Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Next plan meeting of the Lacey Planning Commission to order. Roll call. We have one member missing. Jennifer, how are you? Everybody else is here. Tanya, would you please read the land acknowledgment?

Yes. We, the city of Lizzie, are on the central land of the tribal people of the Treaty of Medicine Creek, including the Snow Creek Indian tribe and Squaxin Island tribe. We acknowledge and remember those tribal people not recognized today who were absorbed or relocated into other tribes for survival. We recognize the ancestors and their descendants who are still here. We recognize and respect the tribal people of their of the treating Medicine Creek as the traditional stewards of this land since time in memorial and their role today in taking care of these lands in perpetuity.

We recognize and have a thorough responsibility to call attention to the histories of disposition possession, forced removal, and abridge treaty rights that allowed our nation, state, and city to develop as they have today. We recommend that the community members read the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854.

Thank you very much. So I would look for a motion on tonight's agenda in a second.

So moved.

Second. I think that was curing.

K. It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Awesome. Then I would look for the same action on the January.

Move to approve.

Period. I'll second. Tanya.

K. It's been moved and seconded to approve the January. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Awesome. K. Now we come to public comment. Are either of you prepared to speak? Awesome. We got an audience. Yay. Okay. Commission members reports.

Good session.

Okay. So, I do. Monday, we interviewed six candidates for planning commission.

Nice.

We did select two of them. And during the department report, I will let, Ryan, expand on that. Thanks, Jeff. There you go.

Should we move right into the department report? Yes. We will. Alright. So, yeah, on on, on Monday, mayor Ryder, Jared Gabman, and myself met with six, members of public to interview them for the two vacant spots on the the planning commission. If you'll remember, we just we all can allow up to two members of the planning commission to be from the urban growth area. And so the focus has been when we've had vacancies in the past is to try to get one of those spots filled. Victoria's, our other one. And at this point, unfortunately, all six were from this police city limits. Unfortunately, meaning that they were not from the UGA, not unfortunately, that they applied for the commission.

But all six highly qualified, capable individuals and all would have definitely added to the planning commission in one way or the other, and so it was a difficult decision. Ultimately, it's the the mayor's recommended appointment to the city council. And so the mayor did choose two people there. They will be appointed at the city council meeting on February 17. And so, they I anticipate that they will be with us for the that second meeting in February. Awesome. Yeah. And then I do have one other Wait.

Are those new terms, or are they

They they are to fill new terms that would start that would have started at the beginning of this year. So they will they will both, be filling, vacant vacancies that would start a three year term. Any other questions on that? Okay. The other item I just wanted to touch on briefly was the planning commission schedule coming up. So we we did include, as always, a calendar in your packet. Just wanted to highlight it. I think it's at the very, very end of the packet. So we have the next planning commission meeting. Just wanted to let you know it's the joint meeting with the city council.

We'll be reviewing the the docket and the work plan, doing kind of a final review of that tonight, and that will be one of the main items that we will present to, the city council at that meeting. So that is Tuesday, February 10 at 06:00PM here in this room. So if you are not able to attend, if you do have a conflict, I know that's not your regular meeting night, please let me know so we can accommodate. It will be a a joint meeting, so it'll be planning commissioners that will be interspersed at the same table as the as the council. Because we have that Tuesday night meeting, we will cancel the next planning commission meeting, which would be the day after that.

It would be on February 11. So kinda swapping out meeting dates there. Know, there'll be a day earlier, coming up in a couple weeks. And so, prior to the February 10 meeting, just like always, we'll make sure that you get a copy of the agenda and the meeting packet, and mark your calendars to make sure that it's that you're here on that February 10 date. We'll cancel the February 11 meeting. So the next actual regular planning commission meeting, will be back here February 24.

And you said that, February 10 starts at six? 06:00. Correct.

Yes. Any questions? Any other questions on that that schedule coming up? Awesome.

Alright. That's the end of my report. Alright. We have no public hearing. So we've got the Jennifer Adams show for new business. Talking about 80.

Well, hi, everyone. It's great to see you guys again. Kind of enjoying this. Feel like I wanna get you on my permanent schedule. Right. Be here all the time. But thank you for introducing me, and welcome, to the member in our audience this evening. So just, wanted to oh, I suppose we better get the slideshow. Do you do it or do

No. Go ahead. And then we'll do it from there, and then we'll just hand over the the mouse. So we'll need to share screen first here.

How do you make

it? Down just a little bit. There's that little kinda camera looking to the left. Up up. There we go. Yeah. It'll get started.

Appreciate your color. Thank you. Okay.

Oh. Then I did that.

Okay. So here tonight, to bring you guys a, kind of a higher level overview of some updates that need to occur with the accessory dwelling unit code. So, you know, again, this is just one in a number of the things that we have, you know, previously discussed in sort of the housing initiative bucket. And we did talk here with this commission a few a few sessions ago about making sure that we intentionally brought you sort of each item individually so that we can have proper time to discuss where needed and so forth. So just know that tonight really is intended to be kind of a higher overview, and we don't have code this evening to present to you.

