Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everyone. I call the 02/04/2026 Planning Commission meeting to order. The main purpose of tonight's meeting is to hold study sessions on the transportation impact fee and Bothell Municipal Code updates, zoning map cleanup updates and procedural code updates, Bothell Municipal Code titles eleven and twelve. Before we move on to the agenda items, I'd like to acknowledge our hybrid meeting format. City of Bothell is providing the option to attend these meeting either in person or remotely via Zoom.

For those participating via Zoom, the chat and question functions are not available for use to ensure compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. We have a public comment agenda item at the beginning of the meeting. Please limit all comments to three minutes. Please note that the city of Bothell does not tolerate verbal harassment. Please remember this during your comments. Public comment will be allowed both in person and via Zoom. Those wishing to comment via Zoom were asked to submit an online form by 3PM today. People wishing to submit written comments were also asked to submit those comments by 3PM. Email was encouraged as well and will be acknowledged. Excuse me.

Those in attendance may also make comments and have been asked to indicate their desire to comment on the sign in sheets. The Imagine Bothell notice, city website, and tonight's agenda all provide information to the public for providing comments. Video of this meeting will be streamed live as well as recorded and available for later viewing on the city's YouTube channel. A call in number was provided on the meeting agenda for members of the public who wish to call in by phone and listen live to the meeting. For phone callers during staff presentations, staff will make every effort to specify which materials they're referencing so that everyone can follow along.

At this point, I'd like to acknowledge the attendance of the commissioners. Commissioner Jones is absent and excused. Commissioner Westerbeck is absent and excused. Commissioner Lever?

Here.

Commissioner Robson? Here. Commissioner Sills?

Here.

And commissioner Gustafson?

Here. Thanks. Alright.

In addition, community development staff in attendance include director deputy director Gates and Boyd Benson, utilities and development services manager. Lastly, before we begin, I'd like to reiterate some meeting guidelines. For all meeting attendees, please speak clearly and pause frequently. State your name each time before speaking. Mute your microphone when not speaking. If you are also streaming the live video feed, please turn off the sound as there is a delay. For commissioners at specific breaks during the presentation, I'll be calling on members who wish to speak or ask a question. If you want to speak, please indicate this by raising your hand. I will call on you as I see you. This will help avoid the problem of having two people speaking at the same time.

Identify yourself before you ask a question, make a motion, second a motion, or participate in debate, and please mute your microphone while not speaking. First item on the agenda is public comment. The city has accepted visitor comment in writing as well as accepted sign up sheets for those who wish to speak at tonight's meeting. Those speaking will have three minutes. Written comments submitted to the staff no longer than 3PM today were forwarded to all commissioners and are part of the record. And I will note we did receive four written comments regarding a project on Hundredth Avenue that were in our email. And I see nodding heads. People did see those. So any other comments than those four?

No other comments were received. We do have a few members in the audience and then a few in the virtual audience that we will get to after we see if anybody in in the in the building wants to comment first.

Alright. Thank you. So I will invite anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to step up to the podium. There's a button to push and the light will turn red. So you have three minutes.

Hi. Good evening. My name's Greg Shisch. First of all, I understand this is an all volunteer commission, and I appreciate what you all do for the city of Bothell. I'm here to speak on the Lily Kirk development.

I'm a thirty five year resident of the 16 home development Penn Place just north of that proposed development. The 16 homes in Penn Place, it's just a little bit of background, sit on five acres, the same size as the property which now is proposed for 79 units including the two existing single family homes. When we moved into Penn Place as one of the original homeowners in 1990, we understood and welcomed the intended future single family development of that property to just to the south of us. Penn Place was development was designed with a thoroughfare into that property, a cross a pass through there, and we always thought that we that we understood that this would be a connection to a development of similar size. One year ago, we were, apprised that Bucken Homes, a premier homebuilder, was coming in to put in a single family development there of about 18 homes.

And then we understood that the city of Bothell decided, no, they couldn't fit those homes on that property, and Buckin dropped out of that development. And now here we are today with 79 units plus the two existing family home units going into that. That that leads me to and I recognize this is a result of rezoning and you know where comments were already taken and and we are where we're at with that rezoning development. Two requests as a result of that. One, I'd like to see that that through road is not put through, that that is maintained as just maybe an emergency access only so that we retain the the the existing traffic flow of 32 cars versus a 160 that will be tied to that new development.

It it assures us better safety of the neighbors in the development and children. It keeps things quiet, keeps things uncongested, and it retains the the the life that we've been used to for the last thirty five years. Over half the residents are still original residents. I guess half the residents, eight of them are still original residents in that 16 home development. So it's a tight knit community.

The the other request is that traffic mitigation be put in on a hundredth and especially at a hundredth and one ninetieth already. We're getting heavy congestion there. I fall I go on side streets, quiet side streets now to avoid that congestion, and it's only getting worse. Adding these a 160 potential vehicles in this development plus the other developments going on in the area is only going to add to that. And so I think some things maybe even as as a signal put into place there would might be necessary. Thank you. Alright. Thank you.

Other comments? Oops.

Do I do something here?

No. You Sorry. You're good. The lights on.

Okay. I'm Jody Schisch. I also am live in Penn Place, and I'm not a professional speaker, so bear with me. I just want to tell you emotionally how I feel. So you guys say imagine Bothell.

I never imagined this happening. So we've been there for thirty five years, and I'm gonna tell you it hasn't been fun in the last five. An example for you on a hundredth was the other morning because I tried to Work and and be part of Bothell. I'm going down to Bothell Animal Clinic now if you guys all know that's maybe eight blocks from my house It took me four lights at 190th And Bothell River Highway to get out I Went when I came back I waited 70 cars to get out onto a hundredth out of my cul de sac granted It's the morning you have two schools going down there you do have kids walking down there, and I've already been concerned about the speed of things going down there. We've already had one neighbor get thrown across the street.

So that is a huge concern for me. I am mostly concerned. I know that we can't fight what the city is doing with the 79 townhouses, but we do I would appreciate them looking at the access not being opened up. And like my husband said, making it into a emergency only. That's happened in other places. You you only have one the new condos that went in right above Kaufman. It only has one exit, know, and I don't know how many are there. And so we have an HOA that says you can't park on the street. We're concerned about that. We have little kids that play in the street.

