Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

[Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat.

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] Grandma. [Music] Hey. [Music] and welcome to the June 10th, 2020 25 Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting. Can we have roll call please here? Here. McCracken. Oh, here.

Here. Word here. Msina here. Cauus. Okay. Can you join me in the pledge, please stands one nation under God, indivisible. Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. Okay. I need approval of um March 26, 2025 joint workshop with their historic preservation commission meeting. I so approve. Second. I have um um well I have um a motion by Commissioner Fleming, second by Engles. All in favor? I also need um approval of minutes for the April 8th, 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting. A motion we approve the minutes from the April 8th planning and zoning commission meeting. Thank you. I have a second. I have a All in favor. I at this time public comment. Anything that isn't on our agenda you can speak about? No. Okay. Staff comment. All right. Good evening, commissioners. Uh just a few comments this evening. I have two uh staff members here that some of you may not have met. So we have Virginia Lustello, our planning technician is in the audience. She's here for the workshop item. She's very involved in reviewing plans especially for accessory dwelling units. And so I thought it'd be good for her to be here. And then Barbara Barker, our new associate planner, is also here this evening. We did not receive any public hearing items for July. So looking at potentially doing another workshop on some either housekeeping codes or some other things like the twin homes if we can work through that. So I'll keep you

up posted. That's all I have. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Commission comments. Okay. Moving on. I'm going to our first um item is the applicant is Weed Bear Land. location is West Ramsey Road, south of Lopez Avenue, east of Player Drive. And it's a request for one-year extension for an R34 special use permit to allow multifamily residential at 34 units per acre on a lot zone C17 that allows 17 units per acre. And Sean's going to give us an update. All right. Thank you, commissioners. You're welcome. So this evening, as alluded to, there is a request for an extension. It's not an actual hearing. This is an administrative item under other business. So I didn't prepare a a full-blown um presentation on this. So um should be a fairly easy one to review. So we'll go through that right now. This is a three parcels measuring a total of 3.116 acres in aggregate. It's located west of Ramsey Road, south of Lopez Avenue, east of Player Drive, zoned commercial. There's two um there's three parcels, but two of them are zoned CC, which is community commercial, and one of them zoned C17. So, the decision point tonight is should the planning and zoning commission approve or deny the request of Wedbear Land LLC represented by Steven Goodmanson of Bernardo Wills Architects for a one-year extension of an approved special use permit which was SP224 that allowed for an R34 density increase in the C17 zoning district for a mixeduse development with multifamily units and commercial suites.

So um we met and presented this almost one year ago to the day. So on June 11th the the planning and zoning commission of Celane held a public hearing on the above special use permit and it was approved with conditions. There were 13 total conditions. They are also in your staff report and it was approved unanimously by a six to zero vote. So, as part of an approval for a special use permit, uh code does allow because they're valid for one year and so they need to pull a permit and they need to do some some work to uh vest themselves in there. But if that does not happen for whatever reason, code does allow for an extension. So, I'll read a portion of this cited code items from 1709230 adherence to approved plans. The underlined portion states, "However, such period of time may be extended by the planning and zoning commission for one year without public notice upon written request filed at any time before the permit has expired and upon showing of unusual hardship not caused by the owner or applicant." And so I'll go back here to the discussion. So, the applicant has submitted a letter dated May 8th of 2025 requesting the extension with a statement explaining the hardship they are encountering. The applicant indicates following the special use permit issuance that their architect has produced additional schematic designs with varied uh building layouts, unit sizes, mixes, and parking features. and a consulting cons a consulting firm completed a market study evaluating condominium and apartment concepts and commercial brokers were consulted on commercial

space designs. So what that study revealed is that high construction costs particularly for required a required parking study or parking structure combined with current market rate apartment rents present a risky and unfavorable financing option. So, additionally, the market conditions for condominiums are less favorable than for apartments at the location. So, as a result, the applicant requires additional time to address these financing and design challenges strategically. So if if this is approved, the approval of the extension request would allow the applicant extra time to secure viable financing and ref and refine the project design while ensuring compliance with all the permit conditions. The applicant's extension request letter is attached. And in the staff report, there's some site photos from the original uh staff report as well as a site plan and a rendered elevation. So with that, that'll wrap up the this request. There are 13 prior conditions of approval. They are towards the end of this u request letter. And the planning and zoning commission may by motion grant a one-year extension of the approved special use permit SP224 to June 11th of 2026. If denied and the item expires, then the applicant must apply for another special use permit. Do we have a limit on how many special use extensions we can do? Is there a hard stop? Yes, this is it. This is it. This will be it. I knew. Good job. Subdivisions can do that up to five times. But special use permits are is a different thing. One year one one year extension. Thank you. Sean, I got a question. As you read the applicant's letter,

is there going to be different design on this project since or they have to stay with the design that we approved u prior to this with the special use permit? Because in their letter, the architect produced additional designs with different building layout options, unit sizes, mixes, and parking features. So, how does that work with what we approved when we approved it a while ago? And are they planning to change the design? So I I am not privy to what they have been working on. They didn't provide any of that. But a special use permit, they do need to follow the site plan itself. The designs that's a little more soft unless design review is triggered. So they do have a little bit of flexibility there. But for by and far for the for the broadest perspective of this, it needs to meet what was approved as far as the site plan goes. Okay. Because in our package under the conceptual site plan rendered elevations I remember that's what we saw the last time we heard this and approved it. So are they tied into this? That's what I'm asking. Or they can change the layout because of what they said in their letter and not come back to us. They can change the layout internally of the structure itself. So if you know they if their market study shows that hey maybe the suites need to be a little smaller or a little bigger and um then they they are well within their right to do that. They can change you know the the number of units was was set but if they decided hey maybe two bedrooms would work better than three bedrooms or vice versa they they can do that as well. So they can change that internal structure of the building itself within the limits of the total number of units for density, but they do need to meet what was approved in the site plan. Okay. And we limited

the height as well, did we not? Wasn't it 35 ft or was it? Yeah, that that is uh that is a limit that's in code. That's code. And so the parameters have set the envelopes there, but they just have to decide whether they're apartments or whether they're condos or whatever the contents are, but they're restricted by the structure and the site plan. Yeah. And so, um, you know, rewinding the clock back to that evening, um, the the CC portion, they decided that they would use that as the surface parking because there's on the other side of Player Drive, there's there's homes there. And the idea was to allow those homes to have a continued view of of the mountains on the other side to a degree obviously, you know, but they put it down further on the slope in the C17 further away from the residential homes to help with that viewshift. Okay, question. Um, I'll preface my question that I'm I'm not trying to make this hard. You know, I think it was a good project. It received unanimous approval for I think good reasons. As you pointed out, I think the design is very thoughtful with the way it works with the neighborhood and whatnot. It's higher density, but it's in the right spot. You know, right on our arterial and, you know, our comp plan encourages uh that. Uh so the question and you know there's 13 conditions that you know protect the city and actually improve a couple of quirks with the streets and the islands and turns and whatnot. So there's actually some I think benefit for for me. I drive on Ramsay. They'll clean up a couple things maybe or whatnot. So I'm not making this hard. Don't I'm I'm supportive but I I just want maybe an academic moment here. Maybe the uh legal could jump in on this deal here. But you know when I when I read in here unusual

hardship you know I mean not just a hardship but if the bar is it has to be an unusual hardship that's harder than an normal hardship you know and I and I I draw the parallel to uh you know with the variances you know and and you know we use this kind of a similar term in the variances and they're they're almost unpassable because you can't achieve a hardship bar, you know. So, you know, I I get it, you know, that financing is tough right now. Interest rates are crazy. You got steel prices going up, yada yada. You know, I I have sympathy. I think this is a good project. I want to approve it, but does the the definition work against me in in terms of my ability to be straight with the the definition of unusual hardship and wanting to pass this. Right. So, I haven't seen a definition that defines hardship versus unusual hardship. So, I turn that over to Randy. He's the word Smith. It is not defined anywhere as far as I know. And so the commission would have to decide what is unusual and what is usual. Uh hardships exist uh uh that could be usual in terms of I don't know difficulty in finding materials things that are common uh hardships that are experienced by various developers. So anything outside of that common could be considered unusual. Pretty supportable then in this case. Thank you, Bill. Chairman. Yeah, I I remember this site and it was suitable for multif family development a year ago. I think we impose some requirements about access because of the major roadways and so on. I don't remember we had a development agreement or not, but

