Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the May 6th meeting of the Ever Planning Commission. Ayanna, would you please call the role? Chair Chatters here. Commissioner Atkins here. Commissioner Ballard here. Commissioner Finch here. Commissioner Sullivan here. Commissioner Shelby here. Commissioner Rutled here. Commissioner Welch here. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Atkins, would you read the land acknowledgement, please? The planning commission wishes to acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Shahop's people, and their successors, the Tleup tribes. Since time of memorial, they have hunted, fished, gathered on, and taken care of these lands and waters. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. We will strive to be honest about our past mistakes and bring about a future that includes their people, stories, and voices to form a more just and equitable society. Thank you, commissioners. We've all had an opportunity to review the meeting minutes from the April 15th meeting. Uh there was uh one error that was noted. Thank you, Commissioner Rutledge. Um as far as commissioners absent, it would be only Commissioner Lark. Thank you for correcting that. Were there any additional corrections? Okay, seeing none, is there any objection to approving the minutes with the correction noted? Okay, then the meeting minutes from April 15th are approved. We now have an opportunity for commissioner reports. Commissioners, uh, do we have any reports this evening? Okay, then we'll turn it over to staff. Good evening, uh, commissioners. I'm York Stevens Waja planning director. Allison Wetszel uh long-range planning manager is with me today. Uh welcome to those who are coming to share your uh perspective to the planning commission. This is one of our favorite parts of the process and one of the most important

parts. Um I I really appreciate you paying attention uh and working hard for your neighborhood, for your community, for your city, participating and engaging. Um, we've been collecting written comments, uh, working them into a full database, sharing those with the planning commission and the council. These, uh, uh, comments that you'll give this evening will, uh, give a little bit of, uh, more, uh, flavor to that and, uh, just really appreciate you coming. After the public hearing, we'll be getting into the development regulations. Um, my internet is not working otherwise I would have a slide up about our remaining process. So I will read it in the meantime. So we're in the final uh countdown phases of the Ever 2044 comprehensive plan and development regulations periodic update. This is a once a decade uh opportunity for the city to take a long look uh at its complete plan and regulations and reset that for the next 20 years of the planning period. So with this planning commission, with the city council, and with members of the public, we've been working on this for a couple of years now, and now we're at uh a couple of meetings left of this planning commission before they give their final recommendation on the complete package to the city council. The city council will then be the final uh actor on the complete draft plan. And that's not it. See if I can do it from memory here. First and most important, after today, we have uh an open house on Thursday at the Carl Gibson Center at 6 PM uh at which we'll have some poster boards. We will have staff available to answer direct questions. We will continue to take comment and we'll have an opportunity to speak face tof face with

folks. Uh that is Thursday, May 8th from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Carl Gibson Center uh right down the street on Pacific. On May 20th, we have another meeting of the planning commission two weeks from today at 6:30 p.m. right here. Uh we will continue to work on the reviewing the development regulations and the specifics of uh all of the work that we've been doing over the last couple of years. On May 21st, so two weeks and one day from today will be a city council briefing uh and a public hearing. So the council has been having briefings and workshops with this over the course of this and this will be uh probably a pretty significant meeting where they will uh ask a lot of questions of staff and may make some decisions on amendments which they've done at a couple meetings. So May 21st city council June 3rd is when we expect to ask this planning commission for a recommendation to the city council. So we have this evening, we have two weeks from today and then we have that meeting to try to work through and get all of your questions answered and try to arrive at a recommendation of uh hopefully do approve of plan and uh as part of that recommendation we can have a number of uh suggestions or requests to make changes uh within it. And then the final three meetings of the city council will be the first three Wednesdays in June. June 4th, June 11th, and June 18th. And those are the formal first, 2nd, and third readings that the city council does for every ordinance. There will be public hearings during that time as well. So, there are still a number of opportunities to uh give comment to the planning commission and to the city council. No need to do it repeat it if you've done it before, although you're always welcome to. But folks who are watching online who haven't had a chance to speak to them,

we have a couple more opportunities to do so. June 18th is the day that we are intending uh and asking the city council to take a vote and complete this uh process. So, we've got about a month and a half left and uh we're working hard to get it just right. We also um issued a draft environmental impact statement last week. The public comment period for that goes through May 26th. Because that was some new information. We extended the public comment period that we're in for the April 7 uh the April 7 comprehensive plan and development regulations drafts that are available at everwah.gov/2044. GV/2044. All of the project documents are there. So now we have the draft comprehensive plan, development regulations, and environmental impact statement. We're accepting comments on all of those through May 26, I believe it is. Um the last step, we are releasing a couple of chapters of uh more development regulations. parking chapter, uh, street construction, which deals with frontage improvements, and then maybe a dozen more chapters that are just correcting zone references. We changed the name of of some zones. And so, where another chapter references the R2 zone, for example, now that should reference the NR zone, things like that. So, look for that uh probably tomorrow. That will be the final piece of this. And then anything else will be some amendments and changes. Again, we've been listening to all of the comments and staff have been working behind the scenes on some notes and some things that we might change to this April 7th draft. We'll be listening today and discussing with the planning commission and may get some recommendations from them as well. We've also been hearing from the city council

uh and from other departments and state agencies and uh the regional planning organization. uh we're collecting all of those, but we don't want to confuse things by releasing any more drafts. And so the April 7th draft remains the official draft for all comments for the time being. Later this month, we will uh release the last and uh final draft. Now I can have the slides to remind me what I was supposed to be saying this whole time. I believe that's it, chair. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I I just want to read some instructions to any participants who would like to offer public comment. Uh, to those of you joining us remotely, please mute your microphone or if you are calling in, mute your phone by pressing star six at each opportunity for public comment. I will ask if anyone wants to speak. And if you are participating remotely and would like to provide the comment, uh, unmute your microphone or press star six on your phone at that time. Please provide your name for the record and then when you're done, please mute again. And if you are in attendance and would like to comment, please fill out a speaker signin sheet located on the table by the door. Um, and welcome community members. Thank you for coming. This is the people's house, so this is the correct place to raise your voice. We're really glad you're here, and we look forward to hearing from you. Commissioners, at this time, I will entertain a motion to open the public hearing. So moved. Ayanna, would you please call the role? Chair Chatters? Yes. Commissioner Atkins? Yes. Commissioner Ballard? Yes. Commissioner Finch? Yes. Commissioner McKenzie? Yes. Commissioner um sorry, Commissioner Shelby? Yes. Commissioner Rutled? Yes. Commissioner Welch? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh each person who would like to speak uh will We'll allow three

minutes for public comment. I'm going to set a timer. So, when you hear the timer go off, please conclude your comments. We certainly don't want to cut anyone off, but we have a lot of folks that want to be heard, and we want to make sure to make space for as many people as possible to have their concerns raised today. Uh, Mr. Ken Pearson, Chair Chatters, may interrupt for one second. We do have translators available. So if you need a translator, please ask and put your language forward and we will work with them to make sure all information is conveyed. Thank you. Thank you for mentioning that, Mr. Pearson. When you are ready. Thank you. Good evening, Director Stevens Maja, planning commissioners and council member. Uh I am Kim Pearson representing FIA which is the Fairway Estates Homeowners Alliance which is a nonprofit corporation formed in October of 19 of 2024 and whose function it is to facilitate rent stabilization and getting Fairway Estates our 55 and plus manufactured uh home park for a housing zoning overlay. We are located at 1427 100th Street which is just 1 half mile east of the airport. Uh Estates Mobile Home Park has 171 units 259 voting members whose ages are in their late 60s7s 80s and even 90s. We have many special needs residents, veterans, widows and widowers. And why we are asking for a manufactured zoning overlay is because exorbitant rent price since the purchase of fairway estates in 2019 by a carile

group, a private equity group that owns four 55 plus manufactured mobile home parks in Snowish County. The rents have gone up approximately 30 10% each year for the past three years and now they plan a 100% increase from that three years. So 2025 rents are between $1,625 to $1,675. Equity groups like Carile keep these parts for five to six years and sell the apartments or sell the land for the highest and best use be it apartments, town homes or condominiums or commercial use. implied in the name 55 plus manufactured mobile home cars is a so social obligation to comply with affordable lowincome housing as seen and acknowledged nationwide. Most of our residents rely on social security as their sole source of income. This is for widows, widowers, disabled, and veterans. This new rent will leave them with little or nothing to live on. What makes a manufactured mobile home owner different from apartment owner or renters, condominium and town home rentals is the fact that the mobile home owner purchases the home. They not only purchase it, but they pay for all the upkeep on the home and the pad, the rental ground, uh, in addition to paying all the personal property taxes on the home. These increased rates have made our homes hard to sell, thus devaluing the homes. Even Carile Group acknowledged this fact when they tried to sell two homes for $325,000. They had to drop the price to $285,000 and give the uh people's Is that my time? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pearson. If

you have additional comments, please feel free to email them in. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. Mr. Eric Sanders, are you in the building? Well, good evening and thank you for taking time to listen for public comment. I appreciate it. U my name is Eric Sanders and I am currently the lead pastor at Bible Baptist Church on Casino Road. Um but my past with Casino Road goes a lot deeper. Um I moved to Casino Road as a 12-year-old boy in 1986, just a couple years ago. And uh anyways, delivered papers for the Herald there on Casino Road and and all of that. So went to Explore Elementary when it was there, explored junior high, then eventually Mariner. Um, so Casino Road really runs deep in in my life. Um, currently, of course, I'm the lead pastor there, and we love where we're at. Um, and there is concern in our community, and as a person that loves and cares for the Casino Road community, I wanted to um just advocate on their behalf. Uh we have a lot of individuals and families, hardworking families um that are facing some possible displacement um because of light rail coming in. And I'm just asking and hoping that as a commission you will really consider um where these families are. A lot of these families if they are displaced from my understanding will be unhoused, which is a significant thing. And I think we have a a moral duty, an ethical duty to make sure people in our community are um provided for, that there are means that they can

continue to live in their homes. Um even as a church right now, we are looking into affordable housing and partnering with that. And so we're even leaning into that and willing to uh be part of that solution as well. So, I just wanted to come and just make public comment um that you would deeply consider and be thoughtful about the ramifications of these decisions that you'll make. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Alvaro and and please forgive me if I cannot read the writing well and if I mispronounce your name, please correct the pronunciation when you step to the microphone and say your name properly. um Alvaro Yulan and after that we will hear from Antonio Fahardo Fahar Fahar Fardo. Apologies. Um if you would please state your name properly. Um Alvaro Gen. Thank you director and planning commission members. I want to start by thanking you all for your consideration and collaboration on the city comprehensive plan process. Thank you for listening to your our community and adopting some of the recommendations rooted in the real needs and voices of the community. This is an important step forward and I welcome those decisions. The recommendations presented to you come from expert organizations in in transit oriented development, affordable housing, displacement prevention, and inclusive community development. These recommendations reflect not only urgent affordable affordable housing needs, but also the values and aspirations of a culturally diverse community that has long been under

represented in city planning processes. Casino Road is not just a planning zone. It is people's homes. It is people's life and is people's future. I respectfully request you to fully incorporate the communitydriven recommendations provided in future wise advisory and the additional edits to the comprehensive plan included on the petition letter that connect Casino wrote along with more than 30 Everett stakeholders organizations submitted to you to ensure that the community feedback is fully reflected. The community is watching and history will judge whether Ever chose to take the community concerns seriously and allow residents, businesses and cultural institutions to remain in the neighborhood and thrive or continue to overlook those who has been left behind for far too long. Thank you. Thank you. like to hear next from Mr. Antonio Farardo and then after that uh Mr. Felipe Hernandez. Good evening, Planning Commission and those in attendance today. My name is Antonio Farardo Mora. I'm 23 years old and I've lived in Everett on Casino Road for over 18 years. Casino Road is very special not only to me but as you can see also to many of the people who join us here today. As ever continues to grow and more people move to the area, there is uncertainty for residents of Casino Road about what the future holds for them. Over the coming years, more needs to be done to ensure that the residents of the area will continue to be able to live and care for their families without fear of being forced to leave their homes due to rising rent costs and a lack of affordable housing. The Casino Road neighborhood has been neglected for

