] on town home projects and other ones is that actually they have you know

[1:18:39] said CC and ours that specifically stayed at the garage I'll be utilized for

[1:18:44] parking and so then there's some tea fan thing you can actually do something

[1:18:48] coursemen or whoever the president of the HOA or whatever else has the opportunity to do that

[1:18:55] coursemen, so they're not taking up three or a parking in their lawn or things like that,

[1:19:00] so that's one, one tool that we can realize, that's a four-party in our code scum and it's an restriction

[1:19:08] on. So HOA, that's what we're looking for. So we have to be in our code of bill because we do not

[1:19:16] course CCNARS.

[1:19:22] I had a development where

[1:19:27] it was built in the early 90s, you know, fire department

[1:19:34] controlled the width of the streets, and there's CCNARS said no one's street parking,

[1:19:44] That's my neighbor.

[1:19:47] Yeah.

[1:19:48] But of course, the city can't enforce that.

[1:19:51] But they have a very active, for one association.

[1:19:54] And they did.

[1:19:56] And we got complaints on both sides.

[1:19:59] And we're neutral.

[1:20:04] Yeah.

[1:20:07] Yeah.

[1:20:07] Especially neighborhoods that have to make narrow roads.

[1:20:10] And if everybody has to park on one side,

[1:20:11] It's a seat, isn't it?

[1:20:14] It's quite a card.

[1:20:16] I don't know.

[1:20:16] It's the widest roads, probably.

[1:20:19] Instead of camera and show you.

[1:20:22] Yeah.

[1:20:22] That has one.

[1:20:23] I don't know.

[1:20:25] Street parking.

[1:20:27] More.

[1:20:28] I think.

[1:20:29] Visitors can park from to 72 hours.

[1:20:31] But residents.

[1:20:33] I know.

[1:20:33] Park on the street.

[1:20:35] We ran into that.

[1:20:37] We got letters for a lot.

[1:20:39] And I always thought, how can they.

[1:20:41] How can they control, it's a public streets, they don't own the street.

[1:20:46] So how can they enforce that?

[1:20:49] It just makes all that stupid.

[1:20:51] If I want to park on a public road,

[1:20:53] and there's no sign that prohibits me to a park

[1:20:57] how can an HOA actually tell you you can't park a car on the street?

[1:21:02] Makes sense.

[1:21:05] I mean, I'm sure.

[1:21:06] You could.

[1:21:07] Yeah, I don't know the legal...

[1:21:17] And it's not even in the CC and R. It's in the rules of regulations. So, yeah, yeah, it's kind of kind of, kind of if you eat the blood, you know, by the way.

[1:21:29] and the folks park in too close to stop signs and sidewalks and things like that's an

[1:21:37] enforcement issue and the first thing to do is to then take it on those types of things

[1:21:41] and you know that's just what the restrictive parking does it makes people through that

[1:21:47] because it's the only place they can more.

[1:21:53] Well I'm hearing residential parking is one of

[1:21:57] your key issues and that's kind of what it sounds like all like residential

[1:22:01] the problem. I don't think mixed use is the problem. Yeah, I'm not hearing that. I'm not hearing

[1:22:06] I'm like, you know, the commercial spaces. Downtown is working fairly. And so, you know,

[1:22:15] you know, the two little historic downtown that we have, especially the other between

[1:22:21] 88th and 84th, you know, the dining room parking, and we have the big parking lot in life. So those

[1:22:27] Businesses don't, they're not required to you.

[1:22:31] Provided additional parking.

[1:22:34] So you must be working fine. So there's some, you know, the short-down

[1:22:39] hands, like in with the brick brand, you know, we do have that parking lot. That's behind the old

[1:22:45] bank building. So I'm not hearing that those are concerns for you guys. And I would go back to the

[1:22:53] I use. I think it's going to be interesting what Cedar Hold Commons is, which is say, operational because they were asking for reduction at 300.

[1:23:06] Renered 80 parking stalls.

[1:23:08] It was 300 something.

[1:23:10] I remember it being that high.