I don't think that really matters. It was a valid application back then and should be approved and I feel that it's still valid today. I'm not sure exactly what hardship means. I know for a variance, you have a piece of property and a river running through it or a tree and you can't meet the setback when you build on it. That's a zoning hardship. I think this is really an issue of what would deter you from going forward. Financing is obviously one, but also market conditions. Maybe they don't need as many bedrooms, maybe need three. And I can understand that. So, I have no problem with this application at all. And Sean, the conditions that were approved prior still run with the extension, right? Correct. 45. All right. Anything else to Sean? Okay. Motion we approve uh the one year up. Sorry. Don't we let them speak? It's not a public hear. Oh, it's not. Okay. It's a I have a motion by Commission or Commissioner England. English. I have a second by Commissioner Ward. We have a roll call. Simple motion is fine. Oh, SE. Um, okay. All in favor? I opposed. Okay. The extension is approved. Next on our agenda is um a workshop possible code amendments by accessory use and impervious surface standards. Say that fast. Yeah. All right. Well, good evening again. So, this is kind of a continuation of the discussion we had at the joint workshop with the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission in March. Those minutes are in your packet and you approved those already. Uh instead of focusing on all of those items, staff kind of looked at the items that were maybe most pressing and easier to tackle. And so we're

bringing forward this evening just the code amendments for discussion related to accessory structures, accessory uses and impervious surfaces. So we'll kind of walk through those. So the focus as I mentioned is really on these two. The first is accessory use. So this is not only accessory dwelling units but other accessory uses. The accessory dwelling unit code was amended in 2019 to allow increased heights if they were built over garages. So they're allowed to be 24 feet in height. And with that, we implemented a second story step back requirement that helped to kind of lessen the imposition of the taller structures in the rear yard on the neighboring properties. That has proved to be difficult for staff to administer that. It's been a challenge and it's taken time and added more cost for applicants and owners to work with their design professionals to provide these very detailed elevation drawings with all the step back measurements and to kind of scale and verify that has been timeconuming for staff. So wanted to visit about that. Uh also as we talked about at the joint workshop accessory too. So kind of are the accessory structures are they accessory to in terms of kind of the sizing massing height things like that. So those are some things we wanted to talk about. And then the imperous surface is something that with the ADU code, we implemented a pvious surface. So kind of flipping that uh there's a requirement in the code with 30% of the site must be pvious so that it can the water storm water snow can penetrate into the ground. So it's not covered with buildings and hardcapes. And we wanted to discuss if that's something that the commission would support increasing the setbacks and increasing the requirement for the amount of pvious. So decreasing what can be an impervious surface. Right now the the setbacks the minimum setback

requirements allow that 30% pvious surface to be achieved. And we have Chris Bosley here our city engineer this evening to help if you have questions about this. that there are ongoing issues with neighboring properties flooding out their neighbors with how close buildings are with all of the other things with snow and storm water and drainage and whatnot. So, those are some things we wanted to talk to you about this evening. There was a code in place and that did apply to residential lots and we'll be looking at some of those standards this evening to see if we like any of those and want to bring them back. That was repealed in 2000. So talk through those starting with accessory uses. So I have on the slide some of the code language specific to accessory uses. So this first part is talking about what is accessory to. So what is accessory uses are appropriate, incidental and subordinate to a principal use. The accessory uses shall be located on the same lot as a prop principal use except as otherwise provided in this section and shall meet the criteria established in section 1706 630 of this chapter and then below that there is the criteria what is an accessory structure. So that defines it to a structure shall be considered to be accessory to and shall not be subject to the same site performance standards as the principal structure on the same lot if one or more of the following conditions otherwise kill those lights. I might keep the lights on a little bit for the bit. Thank you. Okay, so this um talks about the structure is either detached and separated from the principal structure by six feet or more. It's attached to the principal structure by a breezeway roof with intervening space of five feet or more and the space is open on at least two sides. It is a private storage garage. It could be fuel storage

shed etc. And then it defines what is not considered to be accessory. So we are looking at some possible code amendments related to height and stepbacks and then as I mentioned removing that second story step back. So this is something wanted to get some input on and I'll kind of walk through these and then we have some series of slides with questions so you don't have to answer all these on each of the slides. So we allow for accessory structures. So accessory dwelling units over garages and shops and other things if they're in the building envelope for the principal structure. So if they're there, they can be up to 32 feet tall even if the home is say 18 feet tall. So there's there's kind of no no relationship to that. What is the definition of the building envelope? The building envelope are those are the setbacks. So you have to meet your front, rear, and side setbacks for the principal structure. So typically it'd be 20 in the front. If you have an alley, it'd be five and five versus five and 10 if you don't have an alley. And then 25 ft in the rear yard. Okay. So if it's outside of that, then it can go taller. If it's within the the rear yard is where we see a lot of accessory dwelling units. So within the 25 ft and that has the the 24 foot is the cap for an accessory dwelling unit over a garage. But there is a lot a lot of homes are being built now with the attached ADU and garage where it's kind of just one continuous structure that goes into the rear yard. And so taking advantage of that 32 foot tall within the principal envelope and then maybe tapering it if they're in the rear yard. Sorry. Do we still have a limit on the square footage of a ad? We do. Yes, it's what is that like 800 square feet I think is something I think it's 800 square feet that can't be any larger than that right no matter if it's on a garage or a separate unit correct if it's accessory ding it's it is maxed at that so this is a question if a possible

code amendment so if it's attached to the principal structure that it could be 32 feet tall within the principal building envelope otherwise it would be limited to what's allowed in the code which is the 24T if it's over a garage where it would be 18 feet if it has a pitched roof or 14 feet if it has a low sloped or flat roof. So that's one consideration. We'll keep walking through that. Right now it does not it's not required to be attached. Correct. Any detached structure if it's in that principal building envelope can be up to 32 feet tall. So the change would be to require it to be attached. Right. In order to achieve that. So that'd be yes. So this is currently proposed for ADUs for discussion only. And Hillary, can we ask some more questions as we go? Have did was there any discussion perhaps with staff to say any adu units being built should stay within the height of the original house that's on that property. So because I know that there's been bath big buildings properties being built. Has there any discussion been talked about? We've talked about it internally. I know historic preservation commission has talked about that. Um that's something that I think would be difficult sell at this point citywide. Maybe that's something for historic overlay areas if they wanted to opt into that. But I mean that is certainly the commission has the option of making recommendations. Okay. And that's something that you could recommend. There are a lot of homes throughout the city that aren't that height and with the increased interest in doing accessory dwelling units and allowing that extra 24, you know, going up to 24 feet in height, it could Okay. change that for some people, but yeah, good questions. Okay, here's another um proposal. So setbacks for ADUs located in the rear 25