That will be coming fairly soon. So let's just kinda dive in and and take a little bit of a look at what's going on for preparing for these updates. So so why are the ADU regulations changing? So in 2023, the legislature updated laws governing the ADUs. And some of the findings are things we've heard as with middle housing, for example, which is the ongoing housing supply challenges.

Right? And so those are affecting communities statewide. And overall, the state finds further opportunity to reduce barriers, regulatory barriers for ADU development. And then so if we take a look at just kind of the state standards and then the local role, the state standards, they're, again, sort of some of those primary key components are to establish minimum standards, again, statewide, identify some of those regulatory limitations that jurisdictions will not be able to impose, and then require ADU applications to be reviewed through a ministerial process. So we've been hearing a lot about that with the middle housing as well.

Jennifer? Yes. Can you

just explain ministerial versus the normal process?

You know, I wish that I would have known you were gonna ask that. So I'll give it my best shot as I understand it. Ministerial process is going to be really looking at objective standards, rather than, you know, anything that would be subjective. I'm not sure how better to say that. Ryan, if you wanna expand on that. But it was my simplified understanding of the ministerial process.

Yeah. So that that's exactly right. So it's a a predictable process based on set standards that says, do you meet the codes? Yes or no? And then if you do, then it's approved. The the efforts that this at the state level have really been to get rid of, like like, design review boards and those kinds of different decision making bodies that have some unilateral decision making abilities to say, hey. We don't like this roof pitch or something like that that then can, you know, cause cost timelines, those kinds of things to increase for all kinds of housing projects. So it's really ministerial process is is really a it's administrative process administered by staff, really just looking at, does it meet the code or not? If it does, then it must be approved.

Thank you. Appreciate. Yeah. Good question. Thank you. And then looking at the local role, some key points there are to update our local regulations so that we are consistent and compliant with the new state standards. And then as Ryan was just talking about, applying only objective and measurable development and design review standards. And then to identify areas where we may have some continued local policy discretion and so forth. So let's move on here. Just a quick reminder, we have talked about preemption in our last meeting.

And as a reminder, this sort of preemption or interim period that we're in is for ADUs as well. If you recall, with the middle housing, there is a specific model ordinance that must be followed. So planners would would be following that right now until we adopt our local code. Just slightly different with the ADUs under sort of this interim period or preemption period would be that they would be following the RCW guidelines just in areas where there is a difference between the current standards and what our existing code has today. So the staff oh, I just wanted to highlight that staff, you know, are well aware of this.

We have, you know, continued with our collaboration, and, hopefully, they have the tools that they need at this time to process any ADUs as they come in, again, just until we reach our local local adoption. And then so included in your staff report, along with your staff report, just one attachment for this discussion. And this is, you know, you may look at this as a crosswalk. I I like to call it a crosswalk, but really maybe sort of a high level gap analysis, you know, similar concept with that. And, really, it's just I just wanted to highlight that as we are looking at this this evening, this is just a planning tool.

So this is helpful for the work that we do. And just to reiterate, nothing in this particular document this evening sets or establishes or predetermines any policy moving forward. So just keep that in your mind as we continue on with our conversation this evening. So what I did was this gonna look real familiar right from your copy in the packet. I moved things around a little bit just so that we had a better flow for for talking this evening.

So what I wanted to look at first was are the are the areas of code where we know we absolutely have to make an update in order to reach that compliance. And so these are some of the the higher points, I think, of this bill. So you'll notice that the maximum ADU size so we looked at this in the compliance column, tried to simplify this with a big red x as, you know, this this definitely is not compliant as it as it is now. And then a then a check would be, you know, clearly something that is probably okay. And then the other little icon that you'll see is, you know, further discussion is probably needed.

So the maximum size, what you'll see here is that under the new state law in the green column, jurisdictions must allow ADUs now to be at least 1,000 square feet in gross area. So that would not include, like, a garage, etcetera. Currently, our code so if you're looking now to that sort of orange column next to it. So currently, code reads a maximum of 850 square feet or 50% of the main or primary dwelling unit associated with that lot, with that ADU. So we know right there we've got, you know, some work to do to reach compliance.

And then another real big one is the number that are allowed. So here, essentially, we're going from one to two. So where we have been allowing for that one ADU, the law now is that we must we must reasonably permit two, you know, of course, when other development standards are met and so forth. So two per lot. A caveat there is where single family detached single family dwellings are also allowed permitted. I did have a typo there. Just wanted to point out right at the bottom in the green column there. I had a note there that said may look like duplex. My apologies. Should should be may may not look like duplex.

So just wanted to point that out. Okay. And then let's see. Did I miss a slide? I think I did. Okay. So now we're gonna have a couple of slides here that we're gonna look oh, thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. So a couple of slides here where we're gonna see this sort of exclamation point that's gonna give us a little bit of pause for further conversations among staff here with our advisory boards, etcetera. So you'll see things here such as ADU location and structure type. These are sort of in in topic categories, if you will. So if we look here in the green column, new law does does say that we must allow detached and attached ADUs.