We're concerned about that. It's not that we're just concerned about 16 homes. We're concerned about 79 townhomes. And it's never what I imagined. And I'm worried about the value of our house, honestly, because you're putting a huge development in the middle of single family homes. And that's not what we were hoping for. Let me just see if I have any other things. The builder we did meet with the builder. And the builder said he asked for the that the road not to go through and he said the city said they wouldn't do that. So that was a concern to us, and we're just proposing that you please consider that come up and look at our development, and you'll know why.

Thank you. Other comments from the audience?

Please proceed. Good evening. My name is John Gray, and we have lived on 202nd, just north, of this other couple, for thirty eight and a half years. Both Leverett Highway and 2 28th was a four way stop, and it was the only light or stop between, on that whole stretch of 228. Growth is inevitable, and it's to be expected.

1 Hundredth has become very busy. We've have spent time at 190th and 1 Hundredth at the bottom of the hill frequently in our driving. We live on a w with three access points to one hundredth, Those are the only ways to get out of our neighborhood to go either north or south. It has taken us three minutes at times to be able to turn onto 100 with the traffic going through, especially the additional traffic coming from 228. I'm concerned about the additional traffic and our access.

Also, until 2008, 2009, during that recession, we had bus service that was there. That was cancelled when the bus companies reduced their service because of reduced revenue. Since then, they have taken a commuter focused approach as opposed to a neighborhood approach. This has meant that our son doesn't have access out of the neighborhood. It's just over a mile for him to get to, a bus.

It used to have be right behind us coming down 104th. He doesn't drive. He doesn't get out much anymore because of that. So I don't know what mitigation is planned. I'm looking forward to hearing that. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Any other comments from the audience?

Chair, we have several people in the virtual audience. One, who has raised their hand. If there are any others who would wish to speak, please, indicate through the raised hand function, and I'll panel you in. I'm gonna panel in Stephanie, here in a second. You should be able to unmute yourself, Stephanie, and your three minutes will start.

Okay. Can you hear me? I am having I'm on audio via Yes.

We can we can hear you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you very much for having this meeting today, and I'm I'm also speaking on the regarding this same development that my neighbors have also spoken about. And I want to reiterate some of their comments or support their comments regarding the traffic concerns that I have with this development. Given this is going through the CEFA process now and the TIA is part of that, I just wanna highlight some of the concerns I have with

the

TIA, and I think that there's an opportunity to do more work on the traffic analysis side to understand the true impacts of this project and understand if there are any mitigations that could be made. I think the PIA is focused on sort of, I guess, could say outdated outdated analysis, which is actually a topic one of the topics you'll be covering today in your meeting. And the PIA process, I understand, is being updated. So I I would like the commission to kinda keep that in mind as you're going through the new short PIAs and how some of those philosophies I would recommend be applied to this project as well. In the PIA, there's no analysis done on some of the major intersections that affect our neighborhood.

All the intersections that are part of that PIA are focused on False Elaborate Highway on 2 20th Street. But as a person living in the neighborhood, it's some of the more stop controlled or uncontrolled intersections on 1 Hundredth Avenue and 104th Avenue that are really the bottlenecks and safety concerns that I have. Also, the analysis is really focused on the PM peak. But my experience as a resident so far, it's the AM peak that is really the biggest problem. So it also requests that particular attention be paid to the AM peak.

That is when people are going to work and also for this particular area in Bothell, we have a lot of schools nearby. So a lot of the school bell times really impact the amount of traffic that is coming through our neighborhood. Yeah. So I I really to emphasize that I think the TIA could be it's very limited the way that it is now, and I request that the planning commission and the staff really consider a more robust analysis when it comes to the traffic volumes and the safety involved. And I submitted a written comment which detail more of my comments, but it's for the public comment now.

This is this is a summary of what I have to say. Yeah. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else in the Zoom space?

Chair, there's nobody else in the the Zoom room that has indicated a desire to speak.

Alright. Thank you all who have come and devoted your time to discussing this with us. We do not have an item currently before us regarding this development, so we can talk a little bit with staff later on it. But right now there is nothing currently before us. So again, you for for coming here and sharing this. I'm well familiar with it actually. I live up there and walk my dog there once a day, so I'm well familiar with that area. So thank you again. And seeing no other comments, we will move on with the agenda. Next item before us is approval of the December.

Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Commissioner Sills.

Commissioner Sills, I move to approve them December 17 minutes.

Alright. Thank you. Is there a second?

Commissioner Lever, second.

It's been moved and seconded that we approve the December. Any discussion around those minutes? Seeing none, all in favor of approval?

Aye. Aye.

Okay. Minutes are unanimously approved. The first item before us is the transportation impact fee and both municipal code title 17 updates.

Good evening, Planning Commission and Community. Boyd Benson, Public Works Utilities and Development Services Manager. Tonight, I'm back to discuss the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed transportation impact fee update and associated municipal code title 17 revisions. When we previously met for the public hearing, we had some comments that I believe we've addressed. We had a draft findings, conclusions, recommendations, and we had some feedback on that.

And so we've taken those comments and brought back a revised version of that document. I did review the the the video and the audio, and and we're hoping we captured what was discussed. Since that time, though, just to bring you up to date, we had a public hearing, last night at city council for the same item. We had received two comments at that time. Both were, community members that supported the change in use exemption, which was good.

And I will mention, just because it was mentioned with respect to a different project tonight, we had one email comment, after the public hearing from a planning commission discussing AMP CAM AMP CAM measurements versus PM peak hour. And so I'm just going to address that very briefly, not in with respect to the comments tonight, even though they are very good comments, but I I believe this will help. The level of service we currently have adopted is for PM peak hour traffic. And we followed up with a transportation consultant. And when you develop these level of services, you try to understand best how to mitigate impacts from from from development.

And these are on corridors currently. They're vehicle based. So we don't necessarily look at adjacent intersections. We look at the concurrency corridors, and we discussed concurrency last time. So with the move to multimodal and per person trip, that's changed quite a bit. And it really is citywide capacity for growth. We had a very good comment from a queue member that may have spoken as well tonight. And we're still keeping the PM peak hour for the person trip generation. Once again, this is not vehicles. This is vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians.

So I followed up briefly in an email to that individual who's listening, and I appreciate the fact that someone's looking into this as as deeply as as they are. We do have the provision in the future based on missile code for the for the public works director to use different measurements. In a situation for current level of service, for most development, that would not make a difference because it's looking at concurrency corridor. In the future, with multimodal, we may find that it does not make much difference either because the majority of residential trips and the majority of commercial trips, the impacts are typically from PMP. So I I do owe that person one more email follow-up.