ft to have it be 10 feet on both sides including on street side yards. And so this is something that looking at if we remove that second story step back and I'll show you some illustrations that that could achieve a similar result by just increasing the step back. So this is is that both sidey yards at 10? It would be because right now we have a five and a 10 deal, right? Okay. And then the rear yard, this is a proposal to consider keeping it five feet if you're next to an abuing rear alley. We have somewhere there's maybe a side alley. So this would be if there's a rear alley to have five feet and then have 10 feet if there's no rear alley. And I can show you some examples as well so you can kind of see what that looks like with the step back in relation to the step back line. the second story. And so here's the proposal to strike that entirely. The second story step back the eaves still, this one does have, you can see the last bullet point that still is kind of allowed in our code anyway. You can the eaves can encroach into the setback area. So that would still be allowed with the two-foot encroachment of the eaves. So here is an illustration. This is an ADU that's over a garage. It meets all the step back and step back requirements. You can see on the screen the two-foot eaves are here. This has been achieved by 11 foot setbacks on the sideyards. So, and if they kind of modified and didn't have such an overhang with the eaves or, you know, change the structure slightly, I think that could be achieved as well with the 10 foot. But this is showing you what that looks like. And this is off of an alley. And here that is zoomed in just so you can see. So these are the things that make it difficult when the designers are trying to do these elevations with the stepbacks and when staff is trying to verify all of the different things with the 45 degree angle and then figure out

what's the eve and is that in that stepback space or not. So so when these are being built, planners go out with great big ladders and they hang plumb bobs off there and all kinds of stuff to make sure these things are in compliance. I'm I'm trying to get a a flavor why why it is difficult. I mean it just because lots slope and whatnot and it's very difficult to really understand whether they comply. Is that correct? Yes. So planning doesn't do the measurements of the height and the setback. So the building department does that but they do have a challenge when they have dirt piled up and there's all these things and they're trying to figure out where's the building wall and then they're trying to figure out where's that 45 degree and there's all these variations with the lot itself. So it is difficult for sure to have this other variable and then where's the eve and then they're trying to kind of shoot the laser line up to make sure okay is that in that same space and is it meeting the the height at that location exact location where the step back should be. So those are those are our challenges right now. Most of our lot sizes if they're a typical lot in this city run 50 feet wide. Correct. How many are exceptional in 40 feet? Do we have a few of those ringers? We have a number of them, but not restrict. You come in 10, you come in 10, all you've got left is 20 and that's a car a two-car garage barely. Barely, right? So, it's there's not a large number or not not a large percentage that are right, but there are some. So, that those are going to prove to be a little bit more challenging, but they are already substandard lot sizes. The typical is the 50 foot frontage with the 5500 square foot lot dimensions. Right. This works well on a 50-ft lot. Maybe it's a little tetier. Maybe not every lot should have an ADU. Correct. A semi-wide. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. And Hillary, I remember when we did the ADU unit study and came up with

this the old plan, let's call it. Um, is it been difficult for staff to not approve ADU units when they come forward because of our current code? And have applicants found some loopholes to get around so they can build some of these larger structures that we see in town that have a, you know, a garage and it towers over the neighborhood because I'm looking at this as protecting the neighborhoods. I'm not against the units or anything. I think that that serves a purpose, but when they kind of interfere with the characteristics of a neighborhood, whether it's downtown or outside somewhere, that's my biggest concern. And regardless how we change our code or whatever and what I've read, is it still going to be the same thing where the height is going to be interfering with the next door neighbor because they have windows on the second story looking down in someone's yard that used to be somewhat private and stuff. So, I'm kind of trying to feel how staff has been interpreting what's been happening with our current code. And even if we change this, will this help somewhat or do we have to be a little bit stricter on like John says, maybe not every lot has ad units available if the size doesn't require it. And if it does, then yeah, there's some restrictions for height and setbacks. I'm agreeing with setbacks and I'm all for even more setbacks. Uh but my thing is just the existing neighborhoods because I think they've been compromised recently. To answer your question, I think we've for the most part the code has worked well other than the step back has been difficult to administer as mentioned. Um there there's always going to be people that

push the limits and find the loopholes. What we're seeing more now, I think just with the cost of land and material prices and all of that is people are trying to put more on their small properties. And so that's proved to be a challenge. I think that's made it more obvious for staff and commission members and community members to say, "Wait, maybe, you know, now that we have a historic preservation commission, they're hearing more about, well, that's changing the character of this historic neighborhood if there's all these outbuildings and maybe the scale and the the number of units and the setbacks are different than what you see on a kind of a historical development pattern, right?" So I think that's that's what we've been seeing and no matter what right now even just the principal dwelling can be 32 feet tall. So, we do hear concern from people sometimes that someone's looking in my yard, but Okay, that's Yeah. Well, I see you want a reality asking whether we should put windows on those side blank walls. That's counter. I just went through this in Spokane and we're doing an ADU on a historic property and they took off the windows on the sides so it wouldn't look into the neighbors backyard. It was very deliberate removal of those windows. They can look one way but they can't look over the neighbors. Right. So, something we should think about is adjacencies, right? Intrusion on the adjacencies. Okay. So, this image shows an example of a 9- foot rear yard step back from an alley that meets a second story step back. And so, this one just based on kind of the roof line and all of that. It has to be at 9 ft to meet that. But this one shows that that can be met with that step back with a 3'6 inch. So the five foot that's proposed next to an alley would still achieve that depending on how people, you know, design the structure. So some of them would be a little more imposing than others with kind of the roof line and how they've designed it. But that that could be achieved. And this is an example of a site plan

for that same one with that reduced rear yard. So it's 3 foot six in at the rear. There's very limited space right now. It looks like there's 7 ft in between the principal dwelling unit and the garage ADU structure. So if at the rear yard if you had an alley and we required that 10 foot that wouldn't they could not fit that in that space. They'd have to either shrink it up or they wouldn't be able to do that project just because of how large the existing dwelling unit is. And Hilly, can I ask you another question real quick? Are you finding that um that new or permits coming in are for new homes with a DU units whether they're attached or separate new construction because they knock down an old house and you're seeing them build a want to build a new house and then there's an ad ADU unit whether it's attached or not there or is it more an existing home and another unit in the back whether it's over a garage or not. Are you seeing a pattern? Seen both. I don't know if staff thinks there's predominance of one or the other. But Sean will speak to that. Virginia is probably the the best one to to speak to this. Okay. She is, but I warned you. It's it's a wild mix. There's no one prevalent over another. We see older homes that add an ADU. We see new construction that's attached or detached. trying to create a yard in between the two units, you know, so there is some still privacy on that same lot. So, it's it it's really a crapshoot. Okay. Okay. Chairman. Yeah. Go ahead, Phil. I've got a couple of question. I want to ask one thing first. How do you distinguish a duplex from an ADU develop lot? I know there's a covenant required

or something or an agreement when someone chooses to build one of these, but what is the difference? I mean, it's still two units on a property. Correct. So, um the the underlying zoning, it depends on the underlying zoning. So, in an R12, for example, you need 7,000 square feet for a duplex, 3500 per, right, for your lot size. And many of the lots don't achieve that unless it's a lot and a half or two lots or something. So that's limited. But the with an ADU, the main house can be whatever square foot is allowed within the 32 feet and but the ADU itself can only be 800 square feet or less. So with a duplex, there's no actual limit on the floor area size for either unit. A couple other things. You know, this isn't like a site plan review or a variance. I mean, this is technical stuff. And I'll be honest on something like this uh this in the next uh application I'm going to defer to Hillary and you Sean and to Chris. You're the professionals who understand you're on top of everything and and try to develop things that consistent with good land use American planning what whatever it happens to be. And I respect that. Uh when I look at what we're doing here, you there are different things I look at and I think if I'm not a developer, an architect, and I read this code and I want to build an ADU, either part of a house or separate, I better know what the heck I'm doing because the second story has to set further back than the first floor, and the setbacks have to be this and so on and I'm all that makes sense and ADUs are the way to go. They're providing an option for more affordable housing or rentals and I certainly do appreciate that too. But in

