Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Right, now we're official. Call to order the September 3rd, 2026 continuation meeting of the Gig Harbor Planning Commission. The roll call. Kim Anderson.

Here.

Katie Cornell.

Here.

Jim Henderson. Here. Rosie Jo.

Here.

Brett Wozniak. Here. And let me see, one... member Rosalynn Schock Finnegan. So anyway, unless she's joining us online, we haven't even Oh, there she is. All right. With that, by consensus, we called you here. With that, we'll look for approval of the minutes from our August 27th meeting. Is there a motion?

I motion to approve the minutes. I'll second.

All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. So this is a continuation on the agenda. This is the continuation of the public hearing to consider phase two development code density and dimensions land use table. We'll also add to the agenda at the end of public comment period after we've moved on this the current topic. With that, did you

I think you need a motion on approving the agenda, especially with the inclusion of public comment at the end. A second and a vote.

Okay. Is there a motion then to add public comment at the end of this public event?

A motion to add the comments at the end. Public comment after. Sorry. I motion to do that.

Second. all those in favor say aye aye aye any opposed all right so we will uh proceed with public comment then after um the initial topic of the hearing um with that did you guys want to make any kind of presentation or review the uh

Yes, we had some materials to kind of set the stage. Again, today is intended to be deliberations for the code amendments. Just wanted to, again, kind of go over some of the materials we had before, as well as kind of explain what you have before you. And also there is a kind of a recommendations matrix that we've provided to you. I have a PowerPoint that kind of walks through some of those, what that's intended to do, what that's intended to respond to. We also have some summaries of public comment.

Great. Thank you. With that, please.

Thank you very much. For the record, my name is Eric Baker. I'm the director for the community development department here at Gig Harbor. I have Catherine Schaefer, principal planner, Corey Reagan, senior planner here with me as well. Again, like I mentioned, this is the deliberation phase after receiving both written and verbal testimony over the course of the last hearing. And then up until Monday, we have kind of gone through and based upon some of the clarifying questions the Planning Commission requested at the end of the last meeting, and kind of a review of the public comment that was received. We provided, again, a proposed recommendation or a proposed decision matrix for you to look at that is not intended to be all-inclusive. That is just what staff generated. It does not in any way limit the Planning Commission's ability to add, change, or remove any of those from it. So I just kind of want to highlight that that's the information in front of you. So I think one of the questions that we've gotten from public comment subsequently to meeting the Planning Commission meeting, we've also met with some of the people who testified last week, Darren Filan, the architect, a series of other architects to kind of try to hopefully address some of the concerns that we heard. The purpose of 2A is intended to be focused on housing diversity. The things we're looking to change here are making it easier for properties to develop accessory dwelling units, duplexes, townhomes, cottage housing, and multifamily. In our market, that requires providing some kind of regulatory incentive, something you can do that do different when you're doing those that you aren't doing for single family to be able to encourage people to think about those because each of those have a different cost. They're a different animal than the single family. We want to improve consistency with the density allowances of the comprehensive plan and the zoning map. So we adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 2025. These code changes are part and parcel of that continued discussion to be able to achieve the densities that are significantly higher in the Comprehensive Plan than they have been in the past. Again, I do want to highlight that single-family development is not proposed to change in much of any way except for one's place, which we'll talk about in a moment. It's the same standards as today. We're not in any way trying to limit single family, but we are not necessarily trying to incentivize it. And then lastly, and in many cases, most importantly, we have state mandates that we have to meet to avoid noncompliance. And I'll talk a little more about that in a moment. Hey, guess what? A moment's here. We have a series of state mandates. These state mandates have been coming out since 2021. I have two labeled here in red. Those are the ones that this code is attempting to address most. The first of which is remove barriers to housing for incomes below 80% area median income. That's townhomes, duplexes, ADUs, and multifamily. And then the Housing Accountability Act, which is kind of the hammer, I will call it, if jurisdictions do not address 1220, if we do not remove barriers, and if we do not see progress to towards legislative and commerce-directed number of housing units by AMI between now and 2029. So if we become noncompliant, thus we aren't making progress, we can be found noncompliant and thus unable to achieve a whole host of state funding that we'd count on on an annual basis. These are just images of the housing types that we are in trying to incentivize from town homes, accessory dwelling units, and then varying types of multifamily. This is that table that I was referencing when we're talking about progress towards housing need. These numbers are consistent with the countywide planning policies, but also commerce direction. What it did is it established a total number of housing units we needed between 2020 and 2044. And then at the time, Commerce provided, okay, what type of housing generally fits into these categories? We acknowledge the fact that real estate is location, location, location. However, as the legislature is trying to do this on a statewide basis, they tried to provide some kind of a framework about what type of housing we should be encouraging to to, in theory, meet some of these percentage annual median income. So if you take a look at the slide you have here, single-family homes, like we have so many of, would be considered 120% of area median income and above. The target increase for the 24-year period was 218 units. As you'll note as you move down that dark blue row, we have 500 of them that were constructed by 2024, and that doesn't include new housing developments of Summit Point, the Reserve, and anything else that's currently in the queue that's single-family oriented. So what that indicates is is that we have exceeded our single-family homes that are needed per commerce and state guidance. Not great, but not necessarily horrible, if we can start to increase the other housing types, and those are the ones that are pretty much between 120% of AMI and below. So as you start moving up the table, you start to see moderate and middle housing, including townhomes and garden apartments. Accessory dwelling units come in between 50 and 80% of area median income and then continue all the way to the end. But then once you get to below 50%, you're now largely talking solely about apartments. And that's where you're truly talking about affordable housing versus housing affordability. This whole code is intending to address housing affordability, not how people making 50% of area median income can find a home. That oftentimes requires public housing, public incentives, a number of other things. But how can our workforce housing live in the community and what types of housing that is? So these are the numbers we need to make progress towards. Failure to make progress is clearly stipulated in the Housing Accountability Act as a reason that A, a jurisdiction will get their housing element reviewed, and B, a reason for being found noncompliant. People can argue about the... I guess the reasonableness of that requirement. But at this point, it is the requirement. Bainbridge Island is currently going through a targeted review. We are paying very, very close attention to the findings of that. Bainbridge has some commonality with Gig Harbor from a socioeconomic status. But I do want to highlight that failure to make progress towards more townhomes, accessory dwelling units, And continuing our trajectory of predominantly 90, 95% single-family housing will be a problem, not today, but not too far off in the future, during my career. Any questions about that? That's kind of the boogeyman in this whole story, which I don't think I fully have illustrated at the last meeting.

Eric, just for clarification, the target that we've met, And you said we've met our target, that being the higher income, and that's through 2044.