We currently do allow that. Something new, and this kind of works with the one right below at the conversions flexibility column there. Something that we will probably need some updates in our code is that the new RCW, the new law, and this is House Bill thirteen thirty seven, by the way, really does talk more about conversions of existing structures. And there are some provisions there that we will need to make sure that we accommodate. One of those, as an example, would be size.

So if an existing structure exceeds a thousand square feet, we will need to have explicit language that, you know, still provides a pathway for that conversion to to occur. Another thing around conversions is that while an existing structure, let's assume that it was legally legally built, but with changes in law over time, etcetera, we still must allow conversions even if that existing structure is no longer meeting certain development standards. So that will be something that we may develop some language around to address that as well. Lot size, for example, you'll see that the the new RCW or excuse me. The RCW now states must allow ADUs on any lot meeting minimum principal unit lot size.

Just wanted to to put out there that our current code does not talk about that. So that could be an area where, you know, we have some room there with discussion probably among staff as to whether or not, you know, we want to include language just for consistency stake sake. And, you know, so we'll keep you posted on on that as well as some other items we're gonna look at here.

I think well, Jennifer is switching slides there. Go ahead and switch slides. I'll I'll just mention a couple of Sure. Please. One is, you know, with the the changes to state laws allowing more accessory dwelling units and allowing larger accessory dwelling units.

Our current code, the way it's established is that, really, the word accessory is is taken literally and that you have a primary dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit that you're allowed to have. As we move forward in the these new codes as the states requiring it, there is really no more primary and accessory. It's kind of like, you know, because you can you can have multiple accessory dwelling units, and they can be much larger than they were in the past. And so the the way to kinda think about this is that we are allowing additional units on a piece of property, not and and they can be as a a certain size and and those kinds of things. But they are not so much like they have been in the past where you really have kind of, like, the, you know, mother-in-law unit granny flat kind of idea or the small kinda cottage in your backyard.

It's really, you know, to really it will, you know, very much densify our existing neighborhoods and and be allowed. In addition to single family, we also will be required to allow them with other housing types as well. So, you know, where previously, typically, you had maybe the the owner living in the, main unit, which we didn't require, but mostly that's what we saw. And then they would, like, rent out or have, you know, a family member live in the second unit. It's it's quite possible that we will see, you know, these be a a development where they would all be rented out, including kind of the main unit, main duplex perhaps, and then the two ADUs all be rented out.

So it it's just wanted to kind of preface some of what Jennifer's talking about in terms of the the design with a little bit of the legislation is requiring a little bit of change of thinking in terms of how we've always typically considered accessory dwelling units and expanding that to essentially just be more units on a lot.

That's great context. Thank you. So then, again, just moving on to some other areas where, you know, some continued discussion will be needed. For example, height. Now the RCW does specify that we must allow a roof height of at least 24 feet unless, however, a primary an existing primary dwelling has a lesser height.

Right? And in that case, the ADU could could match that. And then design review, this is, you know, another one that I I find to be kind of important. If you you know, any sort of takeaways, this to me is one of them, is that, you know, we can impose more restrictive setbacks, yard coverage, tree retention, entry locations, aesthetics, design review, than the principal unit. And then these criteria must be subjective as well.

And, again, you know, familiar for us because we see this language with the middle housing as well. So and I think that kinda goes along a bit with, you know, this overall discussion that that Ryan you know, where Ryan was going with kind of rethinking and reframing some things that have been more traditional. So let's move on here. A couple more. So parking.

There are some, you know, requirements around parking as well. This looks real similar or somewhat similar again to some of the middle housing things. So may not require more than one off street parking space per unit for lots that are equal to or less than 6,000 square feet. And then we may not require more than two for lots that are equal to or greater than 6,000 square feet. And then some things about driveway driveway excuse me, access and driveways.

Detached ADUs can be sited at a lot line if they're abutting a public alley. So we're kind of getting into some minutiae at this, you know, point in time. And our current code reflects driveway consolidation required. So I flagged this one, you know, just as, like, as an example. This will be an area that we'll wanna probably give a little more attention to and discuss, you know, how we wanna represent this in the code.

What can we retain Is is what we have right now to share a driveway? Is that you know, can can that remain? So more to come on that. And then a couple of things that to me, you know, was appropriate just just through silence to say that, hey. You know, we might be compliant already on these things.

No change may be needed if we remain silent on these things. And the examples here would be the sale of these units. So Ryan was talking about how, you know, we might see some of these units as rentals. We would expect to see that as we advance through some of the other housing initiatives such as the unit lot subdivision that will be coming in 2027. That will be a tool, right, that will provide a a pathway in addition to what already would be allowed the condo condominium pathway for ownership.

So we currently don't have this addressed in our current code, and it could be something there again that, we could consider having language in our code to address that if we wanted to. And that's kind of the theme here with all of these categories. Same thing with some exemptions that apply, and then same thing with impact fees. So the new laws do state that very specifically that ADU impact fees, you know, can max out at 50% of what the primary unit impact fees would be. Currently, my understanding is that Lacey does not charge impact fees for ADU development.