But we do listen to comment, and it is it is greatly appreciated. So if that person's listening, thank you so much. So kinda going on from that, council had some general questions last night about some of the provisions. They were good questions. They were similar to what planning commission asked. They mostly revolved around a little clarification on the changes to exemption. So with that said, unless there's questions about what I just stated or feel free to ask that, we'd love to hear your comments on the revised draft of the findings and conclusions and recommendations from the planning commission.

Commissioners, any comments? Yeah. I I will note, because I mentioned, I do walk my dog every morning. And I go by Canyon Park Middle School and the morning traffic is significant with people dropping kids. I've seen it backed up for blocks around there.

And when they make their drops, suddenly the neighborhoods and, you know, the area are full from two twenty eighth on down to one ninetieth. So I'm not quite sure where to go with that, But it seems, you know, maybe I'm getting old. And when I was a kid, we walked to school. But the the number of cars that I see coming in with one child is just remarkable, and the impact through there is is quite significant. And I have to wait to walk my dog across the street.

So it's just something to keep in mind that AM is different than PM, and it overlays on the commuting time then. When they when they get out, it's different from the commute time. But when they go, it's it's heavy.

May I provide a little feedback since you asked

the Sure, please.

So one thing, as part of these projects, we look at the change in use or the development project and their impacts. And I completely agree with you with respect to some AMP power uses, such as schools. If a new school comes in, that definitely gets looked at. If a residential fellow comes in, we we must address their impacts, and we take all of these comments very seriously. So there are we have some tools that we can use to address and help mitigate these issues, but we can't go back in time and say, hey, school.

This majority of the traffic at this certain time is yours and and address it. But but the city does work proactively with schools. We there's a very active traffic calming program and safety program and the rest. And I agree with you. We're seeing a very big change in how people get to schools and the bus routes and the rest. So it's something that's on our mind. It's something we always try to address with development. And we will use the tools in the future to help. It may not be the development or mitigating. It's the on top of what's currently happening with with what you mentioned. Yeah.

Well, I I I've been near Kenyon Park Middle School for forty years now. Long time. And there has been a change in the pattern of use. There there is much more traffic than there was. And I I understand you can't go back in time. You can't change mitigation, but it's something to recognize as we go forward. Yeah.

Be aware and try to

try to help. Alright. Thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner Lever.

Commissioner Lever here. My question is more around the implementation and the impact of the change. So when it when when this is approved and starts getting implemented, what are some of the metrics that the city will start looking just to see whether or not this this is kind of, like, supporting the development that we wanna see and then the different uses or zoning changes that we'll see happening.

For sure. So this action is kind of separate from the zoning changes and the rest, but it supports it. So as part of the concurrency tracking, the way we actually track to see how much supply there is and how much demand, we have to track that to make sure we have capacity. We are including in that tracking system how many affordable units are coming in, units that come within a quarter mile of transit, and, like, the growth centers, all these these mostly to help understand the the reductions that Planning Commission and Council supported and what that means. So we see this as a way to better understand in community development tracks things differently.

We're looking at just transportation, but we see that we can wrap in some of those metrics with respect to the land use and what gets yeah. And then on top of that, there are some less tangible things like permit timelines and the rest. I can say that, once again, when we share when you cut out two thirds of a section of code, it will simplify things. So we haven't really thought about tracking efficiencies and permitting reduction time, but it's something we can we can be aware of. So we we may be able to do something on that. It's it's kinda hard since we don't track it now. Does that okay. Thank you.

The commissioner, questions or comments? Seeing none. Do you have anything else for us?

No. Just if if you Alright. So let's take

a look at the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Do you have them? Can you get them up? Director.

How's that scale?

Yeah. I've got mine as

well. Alright.

Well, maybe we can just scroll through. So get so I can see them. So moving through history, location, and proposed action. I don't think it's much. The meetings what they were. So any comments on the specific findings we have before us? And, actually, if you could point out any changes that have been made. Oops. Sorry. Most definitely.

Had some on the first bullet, we had some the robust outreach statement. I think planning commission really wanted to make sure that, for the record, that everyone understands that this was a this was an effort that included many. So we added that in. Number two, planning commission was stretch stressing that it's not just impact fee reductions to promote affordable housing. It was other things.

So planning commission recommended adding parking and and the rest to promote affordability. Number three, I think, state as is. But that was another comment from earlier. And we may have made minor provisions, but they're very minor. Just to really reinforce the fact that this is something that is ongoing.

This is new, new zoning, new type of growth, and, the city will be looking closely to see, transit development and with respect to transportation impacts and revenue. I think that's through there. Public testimony, we had a bullet c. We did not have public comment on December 17 as part of the hearing. The the two items that I mentioned from the city council public hearing plus the the email that we received about AMP, that will be included in the next council agenda bill so everyone understands, and we document comments from the community.

And then conclusions. Think you know what? I have my own copy. I guess I should have kept highlights. Pretty straightforward. Yeah. It's pretty straightforward. Think that may be it.

Commissioner Sills?

Yeah. I mean, just in regards to the conclusions because it says the recommended code amendment. Like, we're basically I just had a question about the code. Like, is now the right time to ask that before we agree to all of this, or should or are we diving into that after?

I think this is it. You're not proposing to go through the code again, are you? No?

Are you gonna Go through

the code again?

No. We didn't at the previous meeting, we didn't have any comments about the code. If if you have questions now, it'd be great to hear them for clarifications. But Right. At the last meeting, it was it was okay. We're here. Let's Right. Yeah. Let's make some revisions to the finding conclusions or recommendations.

So go ahead.

I was just trying to interpret the table on page twenty seven and twenty eight because I I don't know what impact fee rate 20 like, what how is that related to each one, or how is that generated? If you could just

Most definitely. And thank you for the question. So currently, this is this is how we assign fees, and we brought forward the the calculations and the assumptions previously. But I'm not sure we've actually actually gone over this table to say this is how development is. This is what they see, and this is how they've charged.

So in the past, the the first change is you'll see that it says new new net new person trips per unit used to be vehicle trips. So that's one change. And it's it's it's all based on it's basically national data for what type of trips are generated for what type of use. And then it's it's it's it's it's updated to more closely address multimodal vehicles, pets, bikes. So that's that's the first change.

The next one is the units are pretty much similar. And as a development comes in, if it's single family, which happens to have a certain land use code two ten from the Institute of Transportation Engineers reference, we would charge per dwelling unit $13,387. So it makes it very simple. Someone doesn't have to go back to all the background that I'm gonna say ITE manual that Manuel just stated and pull these codes out. It's like, look.