That's through 2044. So we have eclipsed our 2044 number of single family units by double. And that was before our comp plan was even adopted. Okay, so again, just to kind of summarize what's in the draft code, we're really focused on the dimensional requirements for housing, for accessory dwelling units, duplexes, townhomes, cottage housing, and multifamily. Cottage housing, if you remember, are the smaller single-family units that are usually located around some kind of a courtyard or common facility. They are oftentimes more affordable than standard single-family homes that are on their own lot, oftentimes owned. Some cottage housing is owned in a condominium format, but not always. The code reduced required lot dimensions and allowed smaller lots to be developed through subdivision. Reduced setbacks, increased hard surface allowances, and increased building heights. Most of these were predominantly focused on people who were developing accessory dwellings, duplexes, townhomes, and multifamily. It left single-family detached construction as it is today, largely unchanged. There was a lot of public testimony about that, and I'll talk about public testimony here in a moment. One thing I do want to highlight, because we also got a lot of public testimony on this, these changes do not replace any of the requirements in the design manual for the historic preservation or height restriction areas. Those areas in the downtown area... They replace, they supersede the standards that we are talking about changing here. There's a part of code that indicates if at any time there are two regulations that conflict, the most restrictive applies. In that case, that would be the height preservation area and the height restriction area. So anybody who's concerned that we're changing that in those, like structure heights in those areas, please rest assured that is not what's in this draft. And then all design manual requirements still apply. So everything that's in our design manual about what construction should look like, pitched roofs, all those types of things are still in place. Let me pause there if there are any questions. So just to kind of summarize the public comment, this is not intended to be exhaustive, but I'm trying to kind of work through the themes. We did receive opposition to code revisions that increased density. There is a concern about the change in community character, impacts on infrastructure such as traffic, and then any potential impacts on the environment. I guess I don't want to highlight anything on that. Moving on. Another one is, will this update really impact affordable housing? And that's where it is important to make the distinction between housing affordability and affordable housing. Affordable housing requires a very concentrated discussion with housing authorities, nonprofits, other support organizations. That is a very different conversation than what we're talking about here. Here we're talking about housing affordability. If an average single-family home goes for about $900,000 and a townhome goes for about $500,000 and a condominium goes for about $400,000, yes, $400,000 and $500,000 are not necessarily going to be affordable to someone making 50% of area median income, but are dramatically more affordable than any new single-family home. So again, while it may not get to the lowest AMIs, it is moving the needle down, allowing more people who work in our community, people wanting to downsize, kids who get a good job and want to be able to move out of their parents' home, have an opportunity in our community. What the code didn't change was a huge chunk of the conversation, which is single-family dwelling standards, predominantly in the downtown, related to hard surface requirements for small lots and then setbacks. I do want to highlight with setbacks, like I mentioned before, the historic preservation requirements in the design manual are the setbacks for the historic preservation area. Anything we're changing here does not change those setbacks. Those are the most restrictive. And then we also received testimony about perceived inconsistencies in the waterfront zones. Those are the zones in Millville that wrap around our harbor that are located on the shoreline. And when they're included in the table, it appeared that there are some inconsistencies between it and like zones that did not have a particular nexus. Let me pause there. Are there any other public comment that we provided that you would like us to highlight at this time?

I felt like there was quite a few public comments saying that 40% wasn't enough space to build homes. I heard multiple testimonies communicating that they were asking that to be increased.

Yeah, that was a hard surface requirements for small lots. I just want to make sure I hadn't totally left off a piece of public, or a topic, because we'll get to the matrix that you have before you, which addresses most of these here in just a moment. So additionally, the Planning Commission asked a series of additional questions. The questions that came forward were, the table is consolidated for clarity, but the two rows per zone seems to be more confusing than it needs to be. why do single-family development not have revised dimensional standards? Why did we draw the line at accessory dwelling units, duplexes, getting revised code while single-family did not? And that's where we got the testimony about the smaller lots and how the current code was greatly impacting their developability with or without an accessory dwelling unit. There was a question of how big a house is considered unaffordable. Based upon the table I just showed you from commerce, any single family home at this point is considered unaffordable. The bigger the single family home, the less affordable it would be per the commerce guidance that we are responsible for making progress towards. Then lastly, how do these revisions impact infrastructure capacity in the city? Comprehensive plan did a full capital facilities plan. These changes are directly consistent with that comprehensive plan. It is just implementing the comprehensive plan that was adopted back in 2025. So some of the planning commissioners asked, okay, kind of to the Eric, you've indicated that you're concerned that people might be able to build bigger homes if we change the regulations for single family development. It was asked that we provide just some basic illustrations. I will highlight that we have also gotten some blowback on the illustrations we provided so far that they are not comprehensive, that there's a number of different elements that all fit into this, depending on where you are in our city. That's why these are illustrations and we do our best. But it is not necessarily the right answer everywhere. It's the backside of providing illustrations. So here you're noticing this is an R1 zone, so four dwelling units an acre. Dimensional standards of the lot here is about 12,000 square feet. Here under the current dimensional standards, you see a building footprint of about 2,000 square feet and a garage of about 600 square feet. You do have more room, except for what you're noting here is that this is close to bumping up against the 40% current hardscape. So you notice with house, garage, driveway, parking, you're at about 4,200 square feet. That's only about 35%, so you've got 5% more to play with. The patio could be bigger, the house could be a little bigger, but not a lot bigger. So again, on a 12,000 square foot lot, there is an artificial restriction on the size of that lot in today's code. If you are to move to our dimensional standards, increase to 60%. Again, this one is right at 60% hardscape. Now you have a building footprint of about 2,800 square feet. square feet which is only that's for a rambler so that doesn't include a second story which while you could not do that in the historic district or in the height restriction area every other place in r1 you could do it so it you can go up to 35 feet in um the r1 zone when you're outside of those two so you can add a second story onto this so you can see how the footprint of the of the building grows substantially with these new or has the opportunity to grow substantially with the ability to utilize those

revised standards.

However, most of the testimony and some of the illustrations that have been provided in your public comment, again, thank you very much for people in the public who provided these illustrations one way or another, because we have received testimony on both sides of the hardscape question. Is it going to affect the environment? Is it consistent with historic character, et cetera? But we did receive a lot of testimony, as was properly noted, that the dimensional standards for a 6,000 square foot lot are very problematic, especially as it applies to hardscape. So here you're seeing that if a 6,000 square foot lot is operating under the proposed changes, you do have a smaller building footprint. You have about 1500 square foot footprint that is getting a lot closer to a home that is potentially affordable to a greater amount of the population. In the downtown area, we really recommend the garages are at the back. So you have to have the driveway that runs all the way to the back. So what you see here is the ability to have a 450 square foot garage, a patio and a relatively smaller building footprint at 60%. So the reason I show you this rather than show you the 40% which again we've seen how 40% from the various comments has its own issues. is that in the revision matrix that we have before you, we are proposing a revision to the hardscape for single-family development. I'll cover that in a moment. So are there any questions regarding these three illustrations? We're really trying to do our best, though, however, we cannot guarantee the creativity of the development. And any one answer is going to be wrong as often as it is right.

Yeah, I had a question. If you go back to the 40% on the 12,000 square feet, what does that look like? Because part of our goals is to make sure that people can add ADUs. Would someone be able to add an ADU with the current metrics and still meet the requirements at the 40%?

Under current code, no. But under the proposed code, if you add the ADU, you automatically, even if you're building a single family home, if you're adding an ADU, you're automatically moved to the new code. So again, that's kind of the incentive. You can have a bigger home, but you have to have an accessory dwelling unit on the property. It's kind of the incentive without being, well, it's just an incentive. Let's call it that.

Would that apply to people that currently are already under this standard that if they wanted to come, like they're not, it's not a new build. They just currently have a house. If you come in and apply, then their setbacks would be made appropriate.

Yes. Yes.

Looking at like the larger lot sizes, um, Is the increase in development capacity just like an unintended consequence? Or is the incentive something else and it's more policy-driven, programmatic-driven, like you mentioned, an ADU or something like that?

It's attempting to shift the property owner's thought process who oftentimes sees those other housing types as just something that can't be done. So A, it's intended to make property owners think differently about their property. But also if, yeah, if I have the codes of today, very likely a single family home is all I'm going to be looking at. If you adjust those or if you make it possible to do more with the revised code, we're hoping that folks will take that opportunity to build two, three lots, three units or a home with an ADU or in certain cases, two ADUs if you have enough space. So it's that type of incentive. I sense I missed the answer to the question on that one, though.

You sort of answered it.

I'll take sort of. So yeah, while we are only a component of the housing picture, there's no mission accomplished banner being hung at the end of this code saying, hey, housing affordability addressed. It is one of what will be 20, 25 steps taken over the course of the next five to six years under a continuous drumbeat of housing diversity that hopefully will move the needle on this. We are just trying to... step out of the way and at least allow the market to think differently versus saying, well, Gig Harbor's code doesn't let me do ADUs because of X, Y, or Z. Thus, architects don't plan it, plan for it. It just isn't a thing. So we're trying to make it a thing for consideration.

Eric, I don't know if this is a question for now or later, but does the city have data on how many 6,000 square foot lots are out there versus like, I mean, that this code would apply to or the change in hardscape would apply to?

The number of 6,000 square foot existing lots is relatively small. We don't have a lot of vacant lots, period. And you're probably looking at 10 to 30. However, this also applies to properties that have been subdivided after the fact. So once you subdivide a piece of property, this is like when you go through a preliminary process, you have to meet your density and you have an option of what your lot sizes should be. You'll note in the table, we are reducing that lot size in many places, 6,000 and south. that could create a whole series of additional lots in the future that these revised codes would apply to. So again, it is also trying to get people to move off of the 10,000 square foot lot. It is to say, okay, we can get down to 6,000 square foot lots and still be able to build a home that is marketable and is cost-effective.