decades. And many of those who call it home, including lowincome people of color, feel as though they are being left behind or overlooked. If things continue on this path, we risk being pushed out of the only community we've ever known. As residents and workers of Casino Road, we want the opportunity to stay and enjoy the benefits of the new developments in the city, not be forced out because we can't afford it. Since I was a child, my family and I have been able to experience so many things thanks to the programs and events hosted by the Village on Casino Road. From daycare when I was a child while my mother took English classes to afterchool homework clubs to the mobile clinic that provides support for underinsured and uninsured community members to working as a staff member now. These experiences provided by the organizations in the neighborhood have enriched my life and made me the person I am today. Residents who are displaced will lose access to over 26 programs that the village offers, many of which will be unattainable in other areas. We can't let economic displacement be the price we pay for progress. That is why I urge you to include all the communitydriven recommendations mentioned in Future Wise's advisory memorandum for March 25th, 2025 titled Casino Road community feedback and recommendations on the comprehensive plan into the forthcoming comprehensive plan update. By choosing not to adopt LISCS's recommendations, there is a high chance of irreparable harm to a community that must already endure so much hardship. Casino Road isn't just where we live. It's our community and one of the most diverse and culturally rich neighborhoods in all of Everett. It's the place where I grew up and is filled with families of color, multi-generational households, and hardworking people who have a deep care for each other. Every person in this neighborhood has a story. They are worth protecting and deserve to be able to have lives of purpose and dignity. Now is your chance to stand with the people of Casino Road and show that this city is one for everyone. Thank you for your

time and your consideration. Thank you. Next we'll hear from Felipe Hernandez and then the person after that will be Tatiana Turnig. Uh Mr. Hernandez, are you available to step to the mic? Can you say Felipe? Felipe Hernandez. Miss Turnick, good evening. Good evening and thank you for your time. My name is Tatiana Tunik and I'm from Everett Kazinor. It's my interpreter. My family consists of three people. Me, my husband, and our little son. My husband works two jobs. The biggest portion of our expenses is the rent for our apartment, over $2,000. We barely have enough money for living. Each of us each of us uh work really hard. We don't have any bad habits. We're representative of law-abiding working class.

But what will we do if the prices for rent will keep rising? Go live on the streets. I'm thinking about the future of my son. I'm working so we can buy a house right now. Um, a price a general price for a small house in Everett is about $700,000. With all payments, it's about 7,000 a month. And the rules say that we have to pay onethird of your income. And the salary of of middlecl class families is about $5,000 a month. So tell me if it's possible for a family like that to afford a house. Thank you so much. Thank you Daniela P. And then after that uh Chris Pepper. Daniela, if you would state your full name for the record, uh, and when you're ready to begin. My name is Daniela Casino. My name is Daniela. I live in Everett on Casino Road. When was the last time you felt afraid? My name is Della. I want to tell you that today I am scared. It's not a fear for talking in front of

you, but of what can happen if these decisions are not made with a conscience. I'm afraid I have to leave my neighborhood that has turned into a safe place for me. A place where I found neighbors. They have become my family. Where I've rebuilt my life far from domestic violence. Living on casino road is not a whim. It's a combination of years of effort and resiliency. Thank God. Thanks to God, I have been able not to make a home not just for my three children, but for but for also for other women that like me have fled from domestic violence and have found in our a refuge in our home. Together we have built a web of support, a space where we can support, heal, and we can mutually strength each other. My fears not only for me but for them. or the stories of overcome of overcoming that could crumble if we we are forced

to separate separate each other. We've created a family, a protective shell that has allowed us to reconstruct our lives. to to separate us from each other will mean not only losing our homes but also take us back to a vulnerability that we had left behind. I beg you to consider the human impact before transforming our homes in something irregable. Don't destroy what has allowed us to have a safe place and a hopeful future. beating heart of this neighborhood. May God guide you and bless you. Thank you. Thank you. Just for the record, when there is an interpreter, um I am allowing a little bit of extra time. Normally, it's three minutes, but you might have noticed that the time period is a little longer for folks using an interpreter. And that's just to allow for everyone to have their full statements heard uh within a roughly equivalent time frame. Thank you, Daniela. Uh we have Chris Pepper in the building and uh after that a Katherine Collins. Mr. Pepper, thank you so much. I have lost

my voice and so I've invited Lauren Phillips who is our associate pastor to share on my behalf. Thank you. This was written by Chris Peepler. Um, good evening. My name is Chris Pepler. I serve as a lead pastor of South Everett Fourquare Church on Casino Road. On behalf of our congregation, I want to thank you for your investment in the future of Everett. And before taking our comments this evening, it seems that one of the best connections between good public policy and good people is often a good story. As a congregation, one of our favorite things to do is to tell good stories about Casino Road and even more specifically good stories about the people who call Casino Road home. The common narrative of Casino Road is incomplete. There is a much better half of the story to tell. We could tell many stories of what we've seen happening, but for time's sake, I will share just one that points towards our objective here this evening. It's a story I will never forget hearing and one that keeps us pressing ahead in our work to see peace and flourishing in our community. Back in April of 2019, I sat with an 18-year-old senior from Mariner High School inside the Starbucks on the corner of Casino Road in Evergreen Way. This young man had grown up in the relational care of the church and other partnering organizations. At the time of that conversation, he had recently celebrated a year of sobriety from drugs and alcohol. As a result, his mind and imagination were returning to him. Towards the end of our coffee visit, the young man gave a thousand-y stare down Casino Road and began to imagine out loud. This road will look different. People will not be afraid to go outside for free for fear of being shot. Trees will be greener. There will be all kinds of good going on. People

will walk each other home after dark. No one will be sleeping at bus stops and everyone will have a home. Doing well for our neighbors and meeting them where they are. This is the best kind of slippery slope that there is. People in our community have dreams for their futures. Many of these young people are achieving them today as teachers, medical professionals, and hopeful f future business owners. These dreams are coming about in part because of the connections with local nonprofits who offer relationships and resources at the village on Casino Road. The village is within walking distance for families who live here. It is critically important that as the city of Everett benefits from new forms of transportation and the housing that will follow that families who live here can continue to benefit as well. As the 2044 plan is completed, we are strongly advocating that affordable housing options remain in place so the families who are here aren't priced out of the place they call home. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Katherine Collins is next and then after that we will have an Esmeralda Sy. Miss Collins, whenever you're ready. Thank you very much. My name is Katherine Collins. I live in unincorporated Snomish County. I come to effort a lot. I want to thank you for your service as well, commissioners, and and to your public service for the work you do. I represent a nonprofit organization that serves the children and families of of Casino Road. uh we brought resources started to bring resources here about six years ago and I have been um doing so ever since both with state funding and private funding to invest in the youth and the families. In particular, the work that we do is aboard a schooner

uh at the Port of Everett named Adventurous. And we come here every summer and work every summer to provide a pretty unrivaled experience for children and their teenagers and families to be able to go out on the water and and understand what happens on the waterfront and the growth that's happening there and the needs that there are in the workforce there. the work we do um brings financial resources to Everett, to the city of Everett and to the families at Casino Road because there's no cost for those families to participate. And I'm speaking to you today about that because we have been so moved. We could do work anywhere in the Puja Sound region and we do. But what we do primarily um with a lot of passion is to bring what we do to these families. And the reason we do is because these families care about their children's future. This is an unbelievable community of support. You walk in and people know your name. You know what kind of I don't I don't know where you live. Uh and and you don't know where I live, but I can tell you that um not all your neighbors say hello. Um this this community has a vision. Um we're going to be a part of it and we will continue to bring state and private resources to bear on on the needs of the families here at Casino Road. and and if you don't have communities like this, then it's not inspiring to try to go out and raise those those monies to be able to make Everett a better place. I believe the work we do is going to be strengthening particularly the maritime workforce in Everett. We know there are jobs that need filling and we're serving those teenagers who are ultimately going to be part of that workforce and strengthen this community. So, thank you so much. Yes, Collins. Just a quick ask, did Felipe Hernandez make it back in the room? No. Okay. Uh, Miss Sy, when you're when you're ready. Okay.

Hi. Um, my name is Esmeralda and I'm an intern with Future Wise. We stand united in advocating for the preservation of Casino Road in Ever Washington, a vibrant, diverse community rich in culture and resilience. As development pressure increase, we must protect our residents from displacement and ensure that longtime families are not pushed out in the name of progress. Many minority communities such as Casino Road deserve investment, not eraser. We call on city leaders to prioritize affordable housing because the voices of Casino Road matter. Let's keep this community intact and thriving. Okay, no, hold on. I'm not done. Sorry, I'm a I'mma translate real quick in Spanish ever Washington. Sorry. Grandastoid. Prosper. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. We have Miss Jasmine Smith and then after that, uh, Joe Nulan.

Hi, thank you, planning commissioners. Uh, my name is Jasmine Smith. I'm the director of local advocacy at Future Wise and really appreciate the time to uh join you all here and very proud supervisor of Esmeralda. Um yeah, so we've been uh working with the uh uh we've been really lucky to work with on community outreach with the connect casino road team uh Lisk the housing consortium and the enabling committee to look at how we can include more voices and build an Everett for everyone. We've held workshops and outreach events over the summer and fall and worked to translate that to community or to city staff and connect the needs of community members to the comprehensive plan. The biggest issues we heard about were the cost of housing and affordability, the need for a variety of housing types to meet uh the needs of families as much as individuals, and providing protections to ensure that uh neither neighbors nor neighborhood businesses risk displacement. We have some recommendations which we sent over in that advisory uh uh memo that's been referenced as well as the petition has uh outlined some uh gaps that we noticed and hope to both see those last final pieces come together as well as really in part how important all of those pieces are as amendments come through on the comprehensive plan to make sure that none of the pieces are left behind. Um, it really comes down to inclusionary zoning, uh, strong provisions around corner stores and having multiple approaches to housing affordability and affordable housing for a diversity of housing types and sizes for home ownership as well as renters. Thank you so much. Thank you, Miss Nulan.

You can begin whenever you're ready, Miss Nuland. Okay. I want to thank you for all uh giving your consideration. Uh my name is Joe Nuland. I reside in North Everett on Skyline in Madora. Uh I resided in the in the neighborhood for 30 years. I purchased my home as my forever home. I have remodeled and updated as time has gone on. I'm not the only resident that has purchased a home in the neighborhood with the same intention. We have invested in our homes and in our neighborhood. I have discovered that the city of Everett intends to move forward with their proposed change in zoning from R1 to UR4 to for my neighborhood without so much as a notice to the actual residents in the neighborhood. The neighborhood that I'm talking about is bordered on North Broadway, Marine View Drive, Legion Golf Course. We are a small family neighborhood. There are only two ways to enter and exit our neighborhood and we have experienced and do experience extreme traffic hazards due to the limited access in and out of our neighborhood. The city of Everett has not taken appropriate steps to notify the residents in our neighborhood prior to proposing such radical zoning change. The city did not take the time to notify the entire neighborhood of the proposed changes. A lot of the neighbors are not on the list served for the city council or the Everett 2044 website. And the few articles in the herald noted zoning changes but indicated zoning would not affect neighborhoods that border on woods. Ours is Legion Golf Course or limited exits. I believe the only two that only two exits would qualify even though the article only mentions one exit. Based on the the zoning proposal only proposing a zoning change from R1 to UR4 is not feasible or appropriate. Our neighborhood has limited access and the proper zoning change should be NRC neighborhood residential constraint. After doing additional research, I returned to the compare current zoning districts proposed sliding map related to current zoning proposed zoning. When viewing the map for current and pro proposed zoning, I note I discovered

that what see the neighborhood areas that were previously zoned R2 and R2A medium density are now been changed to NR and is comparable to the prior R1 zoning which was our previous designation. The city's proposed changes make the impact of their proposed changes far more questionable. This is more there's more behind this than proposing the change to our neighborhood zoning. It's more than meeting It's more to do with meeting the state regulations and by taking away density of other neighborhoods previously designated R2 and R2A medium density. They need to change our zoning to meet the density requirements of the state. Our neighborhood does not support the proposed zoning. We are constrained without easy access in and out of the neighborhood. We have only two exits, entrances to our neighborhood and often find that we are closed due to traffic on North Broadway, Marine View Drive, Highway 529 and Interstate 5, which does not allow easy access for emergency vehicles 247. We are locked in by Legion Golf Course, which has sl we have slopes steeper than 25% and the special soils handling area, which is associated with the Everett smelter site. This is our our neighborhood. My home was built in 1963. Our neighborhood has been a neighborhood of single family homes for much longer than that. Changing our neighborhood zoning from R1 to UR4 is not appropriate or logical. Based on the foregoing, the pro the proposed zoning change to our little neighborhood should be NRC neighborhood residential constraint. Thank you, Miss Newman. Thank you. Next, we'll hear from uh Dr. Janice Green and Mr. Bobby Thompson. Uh Dr. Green, are you in the building?