looking through the actual code, there's one place that talks about you can you have to have an you can have an 18 foot high garage, I think, which could be converted somehow to an ADU. Well, 18 foot ceiling is like a warehouse. And to me, if I have a house and there's a foot 18 foot high garage next to me, probably not going to be real happy no matter how it's used. And I can give you an example right down on Second Street at Harris and there's a single flame home in the corner, built a garage next door, and it looks to be about 18 feet high. And I think, you know, we get kind of get overboard on what we need to do and how to how to regulate it. Um, let me I don't have my glasses on. Let me a couple other comments I wanted to go over here. You know, in the code, you talk about the lot coverage and varying setbacks and and you know, how far away and and protecting the property next door with windows or not having windows and kind of feel like there need to be setbacks. If it's going to be the house, we know what those are. If it's going to be a accessory dwelling unit independent of the house, then we need to have set established setbacks. Someone looks at and says, "Okay, I need to be 5 feet, 12 feet, 2 feet, whatever it is." And that's the envelope that you build in. And I feel like we've got so many things in the code right now and this the way it is now. I think the regions may be less so. It's very confusing to people and I think it's something we probably want to encourage these ADUs and I think the best way to do it is make it somewhat easier for people. Talk about windows. I'm pretty sure some place in the fire code it talks about you can't

have encasing windows too close to another building because if there's a fire in one it can jump across through the windows to the other one and there are limitations on that. I don't know if those apply here or not. Um, and I also think it's kind of easier just to say you want to have an accessory dwelling unit and it's not attached to the house. It needs to set back behind the principal building line of the main house. Could be 25 ft. It could be whatever is deemed appropriate, but it shouldn't be on line with the house because that's me says it's a duplex even though it's only 800 feet. The house next door may only be 1,200 feet. And I just, you know, I I guess through it all, I would defer it to county staff, whether it's on this or or the next application with Chris to what you professionally believe is the best thing to do. But just as a person sitting here, I think it's could be very confusing to people and if it's confusing, it defers people from doing it. And I think we want them to do it as much as we possibly can. That's all. Thank you. Good points. Phil, I appreciate that. Don't try to build. Um, and you know, me being in the construction I business, I understand the setbacks and stuff. And I agree with Phil. I think more clarity in what we want to change for an ADU unit should be set so people know exactly what they can do and whatever the size lots are. And and John said, maybe not every lot is going to be able to do it. And um, you know, Lynn said about windows. I agree with that and I'm sure the fire code might have something. I know you have to have big enough windows to get out of but you know in a bedroom but the design should be so that it's not intrusive to the

neighbors and the height definitely uh building everyone nowadays is wanting I wouldn't say larger garages but larger storage units on their property because they just have a lot of stuff in town and they want to place it somewhere. I don't think garages are as important to some people as what I call storage units on properties and stuff. So, um, and I agree with Phil saying I let staff make the changes and, you know, talk to us about what we feel recommendations might be, but um, that's kind of my input on this. Go ahead, John. I think you're we're kind of getting on a consensus here and that staff is look this is like Phil says this is this is your call. You know, you're looking for input. Uh I think we're supportive of what it it takes to do the job right. You in your staff report it says it's challenging to administer. you know, turn that around and as you sell this to council and the community, if it's challenging for you, it's challenging for the property owners and the developers and the and the designers as well, you know, because what you're saying is there's not really good clarity of what what what can happen and whatnot. So, I think you should go to a a increased setback methodology rather than the step back thing. I think it should apply to all structures whether they're a dwelling or not, whether it's just a a barnuminium back there or whatever you call it, garage or whatnot. And uh and so there you go. I have a question on the second story step back. Is the ADU the only part that this is written into the code? Correct. So it doesn't like because I I see how you're saying it's challenging

to administer. So, it's not, you know, if they're looking at building a little shop or garage, um, detached and then, you know, as they're looking at the cost and maybe they're going to, you know, try to finance it or whatever and they think, "Oh, maybe we'll add an ADU while we're at it." But then that changes the rules probably more than they were anticipating. Um, I guess every time somebody submits the building permit and then gets corrections, it has to go back, then everybody's reviewing it again, and that increases weight times and all that. Um, do you kind of have So, if this is the only place in the code that it kind of states that differently, I can see how that's confusing, but we're basically achieving the same same thing by increasing the setbacks is what I hear. Um, but do we have kind of a I mean, even if it's just like a rough guess, like 40% of these get turned back around or we're back and forth on a lot or is it pretty common? I'm just kind of curious like how many people kind of struggle with this twotory step back. I don't know if Virginia or Sean have the answers on that, but I do know I think some of the more seasoned designers have done it so they're used to it. But I think some people that are kind of coming in for the first time, they're working with a new architect and they just there's a lot of back and forth trying to explain to them what needs to be submitted, right? And then making sure that it meets those requirements. So it's definitely extra time. Yeah. And as you said, I guess you asked the question and I'll answer it that this is the only thing. So, if they're building a shop within the principal building envelope that's 32 feet tall, that does not have a second story step back requirement. It's only the ADU triggers that, right? And I can see how when people are kind of looking at doing improvements on their house, they, you know, if you give a mouse ski, you're like, "Oh, I'll do this and maybe we'll add a little apartment in there and maybe we'll do this." But then not realizing it changes those setbacks. And really, I mean, 10 ft still relatively close to the property line and probably would allow for a wider gate, you know,

and those kind of things. So, you you know, you can't really get that space back later, I guess, if you build in it. But it seems more clear and simple just in consistency with other sections to just have a setback. I think most people can under stand a setback um and go walk their property and decide where that would be. So yeah, the only challenge comes in on a lot of our PUDs, people always ask for that five and 10. So we'd have to bridge over to PUDs and I think lay on the same rule, 10 ft, 10 ft. Mhm. Because it seems like all the PUDs always ask for that five and 10. And back to the point that maybe not every lot, you should see my lot. There's no way you're going to get an ADU on my lot. You know, it's a little PUD and I have a postage stamp for backyard. And you look at me ranches and those kind of deals, I think a lot of them are just going to get boxed out because it's they're just too small. Too small. So I mean, yeah, saying that. So when it comes through as a PUD, those would be kind of the same rules and in order for us to grant some variance to that, we'd be granting a wider variance than we are now. If they can fit it in, they make the set and it likely might not fit. So Okay. Yeah. Right. Through the PD process, they can always ask for that reduction in the subox. And I'll show you examples under the pvious surface where that happens frequently and that is a challenge. That's also a challenge with driveway links and other things with the PDS that get deviated. But unless you said specifically in the code that ADU setbacks cannot be deviated through the PD process, I would imagine you'll still get those requests. They could ask, but then you'll we'll kind of know what they're asking and how big of a difference it is. Um I think it's easier to administer. It's easier for people to understand. um nobody wants to get into the process and then have to rework it again or wait another year to get their stuff done because of the weather. So I think um if we can make it clear and easy that probably and still achieve the same the same end goal