I I don't know, Ryan, if you wanna speak to that more or not. I don't anticipate that changing.

Well, I think so, you know, as I mentioned, this is required a little bit of a change of thinking in terms of typical accessory dwelling unit development that we've seen in the past, one of which is that we may see more of these units for sale, especially as we develop options in our subdivision codes for unit lot subdivisions. And, essentially, what that is is almost like a condominium where somebody could actually draw a lot line around an accessory dwelling unit and then sell it off, which, again, that's not always that's not typical thinking historically on accessory dwelling units. Those have always kinda run with the the the individual piece of property. Right? They've never really been Mhmm.

You know, able to be sold off fee simple for to somebody else to use. And so you start thinking about, okay. How has an accessory dwelling unit been developed in the past? Well, usually, that is with utilities that are stubbed off of the main house. So if it's attached or detached, it usually means connecting to the main unit's water and sewer lines.

And for us here at the city, it's been like, well, that's kind of a little bit of an extension of the main house. It's an adding maybe another couple bedrooms and those kinds of things, maybe a small kitchen. We're not going to charge additional impact fees associated with that. Now where we're getting into a situation where these could be subdivided off, is it appropriate for the accessory dwelling unit to still be stubbed off of the main house? Let's say, I own the accessory dwelling unit and Jeff owns the house.

Jeff stopped stopped paying his water and sewer bill. All of a sudden, I don't have water and sewer anymore. So, again, you know, previously, if if I didn't own that the the ADU, it was I was renting from Jeff. Well, that's a way more tenant issue. Right?

It's not that you know, it it it's a little bit different issue. If I own the piece of property, that is completely different. And I think we will likely have to look at how are we connecting things, accessory dwelling units to utilities, making sure people have their own individual connections. And in doing that, unfortunately, what that'll do is that'll push up costs. That'll push up costs to people that are developing these because in order to have your own unique connection to water and sewer, you'll need to come in and and get a water meter and a connection, you know, to the water system and then pay connection fees for sewer.

And so while we don't necessarily have a lot of impact fees here at the city of Lacey in general, we do have a school impact fee is the only one that we do, which is a payment to the school district. We you know, most of where we see the cost associated with these types of things are in the connection to the water and sewer system. And so one of the things that, you know, is while it's not necessarily an impact fee, it's it's, you know, a connection fee. We'll need to make sure that it's clear within our code as we move forward how these things are are developed and connected to this you know, especially water and sewer system, especially if they are to be an independently, you know, owned and sold So these these units. Sorry.

Should've raised

my hand. No. Go. Go.

I'm gonna stop sharing. I think we're is that the end of your slides, Jennifer?

It's just about the end. I was just gonna go through some next steps. But

Yeah. Maybe if you just stop sharing Sure. We can have the discussion.

Curious about they're going to have their own titles and be a completely separate object. So that way, you don't have a lien being put on your property because it's attached to someone else. Similar with easements, it's gonna come with guaranteed easements so that you have access to these properties. Is all of that going to be baked in?

It needs to be. And Okay. I was

gonna say because if they're gonna be sold separately, they I mean, it might as well just be a unit lot subdivision in my mind. Yeah. A short platter, whatever you wanna call it. I don't know the exact term. But yes. Yes. Again, a standalone setting Yeah. Because that would be a tragedy for you to lose your property because they're not paying their property taxes.

Which is part of the reason why the legislature last year also passed the law saying that site subdivisions had to be allowed. And I'm gonna go around Tanya. Karen? Okay. Robert.

And so with that, we would basically, in order for them to do a split subdivision, they would need to then probably come up to whatever kind of code or regulation that we're putting up as far as, like, this independent connection fee, or would people kind of be, like, grandfathered in if they already have an ADU unit and they want to split subdivide you know what saying?

Yes. What what if you had an existing ADU and you wanted to subdivide that, what would that look like? And, you know, I I what I'm imagining is is that we, at that point, would probably require there be it own independent utility.

Yeah. Like, it it would be a it would be a requirement in order to

do it. So while the ADU itself wouldn't necessarily need to come up to code, things like utility connections and other things would have to come up to code. It's very similar to, like, a short plat subdivision. So a short subdivision in Lacey is nine lots or less. It's done through an administrative process.

And what that really does is make sure that, you know, prior to recording at the county, all of the utilities and other infrastructure is in place so that it's a legal saleable lot. We would do the same thing with the unit lot subdivision. And, really, the the main thing there is to make sure that the infrastructure exists prior to the lot being legally created so that we're not creating these deficiencies that, like you know, we're not creating paper plats that are just maybe exist in theory. You know? Hey.

Go figure out your own utilities. It's like we we need to have those things figured out so that people have, you know, you know, general health, safety, and welfare kind of amenities figured out before we, you know, approve a final lot. And

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes. I remember there was a certain point in time where Lacey required new developments of a certain number of homes to be HOAs. And as I recall, as all of these state changes were coming in, there was still an exemption for HOAs whose existing governing documents already prohibited ADUs. So I believe this is going to create, a further separation of parts of Lacey of what it looks like. It's gonna really change the landscape of HOA neighborhoods versus not HOA neighborhoods because the concentration of this, implementation is only going to happen in certain neighborhoods.