She had believe she had a family matter to it. Okay. Thank you. Um Mr. Thompson. Right. Good evening, planning commissioners. Uh, my name is Bobby Thompson, executive director of the housing consortium of Everton Snomish County and an Ever resident. I'm here to urge you to take a proactive, fully committed approach to the communitydriven recommendations developed for the comprehensive plan, especially those from the Casino Road neighborhood. Over the past year, in partnership with Lisk, Puget Sound, and Future Wise, we've engaged deeply with the community through listening sessions, surveys, and direct collaboration with Connect Casino Road and affordable housing stakeholders. Residents made their priorities clear. Affordable and multi-generational housing, safer transit, walkability, workforce opportunities, and most importantly, the ability to stay in and strengthen their neighborhood, not be displaced from it. To honor that vision, we strongly urge you to adopt all the recommendations developed throughout this process, including anti-displacement policies, Puget Sound Regional Council mapping, inclusionary zoning, zoning flexibility on faith land, and contextsensitive corner store zoning. These are not standalone ideas. They are a comprehensive strategy to ensure equity, stability, and community. Diluting or only selecting certain recommendations undermines the trust and the tireless effort residents and stakeholders put into shaping these recommendations. You are hearing tonight from others who live and work in the neighborhood who echo these priorities. We ask you that their voices and contributions are not only heard, but they are truly valued as you shape

the future of our city. This is a moment to lead with intention and with action. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thompson, Miss Sabrina Layman. And then after that, Mr. Steve with an H. Thank you, Miss Layman, when you're ready. Thank you. Good evening, Sabrina Layman and I'm here on behalf of the Boulevard Bluffs area and specifically um and tie in to some of the comments we've already heard related to the neighborhood business designation. Our entire neighborhood currently is um zone neighborhood residential and um I am proposing that continue. The neighborhood business designation includes our only corner store as well. And that's an important feature. And I've heard this time and time again now from the people from Casino Road, which I applaud them for coming out in droves. We have a Sound View Deli that's currently trying to be saved as a result of the bridge construction that has now been continued into 2026. And it's an important factor for me to look at when I apply. um your stated 2044 reszone package as well as the developmental regulations. I was able to pull your agenda from your meeting yesterday and I appreciate that some of the elimination of the neighborhood businesses is to allow for reszoning into either neighborhood residential, urban residential or mixed urban and I believe our Sound View Grocery and that neighborhood business should be neighborhood residential. The proposed changes that you reviewed yesterday in your workshop include permitting and developing housing in a neighborhood residential zone which would include all dwelling units including configurations up to six plexes. And you may recall

that across the street from the deli is a 24 unit town home development that was already permanent by the city of Everett in a neighborhood business designation. So there's no need to reszone that area at all. When I was able to look at the interactive map and scroll over the neighborhood businesses, and I'm sure y'all have done that, every single one of them seems to be a corner grocery. Our little neighborhood, which is the end of the road for Everett, has no place having fourstory apartments come in and take over Sound View Grocery. That lot and the three adjacent lots are owned by the same development company. It's not a hard reason to understand that as soon as you reszone that entire grocery will be scraped because they rent from them and four lots will be developed and we won't have a grocery store within three miles. We also do not have a bus that comes to our development. Route 18, which was the only bus that came down Muckle Boulevard, has now been turned to Glenwood. I reviewed the Everett Transit Department's long-term plan, which they published two years ago, and there is no plan to bring Route 18 back. I read the Everett Herald article that indicated that two years prior to our bridge being reconstructed, they decided to turn left up Glenwood Avenue because there was no writership in our area. We are a transportation desert. We will be a food desert, and we are the end of the road for Everett. So, I would highly encourage you to first consider keeping neighborhood business. As you have heard, the corner grocery store is an important factor in all neighborhoods, not just mine. But if you're going to change it, keep it ne uh residential because you can still build 24 town homes on those lots. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Steve Helney and I

represent groups of investors, developer, developers, and contractors that are building some of these middle housing projects. But as a real estate, we're just going to have you let folks I want to make sure we can hear you clearly. Thank you for being here today and providing commentary. You're welcome back anytime, folks. We appreciate you being here. Um, Chair Chatters, would you just double check and see if anybody needs translation and then we can let the translators go too. Okay. Is there anyone remaining who wishes to provide comment who will need translation services? Is there anyone present who wants to provide public comment who needs translation services? Thank you. Just going to close the door so we can hear you clearly. whenever you're ready. Okay. Hello, my name is Steve. Help me and I'm a real estate broker. I represent uh different groups of real estate investors, developers, and contractors that are working on some of these middle housing projects and ADU projects that are currently going on. Um, and I also represent a lot of first-time home buyers, and it is very discouraging when working with first-time home buyers to tell him tell them that they cannot get

a house, a a decent home under $550,000 in Everett. Um, if they want something like that, they either need to go further up north or east through uh Goldbar, those areas. Um, so the idea is we have a huge supply and demand issue. Uh the name of the game is trying to create as many housing units as possible so that people aren't being displaced, creating more options for more home buyers. That's going to create more rental like our Casino Road friend said, they need more rental available. That way they can um um help with the rent prices. Um so looking over some of these new regulations, um it doesn't really make sense for what we're trying to do with some of them and I'm trying to get a better understanding of how this is going to create more units. um and not just put needless restrictions on what we're trying to build. So, looking at 19-8 um with the front-facing units trying to face the front of the road, um that's a great idea when you're right on the front of the road, but most of these lots are, you know, 50 60 feet wide, 120 to 200 feet long. So, trying to get every single home in that long narrow uh lot is going to be very difficult and not make a lot of sense to get all those facing forward. What would make sense in a lot of those is to have a driveway running down the side and then have each of those homes sideways pulling off of that driveway so you can actually get some nice middle home middle housing homes that people want to live in. Um, and that's our goal that we're trying to create. Um, a lot of these lots I currently have a project that I'm working on right now where we could get three nice town houses in their sideways. A home that's probably going to go on the market for $575,000. nice three-bedroom house with a onecar garage that a family could get into. With that current constraint, there's no way that I could see to put that on that lot. So, the next option for our developers is we're going to have to take two single family homes. We'll probably just end up building a couple 1,800 uh to 2,000 foot homes and then they're going to go on the market

for $850, $900,000. So, that's not really making home housing more affordable. Um, but the developers have to do what's going to make most sense with the lot that's available. Um, so trying to work around some of those. Um, and with the shared lot idea, I I understand what that's trying to work around, but I don't the idea that most of these developers want to do, they want to be able to build a project that people are going to purchase. And most of those projects are going to have a onecar garage or a twocar garage, something that people want to buy. um the shared yard, especially having the units face the front of the shared yard. Well, then you can't get their driveway into the garage. So, that that doesn't really pull a lot of sense either, unless you're just forcing them to find a different place on the property to park. Um and I'm just having really having a real hard time wrapping their head around the idea there. Um if you have a driveway on a long lot and you're able to turn that unit sideways, you could probably fit two to three more times more housing on that same lot. um keeping in lines with the state's lot splitting idea. Um keeping most of the times we're going to be keeping the primary residents available and then building additional houses on there instead of just bulldozing down everything and building new units. Um that's the idea that they're working with and I would like to see some changes made there. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Patty Manning, are you in the building? Unus Manning. Good evening. Am resident of North Everett, the neighborhood Legion Park between Broadway and the golf course as far north as you can go. We're bounded by the golf course on the west and all kinds of woodlands, extensive woodlands and farmlands down below. And as Joe Nuland spoke, I I know who she is. um limited access in there, no sidewalks, narrow roads, and coming in and out of

the neighborhood. Um, and I'm speaking in opposition to your RU4 and and the change of designation from residential to urban residential. We're a single family neighborhood. I've lived there for I own a house up there. I lived there for 27 years. Um, it's a single family old neighborhood. Um, and to think that you would allow fourstory town homes, multiple, to be built on one lot, uh, is it's outrageous. It would totally destroy a our single family neighborhood. Would no longer be a single family neighborhood. And I worked in Seattle for the city for 30 years. And what's gone on in Seattle and what will go on here is what you'll get are these developers. They come on in, they buy, you know, a house for sale and they number one, they have a lot of money. They can out bid every single like citizens and this goes for any neighborhood. A person wants to buy a house. No, they come in and they buy the house. They out bid. They have the money to do it and then they rip the house down and just build all these multiple homes on each lot. Um, it will cause the home and then affordable housing. No way. They build these things. They are not affordable housing. They will sell them for, you know, $800 to a million dollars. They're high-end. Go down to Seattle. We're not Seattle. And I, again, I worked there for 30 years. I still work there. Um, I'm retired from the city, but um, family and friends live down there. And it's a monstrosities. Four story. That's crazy. That is absolutely outrageous. And I'm surprised more of my neighbors aren't here. They said they were going to come tonight, but um uh I my suggestion is oh two suggestions. Why don't we find some commercial areas? You know, there's some areas all around here, parking lots, empty parking lots that if you were to build your town homes or your apartments

that would number one would beautify the that area instead of making it, you know, just like a bland parking lot or business area. um and would allow for more housing, but it would be more appropriate if you want to build these four-story town homes. No way should there be four-story town homes in our little single family neighborhood in any neighborhood. You and the developers are just going to price everybody out of there. We have a lot of old people. We have um um families and nobody will be able to afford to buy a house there. That's all there is to it. And um yeah, that's pretty much what I have to say. Thank you, Miss Manny. Thank you, Mr. David Gardner, are you in the building? A little stiff sitting back there. Uh, good evening. First, before I get started, I would like to applaud you, the commission, and the planning staff. The tasks that the state put on you between House Bill 1337 and 1110 are incredible amount of pressure on a community like Everett. The fact that Everett's destined to grow by double in the next 20 years is not to be underestimated. Um, so let me start. My name is Dave Gardner. I am a uh with a little background. I'm a professional land surveyor. I've been practicing in and around Everett for over 30 years. uh mostly representing small builders, developers, mom and pops. I'm also a mortgage lender and I my passion and most of my clients are first-time buyers. So, understanding achievable housing is key to me because I deal with them every day. And I don't use the term affordable housing, I use achievable housing because that's really what we're looking towards. Um, funny side note, I actually a year out of the military. Um, spent a year on Casino