I think that's good. So great Mr. Chairman I have um some slides with some questions if we could just I know you're I've already received some good input but just if we could work through these and that's true I'm sorry that would be great. Okay. So, the first question, I believe your answer is yes. The planning zoning commission supports increasing setbacks and removing second story step back. Yes. Should rear yards with rear alley be 10 ft for the ADUs over garages or is the five feet more appropriate to provide a usable backyard? And I showed you that one example um for 10 feet. I am too. Those those rear 10 feet even if it's adjacent to a rear alley. alleys are narrow and then when you add snow to it and people try to get in a garage if it is a garage access that Ford F-150 just doesn't make it right. Yeah. And then there's another question that came up. So, our building official Ted Lansancy wasn't able to be here this evening, but he asked if the setbacks increased to 10 feet, would decks and stairs be encro appropriate encroachments into that setback space because he anticipates there will be question. So, often times the ADU has to have stairs to get to the exterior entrance versus internal as a side entry. Then we got to get into how big can will the deck be? You know, the landing and the stairs itself would be three feet. Right. Right. And the eaves are to be two feet, right? The eaves are two feet. So you're only going one foot over the eaves. And that you have to get into the unit. I mean, most of the time, well, I guess if it's if it's a second story entry into an ADU on the second story, yeah, you'd have to have some stairs on the outside. Unless you determine no stairs on the outside, you have to have them on the inside. That's another discussion completely. But I guess if we increased the setbacks

to 10 but allowed you know what a standard staircase width 3T or a like likely the same width of like a small balcony type 36 to code. 36 to code. Okay. Right. So doing three ADUs right now. Yeah. So I mean I think the intent being to provide to the entrance of the upstairs unit but not like a Yeah. you know, a 10 foot deck off the side. I think if it's the width of a normal staircase to code, I think that seems reasonable. So, a three-foot stair going upstairs with a three-foot landing going into the residence for a second story ADU. As far as a first only ADU on ground level, normal entry with no decking outside or how do you feel or not on the sideyard? Well, I'm just saying if someone builds if they do a 10 by, you know, 10, if we do setbacks, you know, like we just said, and it's a single ADU unit on ground level, do you say, "All right, you can put a deck off of the entry into the place or not or Well, it's solid surface. It's basically impervious surface." Okay. you could I mean yeah that's that's why I'm going for clarity here as far as we say deck and sterile patio you know so how do you get it so that we don't run into this another three years down the road and so if it's on grade how are you going to restrict that except unless it fails to meet the pvious correct if we we would address it through you calculate that you could have a 10 foot wide piece of you know a walkway to a 10-ft pad right into a slider or into an active door that's okay I think That's okay. I think you would need to allow for a ramp or a sidewalk or a staircase to get into the unit on the outside. Yeah, if you're doing a side entry. Yeah, I agree with you saying on second story you need

stairwells. Well, I mean, you could put them inside, but it it's likely less expensive to build them on the outside. Yeah. And then you're restricting the size inside of But we've increased the setbacks, so I think there's a little more space there. Okay. So, with the increase, did you get that, Hillary? The increased. Yes, I think I did. Thank you. All right. Should all accessory structures be subject to the increased setback? So the singlestory ones, do you feel that those should also have the increased? I think they should be consistent. Okay. Yes. Keep it simple. Okay. Should ADUs within the principal building envelope be limited in height unless they are attached to the principal dwelling unit? I agree with that. Should be limited in height. Yeah, that's my opinion discussion. Further agree the staff. Should other accessory structures within the principal building envelope also be limited unless they're attached to the Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. And should there be a requirement for windows on the ADU garage structure for walls that face another residential lot use or streets? And this was in response to taking away that step back. So that maybe there's the blank walls, but you bring up good points that then there's going to be more concerns with privacy and the fire issue wouldn't be here because they would be outside of that concern concern for building code 10 ft away from the property lines. I visit privacy no windows on a budding residence. I would leave that off before me. But I would leave it off too. I mean, I think sometimes there's just little upper windows that let in some light, you know, that aren't necessarily ingress egress. Um, I that's a good point. I think there's ways to make that not harmful on the I don't think all windows are like looking neighbor. So, I don't know if I would You could even recess back and have a inset balcony with a window behind it. I mean, there's

a lot of play. So, there's so many different options. So, I do think restricting it. Restrict it. Yeah. Don't be Spokane. So, don't add it. Don't. Yeah. Let's not restrict. They'll they'll Let's see what they come up with. Okay. Okay. So, impervious service. You ready to move on to this topic? Yes. Move. Are we talking about pvious or imper? Well, exactly. So, this is where we're going to switch it up a little bit because the current code is pvious. the old code was impervious and we want to go back to impervious because it's a little easier reading this and more consistent with our current code. So we do currently have the definition on the screen here in our existing zoning code. So impervious surfaces means a hard surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle and or which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow. The flow present under natural conditions prior to development. The code, as I mentioned, that was in place prior to 2000 when it was repealed, did have a more detailed definition, as you can see on the screen, that better defined what areas are considered impervious. So, we would potentially want to add something like this to make it very clear when if we're adding a new standard or just keeping the ADU standard and potentially increasing that to make it very clear what is considered impervious so that they know that the rest of it needs to be pvious. Water runs off it that's impervious. Right. Exactly. So, and then it has in addition other areas determined to be determined by the engineer to be impervious. So, that is also built in. So this is a section of the zoning code that in the past zoning was um a partnership with engineering and planning departments. So the prior code had these different percentages based on the zoning and the lots which is really based on kind of

the lot sizes you'd see. So it allowed 25% of the lot to be impervious for the R1 lot. So those are generally over one acre. 51% for the R3 and R5, 60% for the R8 and R12, 70% for R17 and MH8, and 75% for the R34. And then there was an increase not to exceed 85% if there was a parking lot that was probably by special use permit that you can only do the parking lot in those zones with the special use permit. So it could increase that up to 85% and in that case there would have likely been a swale or some other things to account for the storm water. So those were repealed at the time. In the staff report it said that it was the requirements were no longer needed. They were getting some submitts for residential lots that weren't consistent with that and they said that the regulations adopted in 1994 had the requirement for swelles and were more comprehensive in detail. Therefore, this section of the code needed to be removed because it was less stringent. Um, fast forward to current times, staff doesn't feel that way. We don't have soil requirements for residential. We do for a large multif family project and commercial, but not for single family. There is a requirement in the code. You have to keep your storm water on your site, but that proves to be very challenging if we have very limited setbacks and lots of structures and hardscape surfaces. So we wanted to bring this forward as discussion see if commission was supportive of changing those standards. Here's the language for the current ADU code. So it requires 30% pvious surface for all lots that have an ADU. So currently this is the only section of the code that triggers it. So if someone is bringing in plans for an ADU, we would look at it. Otherwise, if they're bringing in plans for lots of shops, green houses, things like that

that trigger permits, we wouldn't look for it. So, they could cover the large portion of their lot and we wouldn't review it. So, this is something we think would be beneficial to change. So, I have a question. I mean, this, you know, I don't know this whole, you know, chart here of the pvious imperous service. Yeah. And then you look at Kney County, theirs is just one sentence. On parcels that are minimum five acres in size, the following by right uses shall leave 65% of the parcel as open space free from structure. Hayden's very similar on a parcel of land whatever size the minimum 65% of the area of the site shall be left in open space free from all structures. I and like and there's not like a graph and a chart and you got to figure out how you fit and what things count, what things don't. Um I mean I I guess is I I see the idea of adding it back and I think I kind of understand some of the complications that you guys have had with the amount of hardscape and that kind of thing. Is there a way to write it that's just really simple or are is the suggestion to add it back with a chart and different sizes, you know, different different percentages for different zoning and I mean is that is there somewhere in the middle of there or is it kind of to go back to where it was before recommendation at this point? But I mean we we're open this is very preliminary discussion so we want your input and Chris may have different opinions and planning. I'm not sure. We kind of were batting around internally on like okay would you be okay if we increased it so that it would be 40% pvious so that 60% impervious so it's an increase 10% improvement over what's there currently for ADUs that would certainly simplify it and then we could even increase that more for R1 if we wanted because those are larger lots or