[1:23:11] Yeah, it was a large amount.

[1:23:14] But just, and I don't know what ultimately was approved because what their building is definitely different than what we reviewed.

[1:23:21] So I don't know what the council ultimately agreed upon in a group.

[1:23:30] Yeah, that's one that we have to monitor pretty carefully to see how that is going to be.

[1:23:36] Yeah,

[1:23:39] but I know that we have two deviations up at the Hankins area where we went to approve the IT manual for those two issues, but I'm also working pretty well with that.

[1:23:57] So how you can buy it, probably about 80% next, you know,

[1:24:02] in terms of parking, and there's still a little bit there.

[1:24:07] But those are really, those are pretty good

[1:24:11] to say the whole thing, you know, the site share parking

[1:24:12] with it now, arbitrary property line, but affected

[1:24:18] those areas are being parked.

[1:24:23] I'm going to send their occupancy rates 100%.

[1:24:26] I'm very units up there.

[1:24:27] I don't know.

[1:24:28] I know they first built in, they had a waiting list, but the economy's different now, so I don't

[1:24:34] I don't know if they have they can choose to fail.

[1:24:38] Is there a background of marketing, does that mean you're out?

[1:24:42] Yeah.

[1:24:43] I know the first few years they did this had a waiting list, the people couldn't get into them.

[1:24:47] The first one that was built 20 years ago, that one has the colors.

[1:24:54] Yes.

[1:24:54] That one has first floor parking, so they've covered their parking, but I don't think I've ever seen people part of the outside of that structure.

[1:25:07] Yeah, yeah, they do have a lot of work.

[1:25:15] Okay.

[1:25:16] So I guess you need to say yes.

[1:25:18] These are, yeah, these are the edits we're still working through on this one.

[1:25:21] But it's, this is a close tool of the human.

[1:25:24] We set to work on the sense.

[1:25:27] The lower kind of sounds like residential practice is an important issue.

[1:25:33] A little bit deeper into this.

[1:25:35] Figure out really what our legal authority is on the residential side.

[1:25:43] Because the states really get involved more and more with lead use issues.

[1:25:51] So there's a consistent thing coming out of the builders that Parking is one of the issues with affordable housing.

[1:26:04] So that's hitting a lot of airtime at the legislature.

[1:26:10] I was out parking in a quarter of the housing.

[1:26:12] Well they're saying requiring a lot of excess Parking is increasing the cost of housing.

[1:26:17] There's a lot of sizes larger for lesser animal and our lesser square footage.

[1:26:22] And if you'd like for instance, if we provide three packet cells for a residential unit,

[1:26:29] you know, takes a land area, cost a bill that takes away from household units.

[1:26:39] Like, there's no increase in the cost of maintenance, yeah.

[1:26:42] And is there a way to tie it to the number of bedrooms,

[1:26:47] curses, single-family home?

[1:26:49] Because it's in here, it's in single-family home,

[1:26:52] but if you're seeing four or five bedroom homes,

[1:26:55] a little kids grow up and start driving and have cars,

[1:26:59] et cetera, et cetera.

[1:27:00] I don't know, I just don't know, I just don't know that we have a problem.

[1:27:04] I don't know, but you know, I have to say,

[1:27:07] around the three sisters that are as far or less, right, and they're all a year and a half

[1:27:14] of each other.

[1:27:15] So there was a tie when I was a 16-year-old and we all had our memories, because I was the last

[1:27:21] one of the group.

[1:27:23] You know, we had like, by Christ of the House, I wasn't having to write my own book, and we all

[1:27:29] had to work.

[1:27:30] We all had to pay for our cards, and we all had to pay for our insurance before we can get

[1:27:35] That was what I was looking for.

[1:27:42] So that lasted one about three or four years.

[1:27:48] That happens with families.

[1:27:51] Yeah.

[1:27:51] Well, maybe a little longer now though.

[1:27:54] Yeah.

[1:27:55] That's true.

[1:27:56] Yeah.

[1:27:57] Just with, I think a lot longer.

[1:27:58] Yeah.