Road. Uh, and my kids play my grandkids play soccer there. So, I'm here to respectfully urge the commission to enhance flexibility in the regulations governing accessory dwelling units. The implementation that the city put in place last year was amazing. It took to heart House Bill 1337 and it got a lot of people excited about being able to keep housing. Maybe not inflating, but at least static. Keeping the pricing of housing down because creating a small house in a neighborhood around 1,000 square ft, you keep the price down immediately just because of the square footage. But it keeps pricing somewhat static. And what I mean by that, if we just keep developing lots and doing short plats and plats, those things all cost money, take time, inflation takes hold. So, House Bill 1337 was adopted to ensure the jurisdictions like Everett make ADU development easier, not harder. It prohibits cities from imposing, and I say prohibit because that's the way the law is written, from imposing unnecessary barriers such as excessive setbacks, design mandates, parking minimums, burnage improvements, and excessive mitigation fees, and the owner occupancy requirement. Now, personally, I like this product for owner occupancy. Currently the only way we can create that is through a condominium process. It would be great if we had a fee simple process but condominium is the only way we can do it currently. Height limits the new code as it's written as I interpret it plan director under uh table 22-2 section 1922 limits the height of a data to 24 ft. Well, if you ever built anything getting to two stories under 24t with a 612 pitch becomes really difficult. So, we have asked and and had conversation about increasing that limit to at least 30 feet. So, now you can have a decent good-looking building that fits two floors on an alley. Currently, the code

says 28 ft. Under the comp plan, that has been taken out. Uh, case in point, if you look at what I gave you as a handout, you'll see a house that was built at 2209B. That house could not currently be built under the proposed comp plan. and which is sad because it's a good-looking house and it's going to serve somebody in the future. I won't take up much time because the bell rung, but um I gave you all a handout with uh with some of the key points. The key here to me is we need less regulation if we want to keep pricing static. If we want to help people be able to buy a home in our community, we need relatively decent regulation, but we don't need overregulation. Dadus allow for the bridge between single family homes and your requirement to fulfill for 11:10. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. Do we have a Mr. Todd Dudesman in the building? Uh my name is Todd Dudesman and I work as a real estate agent for Keller Williams Realy and uh I appreciate all of you guys allowing us to come here and discuss this. Uh York has been super helpful in learning how to put together programs uh for us to build our DADUs here in uh the city of Everett along with Dave Gardner. Dave does a phenomenal job of putting together units and uh loans and surveying and things of that nature. What I'd like to talk to you about is all of us probably in this room or most of us own homes. And uh just like you, I want to have my own home. Just like the people in Casino Road, just like you know, anybody, any young couple getting started, even old retirement, everybody wants to own homes. And so this DATU ordinance of

133, House Bill 1337 is very important because we're able to build one or two DATOs uh on a piece of property and sell those for under $600,000. And so I think that it's very important that we adhere to uh the standards of the House Bill 1337. I know a tremendous amount of builders and developers that are already working through that because it's a quicker path to get more attainable housing. And uh we have currently my partner, this is Angel, uh we have helped a couple, the Martinez's that want to build wealth for their family. And so they were able to buy a home right here off of Wetmore. They're going to put a home. They have they're going to they moved into the front with the help of Dave Gardner. They're able to build a dado in the back and sell that datoo in the back to help them build more uh wealth for their family in the future. And I think there's other families, whether they're um whether they're first-time home buyers that are able to do this or people that are retired that are living in a large home that don't want to take care of the large home and don't want to pay the taxes. Well, they'd like to move into a small little rambler on the back of their their same lot and be able to sell the front house and still live in the same neighborhood and be able to have their own place there and uh you know, basically retire and stay here in Everett instead of having to to sell their home and go away. So I guess my biggest the battlecry is let's make sure that we can continue this uh datadu process here in Everett and also let's work on uh I know York is is very helpful this to streamline the the uh permit system so that we can build a permit system to get through get our product quicker. I know that we're supposed to uh have 36 uh,000 units here in the next 20 years and that means it's roughly about 190 permits a year and I don't want those to be apartments. I don't want those to be condos. I'd rather them be where people can let their kids out, run around and play.

They've got a dog. So, let's really push hard on this data from my perspective. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Judson. Mr. Russell Joe, are you in the building? Whenever you're ready, Mr. Joe. Thank you, Chair. uh Russell Joe Master Builders uh office located in Belleview, Washington. Um thank you director, thank you chair for both taking time to listen to the public uh concerning these issues. I won't belabor the points that were made on the ADUs by our member Dave Gardner. Um except to say that uh ADUs, as we've discussed in our past conversations, u do a great job of keeping ne neighborhood character because often the ADU is in the backyard along the alley. it's not seen as a um new change to the neighborhood. We would ask that the um ADUs do take into account the the um the frontage improvements if they are required uh do kill an ADU project because it just does not pencil out to go ahead and put an ADU back there if they're front improvements that are required. Also, we want to make sure that the ADUs will have the advantage or be able to take advantage of the 50% um impact fees that are allowed under state law. And we want to make sure that provision stays in there so that those ADUs can be encouraged. I I did want to talk a little bit more in depth about the inclusionary zoning uh topic just to give some information and background. Uh there's a a herd study which was done uh concerning the 2019 implementation of the law in Seattle and it recently came out. Um I have given it to uh the director and um he's taking a look at it I think but they came up with the fact that um your inclusionary zoning to get a unit is not financially feasible until you get to the 14 to 20 range for a development. Um, and so you have an

exemption up to eight units right now. But if you go and do the ninth and the 10th unit, those both of those units under the current interpretation would have to be um affordable units. Um, I would ask if there's a way to get it so that you can get the first 14 and then the 15th unit triggers one unit. I think the herd study would say that that is financially feasible for construction. And what we want to do is we want to increase the supply of housing overall. And so if you have that provision in there, you're going to get those 14 and then the 15th unit as affordable. And you're going to get the units built. The other way that things get built or is to do the the uh fee in L, which right now is $15 per square foot. I gave a letter to you on May 2nd which gave some base calculations of how much that impacts a a project. um you know it's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars when you build the 10 units uh depending on the size of the individual units. Um we would ask that if a inloo fee is considered that it perhaps be reduced to $10. Um I'm using $10 because that's about the range that uh the city of Kenmore is considering. Um but your starting range was far was below where Seamish was. I know you don't want to be the next Seamish, but um you know that's kind of where where things are and if you could look at reducing that, that'd be fantastic. And just closing lot splitting under 1096 is coming. Um it was just passed by the legislature, so it will have an impact on your work going forward. So just keep that in mind as you're trying to construct and put these regulations together. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Joe. Mr. Nick Eert. Thank you very much, uh, commissioners. Uh, my name is Nick Eert.

I live here in North Everett. Um, I live in the Riverside Historical District. Um, I used to be, um, the president of the Council of Neighborhoods. I was the Riverside um, uh, president. Um, I've also been a member of the HC's legislative affairs committee. Um, I heard several gentlemen come up here and speak today about ADUs and also about development of other properties. Um, so number one is that the Herald did a report about a year ago in regards to how much housing ADUs were actually adding to Everett. And really what they found was that it wasn't adding anywhere near as much as condo buildings and and apartment buildings were going. Um, I personally worked with city council back in the early late 1990s, early 2000s and helping to develop the Broadway design guidelines. What we need to do as a city is actually provide the property owners and developers financial incentives to go ahead and start that redevelopment. Currently, right now, there isn't. Um in late two late 99s 2000s um city council passed an ordinance that allowed um developers to go for 10 years um without having to pay property taxes to the city of Everett to encourage development and that's how we actually got quite a bit of development built in downtown Everett. Now I want to turn your attention to ADUs. ADUs are really affecting me. Um the my neighbor actually has an ADU in consideration right now planning and Alex Bird has been working with him. Um, this person has an house that's 880 square feet. His ADU that he's proposing on his 50 foot um um he has a 6,000t lot and he is actually proposing to build a 1,000T ADU to the maximum plus a singlecar garage next to it which is going to be two stories with the 24 ft restriction that it currently has. That is going to look down on my backyard. I don't personally appreciate that. I also don't appreciate the fact the mass of the building is um about 115% of the mass of the existing house. He's also um moved out of the

house and has tenants living in the primary residence and he's flat out told me that he plans on just renting out um ADUs um or that primary house and the ADU. So there is a great effect. Moving to a 30-foot um height limit for an ADU is just totally inappropriate for most of the neighborhoods that are out there. And ADUs should be restricted to I would say no more than 80% of the um square footage of the main house. Um I understand that state law gives um and and we can go up to a thousand square feet, but that's great for a lot of neighborhoods. That's not great for every neighborhood. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Eard. Ayanna, do we have anyone online who wishes to offer a comment? Would participant named BR like to make a public comment? David, go and go ahead. Oh, this is uh Dave Koig, uh, City of Everett. Uh, I mean, I live in the city of Ever. I can you hear me? Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Con. Thank you. Um I've provided a note today that hopefully you have in front of you. Uh and what I'm proposing uh is to help um the city um have uh follow what the middle housing definition is in state law. The middle housing uh definition is means buildings that are compatible in scale, form and character with single family houses and contain two or more attached, stacked or clustered homes including duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, 5plexes, sixlexes, town houses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments, and cottage housing. So that's a state definition that they is part of the legislation. I'm uh requesting that you add a couple policies under the design and

development section to implement that uh definition which is provide infill development in established areas of the city that continue to maintain the character of these neighborhoods. The second one is pro promote increased densities in infill housing in all residential neighborhoods through appropriate design standards that reinforce the single family character of areas. I'm also suggesting that the city keep from the current comprehensive plan two policies. One in the design and development section which is protect public views of distant mountains and water wherever feasible as new development is approved. That's an existing policy wishing you keep that. The other one is to add to engagement administration and invitation is that is to work with the toyup tribes on opportunity to interpret and com commemorate our shared history and historical resources. Again, I don't know why uh it was proposed to do away with that, but uh I suggest that that policy also keep. So those are the four suggestions I have and that's my comments tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Koig. Ayanna, do we have additional uh members of the public who'd like to speak online? Would caller with phone number ending in 2169 like to make a comment? Hi. Yes. Hello. Please state your name for the record and when you're ready, uh, proceed. Hi. Can you hear me? I can hear you just fine. Please state your name for the record and you're welcome to proceed with your comments as soon as you're ready. Okay. My name is Maline Shepard. I live in the northwest neighborhood of Everett on Hoy Avenue just north of 19th Street in a singlestory Rambler. Do you want to rezone along 19th Street? Your map shows

that the resoning would split my block allowing four-story buildings just to the south of my home on the first three lots. Don't give me sob stories about the urgent need for metal housing. Never mind privacy. This would block daylight for my property. I'm a little ticked off about this. I've been keeping up with the Everett 2044 news and suddenly I see you've decided to reszone my neighborhood. You've made zero contact with anyone who lives here. That's not a surprise, man. Is this our fault? Were we supposed to budget to buy tickets to hear the mayor speak? My husband and I have always joked after years of living in poverty in a really rough area how proud we are that we just made it into the good neighborhood. Well, apparently not. We're the transition into the good neighborhood. We're aware where you want to dump on us. Pardon my French. And nobody is supposed to care. But I guess you don't care. You know, you don't give a damn about one angry resident. You don't care if everyone's pissed off. It's all for the greater good. You're going to force it upon us. We have our own visions for the future of Everett. But no, say, we're at the mercy of your decisions. Doesn't matter how much we protest. What you decide goes. Just like the stupid baseball stadium. You're going to destroy our historic neighborhood with halfbaked ideas. The historic overlay for Rucker Grand is a joke. A great deal of houses along Grand within this area are so heavily modified that their age is virtually unrecognizable. What about all the old houses along Hoy and Colby? Most of them are over a hundred years old. Are they not deserving of protection? Asinine is the lots along 19th you're proposing to reszone are already really small. Some have already been subdivided up decades ago with two houses on them. Demolishing just one lot to increase density wouldn't do anything. So, are you thinking of imminent domain? I'd really like an answer on that. Our neighborhood really needs a historic designation, not increased density. Once you destroy it, you will never get it back. Thank you. Thank you, Ayanna. Do we have additional callers who'd like to provide comment?