Does the city allow building on a lot that's smaller than 6,000 square feet?

Yes. You can build on anything that you can get. You can meet zoning, building, and fire codes. Okay, so everybody should have a copy of what we're calling, what are we calling it? I think I have it. It is the deliberations matrix. I'm going to... It looks like... Does it look like this? Yes, it looks like this. No, it does not look like that a lot. It's in the agenda pack. Everyone has the agenda pack. Does everybody up on the dais have that? It's also been located on the website. Okay. So in the deliberations matrix, staff, again, met with local architects. We did some assessment of how many lots we have out there and how big a specter building large homes in places we, again, are not trying to encourage large homes. Not trying to discourage, but not saying, hey, wouldn't it be great if that house was bigger? So what we're looking at is in the table, One of the things that you indicated is having two rows per column is a problem. That just is confusing. Not to mention the fact that it only really applies to four of the zones because the ability to build single family in commercial zones, in public institution zones, in a number of these other zones just isn't a thing. The densities don't match. The highest and best use is not going to be a residential piece. So what we've done is we are proposing that in the R1, R2, RB1, and waterfront residential zone, A, we collapse all of the zones. I'll show you what it kind of looks like here in a minute. and reflect the different development standards differently, where single-family development, instead of being its own row, is now just a second number in the same row with a footnote. That footnote, number 7, which I'm certain is going to be a very popular number for conversation between now and through council, and clarify that footnote number 7 is... that is put after the second number in that row, applies to single family homes on lots over 6,000 square feet. If you remember, most of the testimony is about the difficulty in building single family homes with current code on lots less than 6,000 square feet. So this revision and this revision to the footnote, instead of creating the, if you're doing duplexes and above, you get new code. If you're doing single family of any kind, you get the old code. This now creates a lot size component. based upon the illustrations I showed you, where if you're on a smaller lot, again, a lot size that is consistent with what we are promoting to start with, you are able to utilize the new setbacks, the new hardscape requirements. To be clear, you'd be able to go from 40% to 60% if you're on a lot less than 6,000 square feet, even if you're doing a single-family development. Purpose of this is to address the existing challenges of small lot development that has been well-documented while also limiting the probability of significantly larger and likely less affordable housing. So again, it isn't saying all single-family units may be operating contrary to where Commerce wants to go, but it is indicating that larger ones could be a problem. What that ultimately looks like, let me un-share the screen for people having problems envisioning it.

So would the collapsing in the footnote, Eric, basically eliminate the single family designation totally?

It would eliminate the row. So if you can see the screen I got here, let me see if I can blow this up. Sure, I can blow it up. So the columns you see up there is the way that it reads today.

Come on.

Let me make this even bigger than that. You get the two rows that basically establish the two different types. What the revised would do is put everything in one column, but create a single family component to that, basically highlighting that single family pursuant to footnote 7, which I'll show you here in a minute. Basically, it indicates that you have to meet today's code. If you're not... If you're greater than 6,000 square feet, you have today's code. If you are smaller than 6,000 square feet or doing ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, all the things all the way up to multifamily, you're utilizing the top numbers. So for the purposes of maximum impervious surface, if you're on a lot less than 6,000 square feet or you're doing a duplex, you can go to 55% impervious surface and 60% hard surface. If you are over 6,000 square feet, you are beholden to previous code. Footnote number seven has been clarified. To read single-family dwelling is defined, and we have a definition for it, so you know exactly what we're talking about. So it isn't like, well, this feels like single-family. It's like, no, it's per that definition. And that number is required for development of single-family dwellings on existing legally established lots greater than 6,000 square feet of lot area. Yes, ma'am.

Is 6,000 square feet like a hard limit? Like what if you're 6,001?

You're out. Ultimately, you're going to have to establish a number and there's always going to be a person one foot over the number. So I actually originally I said, well, what if some of these are a little bit off? Let's go with 6,100. But I know there's a 6,105 size lot out there. And so they're going to say, what about me? But what you will note in the R1 zone is that 6,000 square feet is consistent with the minimum lot area that we're proposing for all new construction. So again, that number previously was what, 7,000? So we're reducing the allowed size of the lot. And if we are encouraging people to build at a smaller size, we should be assuming that, yes, we should be allowing more development on lots of that size.

And to make sure I'm on the same page.

Yes.

This is what you guys are proposing. And this is for us. We can propose something different.

But of course.

So it's not really hard. It's just important that we pick a hard line.

Yes.

But you're recommending 6,000.

These are only our recommendations at this point. So I'm going to stop the sharing and go back to the PowerPoint. Are there any other questions? I know this is absolutely as clear as mud. But again, the purposes of this are to address some of the concerns we had about hardscape requirements and the need for 60% of developable space. A lot of the conversation was in the downtown, but that also applies to development of pretty much any lot less than 6,000 square feet. You need to be able to maximize the amount of space that you have within that footprint to be able to build housing in a manner that is affordable. Code that is changed but is not used is not useful. Oh, come on. I was supposed to share again.

I have a question.

Yes, please.

Earlier you were saying how the more restrictive overlay of the historic district supersedes any of these changes. So is us increasing it to 60% even actually affecting the historic district?

Yes. The historic district does not cover hardscape. It does not cover lot sizes. Instead, it covers setbacks and building height. Those are the things that are included in the design manual. So the hardscape would change in that area, but not setbacks or building heights.

And for just clarification, in the historic district, the current hardscape is 60%?

The current hardscape is 40% in the historic district for R1, for waterfront, most of the waterfront zones, yes. So long and short is from a lot of the public comment that we received, we saw the concerns related to the development of the 6,000 square foot lot. And we attempted to find a new line in which we are drawing, and we could find arguments regarding housing affordability that you can still develop single-family homes on lots less than 6,000 square feet that can be considered affordable, even if they are, again, single-family.

Eric, could you just maybe briefly talk about the definition of single family? So in other words, what would you need to do to a house's design, I mean, simplistically, to consider it a multiple dwelling unit?

I will read to you the definition of single family.

So we have an idea of what the requirements are if you were putting multiple... or wanting to be considered a multi-dwelling unit.

One moment. I apparently look like a hacker. So it's giving me a moment. There we go. Yes, everybody. We are.

Definition.

You can do it. It's not hard.

Well, while you're working on that, I have a similar thing. Has there been any thought to changing the term of single family housing to align better with this overall idea of making more diverse housing? I looked up, I saw that Seattle uses the term neighborhood residential rather than a single family home, or is that beyond the scope of this one little code update? So you can, is that a comprehensive planning issue?

It not necessarily, but we do have a series of definitions beyond just single family dwelling. So I can kind of read. We have single family. We have duplex, fourplex, triplex. We have dwelling attached. We have dwelling multifamily. So we have a number of different classifications, all of which appear in our allowed use table. And most of all of these are allowed in almost all residential zones, including commercial zones. The definition of dwelling unit single family means a detached residential structure with one dwelling unit containing but one kitchen designed for and occupied by one family. So if you were to add a second kitchen, you would be an accessory dwelling unit, very likely. If you added another whole set of living amenities, you would either A, be an accessory dwelling unit, or you could be a duplex, which is defined as... means a building designed exclusively for the occupancy by two families living independently of each other. A duplex can share a wall, ceiling, floor, or any other shared roof assembly, including breezeways, but cannot have interior openings between the dwellings. And the definition is continued down from there. So obviously most of your question is going to be, what's it going to take from a building standpoint? Once you get into common wall construction, there's a lot of additional firewall amenities that are necessary. Same goes for accessory dwelling units. So a lot of that is in something that we are not currently amending.

Sure. So a single family residence could be considered a multi-dwelling unit if it had two kitchens, essentially, but still shared some living space?

At that point, if it had two kitchens, it would no longer be a single family. It would now be either a duplex or an accessory dwelling unit.

I'm aware of properties in Gig Harbor that have family rooms with baby kitchens in them, let's say, downstairs, they're still considered single-family dwellings.