Here it is. Here you go. And you just scroll down. You'll see per room or per thousand square feet of commercial. It's it's a way to translate the type of use to the use code to the per person trips per a certain type of quantity to a rate.

And so we try to make it very simple. And then with that said, if someone comes in and they say this is a different type of use, we have the flexibility in the code to address it because some things are different. If you have a gas station out in the middle of okay. I'm not gonna use that. You have a office building out in the middle of nowhere, a shopping center out in the middle of nowhere compared to some a similar thing that's in an area with many other uses, you may see multiple trip ends where I'm gonna stop at this, this, this.

So there's modifications already within that. So think of stopping at QFC, then also going over to get gasoline and and this and that. There's ways to modify that as opposed if it's just a QFC. So that's that's in the code. So to in summary, this is the table that we use to assign fees. It's based on all the math we've presented before, and, it's replaced in the previous table. Did I answer your question?

So just like in practice because I see, like, high school, it's per student, 1,500. But if there was, like, a new high so if there's a new high school built, that's the rate it would be at? Okay. Correct. Okay. Interesting. Thank you.

Yeah. And just few more. I'm just adding. I'm talking too much. But even in with the residential uses, there used to be two, residential and multifamily. Now we've broken it out because we have much finer detail. There's different types of multifamily. There's attached. There's more multifamily where you're it's it's up there. It and so we're trying to make sure that things are charged appropriately for different uses as opposed to, I'm just calling this multifamily, even though it looks like this, if that makes sense.

Other questions or comments? Yeah. Just to go back to schools again. I I do think that there may have been a change in school transportation after COVID. I think fewer kids ride buses. You know, people don't wanna be in that space, at least at the time, but I don't think they went back to the buses. I'd be interested in I mean, it's not a topic for tonight or maybe even well, I'm not sure where it would be a topic for, I wonder what the bus utilization has been over time. I think there's been a change there, but just a comment. Any other comments?

Commissioner, I have a sort of it's more like a question, I think. I was just doing a search on the early learning facilities based on some feedback that we received from the community around the lack of affordable childcare in particular. So if I'm understanding this correctly, this transportation impact fees, may support businesses that actually will be serving the community, therefore, increasing sort of, like, the options that we have within the neighborhoods. Is Is that the case? Am I understanding this correctly? How are these impact fees going to support the city? They're supporting community services such as childcare?

Yeah, I'll try to address that. Based on Planning Commission and Council feedback, one is the affordability reduction. So we have to charge fairly, but that's a policy decision that we can justify. So that's one way it's supporting the vision of, I think, what you're asking. The next one is there is an early child care reduction.

It's an option. And you'll see in the reductions in the packet in the previous one is there's a 50% reduction for early child care learning. So it should help reduce that initial impact for cost. And then other things, planning commission and council were both very keen on the change in use exemption. So there's been discussions about neighborhood like green grocers and small scale neighborhood commerce.

So if someone wants to turn their garage into a I'm not gonna say a farmer's market. A place to go purchase things. A A bookstore. Yeah. If if you stay within that footprint and the rest, there is no impact fee in the past. There would have been for that change of use. So these are the type of items brought forward by Planning Commission and Council that I think try to support the type of what you're asking, I hope.

And perhaps to clarify for some of the audience. So these impact fees are collected from a new development, and they're intended to be used to mitigate the impact of that development.

Correct? Correct.

You. All right. Other comments on findings, conclusions and recommendations? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the findings, conclusions, and recommendations as presented to us in this packet and discussed this evening? Mister Robson.

Motion to approve the findings and what was that?

Conclusions and recommendations.

Recommendations. Yeah. That.

Alright. It's been moved that we approve the findings, conclusions, and recommendations as presented. Is there a second? Come on. Commissioner Sills.

Commissioner Sills, I second.

Alright. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the findings, I'll I'll back to Thank you for your presentation meeting. And all your work on this topic.

Well, thank you for your involvement and your good questions. It's made this whole process much more robust. So really appreciate it.

All right. The next item before us is the zoning map cleanup updates, and deputy director Gates will be presenting to us.

Okay.

Thank you, chair.

So tonight, I've got two two brief introductory study sessions, getting a couple of projects going. The first one is a zoning map cleanup update, and no action required. These are cleanup items that we have discovered through the the implementation of of what happened or what came out of the the 2024 comp plan and associated, municipal code amendments. Part of the root of the of the map updates relates to the mixed use overlay addition. This was where we added, these were to to color coordinate them, the purples and the blues.

We added the mixed use neighborhood, mixed use community, mixed use employment, and then a couple others. So we added that layer to what what we're calling the alphabet soup of our of our zoning designations. That's a project that's coming back in a few weeks to to begin work to clean that up. But with that work, we went through the entire city, and we reassigned along with the the increase in density or the changes in density. And through the work of staff over this last year, we recognized oh, we we missed a little a little piece here or we missed a little piece there.

So what I'm gonna do tonight, I'm gonna run through four maps that were in the attachments and kinda talk through what we recognized, what we found, what we believe needs to be changed to make it consistent with what the intent was. And we'll come back at the end, in a in a few weeks with with a full draft, with with the map proposed, and then we'll and we'll be going through the full public process. So the first one is in the Brickyard Road, Queensgate sub area as well as the way we need a Simons Nor Norway Hill sub area. Those are split by I 405. The map illustrates these four areas represented or identified by the with the red arrow.

The one at the bottom identified currently as N B Comma, M U N. So that's neighborhood business with a mixed use neighborhood overlay. What we found with all of these is that staff recognized it's a mixed use it has a mixed use overlay, but there's no mixed use. It's just neighborhood business. So the intent was that the mixed use was blending residential and the underlying or or the or the other zoning, the commercial or office office zoning.

So the chart on the table identifies what the current code has, what the current map is representing, what the recommended fix would be would be to follow the the zoning that is just to the north, the R M 4. So it would be R M 4. So residential medium four with neighborhood business and then the mixed use overlay. That create that brings the two together. You can't quite have you can't have one without the other.