Would caller with the name BR like to make a public comment? Caller BR, no comments. Okay, with that commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Make a motion we close the public hearing. Seconded. Anna, would you call the role, please? Chair Chers, yes. Commissioner Atkins, yes. Commissioner Ballard, yes. Commissioner Finch, yes. Commissioner Sullivan, yes. Commissioner Shelby, yes. Commissioner Elage. Yes. Commissioner Welch. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you folks for that uh for those comments. It's important that the leadership in this city hear from you. Uh we're now going to move on to uh the next agenda item which is 2044 development regulations briefing. Thank you, Chair Chatters. Um want if you had any questions about any of the topics that came up uh be happy to try my best to answer some of those. A lot of the issues are things that we are aware of and that we are working on. Um I mentioned at the beginning that there's some things that we're uh working on behind the scenes because we've heard some of these comments and a lot of them raised some really important and some really good points. So I think uh folks will see some progress uh in the in the next draft and we can talk about some of those here today. Uh some of them do implicate especially the uh accessory dwelling units, middle housing, site design and all of that are in some of the chapters that we'll go through today. Um, so just to pause there if there's anything that uh that you wanted to talk about uh kind of open before we dive into chapters six and eight is what I'm hoping to get through today. Commissioners, unless you had a specific question, I think we should move forward with the the briefing. I've got a specific question. Please, Commissioner, in your updates, will you highlight exactly what you will be updating when it comes to pass so we don't have to

sift through it and find that? And then will you also be addressing uh potential change in zoning to the uh neighborhood just west of Broadway, North Broadway as well as Boulevard Bluffs? Yes. Uh Council President Schwab has uh mentioned that the council is looking at those two neighborhoods uh specifically mobile home parks. There was a fourth neighborhood commercial. Those were four areas, not those aren't the only ones, but that uh he mentioned in the last council meeting that the council was taking a look at. So, we're supporting them there and uh when we get to that point, we'd love to get your feedback on that as well. And certainly uh every change that we're making to our working document has some big bold yellow highlighting uh so that we can all keep track of it. The substantive ones if we fixed a comment, a comma, uh then those are not and those will be on the 21st at their meeting. Commissioners, any anything additional? Okay. not if they're going to address this stuff later. Well, I I think there were a lot of comments that need to be digested and and addressed. So, we'll look forward to hearing uh how we're going to approach some of these questions that the public has asked. Absolutely. And yeah, great. Thanks to everybody who's uh spoken up today. Um there's nothing like it. Okay. Development regulations. Uh again, working from the April 7th draft. It's available at everwah.gov/2044. Um, we have a comprehensive plan and a development regulations. We worked through each of the elements of the comprehensive plan in uh, pretty solid detail recently. So, we're focusing these last couple of meetings on the development regulations. Uh, almost all of these we've talked through at least at a high level bullet points on slides kind of things, but now you have the chance to see the specific words and we're hearing uh, some of that feedback. on April 15th. We went through the first

three uh chapters line by line. Thank you for sticking with us on that. Uh today we were able to get together some slides to uh to simplify that so we won't be just dragging down a PDF. Uh hoping again to get to chapters six and eight today. Although if we have the time we can continue going through the rest of these. I will start with chapter six. Chapter six addresses uh lot standards, setbacks, uh lot coverage and res residential densities. [Music] Um maximum lot coverage by building. Biggest changes were from the single family zones to the neighborhood residential zone. Our existing in the single family zones of RSR1, R2 and R2A range from 35 to 45%. And we have proposed in this draft that neighborhood residential uh range from 50% to 60% depending on the number of dwellings on the lot. 50% if it's just one house, one lot up to 60% if you have three or more dwellings on that lot. Neighborhood residential constrained. Uh the the uh approach for that zone is largely no change from current. So you'll see that uh preserved here. did want to make one note the accessory dwelling unit height table 22-2 in chapter 22 the only reference when we have references to accessory dwelling units those are only for the neighborhood residential constrained that's a little bit confusing we're working to untangle that and make it a little bit more clear but that uh height limitation would only be for accessory dwelling units and neighborhood residential constrained because in the

neighborhood residential zone and other zones that accessory dwelling unit is just a dwelling. In other words, it can exceed uh go up to the 35 ft um like any other form of housing. Question. Yes. Um is there a benefit to simplifying this to make it simply 40% and 60%? I I don't know that. Um I have a strong feeling about whether it's one or three dwelling units that the lot coverage should change. Mhm. It's a small It's a small incentive to build more housing units rather than small. I I just don't see it playing out like that. And from an urban form standpoint, I don't know why you would um discriminate against the potential for intergenerational housing in a larger unit. So, I think going with one simple 60% lot coverage in the neighborhood residential makes sense to me. Yeah. I just want to second what Commissioner Finch said. I lot coverage. Um I I support that. I think I've said it before in this uh in this chamber. Just because it says 60% 50% whatever it is doesn't mean that you'll always be able to achieve that. And that goes for the 100% lot coverage which are the rest of the zones as well. There are a lot of site design and constraints and things that will uh that we'll get there. Could we just remove it all together then? Is there any reason to have it in there? It's just another calculation that has to be done. Something we could think about. And uh reminder that it's lot coverage by building. It's not the same thing as imperous surfaces or or otherwise. So even with a 60% 50% lot coverage, you could still have uh pave the pretty much the entire lot as long as you can meet storm water standards. Okay. took a couple good

ideas. Uh maybe with things like this, we will come back at the following meeting, so in two weeks, and give some more information on them if if it's not something that we can settle uh at the moment. Uh what are we on here? Maximum lot coverage. The rest of the zones um have no maximum lot coverage. That is an existing regulation. No change there. The light industrial 2, which is being renamed to light industrial, does have a 50% maximum lock coverage. We are proposed to drop that 50% maximum lock coverage. Um there are a few standards that are related to a uh and this came from the comprehensive plan and the zone um purpose statements that were oriented around a relatively low density business park type environment for the light industrial 2 zone. Um staff looked at that compared to the manufacturing industrial center, our employment targets and the need for a strong uh manufacturing and industrial sector within the city and the need to uh prioritize employment and didn't see the 50% lot coverage as um really supporting that. So that's why we proposed dropping that. There are also some landscaping standards uh around buildings and around perimeters of lots in this LI 2 now named LI zone. I don't think we have proposed changing those but at least the 50% basic maximum lot coverage we proposed dropping setbacks um decreasing the minimum setbacks in most of the zones. The neighborhood residential zone covers most land in the city. Currently in the single family

zones, we have a 20 foot front and rear uh setback, 10 ft side street and 5t side interior. Proposing to decrease that to 10t front and rear, 10-ft side street and 5-ft side interior. Um I have a slide on this later as a pending issue. Accessory dwelling units currently are allowed within the rear setback up to 24 ft high by um dropping the accessory dwelling unit uh allowance within the rear setback and having a even though the rear setback decreases from 20 ft to 10 ft uh accessory dwelling units now get pushed out of that back 10 feet at least up to the 24 feet if that makes sense. So, this is something that we've flagged. Uh staff's intention through this project has not been to um disincentivize or get in the way of the growing accessory dwelling unit market and the and the development of that. So, I'm just flagging wherever there were changes, intentional or unintentional. And this is one that we're looking at potentially um we're discussing reducing the rear setback potentially down to 5 ft for all buildings that would uh help with that particular issue. Uh I have a question when you got the excessive excessive rightways what do we cons what do we consider an excessive right of way? Yes thank you. We have added a provision excess right ofway would be uh an administrative decision between public works and planning. I would like to get to where we have pre-desated those but uh we can also work by um individual decision on

an application. Excess right ofway is where we do not foresee needing to use the entire right ofway for example for travel lanes, parking, sidewalks and landscaping. And then in those cases you have quasi setbacks that are within the rightway and then having the buildings set back even farther from that gets to be an a waste of space essentially. Yes, that's why I mentioned that. Yeah, because I measure my own house. Yeah. I have extremely wide rightway. Yeah. So, if I go set back 10 feet, I'm really way away from that street now, right? Because of the setbacks going through places like I'll say I'm on Lumbard. Yep. And my setback is extremely large. So, if I go another 10 feet back, I am I'm probably good. Yes. Yep. just so I think probably something like that is going to be needed. Yeah, this came from public comment. There's a couple specific instances where the right of way um there's one south of downtown where decades and decades and decades ago they thought that I think uh Colby or or Highway 99 would go up that so it was a massive rideway and it's barely a two-lane road now. Um North Everett has a lot of those as well. So this would give administrative flexibility without going a variance route to reduce those setbacks. Uh right now setbacks are very firm cannot be changed by staff. This would be the first time um in a long time or ever that we would have some administrative flexibility there. Remind me what's the setback with with the garage. front door, the garage. I don't remember all the details on that because doesn't it change the

math? Like you can have your garage 5t back, but your front See, this is why I can't remember. That's why I'm asking you to help remind me. I'm always confused on how these two work together. I think in 1908, we have garage standards that require that the garage be farther back than the front door, wherever that it happens to be. So, it's not a relationship to the street, but it's a relationship. So, then the garage is 15 ft back. Uh, it But let me see if I can find that 10 plus and I'll zero and flexibility if there's a way. I think you're right. I think it's five back from the front door. Okay, I just was trying to remember page 19 of chapter 1908 1908060 garage requirements, garage setbacks and lengths and it's a requirement to have your garage 5t back or that's just if you're really trying to hug this like hug the front of your property land. So it reads, "Except along alleys, all garage wall facads facing the street shall be set back a minimum of five feet behind the front wall of the primary building mass." I don't like that. I think that's it. Not I don't like that design, but okay. This one is an existing regulation still except that it only applies to uh residential dwellings provided a front or side street setback exception, small lot, single family, duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, and any dwelling within a historic overlay zone. So by crossing out the where applicable table there, it makes it applicable to all development under chapter 1908. Okay. I just think I

don't understand why we have to add another five feet for garage, but I mean that's just my it's to depprioritize the visual of it. Um but I just think I don't I just personally don't like that decision. Yeah. Commissioners, does anyone else have strong feelings about uh garages? I don't know if my feelings are that strong, but I I don't I I don't disagree, but I don't think it's that strong. If you want to have a flat wall in your garage on your flat wall, go for it. I do not care. It's not a public comment period. I was just going to say I was here during that passing and I can add context if you'd like. Commissioners, are you open to hearing uh for about 60 seconds from uh our audience member? So, interestingly enough, we fought that battle and lost. Um, it was created because there was a time period in the city planning department where garage doors were something that became ugly. And so we as a building development community had to reddesign every plan that had ever been built to allow for a 5-ft relief from the front door. And so it created a lot of heartache immediately overnight created less lots because it takes more room to create the area in which to meet the parking and the the uh garage doors. So just a little context. Thank you. I think I'm biased because my garage is further towards the sets like it's 5t in front 10 in front. So I'm like the inverse. So, I think I'm just coming with a personal biases against garage setbacks and setbacks in general. Well, if you're asking for support, I would support getting rid of that as well. So, if that's what you're looking for, any other thoughts, commission, on that? I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I I would like to point out that um many

up here don't like cars in general. So, I think it's somewhat ironic that they're arguing for larger garages, but I like cars. So, I'm sorry. They don't have to be deeper. I just It's a design standard that limits design. It just limits design. I don't I don't have any particular feelings on it other than I I think every additional regulation that isn't necessary is is then unnecessary and we don't need to create more constraints in the market uh to the goal. The goal is to make this work out for the people and for the developers that we need to build the housing. Um so I don't have strong feelings on the aesthetic. It's more about whether or not it it is smart in terms of adding this as a regulation. Yeah. Well, I think I'm done. The modulation itself is expensive. It's a it's an additional cost, right? Okay. Uh there are two more um before we move on standards on garages. Yeah. on on the setbacks. Um it seems as though you could simplify it to say that if it's on a ride of way it's 10 ft and if it's not it's five. Yes, that would reduce that is what staff is thinking to reduce the rear just this morning in fact uh reduce the rear setback. This was coming from the ADU perspective but would also be helpful for site design for all types of housing. Uh if we were to do that then yeah that would be a um oh a simpler way to frame it than front rear side side street side interior. Okay. Um I said there's a couple other garage ones but if it's okay we'll that's actually the very last slide we have in 1908. So we'll come back to that. There's the rest of the setbacks.