Let me see. Generally, kitchen usually requires a certain number of amenities. It isn't just a sink.

Not like a kitchenette. A kitchenette wouldn't qualify as a full kitchen, right?

Yeah, it has to be a full area. Kitchen, defund. It means a place where food is cooked and prepared and contains the facilities and equipment used for preparing and serving foods such as a gas or electric range, a freestanding burner, warming oven, or microwave is not considered a range or an oven, a kitchen sink, a refrigerator freezer, which a refrigerator freezer is an upright refrigerator or freezer that fits under the counter, that fits under the counter such that the type found in offices is not sufficient to be considered a kitchen, and an electric outlet of 220 voltage and plumbing and stand pipes for equipment and facilities normally found in a kitchen. So yes, you are correct. There's a whole number of people who have like a wet bar. That would not be considered a kitchen. It needs to be Pretty robust, the type of thing you would normally find. Everything stands a dishwasher.

So without asking for more illustrations, if I just compare the illustration that one of our public comments gave us about a mid block lot a while back where with the current 40%, which I know there's an exception for this lot, but that the minimum or the max that you could build originally on this was 13,000 square feet compared to the 12,000 square foot lot at the 40%, the max is 2000 square feet. So am I correct in understanding that with your proposal of blocking anything above 6,000 feet, about 6,000 square feet lot, that the range for anyone buying a 6,001 square foot lot all the way to 12,000 square foot, they'll be maxed out somewhere along 1,300 square feet to 2,000 square feet is the biggest house they'll be able to build depending on their size with that percentage. Is that correct?

As they get larger, the percentage of hardscape gets larger. So I think she was showing some of the illustrations. Obviously, we aren't capping out at 12,000 square feet. It is anything above 6,000. I do believe the bigger your lot, the more square footage you'd be able to build. I think it also comes down to the configuration of your lot, how big your driveway is going to be, how big your garage is, whether you have an outdoor patio. So I do believe the illustration about what can be built on a 6,000 square foot lot is consistent with what we found, but there's a sliding scale on the other.

Also, that's just the footprint of the building. You can go up as well. So it's not just a 1,300 square foot home. It could be 2,600 square feet on that lot.

I have a question. The illustration that you showed shows that it's labeled on Rosedale Street. Could you state whether the illustration or the illustrated property is within the historic district or is that just for purposes of?

It's not. It's outside.

Thank you.

The development that is happening within the historic district, especially in the historic district along the waterfront, has a lot of other limitations on it. If you're on the waterfront, you have the shoreline designation, which limits what you can do on the property. If you're in the historic district, you have limited setbacks. If you're in the height restriction area, you have a lowered height. Same in the historic district as well. So all of those would still apply.

Can you explain the rationale for aligning the waterfront residential zone with the R1?

Do we want to move?

Yeah, I would like to move there. I'm reading down.

Yeah, sorry. Okay, we will come back. The purposes on the waterfront zones kind of connected to R1 is that the waterfront zones largely... Already have the shoreline. They have the historic preservation. They have the height restriction areas all applying to them as well They have a lot of other things that are affecting their development above and beyond the changes on it on impervious surface, etc Obviously anything that's built on the shoreline is going to have its own challenges with with affordability anytime you're buying something by the lineal foot very likely you're gonna be paying a lot more for it and But there is a certain equality component that we have heard from some public comment that affordable housing and efforts to relax standards should not just be a one part of the city conversation, that more affordable housing should be available everywhere. Thus, we were looking at sinking up R1 and the waterfront zones as it applies to lot size, lot width, and impervious surface standards Some of the testimony, yeah, again, was indicating that by focusing things in a particular area only, is that equal across the city? Again, these changes were not dramatic in nature, but they, again, were the same that we are proposing for the R1 zone, knowing that these three zones are entirely encumbered by the Either A, the shoreline, B, all of these. Historic preservation, height restriction, and shoreline designation. And some of them, if they're at the mouth of a creek, they get the critical areas ordinance as well.

Can you talk to the priority of those? Like what beats out what?

In general, the most restrictive applies. If you have three different height requirements, the lowest of the three would apply. If you have two different setbacks, the biggest setback would apply.

Okay. Eric... The explanation of wanting affordability across the city and not just put into one part of the city, it seems unrealistic given that the value of land differs across. I mean, of course, waterfront land and such is more expensive than something that's not.

I totally agree. It goes back to housing affordability versus affordable housing. You're right. Affordable housing is not going to locate themselves in the waterfront zone very likely. But a duplex on the waterfront is going to be more affordable than a single family home. on the waterfront. Um, and again, with the idea that we are trying to provide greater opportunity across multiple strat and multiple housing types, um, there is concern that by focusing it in particular areas, um, I think as one, uh, individual entity, it created a have or have not environment. Some people had someone gets gig Harbor like it, like it was everybody else is, um, uh, They had some other terms, but living a different lifestyle. And then some other proposed changes that are in the matrix is the clarity in location where the new code's going to go. That's the first row basically saying, hey, we have a code number for you. And the second of which is when we collapsed everything, there were a number of different setback slot coverages for the public institution zone. So we included a footnote to make it clear that parks and open space is not required to follow those codes. Basically, that's how today's code reads. And the purpose being is that trails, kiosks, water towers, sewer pump stations, oftentimes they need to be where they need to be. And we wanted to make sure that we were not changing anything. We did not mean to change. And Public Works very prudently indicated that, hey, you changed something that you were not supposed to be changing for parks and open space only. So kind of going back to, I guess, hey, wait one moment. Are there other components that the Planning Commission would like to cover beyond, I mean, other potential changes, not just changes to the proposed changes? So are there other components that you heard from public testimony or through your review you've seen, yeah, but what about, say, the commercial zone as it applies to building height? Are there any other elements such as that that you saw in the table? or any of the proposed changes that you would like to make sure appear on this matrix for some kind of conversation.

I saw in the public comments the written ones that came in in the past beauties talking about some of the other classifications go up to 55% of hard surface, but you're allowing for 60. Can you talk a little bit more about maybe your thought process on that and like why you landed where you landed?

So yeah, the impervious surface number is, again, the true impervious surface. Water will not go through it. The difference between impervious surface requirement, which is the 55% in a lot of places, and then the 60%, which is hardscape, that includes all the permeable pavers, all the things that look like concrete or look like pavement, but are waters percolating through them. So what the code is trying to do is indicate that okay, impervious surface needs to be limited for stormwater related issues. Hardscape is okay, you can add some additional impervious looking area, but honestly the quality of life in Gig Harbor has a certain amount of green to it. So even if it is permeable, it isn't landscaping, it isn't something green. So it's more of an aesthetic or design element, which is why it caps out at 60% in certain places. Other places it caps out at 80%.

Is that like if you were to put rocks on the side of your driveway or something? Is that what you're talking about?

For a hardscape? Yeah. That would be the pavers that then have grass kind of moving around on the outside. The water percolates down, hits a sandy layer underneath, and then slowly moves its way down to either a rain garden or ultimately out to a ditch with a system that's located under the ground to treat the water.

Okay. And I know you've explained this before. I feel like I'm beating the horse. Since these favors wick water away, if you will, or provide for water drainage, why do we feel like we have to classify that as a hard surface versus letting somebody use those for a driveway surface, let's say?

People are able to utilize it for a driveway surface. They can use it for all the various things. They just don't get additional credit beyond 60% for them because ultimately they aren't the aesthetic design element of some kind of greenery or something that does not look like pavement.

So it's more of an aesthetic decision than a functional decision.

Yeah, the impervious surface is a functional decision. which is covered by our capital facilities plan. And then the additional is allowed, but up to a point with everything that isn't allowed to be a hard surface is, again, more of a design, quality of life type element.

It does to me seem to be a way, though, that there could be some potential middle ground, you know, because the pavers that allow grass to grow are more attractive than just a hunk of concrete. So maybe allowing those to be included as not in the hard surface calculations. Is that something we could consider, or is that just crazy? Is that a crazy idea?