we could leave that alone um I think how they had it before like I mentioned the zoning was based on also kind of lot sizes and things but that is a lot more complicated to standardize it is much easier for staff to administer. But I don't know Chris wants to speak to that. Simpler, but then would there still be the opportunity for like an exception by special use or, you know, something like that. But I I I kind of it's like, well, we got rid of it and then you look at how it was before and it was just a little maybe overly complicated. And then you look at some of our neighboring communities, what they're doing, they kind of have it pretty simple, pretty simple to understand like So much has to be free from structure. Okay, get that. Um, this takes a lot more figuring out to figure out what um, what you could do. I'll show you on some of the examples kind of what we receive with the ADU plans and how they have to show the calculations. So, it does certainly take a little bit of effort on their part and for staff to review it. Um but Chris anecdotally was looking at different codes and looked at McCall and said it was um very complex formulas to try and figure it out. So we definitely want to air on the side of simpler. Yeah. for ourselves and for I was just curious again you know the first part of this workshop it was kind of predicated you know on the challenge to administer and whatnot and just I want to come in with an ADU plan permit and I've had my house for 10 years and whatnot when I come in with that uh application what do I what do I show a site plan and and is it on me here's my original house and you know do I come clean that I added this hardscape RV thing here and then I added the basketball court later and when they come in is it do you just

pull my original building file from 10 years ago that doesn't show those organic add-ons you follow me or or is it incumbent on me to show an aerial photo off the county map or something so I come clean with this organic stuff that I've added and whatnot it could this would get really complicated see I put my RV deal over there and I I expanded my patio back there because I like big parties and you know how do you how do you what do you actually look at when I come in for that ADU permit? What do you see? So this is what we require with the ADU submitt. So they have to provide this. So they show the exhibit and then they have to do this calculation of block coverage for us to review. But we did talk about exactly what you said. I mean not everybody's honest, right? You would expect me to show that organic. Yeah. Okay. Right. We would expect you to, but we know not everybody complies. But if later there's a problem and the neighbor is complaining because shedding water next door and whatnot, you'd have then we have x% you're way over. Right. I to go back a step. I know we're talking about impervious surface requirements right now over that. There's one at the end of other possible ways to address storm water and snow runoff. Did we Is that coming up or did we kind of That will be pass that one a question. So that was talking about kind of like snow brakes and French drains and things like that. Yeah, cuz impossible runoff onto neighbor properties are required. Snow brakes on metal roofs and limit use of metal to certain pitches. require gutters on all permitted structures and/or French drains. Is this a feasible or realistic? So, I don't know if we had that discussion on that or what's the feeling on that? You have some input on the snow brakes. So, Ted Lansancy building

official said that they are going to start on their end when they get permits in they're going to start looking at anything that's within 5t of a property line. If it has a metal roof, they'll be requiring the snow break. So, that could help. It doesn't entirely snow brakes. B R E A KS not breaks. Yeah. But my question is um for any new units, ADUs and stuff, why wouldn't they just match the existing roof that's on the existing house? Let's say if it's comp roof, why wouldn't we do comp instead of having metal on a new unit? And and that's something I'm slope 4 and 4 and 12. You know that I mean metal goes on 4 and 12. Ashvalt doesn't go on four and 12. So the So it has to do with your slope, the pitch, but the design factor is we didn't talk about any type of pictures or anything like that. So I don't think we can do that. No, we shouldn't weigh in on that, should we? Okay. I don't think so. But the designers design. Yeah. Let me be overstepping. Yeah, please. Hillary, I understand the whole idea of zoning is you have building and green area and driveways and maybe a swimming pool, a tennis court, whatever you want. But what I read here, the concern isn't all of those. The concern really is water runoff, right? Where's that drainage going to go? It's going to go out in the street on the neighbor's property. And I don't know, but I want to ask, is there a provision in the city ordinance anywhere that says you must retain your own water on your property? There is. And if that's there, then other than we want to move stuff around as to where it can drain, I think it's really simply a matter of you can't do it if it's going out in the

street, if it's going next door, and we'll shut it down if that's the case. But I'm just not sure where this is going. Uh, you know, the whole the whole presentation, you know, if if the idea is to control that water runoff, then if we have a law to do it, I'm not sure how much this is necessary. I could see maybe you want to change lot coverage. So you have to have 40% lot coverage. But if you want to go closer, then you have to show you can contain the water. But other than that, anything you're building should comply with the code and the water retention is a requirement by law. So, I'm not sure how many regulations we need to put out there to I don't mean this the way it sounds. I'm really trying to make it simpler here, but it isn't working that way. But I just think we could kind of cut it back. You can't do it period. And then, you know, deal with the the plan. what's allowed from there. The challenge is enforcing it if we don't change something. So, I think talking about changing the setbacks for the ADUs and accessory structures can help, but also if you don't have enough green space for the water to penetrate, most people aren't going and doing an elaborate drain systems on their lots and then we have to enforce it on the tail end where it's running into the street in the alley and onto the neighboring property. And so, that's where the lot coverage impervious surface is what we're looking at. And certainly, addressing simplify it for for their their purposes is there's a standard of retaining your water on your property and then there's checklist of boxes. Do you have French drains? No. How are you accommodating that runoff? Have you got swailes? How, you know, where is this water occurring and is there a metal roof that's shedding all that snow right on your neighbor's fence? I think there almost has to be a tick box so that they can

ask the questions and put that that designer or that owner on the spot to answer how they're going to deal with that water because everybody knows they're supposed to deal with it, but if they can get away without it, they won't they will. And I think that, you know, they need clout to have a tick box and that the builder knows they're supposed to have a French drain or they know they're supposed to have, you know, snow brakes. They know they're supposed to contain their own water and prevent it from sliding over to their neighbors. So, I I think that to facilitate their ease is, have you met these? And I I get it from Spokane. You have to tick all these damn boxes and that you've addressed every single one of their needs. I mean, they want to know even who is the manufacturer and what's the heat loss and the heat gain. I'm like, I'm not the builder. How do I know? So, you know, it it's trying to make their job easier and understand that. So, I I don't think that we're overstepping. I think that we need to give them the guidance to put the builder homeowner on the spot in order to address those issues. Make sure that they're aware of it. Some of them aren't aware. They go, "Oh, I've got a shed roof. I got a metal roof. That's cool. I've got" But I don't think about the 10 feet of snow that all of a sudden comes down and ruins their fence. I think most of it it sound it sounds like most of it when it becomes an issue is when it gets addressed that's the problem because they're it's too late maybe not super but increasing the setbacks would help with some pretty common ones and then I guess just because we're just trying to simplify even the ADU second story one just if there's a way that with the city engineer if we were to calculate like an estim estimate of if everybody built to the limit on these, could we even possibly handle that kind of storm water if it was going in the streets or, you know, decide a number that's a threshold that's reasonable and