Um I think neighborhood residential again is most of the city. So, uh, it gets a little bit more attention, but on the left side here, you can see the summary and then the big table is exactly out of the chapter neighborhood residential constraint. Again, no change. Uh, UR4 zone. So, this is our low-rise zone. This is the one that was applied to connectors to urban corridor frames. So, the two to four blocks off of the major urban corridors and then a couple of areas that already have this type of a zone. Much of that uh area is currently single family zoning. So, that's kind of in staff's mind for designing these regulations is that uh it's going to be um accommodating infill and development to areas that are currently characterized largely by houses. UR4, we've got no front set back, but 10 foot in the rear, five foot in the side. And then you see the little footnotes, numbers two and three, and those increase the setback when they abut a certain zone for the UR4 on the side and the rear, excuse me, the side uh increases to 10 ft if it abuts the neighborhood residential zone. There are not many instances where UR4 is side by side with neighborhood residential. Most of those zone changes are across a street. Some of them are back to back. So, just keep that in mind. I have a I have a quick question on the ones that are uh no front setbacks. If you like the UR4, if you have a ground floor unit, does that mean that you can't access it from the street? You have to access it from inside the building? No, just means you can build up to the right of way line and back door, right? So, just you have a little space

or whatever to open your Okay. All right. You would have to Yes. So, if your if your door opens I I'm pretty sure we prohibit it. Yeah. Open. Yeah. Hey, man. I'm I'm not a developer, so that's just our basic building plan. Uh okay. So that's UR4. UR7 has no setbacks except when abuing residential zones or the neighborhood residential zone. Then it goes up to 10 ft. Mixed urban, same thing. All of the mixed urban zones except for the one that's in this the 25 which is in the center of downtown. No setbacks except a budding residential and neighborhood residential. Same with light industrial mixed use limu which is currently named LI1 and then no change to light industrial heavy industrial and a I'm curious why why are the setbacks different between LI and HI like what's the logic that's the business park uh approach so in chapter 4 no chapter three is the definition of zones And our current purpose statement for the LI2 zone is to provide for and protect areas for highquality campus style office and industrial park development on large parcels of stand of land. promote a high level of aesthetic amenities, view, open space, native vegetation, landscaping, unusual natural site features, architectural design, buffer, adjacent residential, and a couple of other things. staff um came into this, took a look at it, thought of our employment targets,

thought of the manufacturing industrial center that is most of the LI2 and we have proposed to restate that as support industrial development and uses and those that are highly complimentary, prohibit incompatible uses, concentrate employment, and mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent residential zones. So, it's a shift in focus from kind of the business park model to more of a classic industrial model. Um, we took away the 50% maximum lot coverage. The these landscaping standards remain in. These are all very large lots, so the landscaping is much less of a bite into the development capacity of those lots. Uh but I think it's something that staff um are uh open to looking at as well. Yeah, they just seem some staff they just seem to stand out like if you if you want to drive business to have you know you have a minimum lot size of like two and a half acres for LI you've got these huge setbacks and great but if I move over here to hi and just you like move it across the street not a problem. So that seems like counterproductive to wanting to get rid of, you know, the business park stuff and also drive innovation and business to come here. I mean, I like the lot coverage. That's fantastic. But to enforce like let's just put it in the center of this parcel and only in the center of this parcel seems strange to me. Yeah. A common development type in that area is a large rectangle surrounded by a lot of um truck maneuvering and parking and things like that. [Music] Um in that way it's really surprising how little of the lot is taken up by buildings. So that 50% actually doesn't wind up being much of a cap the setbacks. So in that case actually cannot be used for circulation or parking or anything like that. So they maybe is more of a practical impact on

it. On the other hand, driving down Glenwood, Hardison, things like that, um you get vegetation along your drive. And that's what we've been having some debates at the staff level of, uh is that aesthetics of the of the drive worth the um minor but still uh noticeable amount of land. I mean, I could take a trip along Budwood and then I turn on Sever Ducey and there's no like, okay, cool. I've got a ramp on this side that's vegetation and then I see Amazon and what was going to be a, you know, pharmaceutical company, but there that didn't seem to that doesn't click in my mind as to why that's beneficial. So, yep. Any other thoughts on that? LI landscaping lot coverage and all that? I don't I don't have an answer, but I mean supportive of that. I mean just it's it feels like we would it be you're right there's situations where the landscape would be better but I mean are we restrict is there a way to write it so there's can be more flexibility in there they can do something equivalent if it's really cool building or something or you can utilize it different um if it's trying to be a campus type you know the only option to have landscaping out there and having a square box in the middle seems like not very contemporary of what we're seeing happening around the country. It's not seem I don't have a good answer. Yeah. Looking at the light industrial the landscaping requirements I'm seeing 5 ft or to the building of type three again. Um I will offer that uh we are planning on doing a sub area plan for the manufacturing industrial center and taking a look at our industrial

zoning as part of that in the next uh one of the early implementation actions of the comprehensive plan and I think this is one of those things that we'll look at it's the uses but also some of these development standards. Um so we tried to take steps with this uh in this update and please let us know if there are more steps we can take otherwise we will look at it again in the next year or two and commissioner Ballard as you are mentioning if you've got ideas of projects that would not fit that bill that would be better used and we can start looking at what some of those setbacks are standards are that would be really helpful as we move forward in the next phase. I'm always open to copy billing rate is sent. I know. I'm always open for copying others. All you have to do is give me an address. Um I just because I've got it here. So light industrial is landscape category D. That is three type three ornamental landscaping 20 ft or distance between building and lot line whichever is less. Interior lot lines are 15 ft of type 2 see-through buffer. That's on page nine of chapter 1935. Okay, good. On this topic, um I will just flash this on the screen. We do have it available. We tried to look at all of the setbacks and how they relate to from a uh development site to a neighboring zone. We have some of those where the setback increases if it's next to a residential zone, for example. Is that a stack of maps right there? It's a stack of tables with maps. My second favorite thing. No, the back side is Oh, more tables. Are there

enough to circulate down the dice? Maybe Commissioner Welch could uh do the honors of passing them forward. We love a good table. And if you can put a map on it around My goodness. Everett 2044 website as well. Not this one. No. Okay. Um it is so complicated that I'm always uh unsure if it is perfect. So with with things like this, make sure to double check the actual chapter 1935. I won't linger on this uh but you can use it as a tool to look at uh what the adjacencies are between uh different zones and those come in three forms. There's the setbacks and the conditional setbacks where it's greater if it's next to a certain zone. There is landscaping and sometimes that depends on what zone you are next to. So a higher level of landscaping or screening if you're next to a more uh sensitive zone. And then the third one are height reductions. So look for example development site MU15 neighbor neighborhood residential. You see the height is limited within 50 ft. And then there is also a 10- foot type one which is a a sight obscuring buffer. So those are some of the um uh treatments to improve compatibility between zones. Um I will get this up on Everett 2044 uh now that we've talked about it here or at least on the planning commission page. Okay. So, we've done lots setbacks. Now, density, we are removing the residential

density limits in 1906 100. Um, those are, I believe, maybe the historic overlays still have a density limit, but otherwise, those are the last density limits uh in municipal code. So uh over the past decade or so starting in Metro Everett and then working through the mixeduse zones mixed urban through rethink zoning and then now to this effort uh step by step we've removed those density limits. Um there are still practical limitations on density from the bulk standards and everything else and especially in the neighborhood residential zones. Uh that's what we will uh look to. But we are no longer counting the proposal at least is to no longer be counting doorork knobs in the city of Everett, which is I I think one of the most significant steps that we can take uh to support housing. We do have a minimum residential development in the sevenf floor and higher zones and that is at least three attached dwelling units. It'll look really quick at what it is now. Pretty close to what it is now. Okay. I didn't. Okay. This is table 6-6 on page 14 of chapter 1906. And the minimum number of residential units ranged from two in the UR3 zone to three in the UR4, business, mixed urban, and LI zones. So, we're simplifying that to just three attached dwelling units in those bigger zones.

questions. There is also a minimum height in the height chapter. Current and maintained proposed although changed. What's the minimum height? That was a good page turn here. Um, neighborhood nodes two floors, community hubs three floors, metro ever three floors, and streets designated to except in historic overlay four floors. That compares to currently, and this is on chapter 1922, page three, that compares to currently two to four floors except it's by zone. UR3 is two floors and UR4 and MU. And then MU on a TOD street is four floors. So instead we're looking to centers for those reminder on centers. Uh we had the dots and all of that indicated where we're looking to have centers. Currently only Metro Everett is designated a mixeduse center. The rest of the centers are currently ineffective until we finish that work. Delineate and designate those centers. So wherever you see a mixeduse center it means Metro Everett now but through a later action which will be an ordinance. It'll come through the planning commission and all that. We will designate and delineate the other centers. Okay. Remaining issues. I already talked about accessory dwelling units and the rear setback. Um, may as well uh take a temperature on that one. Neighborhood residential. Current rear setback is 20 feet allowed in that rear setback are residential accessory structures. Those are garages and sheds, not dwelling units, and accessory dwelling units up to 24 ft. In the current proposal, April 7, that is reduced from 20 ft to 10 ft, but at least the accessory dwelling units are would be excluded from that. I

believe the residential accessory structures could continue to be in the rear setback. So, staff was looking at that and considering reducing that rear setback further to five feet. Does does the state code allows it to go to three feet? Are we not right or the new I'm sorry the 1337 are we I heard either heard that today or read it in a comment letter or saw that somewhere. Yeah, Philip, that's true. It is there reason why we wouldn't go to 3 ft if the state if certainly it was in the original I had the same comment that was in a public comment letter we had today. So I was it was I mean I guess from a practical standpoint does the two feet really make a difference? I mean I think about a number of homes in North Everett. Um you know if you think about a pitched roof with a an ease that sticks out 18 to 24 in um and then you try to get a ladder up there. You're on your neighbor's property in order to get the pitch on your ladder so you're not falling backwards. So, while I appreciate it's three feet, does it really make a difference if it's five? Makes it easier to get a lawn mower through and so many other things, right? So, it's just going to reduce neighbors fist fighting as far as I'm concerned. We heard public comment today about concern about uh development looming over backyard. So that would be one of the counterpoints to reduction unless unless we're ready to to do like some cities have done and allow uh building like zero lot line where you're building right next you really do need to allow an a buffer that people find appropriate. Um, oftentimes, yes, just to even build a building, um, you need either permission from your neighbor or you kind of have to keep a channel in there just so you

can build the thing. So, if we're going to stick with the extra-l large 5T so we have room for Commissioner Finch to fall safely. So, and I don't even want to ask about what you with your neighbor that uh involves fist fighting. Um, what about if we're going to be five feet? I mean why why are we limiting the ADUs to 24 ft? We're not that is current current regulations limit ADUs to 24 ft within the rear setback 28 ft otherwise currently uh dwellings 35 ft anywhere that's not a setback you can build your dwelling to the first to the 35 ft call it an ADU if you will though the 24T limit is going away Commissioner Ballard I I I guess I'm thinking about um folks who work in maintenance. My husband happens to be in, you know, he's a guy who works on buildings and so I as he fixes things, I get to hear the stream of curse words about the developers that don't leave adequate space for repairs and and such to come through. So today, so apologies. I'm trying to say save a maintenance man. Hug a maintenance guy today. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, we've got uh we've got uh comfort level with 5T 35 ft. 35 ft. They're they're all dwellings in the Y and then non-dwellings like a shed is still limited to 15 ftish. I we have not made we haven't cut sheds already. Yeah, I will. Your your your man cave is still saying Well, no, that was my question, right? Because it's