Definitely not crazy. The downside is the greener those look, the less they're working. So that is, I don't know if you ever noticed that lawn, if you don't aerate it, the water doesn't always percolate through it quite as well. So the prettier the pavers look, oftentimes the less they work. But no, it's not a crazy idea. It just isn't something that was in the previous code that we operated off of. We could go back and have a conversation with Stormwater about it, but they want to make sure that the impervious surface limit is definitely adhered to. The hardscape components beyond that is, again, more of a quality of life aspect.

It just seems to me that it could solve some of the design problems that I've heard from several residents, that it's limiting their ability to build the size house that they need because we're counting that driveway. It reduces the size of the structure.

I would say definitively in the 6,000 and smaller, definitively. Well, I guess it affects anybody depending on exactly how big a house they want to build. It gets in the way of me building a 5,000 square foot home. Yes, it may do that. But again, I go back to the purpose of these changes, which are to, again, incentivize the other housing types, not necessarily address the single family.

Eric, for clarification, just broadly speaking, that the code's not considering, when we talk about affordability and we talk about different duplexes, triplexes and such, we're not trying to differentiate from people who are buying versus people who want to rent. We're just saying housing, housing. And if you buy it, if you build it to live in it versus you buy it to sell it versus you buy it to rent it, all that counts in our unit, in our goal and the target.

Yes, especially because those circumstances change from owner to owner, renter to renter. So yeah, when we look at land use, it truly is land use, not people use, I guess. I'm sorry, that came off sounding snotty. It didn't mean to be.

Would pending projects be governed by Phase 2A?

Which ones?

Any pending projects such as the Harbor Winds project?

At this point, let's say Harbor Winds. Harbor Winds is a subdivision. The subdivision would have to adhere to the existing lot size, lot width areas because they're vested to the old code. But if they were subdividing into lots 6,000 square feet or less, and we changed the setbacks for those, they would be able to utilize the new code setbacks when they applied for the building permits.

Thank you.

In other projects that are in the works, most of the projects are either vested or under construction at this point. The ones that are under construction at this point, anyone who has an active building permit is vested to the old code. Any existing lot, say in Summit Point on the west side of the highway or the reserve off Peacock Hill could come in and utilize the new code if they have not applied for their building permit until the new code is adopted. So what I'm getting at on this, while a lot of the public testimony has really been focused on existing lots, this code change has a effect far beyond what we have in our current supply and could apply to any new subdivision moving forward in a way that from an affordability standpoint is perceived as positive, from an affordability standpoint.

From a housing affordability or really an affordable housing perspective,

you know, I'm in support, you know, I'm supportive of, like, creating this flexibility, and I hear, I see that you're kind of trying to do this balance, but how are we making sure that creating more flexibility actually leads to the intended impact, which is more housing diversity, and how is the city going to track this? I mean, how will we know if it's doing what it's intended to do?

Monitoring. One of the key components of this and what is also required by state statute is us to monitor, not just on an annual basis, but on a monthly basis, the number of permits that are coming in and the types of units that they are and generate a report that is available to the public. So there is a certain component of, I won't say leap of faith, but there is a certain amount of, okay, we're allowing this level of flexibility. Your concerns need to be considered. What happens if what we intended to do here is not what the market does? In which case, we need to be prepared to look at the monitoring data, return to council, and say, we planned for it to do this. It's doing this. um we we need to change course or we did this and look what it's generating if we did this plus something else we could speed we could speed that along so the monitoring goes both ways not it's not just an uh-oh it is a here's how potentially we could make this better and more available but it's really going to take projects on the ground to see those types of things

If we... What is the difference between... I guess there's two parts. Doing nothing, then what are the outcomes? Can we not get to the target numbers by doing nothing? Secondly, what if... I guess really where I keep coming back to is that 6,000 or smaller lot, and if... Is that really the sweet spot of where the change needs to be made is making that a lot size that is buildable for what somebody can comfortably live in? I don't know what that number is, but it's definitely more than 1,000, probably less than 2,000. So just trying to figure, you know, to the commissioner's question, like how much do, what's the levers that really that the city is predicting that if we adjust these levers, this is kind of what we could hope to accomplish to get to our target. Because I always think if this was, could somebody, could a builder right now do some of this work without us making any changes? And if they could, I assume the reason they're not is because there's not a buyer or there's not a demand for that product.

The hardscape requirement is a definitive cold water on our densities. Again, let's say folks are generally looking for a minimum 1,500 square feet for anything that they're going to buy. Let's just say that. Obviously, you're going to need 3,000 square feet to be able to have two and more than that. The hardscape requirement for most of our zones sitting at 40% is it's cold water on doing anything other than a single family. And in certain cases, based on the testimony, it even keeps some single family projects from moving forward. I guess I would add that the various toggle switches that we're looking at is we do know how much an average single-family home goes for, and it is outside the range. We know that townhomes that are currently available for sale in our community are substantially less, and we do know that condominiums that aren't with gorgeous views are less than that. So by encouraging the possibility of additional development to come forward, that are those other lower price points will affect the market, not necessarily to an affordable housing component, but definitely keeping the 900,000 number average home price from going up dramatically. Because there are a lot of homes going on the market now that are running 1315. We need to provide housing opportunities that are again closer to the 500 number. And we need to find a way to encourage folks to do it. Otherwise, there's a possibility the state may come and tell us that we have to do more. Don't just raise the ceiling, raise the floor, which has a effect on single family development, period.

What currently is in the code that is preventing builders?

The impervious surface, 40%.

Hardscape and the setbacks. Densities. At least the way I'm looking at it is...

We're trying to get more units on less space. Essentially, it's density. More units in a, well, I should say a set area. And this is a nudge. It's not a solution, but it's a nudge in that direction, at least from my perspective.

Mr. Reagan just brought up one other thing that's in the code. is that additionally we are exempting duplexes from density. Density is another thing that slows down development. We're now allowing people to build duplexes on a single lot without necessarily needing to meet density. So that is a... another incentive that is in this draft.

That's awesome. One of my, from my experience in housing and just talking to a lot of people, has there been consideration to lowering the cost of permits for smaller homes versus bigger homes? Because one of my understandings is that if an average, I'm making up a number here, but if the average cost of a permit for a single family home runs around $50,000, it's roughly what I've been hearing around the streets, not talking about Kid Carver, but is that a lot of times then people want to recruit that money by building a bigger house so they can sell it for more. So I'm kind of curious on the back end if we're looking at other ways, like, hey, if we want to incentivize this, if you build a duplex or if you build only this size house, your permit's less. So those margins are still okay. Otherwise the temptation will be to just build the bigger house. So, I mean, have we given consideration to that?

That would be one of the 25 different things that we need to be doing, and we are currently doing it and have been doing it since 2024. Honestly, when it comes to fees, if you ask most developers, if they can get a predictable and speedy review of their permit, the fee is not the problem. It is the fact the carrying cost of the land. From the time they buy the property to the time they can sell the subdivision is where the costs are accelerated. So we have worked very, very hard to ensure that we are speeding the time from the first time the application comes in to the time that the application is approved. Again, every month is tens of thousands of dollars that need to be amortized across the price. So most of our efforts aren't necessarily focused on waiving fees at this point, as once you waive fees, oftentimes it has an impact on the staffing necessary. And I will say that customer service is one of the things we pride ourselves in. Customers are always standing by. There's always somebody at the counter. You're never going to come in and say, well, I guess I can't talk to anybody. We're always going to be here. But we really are focusing our energies on making sure the permit process is moving as fast as possible. And we are getting some positive feedback. Nobody wants to get a permit. No one woke up in the morning going, gosh, I'd really like to come down to the Civic Center and apply for a permit. But we are trying to make it as understandable and as easy as possible with, again, a strong customer service and efficiency lens. The downside, customer service and efficiency tend to run against one another. Online permitting, very efficient. A lot easier for people to do it. From a customer service component, the blinking cursor isn't exactly the warmest way for people to go through what is a relatively difficult process. So it, unlike everything else we're talking about, is the eye of a needle.

Could you speak a little bit to why we're going to a 75 max hard surface recommendation and R2, but we have 60 for R1 and R3? What's the difference there?

One moment. I'm looking at the wrong one.

Let's try this again.

Let's go back to the one.

Okay, in general, we're talking about impervious surface or we're talking about hard surface?