just make it really simple. And then if somebody wants an exception, then maybe there's a process for that. And in that exception, you're proving out where your water's going and what type of drainage you're doing in order to get an exception. But if the threshold is something that should accomplish most water runoff on an average lot, you know, kind of enough pvious space. Um then when somebody ticks over that amount of coverage, then they're kind of given a okay, prove prove out what you're doing with it then, you know, and then it's approved at that point. I mean, I don't know. I I feel like just trying to make sure we're not making more work to approve it with a big grid and a lot of things going on. Um well, I know that again from the building side experience, you have to retain, as Lynn said, your water on your property. I mean, that's just the bottom line for a permit. That's true. To get a CO and whether it's, you know, a swell, which a lot of properties can't have because they're a small lot, or uh you know, some other way of retaining your water. Just let it run into a gutter and down spout and then let it go on grass. That's fine and dandy provided it doesn't build up so much that it goes over to your neighbor's property. Even though we are increasing the setbacks, that's great. But you know when you have your down spout and you got your little kick out, you might be a foot out or sometimes even two feet out just so it can get into that grass area so it isn't running right on concrete. So um I'm not sure how to really approach this with all the percentage and all the terminology because yes, it's going to get somewhat confusing. I I kind of like Lynn's approach saying, "Hey, you know, you got to retain your water. Here's a checklist." I'm not sure that's the way to go. How are you doing it? How do you

plan to address it? Yeah. And that's a natural question. Yeah. Because most, as you say, most builders are aware that you got to retain your water. Whether a homeowners know it or not, but in that building process, I'm sure that discussion's got to come up with the homeowner saying, you know, we have to retain the water on your property. And whether it's, you know, this way or that way, we just have to do that. So um I think John has Yeah, I hear what Phil's saying and I don't know how to really address it. Maybe John, you have I just The real world on this one is really really hard. I mean if the standard is 30% and we bump it to 40 or what? Pick a number you know whatever that number is. It's it does let's say we move it to 40 45 pick a number. it that's not going to guarantee if the standard is all the water that lands here stays here and okay so I come in with my perfect drawing that shows I have soil 45% grass you know and so it's I got 45% impervious my lot slopes a little like this dead of winter when my my grass is hard as a rock and you tell me that the water's going to stay there I mean in the real world uh you know what What we're saying here is by having a number of 30 or 40 or whatever is going to be I guess presumptive presumptive that that saves the day. You know, I think when you jump Chris, correct me if I'm wrong back there to, you know, if I was building a a strip mall deal, I have to come in and really prove that the water that lands here stays here. And then with showing that I've got, you know, deep swale here and six dry wells and whatnot, I don't have to have 40%. Because I'm gonna I am and I've got just the right, you know, this your ingresses and egresses. You do

that hump thing to hold dams of water in there so it doesn't run. You know, on a commercial lot, you know, you have to come in and pass the test. I guess what we're saying here is that just come in with your 40% thing and we'll just assume it's going to work. It may or may not. So, I I don't know. I'm not I don't have the answer. I'm just saying it's hard out in the real world. Mr. Chairman, would it help if we bring Chris up and have him kind of speak to some of the ideas? Yeah, maybe some of the on real life horror stories something the engineering could review with the permits or, you know, I don't know. I guess that's we just need to figure out logistically like what you support and how it would work for staff. Yeah, I'm thinking that what you're hearing from us is whatever staff feels is going to be less hard for you guys to whether the enforcement of it is a different scenario completely but whatever helps staff so that we're not you know having a lot of or you guys are having a lot of discussions of what should we do maybe maybe first correct me if I'm wrong but you if this is a commercial project the standard is a lot higher to prove all those things to show that the water stays there. Yeah, you have to show us calculations and all of that. And then there's testing usually that occurs with the swailes, infiltration testing and all that after the fact to prove that their design was correct in the first place. And just to so to fix this on the residential basis, we just adopt the same standard and then we'll be run out of town because it's just too too hard, you know. So what's the balance, you know? So I don't know the magic number of what should be pvious area but I think any increase is good. I mean the this increase in setbacks that you're looking at now that's automatically going to help because now they won't be able to fill in as much area because

they've got a 10-ft sideyard that they have to maintain. What happens a lot of times is, especially on these PUDs, very small lots, people have their house in their garage and then they come in after the fact after they've moved in and then they don't want to maintain 100 square feet of lawn anymore. So, they put in pavers or concrete or whatever. And then the neighbor is calling because all that water's running into their yard. Um, and then I have to tell them that we don't get involved with civil disputes between two neighbors. And then they say, why why did you approve it in the first place? And we're like, well, we didn't approve it that way, you know. So, it's I don't know. It's difficult. I think the more pvious area we can maintain is better for everybody. And not all soils are the same either. I mean, we've got some areas of town that have historically just been swamps in the backyard because they've got such high clay content in the soils and then other areas where they can take 100 inches per hour in their grally soils. So, it's a wide range. So, it's hard to for a one sizefits-all. As far as the county's version or their their rule, um they have five acre lots. That's right. That's pretty easy to put a number on a 5 acre lot. When you're getting down to a 0.08 acre lot, that's a little different because there's a lot of competition for space in there, right? But Hayden, I mean, Hayden has a smaller minimum lot size, too. They have the same percentage. Yeah. And though the um I was telling Hillary today about the McCall example because I was trying to find another example. I'm like, "Okay, well, I looked at Seattle. Like, what does Seattle have? It rains a lot there." And AI

tells me they don't have a requirement, but I don't believe AI. So, I was digging deeper and people are like, "Don't worry about it. Just put in what you want. Ask for forgiveness later." But um then I looked at McCall's example and it has tables to select what material type you have and then it has a coefficient for for permeability on that. And then they have equations depending on your zoning and you take each of those factors and those coefficients and you put them into the equation depending on your zone that you're in. And it's I like we're not going there at all. Don't build them a call. No, that's that's the motto. Yeah. Back to back to getting thrown out run out of town. Exactly. So, I hear what you're saying, Chris. You know Oh, yeah. permit. Like, could you guys do that or is that too much? Uh, it's always a challenge getting more paperwork submitted with permits. Yeah, I I think checklist is something that we could review. I think it's something that a lot of property owners might complain about um because it's another step for them. I and maybe it just needs to be if they exceed a certain threshold or a certain lot size. maybe 1 acre lot doesn't need to have all these calculations, but a 0.0 acre lot does because the competition for space there. And I I I don't know where that line is drawn, but like I said, any improvement we make will be an improvement um as far as setbacks and impervious area goes because it is something we commonly deal with with property owners complaining about water coming off of their neighbors property onto their property. Um on in your packet, there were a couple um aerial photos showing Yeah. Um, yeah, showing some different houses

and PUDs and such and how much area they take up. That one, uh, for example, was one that I dealt with. I won't name the developer, but, um, where I was getting complaints from the neighbors of storm water runoff under their property. So when the next development came along, I required a storm water management plan, which wasn't just for the roads they put in, but for the yards themselves. And so what they ended up doing is taking all of the roof gutters and the downspouts going into a pipe system that went to dry wells so they could dispose of all their their storm water from their roofs without flooding their yards. and that I haven't got any complaints from that neighborhood yet. So, and it's been there a few years. So, I think with the, you know, the PE process, we're hoping that you're going to do that, right? Like, and alert us of the things that you've seen that didn't work or did work. And, um, I mean, maybe it's a combination of a reasonable threshold that should be achievable and then if you are above that, then there's a checklist that you have to do. I mean, just something I feel like that's relatively, you know, not a lot of formulas and extra math. Um, but something that I think the average person can understand. Okay, I get that I'm going to push the limit on this, but if I can prove it out, then that might be just fine. Mhm. Um, but it would be similar to a PUB and that we're asking them to prove it out if they're above a certain threshold. So, I guess more from you guys what the threshold should be. um of what you feel comfortable that for the average lot with the average soil with you know would would be kind of reasonable and if it's you know 40% from 35 maybe that makes sense. Um but yeah