Well, just an observation. I think that's gonna really continue to change the look and feel and and and lose the continuity, I think, that we've achieved up until now.

Yeah. You know? And the legislation specifically says none of this overrides existing CC and Rs.

Mhmm.

So a couple of things on that, that I'll that I'll mention is that, the legislature did put in place with a bill that future subdivisions can no longer prohibit the development of accessory dwelling units. So if it's a new development, that those covenants can't exist anymore.

Right.

So, you know, again, just keep in mind that the state is requiring us to do this. So it's not like we have an option to say, well, you know, getting back to Judy's point, you know, what the state is saying, you you must require these things. So we don't really have an option when it comes to how it looks and feels. It's like we have to allow it. What we can do is make sure that our codes are in place to make sure that, you know, they're compatible with the existing neighborhoods and those kinds of things, which we do already have quite a bit of that that on our books.

I have heard, and I don't believe it's part of this legislative session. I haven't heard anything definitive at this point, but I have heard in the past that the legislature has actually been looking at going and removing having a provision in state code that would actually get rid of accessory dwelling unit provisions within HOA covenants. So that that they would actually go back and and say if those exist, then they have to be taken out. That's Okay. Interesting.

K. So, Spencer, did I see you had something else?

No. No.

Okay. Robert?

Just me. I have a lot of questions.

I must have read a lot.

So one of my questions is just for a context and understanding, maybe a new development. When I think of, like, the one that's close to my house in between 6th And 15th right next to Chinook, are the lot sizes just small enough where basically an ADU would never fit, and that's how they've kind of legally created a space where you would never see an ADU? I'm just trying to conceptually understand that one. And I know that's a very specific

I think of Bradley Park.

Yeah. Yeah. And I'm just thinking, like, the lot size, like, there's not really a space to put an ADU. And, like, is that is that the way that some developers might look at legally not allowing that? Or or Yes.

Okay. Basically.

Yeah. I'm just just

trying to de facto, like, saying that the lot size is so small that it can't accommodate another unit. Yes.

And so and so, like right. That makes sense. I was also just curious what the n is as far as, like, how many ADUs we have if we had a ballpark, if anyone knew the answer to that, like, currently. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Roughly. Or less.

Or less. Okay.

That's Great. That that is ballpark. Yeah. Yeah. Catherine had sent me a spreadsheet a few weeks back, and it it's not

a lot.

So remember that the original concept, the ADU, was mom and

dad Yeah.

Are elderly. Junior needs to come and live with his family to take care of them, so we have a little unit. And the original regulations all called for that ADU to be removed as soon as mom and dad are no longer living there. Gotcha. Well, some of them were rather permanent structures. And so people said, no. Wait a minute. I spent x amount of dollars putting this up. You're not gonna tell me to tear it down. So then they expanded the definition to include, okay. It has to be a family, but there's no verification. Yeah. That's my cousin, Jimmy. Right?

Got it.

And so it slowly evolved, but now the legislature has viewed this as being, you know what? This could be an answer to the housing supply issue. And so here's where we have gotten to today.

So it's for you to oh my gosh. My brain's not working. Robert. Robert. Yeah. That guy. To his point, in my experience, all of the new divisions that have been put in are roughly six to eight feet to the fence line except for the front yard, which is going to exclusively preclude new neighborhoods from having ADUs. And so we're gonna have backfilling into older neighborhoods, which in theory sounds great. I also see this, to Judy's or Judith sorry. I'm gonna change her name.

Point. You're gonna have neighborhoods where you're gonna have brand new ADUs in seventy, eighty year old homes next to it. And I personally don't mind that one bit, but it feels like we are creating pockets of inequality across the community by doing this. And I really don't expect this program to take off and have, you know, thousands of ADUs pop up suddenly across the community, But it does feel like there's an equity issue here when it comes to that, and and it's not addressed at the legislative level.

Which is exactly why the legislature gives us no choice.

Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. So,

we've done maps in the past. I don't know. Maybe, you know, it's been some time, so I don't don't know if any of the planning commission members that are here now remember, but we've done some maps showing where we're we're we believe the accessory dwelling units to the land's kind of the same with our middle housing, materials as well. And, really, you know, it's the older lots that have enough space to be able to accommodate the additional units. It's within usually within at least 200 feet of sewer is the other thing.

So if you think about anybody that has a septic system, chances are they're not gonna be able to do it because, you know, if you have a septic and drain field, chances are you don't have enough room to get another, you know, unit on there and then accommodate the septic for that new unit. So, really, when you break break it all down, you know, it's if if you kinda have in your mind, like, where are some of those older neighborhoods, you know, just south of where we're at here, you know, South Of Lacey Boulevard, off Golf Club Road, you know, Ruttle Road, College Street area, really where we're gonna see these primarily be be built. But as you mentioned, we're not seeing and we have. And those those areas have have been have we've had allowances for ADUs for as long as I worked for the city, probably since at least the you know, maybe thirty years. But we're not seeing an overproliferation or a big change in the neighborhoods as a result.