And then the opposite is true with the two in the center of the chart and along the center of the image where it only had a residential with a mixed use neighborhood overlay to make it truly a mixed use area, which is what the purple designation was, which was what the comprehensive plan intended to have, we need to add in the neighborhood business. So the n in the mixed use n is neighborhood. The neighborhood business are those lower intensity commercial uses that were were intended to be in that in that area. The one in the darker purple on the right side, on the right image, just across, 405, when we rezoned the entire city, the the area in the center also extended that the light purple extended to the to the east, to the right of the screen. And when we created the more intense r m RACs, excuse me, residential activity center designation with a mixed use employment overlay, we forgot to bring along the OP and the NV.

So the office professional and the neighborhood business zones. At the next at the next study session with the the the map updates, I'll be bringing the original map, the black and white map that we used to have that illustrates that it it it always was intended to be, and all of these were intended to carry a mixed use overlay. This one in particular on the bottom of the chart, the OPNB was part of that. It was just one of those. Missed it with it with all of the other edits that were going on.

The next ones are a little bit more straightforward or a little bit more individualized. Same same concept. There's a mixed use employment overlay with general commercial or office professional in the Midtown Midtown sub area, but there's no residential. So it's not necessarily a mixed use. It was it was all commercial.

Commercial would encompass the office professional and the general commercial zones. So adding in the R M 3 with this the similar intensity of of of residential density is what we're recommending to fix in this case. Moving north a little bit, along 2 28th, the Queensborough, Brentwood, Crystal Springs sub area to the North, Shelton View Meridian, 3rd Avenue South East to the South. This was one of the, newer carve outs for a mixed use area. This is just next to the FEMA site.

And, again, same situation. They're just flipped, recognizing that this should have just been one consistent zone across two twenty eighth of residential medium one, so the lowest residential residential combined with the neighborhood business. So a mixed use neighborhood neighborhood zone.

One,

Mister Stills, so when you're deciding on what residential zoning to go with, it's are you primarily using, like, the surrounding area, to determine that, or what what what caused you to pick that over R M 3?

Or Yeah. We're looking at the surrounding area as well as the lot the lot size as as far as how that was developed. In this case, the separation by two twenty eighth, the the the north and the south, why was one are given a residential designation, but not a commercial and likewise on the north. Combining the two, they both have the same intensity identified within within the complaint and the and the and the zoning. And is that

area within what's referred to as the Shelton View Forest?

It it is not. So the the area identified with the red arrow on the bottom is Department of Natural Resources site. I do believe there's a trailhead there, but it's not been official approved DNR trailhead. It's their their parcel. Shelton View Forest access is to the south Southwest.

I believe it's at the north end of was it 7th Avenue? If I'm if I'm remembering correctly. There are some some trails that do wrap around the FEMA site, that that create some connections behind those neighborhoods, but it is a it is not a a designated park space, at all.

Thank you.

Alright. And the last one is in Canyon Park. This is one of the the the misses. I think it just got caught up in the creation of the overlays. So the e dash m c overlay was not included with this singular blue zone in Canyon Park.

So all the other deeper blue zones there are employment medium, which is a Canyon Park zone with the employment mixed center overlay. So adding the e dash m c to that parcel made sense, making it consistent. It's what staff is recommending to fix and clean this up. So this was the only question that I included in the packet. If there are other questions, happy to go through them.

Happy to return with additional information. But like I said, we just we wanted to get this one started to make sure we could through the map update. As I mentioned, the overlay to zone cleanup work that Jacqueline was beginning last year, we will be coming back. This is a little bit of a we've gotta clean up the room before we can actually reorganize the room. So we're gonna do a little bit of work here to clean up the map and the zoning, and then we're gonna really clean everything up with that work to to make it a a lot more streamlined. So happy to answer any questions. Questions or comments?

Could you go back to that last one? Is that the school district bus area?

It is. I believe it's the school district. There's another there's three parcels up there that are in that in that zoning. And public works is up there somewhere. Yes. The the Bothell operation center is up in that in that zone. Okay. Thank you.

Any other comments on this one? Commissioner Lever?

Commissioner Lever here. My my comment is more around, like, communicating these changes. So when I think about the complexity of what it means to change the zoning versus the land use and some of the growth that we see and concerns with capacity and all of that, By the time this sort of goes live, that's when it really becomes complicated to understand how did we get there. So with all the learnings that we've had around engagement and the complexity of the subject, what are some of the efforts that the city is taking to make sure that this is sort of like not sort of. But this is embraced in a more wide way when this becomes post totally live?

Yeah. This this the intent is that this will follow standard public notice process. So we'll go out and notify Department of Commerce, go through our sixty day comment period, do a SIPA notification, post that on the SIPA register. We'll likely update the the property owners. They're the ones that actually have most have identified, you know, a desire to develop, and that's how we found the the zoning issues of, oh, we we seem to have missed something.

I'll bring back the state statute that identifies how this is you know, it's a it's a map cleanup, not it's not a rezone. It's a catching the the errors that were that we have found, through that work, given the vastness of all of the rezoning that we we did. There's a carve out within the state law to identify. This is a this is a cleanup, not a we're not a we're not rezoning. We're not redesignating. Staff believe the policy work was already completed with the comp plan work. So we'll be doing our standard public noticing for this type of a project. Commissioner

Sills?

Yeah. Commissioner Sills, you discover all of these, or did you have anyone reach out to you saying, like, I wanted. I'm looking at this property. I don't know how many residential units I can build. Like, how do how do these actually come to light?

They they are it's a great question. They originated with the site down on the down near 160th on the on the on the East Side. So staff staff recognized that, wait a second. It's a residential activity center with a mixed use overlay, but there's no other uses. The residential activity center needs that other use, whether it's, you know, like, industrial, office professional, commercial, general commercial to to work together to say, yes.

It's residential with this other use. And that that mixed use what the mixed use overlay was sort of the glue that was creating additional incentives with the height, the the floor area ratio ratio allowances that it established. So the intensity is already there with the mixed use overlay because it it increased height allowances, floor area ratio allowances. But the the the allowed uses are the ones that it was what we found, and then we started looking around to find where where did we miss any others. And so we wreck we they stand out once you once once we started looking for them and then found this list here.

Commissioner Lever?

Thank you. Commissioner Lever here. So with that said, can you confirm that maybe these changes then will then support the sort of, like, development of potentially, like, child care centers? Like, because there will be more opportunity for a small business?

Most definitely, especially in the the mixed use neighborhood, so the neighborhood business zones. Residential zones do allow certain scale of child care, but I don't know the the definitions off the top of my head. But there are some smaller scaled child care centers that can can be allowed. Some need a conditional use permit because if it's large enough, there's traffic and trips and things. But in these neighborhood business centers that are along, you know, major arterials, whether it's two twenty eighth or 1 60th and 405, there's there's this the infrastructure and the capacity and and the the desire to to boost the the activity within those areas.