may I maybe the second step doesn't apply with ones that are on an acre that it just isn't worth your time to review because they're they don't have it all hardscaped, you know. Yeah. And we can look at different zoning and and different lot sizes and see where the frequency of problems might occur more. Um and try to draw a line in there somewhere so that not everybody is required to go to the extra steps. Um because I'm sure that we'll get a lot of complaints about comparing us to Spokane or something like that because of our our rules. But maybe there's like a level one and level two or something fairly reasonable um that can be still an improvement on what we have and if that doesn't work or we could come back. But I think from other ones that are hard to administer I don't think the goal would be to make it harder to administer necessarily on the homeowner side or your side. So go ahead ask a question again. You know the whole premise what lands here stays here. I get that. um in these little PUB deals. If you look at Meadow Ranch, you could look at um Park Rose where I live or or whatnot. And I don't there's no way there's 40% pvious on my lot or Meadow Ranch. None of those meet it. But correct me if I'm wrong that when PUDs come forward. What we're really saying is the water that lands on the PUD stays on the PUD. You know how since it's all private in there, the roads, the track, you have tracks to deal with in there. And as long as the water as the PUD as a whole stays there and doesn't run off to the next development, we're okay. Correct. I mean each individual lot

they don't they don't they don't pass by a lot basis but as a PUB community like Bennett Ranch it stays there. Is that correct? That's probably true but it still causes some private property disputes between I get that. I get that. You know where Yeah. And I should add also that our drainage utility uh collects storm water fees based on where you live and whether you're commercial or residential. And with with residential there's an assumption that at least the driveway is going to drain into the street also. So I mean it's not like all water stays on the lot. And then with commercial, um, we try to coers them into keeping all water on site. Sometimes it's an existing site that the water runs off and they pay an increased drainage fee based on their square footage. So if your entire driveway or your entire parking lot, building, and everything drains into the city right away, you're going to pay for every square foot of imperous area that you have on your property. And then it goes into our drainage fee to help combat storm water. Chris, what are you seeing in some of the developments that been approved where we did reduce setbacks in between whatever the buildings are, you know, instead of 10 and 10 on side yards, we did five and five. And most of the roofs are sloping into that five and five. And they have their gutters, which are fine. They have their down spouts, which are fine, but they don't have any piping from that down spout out to wherever it might have gone. Is those complaints that might come into the city that all right, I'm draining into my 5T, but it's a good storm. It's going over

to my neighbor's 5T. Well, and that's another interesting conundrum is that our building department tries to maintain um that the ground sheds away from buildings to protect the foundation, which is natural. 5T of drainage away from it. If you've only got a 5ft setback, you're draining to the property line, right? So, by increasing that, it's definitely going to help to have someplace for that storm water to go. The example you speak of is up there on the screen where all those roofs are almost touching each other and there's a bunch down at Bellere like that. And I believe in this certain in this case was one of the homeowners who called complaining about the neighbors snow falling on their heat pump and their gas meter and all that kind of stuff which raises some eyebrows. Right. So we're learning. Yes. And in a perfect world, if you didn't have to ask us for some recommendations, what would you staff come up with to help make it it easier and not have so many calls or problems? So what would you I know we have a whole bunch of recommendations but guide us a little bit for what would you like us to give your recommendation to perfect world so tell us 40% you can and apply it to all yeah I mean any like I said any improvement is definitely heading in the right direction and with the setback increases that's going to help it's going to change that 30 35% % to something higher, maybe 40% anyway. But I don't know what the answer is. But yeah, like John said, there's no magic number. It's going to be what it's going to be until And who knows what people do after we leave, too. Once the final

inspection is done, they get their certificate of occupancy and then they bring in the contractors and the landscapers to change the entire property. Pads and fire pits and which is, you know, normal everyday living. But if you start from 30 and add those things versus start from 40 and add those things. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and this is just a workshop. So, I mean, I think if you with that in mind, you know, when it comes back, it kind of maybe think about it a little bit on what seems reasonable. I think I think all of us are kind of open to that professional recommendation, but also want to be, you know, easy to administer. Not McCall. No. No. Yeah. So, um when did we drop the prior code the 25% impervious for R1 51 51% why 51 uh R3 to R5 and 60 when was that when did that disappear? Sorry, Mr. Question. When did when did the prior code that had the percentiles? Okay. 51% is just a stupid number. no matter what. That's the kind of stuff you just go what? Yeah. Well, I think I mean what you've provided is helpful for us. So, I think we can kind of go research a little bit more and come back with something. Well, and then chat with the people involved in all the approvals cuz you know does it make sense in that process too and how you'd administer it? I think they pro do you know they've making pvious pvious ashvault now. Have you seen that? Yes. Um, when I was living in Massachusetts, I got to experience some of it. Um, we've looked at it implementing it in certain projects, but it requires kind of vacuuming out all the silts from the pore spaces and the asphalt to keep it functioning over time. And I wonder how it is. In Massachusetts, they use it.

So, I even though the they have tough winters. So, I'm surprised. It was in a parking lot at uh be believe Lexington City Hall. So So from this currently, how are you dealing with that other than getting the complaints from the adjacencies currently when you when you're reviewing it? How do you read that lot and coverage and impervious pvious right now? What clout do you have? Do you have any the Well, maybe the only clout that I have is that I can require a storm water management plan and that have only been implementing on these PUDs or large subdivisions or whatever when they're trying to pack a bunch of stuff in there where you can see there's no pvious surfaces, right? If it's a if it's a traditional subdivision with larger lots, there's really no concern. They're doing their calculations for road drainage, which is what we need them to do, but the lots themselves have so much grass that it's really not a concern. But things like that are a concern. So, it's really a common sense. I got to raise a flag. This is not going to be good. That's really what you're working on right now. This doesn't look right. The snip doesn't look like positive outcomes. Yeah. And you're not currently requiring a plan on an individual lot. Correct. But if you had a threshold, you could. Right. Yes. Yes. Okay. Any more questions to Chris? Thank you. Thanks, Chris. Appreciate it. Okay. So, where are we Hillary? We have some I guess code amendment considerations to look at. Yeah. So this one I think you kind of already gave us a little bit of latitude to kind of talk through these. So I don't know if we need to work through these questions on the

pvious surfaces the percentage impervious but how about um should it be required for all and this is for discussion with us up here. Should it be required for all structures on all single family memory residential lots as whole paragraph or just ADUs or what's the feel on that? I mean I think they all add to that percentage. So I think to be consistent you should require it on all structures. I mean okay that sounds good for me. Okay. And then this one, um, are you comfortable with us switching it from the pvious to impervious? Okay, great. And then we already talked about percentages. And then, um, I think this last question is a little bit different for townhouse and multif family development anyway, but wondering about an increased impervious surface coverage for that. Well, I think that kind of goes back to what Chris might have been saying about structures being so close to each other. Yeah. I mean, I think between maybe you guys take that back and decide if that feels like the the right amount. Yeah. With the increased setbacks is right. You know, and and kind of, you know, and maybe an example or two of what square footage you could actually even do. If you make it too high, then you won't be able to build something. So Jay. Okay. Okay, that's it. Thank you. Appreciate your input. All right. Thanks. Unless you have anything further all the hard work. Thanks, Chris. Appreciate it. Okay, that's it. That being it, I would um call for a motion to adjourn. Second. Who did the first? You did the first. Oh, I'll do the first. I motion.

We have McCracken doing the first and Fleming doing the second. All in favor? I I Cardell lane this weekend, folks. Be there. We're journ. Happy happy father's day. There's a lot going on this weekend. There's a ton. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]