Well, I was talking about max hard surface, but you could speak.

Yeah, either way works well. So what we have here is for R3, I'm reading here that we have 85% hard surface for R3 and we have 75% for R2 and then 60% for R1. The purpose of that gradient increase is that the density increases dramatically between there. So you're talking about more units. In the R1, you're trying to fit four dwelling units per acre, six to 12 in R2, and now you're looking at 12 to 32. So now you're talking about townhomes and multifamily. which generally are more land-intensive, and landscaping is still a requirement, but there's less ability to wrap a multifamily project around a green space. Are you looking at a different document?

No, I was looking at the wrong line item. That makes more sense to me.

Thank you. I'm willing to bet that's because there are two rows, not one row, which is further confusing matters. which again is one of the proposals.

I would like to make a motion to pause our deliberations for five to 10 minutes, open it up for public comments so that way people can make their comments and leave if they want to, rather than holding them hostage for another hour or so while we talk about this stuff.

I think that will work out great as long as, again, what's being testified on is not related to what we're talking about here. So, again, the public comment is intended to be related to all topics that aren't what we're talking about here because, in theory, public comment ended last Monday at noon on this topic. Gotcha.

Yeah, so I think... Well, did you have anything else to cover on the matrix here, Eric?

No, that covered the breadth of it. It really is being able to work through for the planning commission on how they would like to proceed forward, making changes, making decisions, all of that. So it is kind of the nuts and bolts.

Right. So I guess the simple solution or the, I guess, simple or straightforward solution would be John Potter, Oh, we would motion to adopt staff's recommendations on the update to phase to a code update and John Potter, move on from there. John Potter, That would be the simple path forward uh unless um somebody has a proposed change to make to the um to the um well we'd have to take a motion to um either approve this or um make amendments from here so that's uh

Um, if, if we do want to, I guess, how many folks wanted to make public comment today on things that are not related to what we're talking, what we've been talking about over the last 20 minutes? Um, we could pause and take the gentleman's testimony unless the gentleman is okay with hanging out and watching the end of this and then talking and speaking.

Yeah. Um,

I definitely appreciate how painstaking this must be for people who want to talk about something else. Right.

Right. Okay. Well, let's do that then. Why don't we recess for 10 minutes and then we'll take public comments and then return to our deliberations. Does that sound good to everybody? There wasn't really a motion made. It wasn't seconded. All right. Okay. We'll recess for 10 minutes. Thanks.

Know. Know. Know. Know. Know. Know. Know. one over five acres So there is kind of a problem. Thank you. Thank you. And then they can change it. Okay, is everybody back with us?

I'm not sure that was 10 minutes or not, but I think we're close. All right.

Yeah, exactly.

okay well um well i guess we'll pause our deliberations then on the um phase 2a code update and um invite our uh our uh public um up for a comment period i guess um i i have that whole spiel to read but um i think we've heard it before

My name is Carl Marlow. I live in Burley Lagoon. And, you know, some of this may be information that I'm not clear on, you know, pick it up from AI or online or whatever. But my understanding of this is the Planning Commission is supposed to set rules for long-term vision where roads could be built and transportation priorities shape our future growth. And I don't think that's really happening at this particular point. We have a capacity density problem, yes, and I know we have to do it by law. We're required to do that. But other areas should also be addressed first. Gate Harbor is older than any other community on the peninsula and actually in Washington State. Drive times have become longer due to a 25% increase in population from 2010 to 2024. An example would be a Domino's driver now takes 15 to 20 minutes longer to get to their destination than they did back in 2010. Congestion occurs all the way on Highway 16, all the ramps, Wallachia, Burnham, Harborview, impacting generally about 15 to 25 extra minutes during peak hours. 44% of our population is 55 years or older and likely needs emergency medical services. Transportation Improvement Program, TIP, of Gig Harbor has repeatedly cited that as well. Increased traffic volumes. Our city cannot approve new development unless public facilities, especially roads, are in place when development arrives as part of the growth management program. Development must not outpace infrastructure. Bottom line, negative emergency response times, unsafe evacuation roads, overloaded roads, increased traffic beyond our adopted standards. Please be proactive and keep our community safe. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Yes, sure. Yep.

I'm Karen McDonald, and I just wanted to say that I don't think there's any affordable property in Geek Harbor. And I think all of you should recognize that. This is just a community that everybody wants to live in because it's so special. And the other thing I wanted to say, and I kind of feel bad about saying it, but I really wish you would not give incentives to developers to build. They aren't the ones that need affordables.

I'm sorry. And we're not taking commentary on the subject at hand tonight.

Oh, well, I didn't hear you talk about that tonight. So I'm just talking about it because I heard it before.

Thank you. All right, then we will continue the deliberations in on the phase two, a code update, housing diversity. Did anybody else or were there any more specific questions in for Eric or Steph?

I wanna pile on to a question that was asked earlier about the 6,000 square feet. I know we're making educated, best guesses, if you will, that might be too strong, but how confident are we that that's a good place to start? It seems like it's a high number compared to some of the other communities.

Um, it is a, uh, for again, the lower density zones, taking a look at it. Um, it is a 6,000 for R1, but then graduates down to 4,000 square feet. Um, as you get into the higher density zones, um, 6,000 square feet is the, um, uh, historic density or the historic platting pattern in a, in a lot of ways. Um, so I, we feel confident that from a community, um, From a historic community component, it is a good number for a single family. When we get to the 4,000s and less, yeah, we could go lower. Some jurisdictions have no minimum lot size. There are other avenues to get to those types of things. We do feel confident that this is a good balance between the state mandates to, again, make progress while still attempting to maintain some of the historic plotting pattern and characteristics. So... I feel as confident as I can on these numbers. The more I work in this, the more I understand that I can absolutely guarantee very little.

And on that note, would you be able to communicate to me? Just kind of just from start from fresh, the reasoning behind limiting the setbacks at 40% above 6000? That doesn't lend to just because we don't want people to build bigger homes? Is there other reasoning behind that lid being there besides that premise?

Yeah, just the purpose is we want to alter code that has a reasonable expectation that folks will think about more density, not necessarily just the same density. And I think one of the concern is that with lower setbacks, more hardscape, people may elect on a larger lot to build a much larger home. When we present these changes to the Department of Commerce, they're going to look at us and say, you're doing the opposite of what the state statute is requiring. And ultimately, lots that could potentially be considered at some point for duplexes or an ADU instead just end up being a single family home. just one that is larger and likely at a higher price point that, again, doesn't make progress towards our numbers, yet we made a change to code that allotted it. This isn't, we aren't trying to tell people exactly how big of a home that they can or cannot construct beyond what was already been in code. But we, again, are in the, we're responsible for trying to move the needle. And if the needle is already pointing to large single family homes, we need to be trying to direct things the opposite direction because ultimately we need to be showing progress to avoid negative impacts.

Might there be environmental considerations, you know, that also lead to limiting impervious service?

We just adopted the critical areas ordinance, which again provide additional protection for about three to 400 acres of developable land in Gig Harbor. So there's already a good amount that has been addressed through that. We have a stormwater code that is one of the more progressive in the area. So any new development is going to be developing and treating their stormwater as levels beyond what historic development in Gig Harbor. has been doing. We did do a full analysis when we did our comprehensive plan, when we increased our densities. Again, when we increased our densities, we had the expectation that codes were going to be changing, that we're going to increase the amount of potential impervious surface. When we changed the critical areas ordinance, we definitely ensured that we were gonna be able to meet these as again, several hundred acres was being impacted on their developability. Also, in the capital facilities plan, we went through and did a full analysis to ensure that even built out at maximum densities, that we were going to be able to have water, sewer, and schools, transportation for these. So we believe that these changes that we are proposing today have been fully vetted through the comprehensive plan. They are going to increase density. They are going to increase the possibility of additional impervious surface on what land is left. But we have a number of codes in place that doesn't even include the shoreline management program to ensure that we are preserving the environment. On top of all this, once we address the housing situation, we will be bringing a draft climate element to the Planning Commission, which further protects the environment, addressing things such as climate resilience, sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, and everything else. So we're kind of bookending this housing conversation that is going to increase density with two environmental protection elements, critical areas on one end, climate change on the other to ensure that we are achieving that balance.