So around the Hundred And 60th Overpass interchange there, it's increasing residential and adding the mixed use element, whether that's day care, child care center, office, retail, commercial, activating that space as a as a node that is across the freeway from a transit center. They'll be in line BRT soon, a new pedestrian overpass that's coming. To really activating that space.

Other questions or comments? Seeing none, I guess we move to our next item.

Yeah. And so like I said, this is just the very beginning. So we'll be we'll be moving through the the standard process. We'll come back for study session with planning commission. We'll take your input inside to city council. We'll move forward through public hearings both with planning commission and city council, and then look for final ordinance adoption sometime in the first half of the year so we can put this behind us and and and move forward.

Commissioner Oliver.

Thank you. Just one more question. Yeah. The map that you just show is a static map with the images. Is that available with GIS, like, with the color mapping?

Yeah. So in in the the city of Otho, the what we call COB map, the interactive GIS map, you can turn on the zoning layers. So on the on the left side of the screen are all of the layers that can be can be activated. And I think it's up towards the top, the planning and and development layer. So that'll turn on the colored map of here's all the zones. There's a and then you can expand that. And there's some other other options in there such as development, you know, projects and some additional information there.

So with that said, maybe, like, a a comment or a suggestion is maybe we can use that in the meetings so that users like me can, like, learn from the experts as we are reviewing these documents, and then everyone can see how if they could make it, they can be like, oh, there's a map. Oh, and I can click here and there. That would be great. Thank you.

Alright. K. I did one slide deck combining the two. So next the next item, again, is an introduction. It is the first, first step towards updating both, titles eleven and twelve, looking at a number of procedural updates that have been put off for some time, partly because of all the comprehensive plan work.

Again, no action tonight. Really just looking for some initial overview, somewhat of a staff more of a staff briefing, but definitely wanna wanna get some some input from from planning commission to make sure we're we're moving in the right direction. Nothing related to this is what is is coming out of the necessarily comprehensive plan, but there were some associated municipal code amendments and amendments that took place last year, such as the the SEPA threshold increases, and I'll get into that here in a second. In reviewing procedure procedural, steps really helps with code application for staff. It creates a lot a lot greater predictability from applicants so they can they can recognize, you know, from things such as when I submit, how do I what are my steps?

Code's not necessarily written as steps, but it helps us develop what those steps are. What what's required? Does this does this have a public process? Does it have a mailing requirement? Is there a public hearing requirement? Who makes the decision? So really looking to to explore these these sections listed here. So I'm gonna walk through a few of them that we've begun to edit. You you could see the edits in track changes within the packet. There will be more to come, and we'll we'll highlight them as we go.

Sort of initial take that we're looking for tonight, does do these initial does this initial step forward make sense? Do you have any any any concerns that you'd like to share, would be great. The first one is is kind of a big one. So site specific rezones, for a while now, we've been considering how to how to move forward with this. So currently, it's a quasi judicial legislative process.

It's decided by city council. This would be if somebody on a site or a subject property that could be multiple parcels, but it is one subject property wishes to change their zoning designation from, let's just say, r m two to r m four or r m four to r m three. Right? You wanna switch it around. Right now, the process is it's less of an application and more it it's it's legislative, but it's the criteria that are there really lean more towards what a a standard land use application would follow, providing responses to criteria.

We're looking to change and use what's already in the code, the type four a procedures. So we have a couple of columns in in in our procedures table, between type one all the way up to type type five. The type four a has no review no application types within it right now. What this would do is it would it would place the decision or the final recommendation, before the hearing examiner. So the hearing examiner is going to evaluate the merits of an application based on the criteria that are established in the code, the responses by the applicant, the the straight facts of of the matter.

Does the comprehensive plan identify that the density that in a site specific rezone is seeking is consistent? Yes or no? If it's yes, you move on to the next one. That recommendation from the hearing examiner would then be dis would be sent up to city council who is the only ones who can pass an ordinance to change the zoning. So council wouldn't they would be making, yes, the final decision, but after the final recommendation and the analysis has been completed.

So it it makes it much more of a ministerial process with explicit criteria. It improves predictability by the applicants. We anticipate seeing this a little bit more in the in the years to come following the comp plan and the future land use map updates. Specifically, it's the the residential medium zone. So the the orange zones across the city that range from they range all the way up to 80 units per acre.

So in the in the comprehensive plan, if it's if it's a residential medium designation, doesn't matter if it's an r m one up to an r m four. They're all they all potentially could go up to 80 units per acre. So if in five years, ten years, one parcel or a couple of parcels come together and they say we wanna redesignate to be an r m four because we're right next door to one, and it seems to make sense to us. It seems that so we meet we meet the criteria. They could apply for a site specific rezone.

They wouldn't have to go through a comprehensive plan amendment. So if it's not consistent with the comprehensive plan, you've gotta do comp plan amendment first and then a site specific rezone. What we did was we we kind of cleared the decks for site specific rezones to potentially come in a little bit more frequently, because we've created a lot more opportunity with the more broad reaching policy within the comprehensive plan.

Could could you say a few words about quasi judicial processes?

I think perhaps not everyone's familiar with that. Yeah. So quasi judicial requires, one, you may have heard this before, the appearance of fairness doctrine has to be administered to the decision makers. They can't be benefiting from their family members can't be benefiting from their employer can't be benefiting from any of the decisions that are being made. By changing this to a hearing examiner decision final recommendation that goes to city council for final sign off, it removes that quasi judicial issue from from the city council, and it it places it in the hands of of an adjudicator, a judge.

The hearing examiner is essentially a judge that bases it on the merits of the facts and makes their decision. And there's and and we and we move on. So I think the hope is that it it can it can really make it a lot not say a lot easier for for for counsel. It just it it eliminates that complexity of a legislative quasi judicial process. So and I can I can work with legal on how we can provide a little bit more background in the benefits, pros and cons to to going to going this route? Thank

you. Yep.

Any other questions? Happy to stop here. We can pause at the end and come back if if things come to you too.

Commissioner Oliver. Commissioner Oliver, something came to me around I'm such a visual learner, and what I see here is sort of like a workflow and a process. And you did talk about how all these changes will really benefit the permitting process and all of that, but we if available and possible, just really have that process flow and really sort of, like, understand how that's going to or the changes are really gonna streamline some of the work, that would be great.