easier like to to build Well, I have to, but that's not the point. It it would be easier to potentially build a non-dwelling structure that you could convert later. Uh, and if you could do that, you know, uh, and say, "Oh, I've got just a really tall shed for now. Convert it later." Then I don't have to, you know, deal with all of that. if we kind of align on that for that particular purpose. But so don't put your sh put it five. Yeah. So also not limit it to 15 ft. So the residential accessory structures are on page three of chapter 1906 table 63. And I'm seeing nonalley lots just need to be 5 feet off of the rear property line. alley lots. No minimum rear setback. But the height I am not seeing a height limit. That must be in chapter 22. Uh we'll see when we get there. If we're making um ADUs just dwellings, then do they have to meet all the same? The International Builder Code, if I remember right, does have differences between a main residential unit and your accessory dwellings, don't they? On some of the codes. No. Okay. Just want to double check question. I believe Allison. Either way, um the building code will be the building code and what we do here will not change it. I I had a question to go back to the minimum building heights. I'm thinking specifically in the MU zone. Um, I like the idea of not underdeveloping an urban um, lot that's zoned for high density. Um, I'm also concerned that to the extent there are a number of historic somewhat small lots that wouldn't really um, be a good

candidate on its own for redevelopment. I don't want to discourage reinvestment in properties that are standalone on a small lot. And so I would encourage you to think about um another qualification in addition to say three stories. If it's if the lot is 6,000 ft or 4,800 ft um and it's a single story building now, developing basically another story on top of that on a small lot might be a great interim, call it 10 or 15 year placeholder until the highest and best use is 25. in which case the value of the existing improvements would be immaterial. So we need to find a way to not cap a reinvestment until we get a demand that is so huge that it merits going significantly higher. Does that make sense? It does. Agreed. I think we have the tools. Um we if if it were a one-story building and there was a threestory minimum height that's a non-conforming building. you may expand a non-conforming building without exacerbating the nonconformity. So by adding one and getting closer to the three, you are getting closer to conformity. We do accept that. So we do that currently with the minimum density. Um you could not build a new onestory building. You could take a one-story building and add one not getting all the way to three. You could not build a new one. Was that workable? That answers my question and addresses my concern. Um, if there's a way to um, put that in language that is consumable for folks that are not in the development industry. Sure. They may be the owners of these smaller lots. Sure. Sure. Okay.

Yes. It takes some page flipping between the standard and the nonconformities chapter which is in the 30s somewhere. I'm sorry. Can I have one more ADU question? Of course. So I I think I would have what was confusing me is the change pulling it out of kind of where we had the ADU is approved and then going to and pulling it into the missing middle. So yeah, is there why did we do that? because I feel like we're losing I feel like we're we're actually like changing the spirit of the original law that wanted to make them more simple, more streamlined and all of a sudden we're pulling them into the missing middle but they're actually getting more difficult to be built. So is was that I don't consciously I don't remember that us going through that talking about that is that is there a reasoning that we did that yeah the well the intent is uh simplification and streamlining of the regulations so we dropped all of the definitions duplex forplex multif family single family accessory dwelling unit uh cottage housing there's two or three more that we have that are definitions of different dwelling types. We wanted to provide uh as much flexibility as possible to the development community to innovate. And so um when we took our trip through the objective design standards, uh that was very prescriptive on the on the seven different lanes for seven different types of housing. We gave it our best effort at seeing if that was workable. that did not seem to add the value that we were looking for and it didn't seem worth losing the flexibility. Our intent is that there not be any change to what you can build as an accessory dwelling unit today. I think the uh some of this has gotten confused by the neighborhood residential constrained and keeping accessory dwelling unit in there for some of those purposes. Yes. Yes, it is confusing. So,

for the next draft, we're going to fix that and call it a dwelling under 1,000 square ft. We I've got a list here of all of the accessory dwelling unit regulations to confirm that we have checked off all of them. Um, traffic impact fee is on a trip threshold. So, by calling it a dwelling instead of an accessory dwelling unit, our traffic, my traffic folks tell me that it would be the same fee as it currently is. Park impact fee is per bedroom, so there would be no change there. School impact fees are the most complicated. Um, so I will need a pass on that one for a moment while we work with the county and the school districts on their methodology, which they are doing. The county is working on an ordinance. Uh the state has directed that impact fees be assessed proportionally to the size of the dwelling and so we need some more work to confirm uh how we're addressing the school impact fees. Also heard in testimony today a reminder of the 50% um I I believe state law caps impact fees at 50% for an accessory dwelling unit for a as compared to a principal unit. I don't think we're meeting that currently. So that is something that we need to look at and fix. Traffic is like 60% not 50% and um depending how you measure it parks are are equal small house or an accessory dwelling unit. Frontage improvements uh we had uh pencled in that's 1378 and that's one of the the chapters that's coming in book two. We had pencled in that all residential development would trigger frontage improvements. Um, we were since reminded of the state law that prohibited requiring frontage improvements for accessory dwelling units and again uh uh wanted to keep that market going. And so the the draft

that you'll see hopefully tomorrow uh will show that and this is an example of how we can treat this the I think it uses accessory dwelling unit. So, I think we put the term back in there, but basically the addition of up to two dwellings under 1,000 square ft is exempt from frontage improvements. Um, parking standards, uh, we need to look at, we currently have no parking within a half mile walking distance of all day transit, which is a a large 80% of the city or so. Um, I think currently we have it down to That is a very complicated one. Talk about tables. I've got a table for you in two weeks. But we're looking to make sure that that one gets done right as well. We talked about the setbacks today and the height is increasing. If there are others out there, we want to see them and address them and fix them. What about the facing forward and the restrictions and the difficulty of doing that? And I mean I think especially yeah I I've yeah multiple situations where that's really going to hurt Yep. design and really limit the number of units and the purpose of why we have that. Yep. That's 1908 if we want to move into that chapter. Yeah that's that's one I was just looking at because some parts of the city in particular like central Everett there are um very long lots where yeah you could put you know two units or you could put four or even more um if we remove that constraint. Yep. Absolutely. Okay. So, reminder, are we good on 1906 and going on to 1908? Yeah. And uh stay tuned for more clarity on the accessory dwelling unit. Uh please working hard on that. And how much time do we expect 1908 to take? Uh we

can we can take the right amount of time. You tell me what. Um, I think this one will go uh it's a complicated one, but I think we could do it in 20 minutes. Do we have is 1908 the the last one that we're reviewing today or are there That's what I was thinking. I mean, yeah, there's another four or five chapters, but Okay. Yeah. If let's get through 1908. Uh, let's have a discussion about that and then I think we'll we'll entertain a motion to adjurnn at that point. Can at least put the issues on the table and we can think about it. Okay. 1908. reminder um we drew this is a brand new development regulations for 70% of the city. We've never accommodated this type of development in these types of areas. So we looked to the state guidance in the form of the traditional neighborhood design middle housing toolkit of objective development and design standards for the Puget Sound region that was uh put together by Department of Commerce and Opticose. uh long complicated document and we turned it all into municipal code and then backed very uh backed away from almost all of it leaving just a few of the standards because it was we felt overly prescriptive uh applicability this uh all development in neighborhood residential and neighborhood residential constrained would look to this chapter. We've heard a lot of concerns about um or we've had a lot of difficulty over time with development of town houses and other middle housing forms in bigger zones, mixed urban zone or something that is subject to chapter 9. Um and so we're trying to have all of those middle housing ground oriented development types use chapter 8 and only the bigger buildings where you get stacked would use chapter 9. So this is a new type of applicability. Everything in neighborhood residential constrained or in other zones development of detached one and two family dwellings and town houses up to three stories in height

along with their accessory structures. That's any number of town houses and any number of uh those detached dwellings. Here is the uh facing in the shared yard. The requirement is that dwellings either face the street or face a shared yard. So, it's not only face the street, but it is face the street or face the shared yard. And at least one dwelling on the lot must face the street. Facing means one of seven, I think, uh, front entry types that came out of that uh, objective design standards toolkit. And those are different types of porches and doors and things. uh facing the shared yard uh means more than half of the dwelling unit front abuts a shar a shared yard and then you have those porch things which are called residential private frontage types that is the current uh framework here. So you can build interior of the lot but it has to look like that image on the top right there. So in that example, the hatching is the front of each building and you have the main house in this in this scenario facing the front and then you have those other two units um facing a shared yard with a pathway to the street and then the parking coming from the other side. There are different many different ways to orient it. Uh the basic requirement is that there be a shared yard of 15 by 15 at least. I think we changed that to 15 feet in any direction and 300 square feet which is pretty much 15 and 15 but it gives more opportunity for uh long and narrow I think 20 ft in any direction and 10% of

the lot for six or more dwelling units. Um recent developments uh had some good conversations about alleys and the uh how this would if you look at the unit in the top left there um that is facing what could be towards the back door of the original house if it's an infill dwelling. Um and we had some good thoughts that wouldn't that be better if it could face the alley and then everybody has a front and then you have two backyards facing each other. So we have penciled into the next draft a suggestion that over here dwellings must either face the street, face the alley or face the shared yard. So that is uh three different options for facing. Um garages can come in any of those directions as long as they meet the garage standards on the last uh slide here. So I'm sorry. So so what is the reasoning? So if you can face all three, I mean you're trying to create all these different ones. Why do you have the requirement in there? We've heard kind of three different development people say they're incredibly difficult to to get the density out of them. Yeah. Why do we have that in there? Part of it is the main reason is because it came from the the professionals and from the guidance for middle housing as an optional tool. Correct. Right. It's the recommendation among many. Correct. Correct. Um, sounds like it's optional, folks. What are our thoughts on this? That's right. I guess I'm just trying to visually understand. I think of um some town houses that were built off 19th and Silver Lake. Not the recent recent development, but within the last few years, they all face what looks like a street that was made, not that probably what their address is. So, how does that work? I mean, it's I guess you could

almost call it an alley, but the fronts are facing each other. They're not facing 19th. They're facing each other, which is north and south. So, I don't understand how that would apply or how this design standard would apply to that development. Right? That would be the sideways uh drive aisle loaded development type would be the one type that would not fit in this framework unless you had uh room for a shared yard on one side or the other. Um can a driveway count as a shared yard? It would not. Would it not be a private street then? If you divide it, you could do a private street in the middle. Then they're all face. What would you then kind of fac part of it is that you get the broadside facing the public street and the public street becomes a less attractive and less welcoming place is a 35T loud busy road that you don't want to face in general right yeah some of them are uh and some of them aren't I definitely uh 19th and evergreen way and Broadway are though those are not our townhouse zones though. So for the most part it's uh smaller streets. It's you are because it's four it's zoned for 15tory development. So town houses would be allowed but it's not the intended development type. I'm thinking specifically of the Pinehurst Beverly Park neighborhood just because I happen to know a lot of lot shapes there. And and while this doesn't seem like a big deal for some areas of the city, it actually could make a huge difference in how much housing could fit on on those lots. Um, and if it's new, if we're adding it and it's optional and we're hearing that

it increases the costs and it reduces opportunities for more units, I am not in favor of it and and commissioners, I I would like to hear you weigh in on your thoughts considering those factors. Well, where I am, you know, Harborview, Seahur, Glenn Haven, I'm going down that street. And in my mind, all those lots are super long, narrow, and yeah, I mean, you're not going to get anybody to subdivide that lot and put three frontage units on Seahurst or three frontage units on Glenn. It's just not going to happen. But I think that this addresses that concern with the uh front fronts facing a shared yard. Um I think this is a very complicated issue given the number of lot configurations we have in Everett. Um one of the things that I would like to avoid is the creation of flag lots that um both houses face in the same direction when there's a right of way. even when there's not a right of way. Um those homes they do get sold when they are produced for sale and then they become kind of hot potato homes because people want to get out of them as quickly as possible and it becomes a transitionary neighborhood which there's always a place for that but I don't think it's the highest quality development and so to the extent that we could and I definitely don't want to introduce new curb cuts in some of our more historic streets just to facilitate access back deeper into the lot. So the extent that we can avoid producing flag lots um I just think this is a very difficult situation given how many different ways ever's been platted. I definitely agree. This is uh depends on the location which I was going to ask which portion are we talking about the facing?