And Lacey historically has always had very permissive regulations around accessory dwelling units, and we still don't see an over proliferation. We have a preapproved accessory dwelling unit plan set at our our counter, and we're still just seeing a slow trickle of them come in. I mean, we've you know, you can get out the door with a set of plans at our permit counter ready to build. All you need is a contractor for about a thousand dollars outside, you know, and and that's all you gotta do is get your contractor. There are other barriers beyond city regulations to building accessory dwelling units.

We're we're not really the barrier. I mean, it could be the cost of a contractor, materials, and labor. It could be financing, you know, higher interest rates and or people that are locked into low interest rates that don't wanna refinance, pull the cash out, and build an ADU. So there's it's a complicated thing that, when you look at it, really, the the city's a small part of it. But, you know, the the financial feasibility of this, and I think one of the reasons we don't see more of them built is because they're still, especially per square foot, really expensive to build, and people don't necessarily see a high rate of return as a result.

James, you have more?

Oh, I think my last question well, I had two. HOA was already addressed, then the other one was just conversion. When I when I think of conversion, like, my brain goes to, like, I got a pretty big garage. Like, is that kind of where the I I Yeah. That is, like of course, it doesn't work because I live on an old neighborhood with a septic, but that's the thought process, right, is that I could take this larger garage, two car garage, and convert it into an ADU. And the state is now saying that's more permissible where maybe the city of Lacey would have said historically, that's not a living space. That's a garage. And okay.

Thank you. I actually think most of our ADUs, we have our garage. Most of them are.

Okay. We do a lot of garage conversions. Okay. Cool. I think one of the big changes as far as garage conversions goes, though, is that basically it says in the in the state law that if, let's say, the wall of the garage, is in a setback, like, it's in like, we were our typical side yard setback is five feet. Let's say it's two feet from the property line. In the past, if somebody wanted to convert that garage, we tell them, you need to move that wall back so that it conforms to that five foot setback. And so they would have to reconfigure things to be able to do that. State law is now saying even if there is you know, even if it doesn't meet code from a setback perspective, you have to allow the conversion. So they're you know?

And that's something we'll have to work into our code because that's not currently how well, pre December 31, that's not how we would have done things. We would have required them to met code from you including setbacks. Okay.

Alright. And I think just just one little additional thing on that, that I believe I've gleaned from some of the literature. I I'm not sure that this is in the RCW, but we we wouldn't necessarily have to permit a conversion if the proposal was to make anything further nonconforming. Sure. So just just adding that.

Can't make it any worse. But, yeah, we gotta keep it getting it worse. Status quo.

Makes sense. Alright. I rest my questions. Thank you. Those are

good questions. Need you.

Very good question. Hey.

What's next?

Well, I stopped screen sharing. For me, I was just going to reiterate, you know, key takeaways for me as you all go home and you're so excited to share with, you know, your partners or or your friends what you learned about ADUs. You know, to me, there, again, those were the important things to really think about are increasing from from one allowed to two where everything else meets standards. And then moving that square footage up to at least 1,000 square feet. And then just remembering that, you know, we have to move towards objective standards.

So those will be areas that, again, we, as staff, are, continuing to collaborate. So that's what you can expect from us. And then, you know, for other next steps, I believe we will be back here toward the February. At that time, we most certainly will have some code for you to review at that time. So that's all that I really had for you this evening, but happy to continue discussing if if there's any other sort of questions or points to be made.

Awesome. Yeah.

Thank you, Jennifer. Yeah. It's always pleasure to have you.

It's

a pleasure to come. Absolutely.

Alright. Next is the draft docket re review. And I wanna remind everybody, we did look at this last month, and we gave Ryan a couple of points we wanted to have changed in there or rereviewed. And so this is just basically going over that. So, Ryan, I'm gonna turn it over to you. And there is no action expected at the end?

That's correct. So just wanted to, bring to you the kind of the the changes we've made since the last time we took a look at this. As a reminder, this is the the docket, which then is kind of the work plan and the work plan for the planning commission for the next year. So you gave us some good input at the last meeting. We'll talk about where that's kinda landed at this point in preparation for that joint meeting coming up in February with the council because that's gonna be a major topic, for them. So I just wanted to run through this really quick, answer any, last minute, last remaining questions that you might have, and move forward. So this put in your packet. I'm not gonna go through it.

Are you sharing for Judith?

I am. Yeah. Judy, can you see that? Okay. Is it is it big enough, or do you need me to zoom in, or is it okay? So, yeah, give them thumbs up. Good. Good. So these are the required state mandated code amendments. I'm not gonna go into these. We've already talked about them. Many of the the things we're already actually, you know, starting to work on as or even completed from a planning commission perspective. So these are all things that are required from the state. These are mandates. We're required to do them, and they're kinda nonnegotiables, nonnegotiables, and they've all, they all appear on the work plan.