Yeah. That's a great point. Thank you. Commissioner Sills?

Yeah. Commissioner Sills, I think if I'm understanding this correctly, this is this would be really effective at bringing clarity to people on, you know, what what they're able to do and what might actually be approved. But you might lose some flexibility. Is that a fair assessment, like, that this is prioritizing clarity over flexibility?

I think, you know, it's the criteria are and we and maybe that will be helpful at the next next study session is to bring to to kind of walk through what the criteria currently are. We haven't we've started to go through them. Are they can are they are they perfect? Could they be updated? How do other jurisdictions establish their their site specific rezone criteria?

If I if I'm I'm guessing the majority of them are what the state statue statute identifies, has to be followed. So they're pretty generic. It makes it a lot more predictable. Yes. And when you have that predictability of does it comply with plan?

Does it does it meet the comprehensive plan designation requirements? Does it check the boxes? Even if somebody doesn't like it, you're on very firm ground. And this is something that staff would be providing a recommendation to the hearing examiner to say, based on the application and the proposal and the facts of the case, we support or don't support, depending on what we're seeing, what an applicant is is proposing. And a lot of our preliminary work with anyone would be, you know, have you gone through the criteria?

Have you looked at it? Usually, that means they need to bring potentially their own legal counsel, who knows land use, into the mix, ensuring that they've got a they've got a really good case. And usually, by the time you get to an application, the good cases are are there. So it it eliminates the guessing. It eliminates the, potentially, the flexibility of what a city council may decide on.

But, hopefully, what what's what's been set up and, if we continue to to maintain it and curate the comp plan and the zoning, we we either won't need site specific rezones, or when they do come in, they'll make a lot of sense. So Okay. The next one is is public notice. So title 11 section 19 lays out what public notice requirements exist for for Bothell. We've just begun to take a look at this and and identify where there's some some areas for improvement.

There's there is some outdated information, especially on our public notice sign details. Trust me when I do say that when an application comes in and we're giving them the public notice sign detail, we have a corrected version. We just haven't updated in the code. So this is just one of those we just need to clean it up. It's got an old phone number. I'd I I think the website might be correct, But it's a good opportunity to make sure, does it have everything we need? Do we wanna include information

on

there such as a QR code to our project notice web website? Take the opportunity to to refresh it as needed. The the other thing that we've recognized in the code are these optional standards for notification. Optional standards is a little oxymoronic because they're not really standards if you don't have to follow them. So it makes things confusing.

We'd rather say this is what you have to do. Anything beyond that, if somebody wants to do it, we don't really need to list it in the code. We can include that in handout information to say, if you'd like to do this, you could also hold a neighborhood meeting, or you could provide additional information as the applicant. Applicants like predictability. They like to know if I apply for this type of permit, I have to do this type of public noticing. That means mailing. That means a public notice sign. Do I need to create a web page? Do I need to do these other things? Right?

It's like, sure. That would be nice, but requiring it is that's not something that we've we we we kinda wanna get away from that. This does not mean public noticing for more engagement side of things where it is a a larger management plan, climate action plan, those we scope out engagement. We we come to you. We go to council.

We ask, how should we here's here's our plan for engagement. There's no rule book for how to come together you know, establish an engagement plan for a climate action plan. There is a rule book for engagement for a comprehensive plan that we had to follow, make sure it met the requirements, and then we went five miles past that. So we see a good opportunity to make sure that it it improves readability of the code, and it's much more streamlined and clear and just generally refreshes the whole the whole section. So site plan review.

This was the one that I I I hinted at a little bit with the updates to the the SIPA thresholds, the information, and the the requirements, the thresholds within the site plan review are are outdated now. We need to update those. We need to make sure that they're consistent. I think they still reference four four residential units, that was that we we talking to staff, it does seem as though that was the link between said, okay. If it's gonna go through SEPA, then it's gonna go through a site plan review.

And these site plan reviews are those larger site larger developments that are not short plats. It's not a plat that's identifying, here's all the boundaries. It's a large parcel, generally that has no internal boundary lines, and it's it's basically locking in the development to building a, b, and c go here, here, and here. And here's where the roads are, and here's where the utilities are. So we wanna just make sure that we update that.

It'll clarify and and improve the the usability. Also, we wanna make sure we update the modification criteria. There's some some thresholds that we think we could we could make a little bit more clear, and we may find other things. But really just giving you a sense of what what this update's gonna include. So those are the ones I just wanted to highlight.

There's a number of other sections. There may be minor edits here or there, and we'll we'll touch on all of them except maybe just the the grammatical changes that we need to make. So with that, happy to dig further into any questions, even the why are we doing this now. Questions? Comments?

So you've provided us with some code sections here, but they're not you don't have the modifications necessarily that you're proposing going forward.

Correct. Yeah. The we wanted to just make sure clear and transparent. Here's here are all those sections currently. Some of them, we do have some track changes in there. So over time, over these next several months, those will grow, and we'll we'll highlight those and come back to you. But really just wanted to get something moving this year so that when we do come back, it's not we don't have to refresh.

We're gonna

start from scratch.

Thank you. Commissioners? No? I guess we'll look forward to seeing this again. Okay.

And I'm hearing previous conversations really and really when we focus on clarity, streamlining, predictability, like, it truly does help both staff and the applicant, and and it does sound as though planning commission appreciates that. So looking forward to to working through this.

We we do appreciate that. I think from other comments you've received along the way, we wanna be sure that that's not at the cost of public participation.

Yeah. Absolutely. We wanna make sure that that how we approach this makes makes a lot of sense. Yeah. And we'll we'll identify along the way what's the minimum requirement for state law. It can it can sometimes be well below. I mean, one of the one of for example, one thing that we'll we will bring up is public hearings. One public hearing is required. We do two. We do a public hearing with planning commission, and we do a public hearing with city council.

So it'll be a good question. You know, we've we've been in this room, and there have been no comments for public hearings. You what's the value of that? Well, we we're at least going through the steps. I'm sure city council would weigh in one way, and and you guys will weigh in as well as far as do you wanna do you wanna have do you wanna hold the public hearing, or do you want city council to hold the public hearing? We'll we'll we'll dive into the requirements, and we'll make sure that we can see what's see what's the best step forward without forsaking engagement. Thank you.

Anything else? Commissioners? Seeing none. Alright. That oh, commissioner Gustafson.

Hi. Sarah Gustafson here. Thanks, staff, for this great work, and I do have some questions regarding the comments of the people who came to visit today. When would be a good time to ask those questions?