Are we talking about the yard? Because there's uh with the 50% 60% lock coverage, what you do with the remainder of it. Uh we heard from a commenter about the single family character and that's one of the um directions for middle housing. If you're not counting doorork knobs, what is that character? Something like a measure of open space and and yard that is not nothing but driveways and houses with zero yard there. Um, so I just think about those two issues maybe a little bit separately. What faces what versus whether there is any uh open or green space required or whether we're going to be driveways and structures. Well, we're not eliminating green space in the rear. Uh, if we're I assume we're not. Uh, this is just with regard to having the shared front facing the shared front. For for me, it's it's the facing of the doors and and how that constrains the ability to fit additional units. That that is what is troubling me most. Um, commissioners, I don't know if there's a different aspect of this that's troubling you. Yeah, there's still a is there still a requirement for landscape in the front in kind of some of these examples we're talking about. I don't really have a problem with the yard thing. That's fine with me. But I just was wondering is there like in lie of I get it. You don't want a big concrete parking lot with a bunch of parking spots for some town houses or narrow houses. That is pretty ugly. So, can we encourage some green space in that regard? So, in the neighborhood residential zone, application of type four landscaping, all interior portions

of lots which are not developed with buildings, parking areas, and uses And type four landscaping is uh just non-erosive uh lawn soil stabilizing which is grass or something that doesn't run. We do have a requirement added for street trees in the front of neighborhood residential which is something that had been missing unless you did a land division. And as we're getting more development without land divisions, that was a a switch. But otherwise, uh the front landscaping of shrubs and things like that is mostly the commercial zones and not neighborhood residential. Commissioner, sorry. Go ahead. I was just could you just limit it to like one of the units as to front to the street like one street facing dwelling unit? I thought that's what they were doing. It's it's all of them essentially, right? Like unless and then and then Yeah. must face the street or a shared yard or we're proposing also the alley and at least one of them must face the street so that they didn't all turn to the inside. I mean, for me, I think just the one of them having one of them do it would be fine and the rest of them face wherever they'd like to face, but I that would be better, but I don't think it meets the I mean, I still think it's restrictive. Yeah. Um, you know, I just think it's really it's restrictive in the thought of what we get as far as density being allowed to be used on these lots. Um, and the only really concern I'm hearing is you don't like the side of a house. So, I mean, you I'm not I'm not sure how many of these are being done, and I see people put windows

on sides of the houses all the time. Um, I could think of uh in historic Everett of a house that's actually turned sideways. I think it's kind of cool to walk by the doors that way. I mean, you know, things that doesn't to me limit any kind of uh quality of a neighborhood to do that. Um, I'm probably don't need the open space on that lot to be uh mandatory. Um, especially if you're going to charge them park fees. I I do also about the frontage to the alley. I I don't get why we'd want something to front to the alley. Um, it can be another street. So, we're looking at the possibility of a naming convention. You may see Lombard Lane. You may see Bever there's already Beverly Lane, but uh uh yeah, but but yeah, basically it would be making have alley be a Yeah, I understand. I just don't know the requiring it. It's not requiring. It's one of three options. Okay. As long as it's an option, but I thought I thought for some reason it was required. Yeah. No, it's saying that uh dwellings either face the street or face the shared yard potentially or face the alley in any combination. What if the thing on What if the building on the alley is now since you can split a lot since you build the dwellings? The now the ADUs are now dwellings. You build them on the alley, but if you split the lot, can they still open not on the alley then? Because they're not a shared yard. It's its own yard now. Yeah. Yeah. So, I think we'd have its front door on the alley and the back door with a private

yard. We haven't gotten to that, but if you don't have a shared yard, you need a private yard of 8 ft and 80 square ft. So, it's pretty modest, but Yeah. Okay. As long as that cuz many of the alleys I would not want to front. Yeah. Like I don't want to front to my alley. I have an alley. I don't like it. Yeah. Right. There's a dumpster right across the street. I don't want to front to the dumpster. It will always be where the trash cans go. I did live 17 years on an alley and I it was very uncomfortable when I switched units to the one that was on the street. I really liked my little alley. It was quiet. it was uh felt a little unnoticed and yeah to yeah you know I've talked to I talked to as many people as I can people who will allow me to talk to them and I have never heard someone say I really just am concerned about those houses that don't face the street like that's just not a concern of the typical Everett resident that I talk to um they want to see housing that they can afford and sometimes when we get into the minute details of of these types of regulations, I think we forget to keep the main thing the main thing, which is that our people are are desperately begging us to do something to get adequate housing supply in this city. So, in these moments, I go back to that mandate from the public and ask us, is this really necessary if we're hearing from our development community that it is yet another constraint. So, commissioners, additional thoughts on this and and then you all are are looking like you're ready to grab your snuggly. And is this the last thing on this one that you want to talk about or how did you have more slides? There's probably more slides. I knew it. I had a feeling. Well, okay. The this is not a question that needs to be answered right now, but it's always hard for me to understand what this is without like seeing something real. when we talk in

theoreticals, it's hard to translate that to layman's terms. Um, I guess my real question is what is the problem we're trying to avoid? Is it is it just that they need to I mean, is it just aesthetic? Like, what is the thing that we don't want to have happen? And that's why we have this in here. And then that then echoes, is this making it easier to build? And will will the market drive some of this on its own? like I I don't know. Will people buy just the ugliest houses in the world or do they actually want something that looks okay? That that question could be answered. To set it another way, um as you've proposed it, what's prohibited? Thank you. What is prohibited would be developments that have uh sideways units, probably a drive aisle that goes down the center or the side. Uh it would be either certain types of flag lots, although you could build on the flag lots that are existing. Um for the most part, it's going to be a broadside row of town houses. Commissioner Sullivan just asked a question and maybe you could ask out loud because there may be folks who are listening in the public might also want that answer. I'm being drawn in I'm being drawn one right now. Yeah. Aren't these everywhere? Aren't they all over the place? I'd like to see county and Okay. We don't like these. I mean, I don't think they're considered um best practices. And um this is not I I would rather split it's a rectangle. You all know, but I would rather see a split lot with if we're talking about two dwelling units on a 6,000 foot lot. I'd rather see one facing the alley and one facing the street as opposed to a

driveway going down the side of the one facing the street and then a lot in the or a home in the back. To me, that's just not um this is really common in this would be more common in North Everett. Correct. Yeah, that that's how is this going to work in South? Yeah, in South Everett there are no alleys to to face a house to. Yeah. Yeah. And maybe it's not a big deal. I mean maybe this is just a design preference of my own. Um I think it's important that we don't create requirements such that it prohibits or constrains development. I also think that um what seems like a good idea removing all guard rails. Um they later become reactions to them. And so, um, as a former Queen Anne resident, um, with these going up, um, uh, in a number of locations near Queen Anne Avenue, the turnover on those homes appeared high. They appear to turn over frequently, like ownership. Correct. Um, they sold for um, a fair amount of money at the time. They were new construction. Um, and it's great to provide additional housing options, but um, I do think that splitting a lot is better than creating a flag lot. It's my own personal I would rather activate an alley than activate a sidewalk down the side of a house. I hear you. I I'm not I'm not u unopposed to what you're saying, Commissioner Finch. I think it's very rational. Um, but it just doesn't work in Central and South Everett. Exactly. my previous point about just the number of lot configurations we have in the city. I'm not sure there's a one-sizefits-all. Um, yeah, I'm not trying to make this more complicated and try to make it less complicated. The diagram you showed, from what I could tell, seemed to

address a number of different lot conditions. I think the idea is having some level of open space, um, some level of front door autonomy. So, that to me made some sense. Sure. So, uh just also to confirm under the proposal like that the stuff that went in a couple years back uh 8200 block of Fifth Avenue uh west right next to West Casino. There are a couple of relatively new developments. There's center aisle town homes essentially. There's a parking lot at one end for residents and there are two over the garage. Those would not be allowed under this guidance. I think so. Yeah. Yeah. I I think that's a mistake. Yeah. I I like these are fantastic. They went like that as soon as they were up on the market and I I think not letting that happen is a is a blunder. Yeah. I think what I'm seeing is I don't know how many units are in that complex but it feels to me like some of the comment that we heard too is you're taking something that you could build six nine units on and you're only able to now build three or four. And that I think will just magnify as we only have so much land and we have a lot of people to house. And I hope I would hope we wouldn't get a developer that would build super narrow units just to try to meet and but it's been done. If you if you look at real estate around the country, there are places where there, you know, you can get something that's 10t wide and and it was built because that was what was permitted. And and so you're right, we don't want to encourage things that are not going to meet the needs of the market in the long run. Uh and certainly an overly narrow structure to try to fit as many housing units on a long lot. That is something that I could imagine after the first owner uh might have might be one of those undesirabs that might take longer to sell or maybe not quite sell for what other homes in the area would have sold for had they

been reconfigured a little more thoughtfully. At least they got to own something. Well, and there there are definitely lots in Everett that are on right ofways that you would not want your front door on or any front door on. So I I don't know that I have the answer, Yoro, but um I wish we could just require good design. We are also limited to objective design standards. So there's no it's it's we write it and uh and either it meets it or not. So yeah, there's not really the opportunity to look at individual developments for um for some of that. Were there additional slides on 1908 or is this the final slide on this chapter? Always more slides. We haven't gotten very far. This is still the first slide. Still the first slide. Okay. But this is a big one. I mean this is fundamental to the design. Um I think uh you know this is 60 70% of the city. This is areas where you have not been able to build anything for a long time. So where you've seen rows of town houses and everything, those have been in different zones. Those have been in multif family zones where they were underbuilding uh the height to a uh a type of middle housing that wasn't allowed in the single family zones uh but was allowed in the multif family zones. Um definitely uh different scenarios in different quadrants of the city with different lot patterns and those long deep lots are very difficult. Um could we see a sneak peek of the next slide? Got building actually there's not too many. We got building form and then we've got just an illustration of all these porch types. Let's say if

we were I'll jump over that for a second. What do we do with the porches if we're no longer facing anything? And we've got I think it's seven porch projecting, porch engaged, dooryard, stoop, and common entry. Five Is the porch just the uh cover or does it also include the ground? Just don't know. Yeah, each one of them is a different style. Um so common entry on the bottom right is 6 foot minimum clear width. Uh two and a half times the clear width height to the canopy. Can be up to 3 feet above grade. That's about it. Well, less is more. Commissioners, do you have any thoughts on the porch issue? I mean, if we're if we're thinking about front doors, um the porch is the next piece of the frontage of the house, right? So if we're if if we're saying we don't think that we need to constrain the design based on the doors facing any particular direction, do we feel the same way about the front porch? Yes. Unconstrained. I like how do you get into your house? How you want to buy a house that's configured that way? Go for it. Market will sort that. I I do like the idea of a little bit of a requirement for overhang whether that's from this roof or not just because getting water on your door sucks.

I I'm indifferent. I've already decided that I'm entering through my garage. It sounds like we don't have very strong feelings about the porch thing other than I really agree with Commissioner Sullivan, the the overhang. I I very much agree with that because it is miserable to just have your door there and not have any appropriate cover right over your front door. Um I think one way to address that is to provide for the ability to have an overhang for one to put an overhang within the setback and after that just remove the constraints. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. How's it any different than a chimney? Right. Well, we have Jimmy in the setback. And again, either the market or the individual will solve for the demand. And so, so long as we're clear on what the setback is, um, if the owner, resident, or developer wants to put an overhang for the front door, they can do so. Commissioners, um, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn when you feel you're ready. A motion to adjurnn. Second. Any opposed? Thank we are we have not completed our agenda. However, uh we are adjourned. Thank you.