I had one more on the break. I asked a question. I wanted to bring it to the record, which was I'd asked, when did it change to 40 for single family homes when it was 60 prior? And you said 2004, roughly. So just looking historically to our concerns today, It was at 60. They used to be able to build at that hard surface until 2024. I think my house that I live in was under that old code. But did we actually see, once we made that lower, Did the implications, like do people start building smaller homes in Gig Harbor after we made that lower? Did it actually make the impact that it was trying to make? And does that then prove the concern that people will just build bigger homes because of the more space if that was already the law for all that time anyway?

I can't say what the code was before 2004, so I don't know what it was. I just remember that these things kind of came into play. There was a big code update that was done in 2004 that these types of things popped up. Obviously, the historic character of development in Gig Harbor has stayed at a particular level. The number of, I won't utilize the pejorative term, but the large homes that you see in a lot of other affluent communities, we don't see here in Gig Harbor. You see them in a lot of other locations. I believe that code was an impact on that. I think the historic preservation area was another component that has also limited that. um so i do believe that it has that regulations do have the ability to address particular development issues and i do believe that that code served its per served its purpose unfortunately it has served its purpose at a level which again also had an impact on density So we became a single family community. Single family is largely what you had outside of a few multifamily view properties.

Eric, can you just confirm for me so that I know I'm reading this correctly that in the R1 zone for a lot size at 6,000 square feet or less, the proposal is a 60% maximum hard surface area.

Yes, the proposal for any existing lot, 6,000 square feet or less, would be 60% hard surface in the R1 zone. For the R2 zone, looks like it would also be 60%.

So the row that is the R1 that has a 40%, maximum part surface, how is that single family R1 different than the row above it?

That is for existing single family lots that are greater, that are, when this was originally constructed, that was for all single family development. Under the new proposal, it would only apply to single family development greater than 6,000 square feet.

Brett, do you have any other? Anyone on this end have any other questions or clarifications?

This usually brings us into the awkward Robert Rules of Order component of things as ultimately if the council is going to move through deliberations in a way that allows Dana to be able to document, the easiest way to have these conversations, and again, this is not intended to dictate any kind of outcome, but it's just to make it clear is the original draft was August 17th. So oftentimes what a body will do is they will make a motion to approve that draft and then don't vote on it, but then make a series of motions to amend. And then you vote on each amendment, the amendments get cataloged. And then at the very end, after you've made all the amendments you wanna make, you vote on the main motion with all the amendments in place.

So given that, is there a motion to approve the, what was it, August 17th, 2026 draft of the Phase 2A Code Development House University?

A motion to approve the August 17th, 2026 draft.

Second. Okay, is there a second? So we will...

We don't vote on that. Now, who would like to amend the August 17th? And then you entertain individual motions about what those amendments look like. If it helps and the Planning Commission is supportive, they can run through the rows of the matrix and then amend those as they move along, or they could propose their own motions entirely out of whole cloth.

Dave Kuntz, I guess, a simple solution, we may have motion to amend per the. Dave Kuntz, For the recommendation matrix provided by staff of 993 2026. Dave Kuntz, Would there be a motion to.

I move that we accept the Planning Commission's recommendation matrix dated 9-3-2026 for the phase 2A code development draft dated 8-17-2026. That's written.

I second.

Second. OK. Then we would vote on that amendment.

At this point, now what you have is you have this document that has been amended with this document. But now if anybody wants to make amendments to this document, they should be making additional amendments.

Okay. And if there's no amendments to that, then we would approve the attachment of this document.

These two connected together.

Okay then. Anyone? Mueller? So I think we can just call the question.

This is where you make a motion to make an amendment, is that correct?

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. I'd like to motion to increase the minimum lot area to, for the R1, at the 60 max hard space to 8,000 square feet. You're talking about the lot area? How do I word that? To include lots larger than the 6,000. Okay. How do we word that?

That you'd be amending footnote number seven to say instead of 6,000 square feet to say 8,000 square feet. Thus, any projects that are under 8,000 square feet that are single family get to utilize the new code. Anything over 8,000 square feet would have to utilize the old code.

Yes, that's correct. Did I restate that?

Did I restate it? Yes.

Her WhatsApp just sent.

And then you would be looking for a second.

I am. Okay. Okay.

I'll second that motion as well. I think 6,000 are going up to over 6,000, like even a 7 or 8,000 square foot lot, it's still pretty small. And I think that anybody in that range as well, it's still going to have a very hard time getting their development within that box of only 40%.

Is there. All right. So we had a second. So that's on the table. Is there any other comments, questions or deliberations on that?

I'll make a comment to my motion. Is that okay? Is that appropriate? I just think like you said, is giving more opportunity, more flexibility does make housing cheaper when we can make it, make it really difficult to fit into boxes that normally increases costs. And so I just believe that this will actually give more room for those single family homes to be made cheaper for people and still limits it from just having excessive lots and not meeting our goals is my comment.

PB Harmon Zuckerman, My, my comment on that would be the larger you allow the lot sizes to have more impervious surface that's the less less housing and less affordability, you're going to get PB Harmon Zuckerman, If you're allowing if you're requiring more units per lot size, or not requiring, but allowing more units per lot size, you actually have the chance of having more units and more affordable units that way. That would be my comment. I would vote against the 8,000 foot amendment and keep it at six.

I second that.

Yeah. It wasn't a motion. So then if we want to change, can we go back and vote on all these?

Yeah, you'll go and you'll vote on each amendment. The amendment is there.

That wouldn't either be voted down or voted up. Yeah.

Ultimately, someone calls the question.

Oh, so if it doesn't get it. Yeah, so if it gets voted down, it would just stay at 6,000.

Correct. You're free to comment and deliberate before we vote.

Yeah.

Which is what we are doing.

Is there any other comments then on this motion or any of the others?

Well, for clarification for staff is that on a lot that's more than 6,000 square feet, you can get more hard surface, but you have to add an ADU. Right, right.

Was that question directed at the staff?

Not us?

We were talking amongst ourselves. Yes, what was the question? I apologize.

I was questioning was that under the proposal and in order to get for a lot more than 6,000 square feet, you can get more hard surface, but you have to add an ADU. It has to be something other than a single family.

Yes, correct.

um uh oh sorry is it okay to make another comment i think you know it was brought up earlier about one of our goals is that we have seniors that might be wanting to downsize and move into smaller homes and we have people with disabilities and things like that so i know one of the comments is that we can just build up. People can build two stories, but if somebody does need a home for that's one story, their max becomes 1300 square feet. And so I think that doesn't allow for very large, It doesn't allow for families. It doesn't allow for diversity. It doesn't allow for anyone with disabilities. I just think that giving more room and increasing to 8,000 allows people more flexibility to build a home that they need that can fit multiple diverse people. And it doesn't necessarily always increase. And not all lot sizes can be broken down into 6,000 square feet. So meaning it's not that then you just make all the lots bigger. It's that there are some lots that are just already that size and being sold. And so I don't think it will prevent further density because it's not for just subdivisions. It's just for someone buying a single family lot, there might only be a lot at 8,000 square feet, not at six. And then it limits their ability to build what they need.

Especially with that.

lot is in the height restricted zone they can't even go two stories so there's those situations as well which i think would be most of the things in the city proper and unless i'm just missing it like i mean we talked about this early on it's 6100 square feet or 6150 or i mean i don't know i mean you're not there's still not room to put an adu to get to that bonus you know um hard, you know, maximum hard surface.

So I think what I'm proposing is not, see if I got you right. I'm not, there already is an exemption to add the ADU and then you go to 60%. What I'm trying to do is raise the ceiling that you can not have to have the exemption. So you can just build a house larger than 1300 square feet because 1300 square feet is really small. I have three kids that doesn't fit my family.

But it's a 1,300-foot footprint. It could be two stories.

Not if I have a child who has a disability or is in a wheelchair and things like that. There's a lot of people that can't have two stories.

That was a previous comment of her and the elderly community, height restrictions. So it's...