So I'm gonna move into the the things that are more kind of optional. That's in the second table here. Moving to, what's identified as docket 11, I think, is something that you gave us good direction on at the last, meeting, and I wanted to let you know kind of where we landed on things. So I I think what I took away from the planning commission meeting, last time we reviewed this is that, you planning know, commission really wants to focus on, anything related to trees and tree protection. And, so we've got within this, item about a hundred hours of staff time dedicated to updating some of our tree standards.

The first thing here on the list, item a so I think when you saw this the last time, there might have been these items were kind of separated into their own different items. We've consolidated them into one, one category around tree standard updates, and now we're recommending that they all move forward. So the first one is updating our, development standards around tree spacing in the right of way for new tree plantings in, in subdivisions, to take a look at that. Item b is looking at residential lot tree retention requirements to consider increasing the number of trees to be removed in a five year period or providing some kind of alternative. This went we went to the the council I went to the council in 2022, to ask to request that the council be more flexible in our regulations and allowing, the option at least of more trees to be removed on an individual lot considering its size.

And when I the answer I got back from the planning or from the council at the time was, thank you. We've heard what the planning commission has done. We're actually gonna make it more difficult to have trees removed, and actually decrease the number of trees that can be removed. And so now we're getting community requests to actually look at expanding this back. We do have some options that the planning commission went through back in 2022 for, I think, the the the city council to consider, and so something that we will be suggesting we move forward with.

The next one is reviewing our tree tract requirements for our Woodland District. Right now, the Woodland District, which is kind of our downtown area, is silent on tree tracks. I think the idea is to actually look at removing the tree track requirement from this area given kind of the urban form of the area and the parks and those kinds of things. So that's part of it. And then also looking at our class four forest practice definition, these are for large timber removals.

It's more of a a housekeeping type item than anything else. So any questions on any of the the tree related items? I will also note, and I'll get to it here in the in in kind of we get to the comp plan amendments that we're actually looking at updating our urban forest management plan as well.

Spencer? Was just curious. Do we have any historical standard or examples of alternatives to tree removal, what what that would look like?

Yeah. So the the idea is, you know, we could look at a sliding scale based on the size of the lot. You know, right now, we just have it's it's three trees on a in a five year period regardless of your lot size. So you could have you know, you could live on an acre, and only be allowed to remove those three trees every five years. So you could have a sliding scale depending on the the size of the lot.

You could also have there's this idea of a tree tree number of tree credits. Some communities say based on, the size of the tree to be removed, you're allowed to remove a certain number of credits within the within an individual period of time. Basically, a bigger the tree is, the more credits it has. So there's there's different ways to be able to to analyze it. Right now, said we we just use that three trees in a five year period. We it used to be five trees in a three year period, which always gets confusing. If you've been here long enough, it's like, gosh. What what's the regulation now? It's three trees in a five year period.

And these these that excludes for cause as in decaying, falling down, hazard Those do anything else like that.

Yes. Those do not count towards those trees. It's this is just for, you know, you can come in for any reason and remove those three trees in a five year period. If you believe one of them to be hazardous, dead, diseased, those kinds of things, you can have one of our arborists come out. If they determine that it is hazardous, then that does not count towards your three trees.

K.

The next couple items, I'll I'll touch on here. I'm not gonna get to the ones that didn't make the list. If you've got any questions or concerns about those, I'll, you know, certainly bring those up. One of the the things you may be hearing about just in the greater Thurston County community is this home energy score model ordinance that's been floated by the Thurston Climate Mitigation Collaborative. And this is a home energy score done at the time of sale of a house.

This, at this point, is not recommended to be added to our work plan. We if we it's identified as a medium priority. This is something that we will directly ask the council about. It is something that is beginning to move forward in, the city of Olympia as well as Thurston County. And so there may be some pressure, to act on this from other jurisdictions, in this partnership.

But at this point, you know, I think when we talk to you all and and talk to the council in the past, there's been some hesitancy in rolling this out in Lacey for a variety of different reasons, including pushing up costs associated with the transfer properties and those kinds of things. So we're we're gonna ask the question of the council. Right now, we do not have it identified as part of the work plan for next year. The other one here in a medium category is the bat battery energy storage systems. So this is I think we mentioned last time kind of this idea where, you know, you have a building or a structure full of batteries that's siphoning power off the grid, storing it, and then we'll use that power back at times of peak demand back on the grid.

And there are have been some proposals for these elsewhere in Thurston County. And at this point, we lack regulations to kind of deal with them. The county has developed a model ordinance for us to consider, and we are starting to hear rumblings of people that are interested in doing these in Lacey. We do, at some point, need to have regulations on the books to to address them. Unfortunately, we just don't have the staff time and capacity at this point.

So at this point, it's a medium item. We will ask the council much like the home energy model score ordinance what they wanna do with it. If it's added, then something else will have to drop off to be able to put put these regulations into place from a staff capacity perspective. Any questions on that kinda does it with the optional code amendments. Any questions on any of this? So these other items that I'm just kinda scrolling through here have not been recommended to be added to the work plan. The idea is is that this is essentially kind of a rolling list so that, you know, once we complete this year's work plan, these will be the things that will kind of tend to move up the list for next year for a future work plan.

Yeah. I I mean, from my standpoint, I would think the ones that we have to do obviously take priority, and then we look at, okay. Now we got time. We could do this. K. Yeah. K. Any questions for Ryan on this?

Let me let me move just through the rest of this and then so that was just the the optional code amendments. Oh, okay. Okay. The the comp plan amendments haven't quite got to that part yet. So, we do have some staff time in here for, updating and doing some comp plan amendments and rezones.

The biggest one on our our docket moving forward is actually gonna be a two year project to update, the Martinway corridor zone. And this is the mixed use high density corridor zone, which has been on our books for greater than thirty years, relatively unchanged, and with, especially coming out of the Martin Way corridor study that was done by the regional planning council. Wanna make sure that the transportation and and zoning matches the vision. And so this would be a a large project, like I said, two year project to kinda overall the zoning along Martin Way corridor. The rest of the items here, we're just not gonna be able to get to.

We understand that we have, in a lot of cases, somewhat out of date zoning code, but, unfortunately, we're just not gonna be able to to get to addressing all these different things. These are some of the additional comp plan related things and other things. A couple that I'll touch on, this number two here, urban forest management plan update. So, again, getting back to the the thing we heard from planning commission about trees. So this is our urban forest management plan.

Basically, considers, you know, trees across the entire community as our our kind of plan for how we we deal with all the trees. So we talked previously about the regulations. This is kind of the overarching plan that that that addresses them. Also, we'll update the, canopy coverage. So it'll look at how much, urban forest canopy we have and and how much we've added or decreased since the last time we did that, exercise, which was for about four or five years ago.

Is that something done internally, or is that contracted?

The last time we did it, we contracted, but it's also something that we believe this time we we contracted last time, but they gave us a manual on how to do it ourselves. This time, we believe we can do it ourselves. And and it really, what it depends on is aerial photograph that comes from the US Department of Agriculture. And so, you know, we we have to obtain that. Once we do, then then we've got the methodology to be able to do it ourselves.

And then number seven here is, annexation, and, we are just starting discussions around, a large greater than 10,000 person annexation, within our urban growth area. This kinda connects to the Martin Way Corridor update. It's likely that the Martin Way Corridor, the remaining unincorporated areas would be annexed as a part of this. And so that's part of why we are that's so this annexation is gonna take about two years to complete. Looking at also, you know, at the same time that we are processing the annexation, also updating the zoning code so that when once it's all annexed into the city, we have the correct zoning in place to be able to make sure that meets the vision for the community.

And then the final one, I believe yeah. And then I'll turn it over to to questions is some joint planning that we need to do with Thurston County and our urban growth area. And one of the things I wanted to highlight here was under number two is that Thurston County is moving forward with efforts to adopt our zoning code, our municipal code by reference into their code. And that is a good thing because for so long, we have done, you know, code updates and those kinds of things. And the idea is that is that the county follows along and adopts what we've already done.

But they are so far behind that we always have inconsistencies in our codes. What they would do is essentially adopt by reference our code so that any so our current code and any future updates would be, effective at the county at the same time that we adopted any changes to our city code. So that's a

That would be awesome. Oh my god. That would be so awesome. We've only been waiting forty years. Okay. I'm gonna add. Judy, any comments?

No. Thank you. I really appreciate that, approach you took to that, putting all the tree topics together, Ryan. Yeah. Because they were really all spread out, and I think we were all pulling different ones at the the first version. So I like the way that was consolidated and and prioritized. Thank you.

Good. Robert? Yeah. I think you have enough on your required list that the list will just keep growing. So, I understand. I think it's a testament to the amount of work that, you all have to get through, so I appreciate

it. Period.

Looks like an exciting new year ahead of us. Thank you.

It's a lot of work to be done.

Spencer, just gonna wish you sanity.

Yes. It it's funny. The other day, was mentioning it's like it kinda feels weird because we're coming off a comp plan, which is always, like, the biggest thing you do. And it this feels like, oh, man. No. The comp plan, we just got started. Yeah. Yeah. We're really moving into some very, you know, meaty things at this point with, you know, implementation of what's coming out of our comp plan, but then also the state mandates that we're required to do as well. So

Well, if anybody has a staff to do it, it's city of Lacey. So that's awesome.

You have the staff and spirit, just not numbers.

Yeah. Well, That's Well, I was gonna ask on that urban forestry planning thing. Is there, like, a a YouTube video? Alright. So our agenda says the next meeting is February 25. I wanna remind everybody that is our next regular meeting. The actual next meeting will be the joint meeting with the city council on February 10. So we'll see you all then. Thank you. Have a good day.

Thank you. Good night.

Thank you for staying till the end.

Yeah. I was just here for the trees. I'm the first council meeting because that tree law does not address trees that cause