Maybe reports from staff.

Great. Will do. Thanks. So

that does conclude the study session, though. So reports from members before we get to reports from staff. Members? Yes. Commissioner

Lever. Commissioner Lever here. So I am very happy, pleased to inform you that I joined the Friends of North Creek Forest board of directors. So it is the forest adjacent to our home, and I'm very excited about getting yet more involved in this beautiful community. So if and when an item were to come forward, the presented any conflict of interest, I will recuse myself, but very excited.

Very good. Thank you for letting us know. Other commissioners? Alright. Reports from staff. Alright. I'll let

me jump through the couple things that I've got, and then we'll get into commissioner Gustafson's questions. A few things. One, board and commission appointments. So we do have two positions that expire run run out this year, the chair and commissioner Jones. Those interested in applying or reapplying, please do so by February 20.

Information and I know it's been shared city council's web page, but it's, bothellwall.gov/boards apply is the is the direct, the direct link. And that's for all boards and commissions. There's a number in the and it is listed on at that site what is available. If there's others out there listening that find that either planning commission or some other board suits their fancy. Staff last night at city council gave a update to city council on recent development, development through 2025, so following the comp plan update.

So data to actually point to and look at. Please take a look at the development report that's in there, the slides. If you wanna watch, go ahead and watch. Sort of the the the cliff's notes are we saw a significant amount of development activity on the residential side and focused primarily on that last night and in the report, even to the point of looking at preliminary applications. So even though pre applications or pre apps are conceptual, they don't necessarily mean anything will actually happen.

They tend to lead to development. We were well above where we were the year before and above the last three years with more than a thousand units proposed in in a number of different types of of forms. We were learning a lot about and I mentioned this, you know, developers were learning how to work with whether there was a minimum density or a maximum density or what is middle housing. How do I build for middle housing? So the density there, you know, the the number of units could actually be higher.

We just don't don't quite know. But, again, it's just it's just conceptual. Conceptual. We have seen a lot of land use application, submittals coming through, with over 600 units proposed in 2025. Just the first thirty now thirty four days of the of the year, we're over 600 units in land use application submittals.

Those don't always become construction permits, but they most like they they most generally do. So we're starting to see the the beginning of the development process. And in there, there's a lot of information you can see where there are, you know, spikes and, you know, peaks and valleys of of activity recognizing the sale times Avalon development or the Alexin Block D as these pretty big spikes and then a little bit of a drop. But all in all, things are looking pretty pretty steady given the the uncertainty of the economy at this point. So, yeah, take a look at that.

A lot of good information in there. And then my last note is the next meeting, scheduled for February 18. We've got a housing action plan update, report out on engagement, kinda where that's where that's been, where it's going, next steps on that, and potentially another item from staff that'll be added added on, but that's to be determined. So

yeah. Alright. Thank you. So you have a few words to say about the Lily Kirk development as it was referred to?

Yeah. So it it was included in the development report. 79 townhomes proposed in the r m believe it's r m one zoning. They're proposing to retain the historic Lilycreek House, recognize the slopes, the the slopes along the the western side of the of the property. There is a required through road to connect to the the road to the north, which was designed and developed to to end there and then continue through this site once it once it came in.

Staff are reviewing it. I believe the comment period closed on, I wanna say, January 16, the formal public comment period. And staff contact information is on the website. A really good planner. Not he'd he'd be mad at me if if I if he knew I was saying this, but if there are questions, specific questions about, you know, process, what's being proposed, he's a good conduit to work with. And as you know, in regard to the questions and the comments around transportation, traffic, impacts, mitigations, those are worked through by our traffic engineers. So that's Boyd Benson

Mhmm.

Transportation planners. They they're the ones that will be responding to that as well as the applicant to make sure that it does comply with all codes and requirements. But if there are any other questions, specific questions that I I can try to field, if not, I can I can follow-up at a with an email?

Yes. That would be great. Thank you. Sarah Gustafson here again, and it sounds like the questions that I have asked wanted to ask are already being addressed. But because of gratitude towards Jody and Greg Shish for showing up and for people writing in, I wanted to ask some pretty specific questions, and apologies if I missed the information because traffic safety and letting kids play outside is a priority.

So my questions are about the structure of the road inside the development. It sounds like a self contained loop with alleys for cars to circulate, which sounds like it would avoid bad impacts, so no long line of cars just gunning to go out the exit. I wanna confirm my understanding. Two, how the access road integrates into one hundredth, new signalization, turn lanes, left turns coming out. Are they allowed, or is it right in, right out only?

Three, city staff I know is working to make new safety benefits due to redoing the road to modern standards, like sidewalks and lighting. Will the city how will the city evaluate whether these need to be tweaked after people start moving in? And number four, going beyond the access point itself, can you talk about ways to discourage drivers on one hundredth from the temptation to speed through any nearby side streets where our commenters and their neighbors live, bump outs, radar, for example, and any general impact for bikers, walkers, and dogs in the area. Those are my four questions. Let me know if you want me to send them in an email, please.

Thank you so much.

Yeah. Those are those are great questions. And and fortunately for me, those are all transportation questions. So if you wanna send them to me or if you wanna send direct them to I'll I'll just say Boyd Benson and my probably in myself just to make sure that I can make the loop gets closed. We can definitely make sure that the staff that are assigned and and working on this can answer them. If not, we can work with the developer and their transportation engineer because all of those leave my planning brain and my ability to to answer off the top of my head.

Yeah. That sounds great. And is it possible to directly directly loop loop in in the commenters emails on this so that they are sure to get the answers when they are refined? Thank you.

Great. Other questions or comments? Commissioner

Levers. So I I have a question around the affordability component. So for this particular development, 79 townhomes, are any of those gonna be, quote unquote, affordable?

They there is no affordability requirement. There's no mandatory affordable housing that would apply. So these will likely these will fall within the the greater than 80% AMI bands. And then they they do some of the questions from council last night too on how we'll how we'll continue to report out on what is not only what's being proposed, but what's being constructed and and finalized as we move toward the five year look back report for commerce on housing.

Other questions or comments? Seeing none, there being no further business, is there a motion to adjourn?

Commissioner Lever, motion to adjourn.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Silves, I second. Is that a motion?

Alright. It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Meeting is adjourned at 07:26. Our next meeting will be February 18. Thank you all, and thank you to the citizens that came in to speak their concerns to us. We appreciate that.