I mean, you're also assuming like a really long driveway. What if you have a short driveway? Then you have more room for house or you forego the back patio. And I mean, you could have more house if you make different choices. I know. I think...

You guys don't understand how small a 6,000 square foot lot is. I will speak from personal experience. I think my lot that is still vacant is about 7,000 square feet. I have a super short driveway that gets to the garage at the very front of the property. And I had to reduce the overhangs of my house because I was too far over. And my house, including the garage, is like 1,400 square feet. It is not large, and I am at the literal maximum of 40%.

I'm imagining a scenario that goes to what you're speaking to, that my elderly parents want to move in with me, and I want to have a mother-in-law suite, if you will. If I equip that portion of my home with a kitchen that qualifies per the definition, but we share

rest of the spaces in in the home is that considered an adu or does it have to be a completely separate unit without shared other spaces one moment let me look at the definition of accessory dwelling unit i would also think too that most of the lots in the city that are not developed are not developed for a reason which is that they're on challenging terrain and other aspects like that um where you would need more flexibility in the way that the design of that lot is approached to make it a feasible construction type thing um i understand your concern that we don't want to have a major development then on the other side of the highway of several hundred homes that are now on eight thousand square foot lots instead of six thousand square foot um HAB-Jacques Juilland, I guess i'm thinking from the infill lots which are the concerned of most average person is they're thinking about their own private house, not from a developer aspect of coming in and building 500 homes, so I know we have to weigh both of those which I know. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, People by building individual homes for themselves as a way less and smaller number and it's not really going to affect the housing numbers that we're trying to target overall because it's going to be like two or 300 year versus the developer coming in and building 200 PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So I don't know.

but allowing it up to 8,000 would allow a developer to do that. I understand the concern.

It's a tough balancing act trying to meet both objectives. That's why I questioned that number. What is the sweet spot? And then some would argue that it should be lower. Some communities have lower numbers. So cause and effect.

We've had a 40% increase

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Max hard since 2004 at least i'm going with that i'm going to double check i'm going to go double check that but leaf.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Reduce I mean we have had a lot of houses built since 2004 and a lot of single family homes built since 2004 so I don't know what what what has been our minimum lot size up to this point.

Our minimum lot size was 7,000 square feet. A huge chunk of the development that you've seen in the community is in Gig Harbor North. Those are in specialized zones called PCD, which again allowed for additional flexibility based upon a holistic master plan. So those aren't necessarily apples to apples comparisons.

And we're going to be working on PCD. They were kind of excluded from this code.

They are in this code.

So they have... Were there going to be other changes later down the road?

That's the downtown business zone, the Judson sub area. The PCD zones... Yeah, that's planned community development. Those three zones have a lot of specific code that's required to them that's related to master planning. So again, not really an apples to apples comparison. The accessory dwelling unit, going back to your original question, yes, if you have a separate kitchen and you don't have to totally disconnect the unit. from the other. There are some fire code and some other issues that you'll need to address. But the definition of accessory dwelling unit does not require it to be an entirely independent unit like duplex, which is what I described previously. And I will do a little bit of research here on exactly what the ordinance date on some of these hardscape questions are.

I agree with the comments that I that I think that most of what we're discussing. is about somebody who's going to be you know. Somebody who's going to occupy the dwelling and. Like where's the balance between what's the number. that you can say is 6,000, 7,000, 8,000, but where you can actually put that extra dwelling unit on there to get to the bonus. I mean, I don't see on the information that we've been given where at 6,100 square feet, you have enough in a height-restricted area that you could get to the maximum hardscape. And then also, if we're requiring people to build accessory dwelling unit, maybe they don't necessarily need it. They don't want to rent it out on their property. They don't have somebody, but if they're building it to get something that's more important to them, then we just increase their cost of building, which I think just defeated the affordability.

Well, you also create a dwelling unit that potentially could be used down the road. It might not be used immediately, but the provisions are there to increase the density down the road. Yeah, agreed.

Is there a separate thing where we could limit the, you can call it a PCD versus a PUD development?

If people are subdividing land, they can utilize planned unit developments and those types of things. If they aren't subdividing, I think a lot of this conversation is related to existing lots that live down in the historic district, which actually is only about a third of all the R1 and R2 zoning in the city. Those areas do have height requirements and all the statements made, yeah, the height requirements are a definite impediment. though there is a lot of remaining land that likely is where the subdivisions are going to live. And those subdivisions really are neither here, the 6,000 to 8,000. I guess from staff's perspective, we aren't as concerned about the number as it applies to existing lots as we are to folks who are going to be subdividing new lots. And if they're done so at 8,000 square feet, that is a whole bunch of new larger homes that... may not necessarily be consistent with housing affordability, though we entirely concur with the needs of our disabled and senior communities needing some place to downsize to. The Rosedale Cottages are an excellent example of that. That type of development is entirely allowed.

Well, so my question was, is there a limit we can put where like a single lot thing is our 8,000 square foot versus a larger 200 home Harbor Hills type thing, they would be subjected to the 6,000 square foot.

We'd have to be able to show some kind of nexus between the two of those as to exactly why one would be different than the other from a land use perspective, not necessarily just a scale scenario. We tried to do that when we established the PCD zones in Gig Harbor North because we wanted to make sure that that area was substantially different. But when you're doing it inside an existing development, nexus becomes a concern.

Um, I have a question if if we're talking about our one zoning anyway, and it's only allowed up to four units, then isn't kind of the concern about it preventing the subdivisions being split up kind of irrelevant to the amendment I'm trying to propose because I'm only making an amendment. to our one zones that only allows up to four units in the first place per acre. So, I mean, the other, I'm not proposing that we change any other of the lot sizes. So only referencing to single family lots anyway, not trying to reference to subdivisions being split up, but just to the fact that I don't think capping the ability to build past the 1,300 square foot is reasonable. And I would like to also comment that this was the original, when we came in here back in August, it was all rolled up together in the first place. but it was only proposed later as a way to prevent people from abusing the new opportunities. And so it wasn't unreasonable a few weeks ago, if that makes sense. And so I'm just asked, I just think to increase that amount for only single family, not for subdivision. So just to clarify.

I apologize if I made it sound like the proposal was unreasonable. I didn't mean anything by anything like that. The downside is that once you actually make this decision, you're making it for all new building permits. So right now you have existing set of lots today. But when subdivisions come on, and then when people come in for the individual developments, this code will apply to them as well. The only way not to do that is if you established a date. And then if you establish a date, you have to go back to the nexus. Why is this date the important one? And again, everything that you folks are talking about is great. We're just really here to sit and listen.

Were there any other amendment proposals?

In general, usually someone has to call the question on this amendment, in which case then it gets voted on, or people can amend the amendment.

I guess I'm confused. We didn't do that one, the last one.

But the last one is rolled into the main motion at the end. She duplicated a lot of the main motion in her amendment. So now they're all kind of waiting at the end.

All right. Well, so we call the question, then we vote on this 6,000, 8,000 vote question. Okay. Well, I'll call the question then. I don't, I guess we'll, I guess all those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed? Aye. Nay. Nay. Okay, so four to three, so that amendment passes. So we will amend. So now we still have the motion for...

It's to see if anyone else wants to make any additional amendments.

Okay.

So then hearing none,

Yeah, you'd call the question on the main motion and the amendment. Call the question then on the main motion and the amendment.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye amendment or for the main motion.

That wraps everything in a bow. What you've done is you have taken the August 17th draft, you have amended it with the September 3rd draft, and then you've amended the amended table with the 8,000 square foot change, all of which will now be documented in this table. And what we'll do is we will very quickly document these. And if the chair and I can hang out for a little bit, we can get you to sign the document.

Okay. And then that will be forwarded to council as our recommendation.

Yes. And I just want to thank you. Code is the most arduous thing to go through. So I appreciate, A, your patience with me and all the thought that you've put into this. Again, like I've said before, I love working with you guys.

Thanks, Eric. So that said, any new business? Oh. I any any new business in or I guess we will then plan to meet again on our normal scheduled time.

The benefit from you folks concluding today is that the 17th, you folks are free with a return in October, starting with phase 2B of code development.

Okay, thanks. Well, with that, is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. And a second? Second. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.