[1:28:00] Yeah.

[1:28:01] And then a moment that I wasn't,

[1:28:06] Yeah.

[1:28:07] Yeah.

[1:28:08] Yeah.

[1:28:09] Yeah.

[1:28:10] I'm sure.

[1:28:14] All right.

[1:28:14] Well, I have a couple pages of notes on the package.

[1:28:19] So what I would suggest is we'll take these notes and we'll look into these a little bit more.

[1:28:28] I would recommend that you guys to look at that table, that matrix, and bring to the October meeting.

[1:28:36] You know, your thoughts on the, I guess the ratio, most of it's like a ratio of square footage to

[1:28:47] party or even counts can you know if you need anything with the

[1:28:55] reader reach out to us during a month.

[1:28:57] If you have more questions or comments, so we'll bring that back to you after all.

[1:29:08] Thanks, New Businesses. Good there. Mr. Linney is business. I have nothing on the agenda.

[1:29:16] Item made is recent council action on commission items, the permitted piece matrix and

[1:29:21] developers had ones.

[1:29:24] We took that to the first reading. I think I will do and do two. Some scheduling issues that

[1:29:30] I've had and some other issues. We are going to the next council meeting with the second

[1:29:38] reading. So we are hopeful to have that with some of the work.

[1:29:47] So hopefully we'll, oh, criminal at the, at the second reading, or if they have any changes to probably be minor.

[1:29:55] And then that would be the first reading.

[1:29:58] Excuse me, first meeting you on October.

[1:30:00] So, that should get approved fairly soon.

[1:30:06] On the upcoming events, the 2027, don't pre-insist plan amendment.

[1:30:12] You may recall, I had talked about getting that ready for the funding commission to do an introduction to it,

[1:30:21] but we did decide to move forward with opening a packet.

[1:30:26] So that bucket is open.

[1:30:28] So we're pushing back the introduction to the component until after if we receive any applications for the bucket.

[1:30:37] So it's more likely something that you're going to see in early 2027.

[1:30:43] May remember, we have been calling it the 2026, a compliment on that, and now we're changing

[1:30:48] this to the 2027. But at the multi-modal level of service that you had, well, does she probably

[1:30:58] have it? But the topics that we discussed a couple of times here in the money condition, that

[1:31:04] be part of that academic material moving forward. We also know, we've been working with a

[1:31:14] couple of the owners of some affordable housing projects here in the stand and ones by

[1:31:21] have passed by the way and they have projects that have crossed over property lines and we found

[1:31:34] that when we were like talking to them,

[1:31:37] that part of their parking lots were in,

[1:31:40] like, so you'll have a residential,

[1:31:42] but their buildings are in localite faith on money.

[1:31:45] So we have some clean up, a little reason to clean up,

[1:31:48] so we're going to do, we need to change those,

[1:31:51] so that everything is in a multi-family zone.

[1:31:55] That is a compound amendment and reason

[1:31:57] because we're changing it for a single-family

[1:31:59] to a multi-family zone.

[1:32:00] So we have a couple of those that we're going to be bringing

[1:32:03] forward hopefully they'll be pretty straightforward.

[1:32:09] So, and then with us that might come forward

[1:32:11] out of the public request for changes for the topic.

[1:32:17] So it's currently 27. Yeah, I think

[1:32:20] I'm probably genuinely sure we should be able to have at least a summary of what those changes

[1:32:28] why they distribute memory and think that we'll see it in a moment.

[1:32:34] Yeah. So I think the back itself is through the internet of America.

[1:32:36] It gives us to some of the put together in the cellulose.

[1:32:47] I think it's too well. I am 10 for the journey.

[1:32:53] We have a motion to adjourn for the media.

[1:32:56] Go to your second.

[1:32:58] Well, sorry.

[1:32:59] And second.

[1:32:59] And your adjourn.

[1:33:01] Thank you.

[1:33:02] I was going to tell the story.

[1:33:05] It was a little different.

[1:33:06] But learned a ton about, you know, trust land and peace out of the way and all that, but they have the same thing.

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript