Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

What am I to fix

it? Yeah. Hi. Alright. I'm gonna call the 03/25/2026 meeting of Lacey Planning Commission to order. We have a full boat tonight. Nobody's missing. Alan, would you please read the land acknowledgment?

Be honored to. We, the city of Lacey, are on the ancestral land of the tribal people of the Treaty of Medicine Creek, including the Nisqually tribe and Sclaxin 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 descendants who are still here. We recognize and respect the tribal people of the Treaty of Medicine Creek as the traditional stewards of this land since time immemorial and their role today in taking care of these lands in perpetuity.

We recognize and have the responsibility to call attention to the histories of dispossession, force removal, and abridge treaty rights that allow our nation, state, and city to develop as they have today. We recommend that community members read the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854.

Thank you. Alright.

First up, I would look for a motion on tonight's agenda. So moved. Second. It was Spencer seconded. Been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. All in favor? Aye. Awesome. And then, motion on the March minutes.

Move to approve the March 11 minutes as written.

Second. Spencer and Judy. Alright. Been moved and seconded to accept the minutes. All in favor? Aye. Awesome. Okay. Are there any commission member reports tonight? I know Spencer had one.

Yes. I'd like to inform the public that the Jolt and Lee in collaboration with the League of Women Voters will be airing a screening of Stripped for Parks, which is a documentary of the decline of local journalism and the importance of it. We'll have several keynote speakers who are experts in their field with the University of Pittsburgh as well as several other places across The United States who will be speaking about the importance. And I would like to encourage anybody. It is open to the public. There is no fee associated with it, and there's no expectation for donations. This is simply a way to spread the message and try to get people to understand the importance of local journalism and how that affects our democracy.

Great. When and where?

Yep. Thanks. April 8 at the Worthington Center at Saint Martin's.

Five.

6PM.

Thank you.

Mine is a reminder that the night market returns on April 3. Nice. Those are fantastic.

So

They are.

Yeah.

Nice. And remind everybody where?

It's on Pacific in front of the post office.

K. I

don't know the right address.

The food truck depot.

The truck depot. Guess. There you go. And is there

It's 05:00.

05:00. Wonderful. Anybody else? Okay. Any department report tonight? No. The new department report. Would you have question on?

Think we skipped over that.

Oh, yeah. Don't think we talked about I did skip over that. Sorry.

Nobody registered. Okay.

So, yeah, no department report for this evening.

Hey. We have no public hearing. We're gonna jump right into new business. We get to see our old friend Hans tonight to talk about some meaty stuff. Parking day care centers, conversion of existing buildings. I'm gonna hand it over to you. Wonderful. Thank you. I'm going to share PowerPoint, hopefully. That will populate here for everyone to see.

There we go.

The new view. But well, I'm Hans Hans Sheppard. I'm a senior community planner here at for those that don't know. Nice to meet you both. And this evening, I'm going to run through some recent, legislation that has to do with, parking, day care centers, and the conversion of existing buildings within the city of Lacey.

This is legislation that's come out of the last couple cycles, that we, as the city, operating as a code city and then also based on our population are required to implement as part of our existing code. So this is intended to be more of kind of a high level introduction of those bills and what's generally contained within them. This is also included within your packet for this evening in the staff report. Gonna do a brief overview of what the bills are and then highlight some of the content that are just gonna be kinda uniquely specific or to what we have going on within those, this time around. And then at a future date, we'll come back to you with actual, recommendations on how to actually implement or work that language into our existing code.

But, yeah, with that, there's three different items. These are all listed on our also our docket for 2026. So that was something that came before you guys a little while ago. But docket item two, three, and eight have to do with these items, so just moving forward on that work plan for 2026. And one of the primary drivers here for the stuff that's gonna be in front of you is that we don't get preempted.

A lot of this legislation has a six month timeline on it following the adoption of our comprehensive plan. So our goal here is really just to get this worked into our code in advance of that so we don't have to navigate that. But that's what we're working on. So, yeah, the first section here that I want to run through is childcare centers. There's two specific bills that have to do with this that would have impacts within the city of Lacey.

The first one is 5509. It has to do with zoning. And, really, at a high level, what it states is that child care centers can be or need to be permitted in all zones within the city. And I'll go into a little bit more detail. The two caveats there being light industrial and open space institutional where there's some a little bit of freedom and nuance as far as what we're allowed to do based on that code, but we'll get into that.

And then the second one, fifty six, 55 child care centers, existing building occupancy, and load calculations. Really, what this has based on at least my reading of the code, most has to do with kind of religious institutions and, creating kind of an easier pathway for really primarily religious institutions is at least how the bill reads in my mind, to create childcare centers within existing facilities, and then how our, buildings, official would review the square footage of those and, require as far as uses, but we'll get into that in a second. So, first bill set was a senate bill, fifty five zero nine. As I said, child care centers really have to be permitted outright as a use, there's no additional kind of conditions or qualifications that we can place on them, within, really, the vast majority of our existing zoning, districts within the city. The two caveats being, light industrial zones and open space, in our case, what are called open space institutional zones.

I will say that we already permit, chat child and or day care centers within our open space institutional zones. So, and many of our other ones. So as far as potential implementation of this, it's not gonna be a heavy lift. As far as what we see so far, there's a a few language tweaks that we might wanna take a look at. But all in all, we generally permit, day care centers in in most of our zones.

And then one of the follow-up bullets here is that, while we're not, required to permit them outright within in, light industrial zones, we do have to create a pathway for a conditional use for day care centers to take place in our light industrial zones. So that's an area where we might have to spend a little bit more time figuring out what that looks like. And then we are allowed to, the bill also does create some space for cities to create some language around drop off areas as far as loading and unloading and what that looks like depending on the zone that these day care centers would take place in. So that's that one there. And then the other one that has to do with that is really occupancy loading.

And, again, this has, in my mind, based on the interpretation of of what the bill says, is really just trying to create an additional pathway and incentive structure for existing buildings to carve out some space within them for child care centers. And, again, this doesn't have a whole lot of code implications. It's more about, at the building level when that use is potentially being implemented that we'd have to look at that a little bit differently. But, again, from a a zoning perspective, there's not a whole lot of language changing that would need to take place around this. And then I listed the potential, chapters within our municipal municipal code, that might be impacted by these two bills.

Not gonna run through them here, but, just as a as a note of where we might be anticipating some updates based on the legislation, that's within those. And, again, this is also listed in your packet. So but, yeah, that covers child care centers. Before I go into the other two areas, do you guys have any questions, thoughts, feedback?

I'm gonna start with Jennifer and Tanya online. Any questions?

None from Jennifer. Thank you.

K. And then we'll go to Kieran. Yes. Robert? None yet. Judy. Spencer?

Yep. Yes. Within the existing, so the 5655, is there any sort of language about mixed use buildings? Meaning that they're let's, like, use Hawkesbury as an example. We have warehouses out there, you have archery in one. You have day care in the other. And I know there are some exemptions or conditions around light industrial. But is there any specifications that would prohibit mixed use in an environment like not just that, but in general?

If I'm following that. So, I mean, are you asking about the day care centers being located in a building that has a range of different uses? Yes. Yeah. So that would be, that would be something that would be possible through both our current code and then also what, is proposed in here. If if anything, it would it would make that process a little bit more streamlined and straightforward, But that is something that will be possible today and would also be possible through these codes.

And that doesn't modify any of the conditions that are required to operate a day care center?

As far as, like, hours of operation or permitting?

Or So, my understanding is that you have to have a certain type of secured facility. You have to have certain staff ratios. You have to have a lot of other requirements in place to operate a day care center.

Mhmm.

None of that is changing as part of this? Correct.

So a lot of that is still done, not through the city as far as licensing, gaining a license to be able to operate a day care center. So all of those requirements are still in place, and we would ensure that those licenses do exist before we would grant that use. But beyond that, at the city level, that's not something that we would be navigating a whole lot of. That would be accomplished in advance of somebody coming in to apply for that type of use.

Thank you. We got a couple. Yeah. For sure. First one is so I'm assuming childcare center is defined in RCW.

I do have a definition.

And are they talking about something like a KinderCare, or are they talking about something like Jeff and Marin starting to do childcare in her home?

So they are talking more about the, I believe, KinderCare is your reference and not so much the at somebody's house style daycare.

Okay. And then regarding the occupancy load, again, I'm assuming in RCW or WAC, there's a definition for you've gotta have so many square feet per child.

Mhmm. Yeah. Yeah. There are calculations that are identified and that they run through there. So we will the building department, specifically building official, will have to take a look at those, and there is new language on how those calculations are done that we'll have to pay attention to. But as far as what's contained within our code, that is really gonna be a lot of just kind of referencing those requirements. That's probably our our recommendation on how to navigate that instead of having to copy all that and duplicate it and create. Great. Anything else on that one? Okay.

The next one has to do with parking updates. There are two different, senate bills here, that came through the last couple cycles. We also had some additional language through some of the ADU stuff that Jennifer's been working with that I believe you guys have already seen. So I'm not gonna highlight too much of that as part of this, but these are two additional bills on top of the other bills that may have already touched some of these subjects. So, with that, the first one is sixty fifteen and has to do with minimum parking requirements specific for residential development.

And then the second one is fifty one eighty four, which has, is actually kind of a full blown, parking reform and modern modernization act. So there's there's, some more lengthy content in there, and I'll get into both of those in a second here. But the one that's oriented towards residential development specifically, highlights identifies garages and carports as something that, can't be required as a minimum to meet minimum parking standards. So that's actually not something that we currently have in our code as far as language. We do have parking standards, but we don't identify how you have to accomplish them.

This is bill offers additional language that says that if we were to be currently doing that, that wouldn't be something we'd be allowed to do moving forward. So this is an example of something that we don't have to worry too much about as far as how our code is currently written, but it is something that we want to pay attention to and track as far as, what's actually written in there. And then, another item here is, has to do with parking spaces, specifically, gravel and or grass. It creates language, where those surfaces are now permitted surfaces as far as, what a parking lot is constructed out of, both moving forward and historically. So there we did historically, they may not have been permitted forms of parking lots, under our existing code, but anything that is currently in place today is kind of rolled up within that and is moving forward going to be viewed as a acceptable form of parking.

So expanded type of surfaces that are being utilized for the creation of parking places, both leaning more on the pervious side of things instead of a traditional kind of storm drain approach. So those are some things that we're gonna have to pay attention to. And then we also have another one here that has to do with when parking runs up against the requirements for or the attempt to preserve trees on a lot. So there's language in here that actually says, essentially, that you don't have to provide that parking if it has the potential to remove trees. That one's gonna be an interesting one.

I'm not exactly sure how we're gonna navigate that yet, but, it is something that we're working through and gonna it's probably gonna touch quite a few different codes that we have currently in place that that we're we're gonna have to take a look at how we rearrange those to accommodate that language. Because it is pretty open ended, within the actual bill itself, but it essentially says that if you're risking trees being removed, that that parking isn't necessarily gonna be required at that point. So whether that parking can go somewhere else or if that just requirement is reduced or what that looks like, that'll be a that'll be a future meeting where we figure that answer out, we can talk about that. But then, yeah, senate bill fifty one eighty four, parking reform and modernization act. So it actually updates a table, which I think you guys were previously working on, specifically with the ADU and infill housing, but it it's in our chapter 16 parking that has to do with how many parking stalls are required for different types of use.

So in this bill, it actually stipulates exactly what those limitations can be. So, for example, the city may not require, sorry. A city may require no more than, point five off street stalls per multifamily unit, no more than one stall per single family unit, and no more than two stalls per thousand square feet of commercial space. So those are all things that we do have a table that does kind of mirror the structure, but it is gonna have to be updated to reflect this as far as what those minimums and maximums are. And then it does not, still does, all ADA related allowances aren't impacted by this, so any requirements there would remain.

So there's no adjustments on that one. And then, there is a carve out for, religious organizations and carpool type uses, that wouldn't necessarily have to adhere to these, standards that we see here. And then a continuation of this bill, a city may not require parking for residents under 1,200 square feet, commercial spaces under 3,000 square feet, affordable housing, senior housing, child care centers, ground level, nonresidential residential space, and mixed use buildings or buildings that are undergoing a change of use. So those are those are some pretty large sweeping kind of changes that are going to involve some a deeper dive in our existing code and how we navigate that. So those are pretty clearly stated, so we just gotta figure out a way to make make it happen.

But with that, areas that are likely gonna be impacted within our existing code based on these bills, largely within title 14 having to do with standards for parking lot construction and design review. We do have our zoning chapter, specifically sixteen seventy two off street parking and loading. That's that table that I think that you guys have looked at through some of the housing work that you've been doing. That's that one where a lot of these maximum and minimums are gonna slot in. And then, yeah.

So that's that's, yeah, consistency with the infill, work that Jennifer's been doing. But, yeah, that covers the the bills and some of the, chapters that we're gonna be looking at on that one. Again, I wanna open it back up to you guys. So Do have any questions, thoughts, feedback on those?

Yeah. Got no questions at this

time, but I definitely want want to do some more research. Okay. Spencer? Pete? Robert?

Overall, it seems like we are kind of in line except for some of maybe these sweeping declarations that we're gonna have to just figure out

Yep. How we

don't enforce any of it, but still maintain enough space for people to park even though there's no parking requirements.

Yeah. So the distinction there is that while we are not going to be allowed to require parking for some of these uses and or we have maximums that we're not allowed to require beyond, that's not to say that private developers couldn't elect to, on their own, create more for additional parking above which we may or not require. But we are specific as a city capped at what we're allowed

to dictate. Anecdotally, have we been viewed as a city an an easy city to work with when it comes to parking? Were we more restrictive, less restrictive? Like, on on the kind of scope where would you put us before this was enacted? Were we ahead of the curve?

Yeah. I would say somewhere probably in the middle. Great. That's awesome. I I don't know that we're definitely not leading the charge, but I think that Brian didn't update actually a couple years ago that did kind of do some catch up in that arena. So so we did we did lower kind of our or we transitioned to more of a, maximum minimum instead of a, minimum standard. So it does create kind of more of a a elective range that people can operate within.

And and then so far, when we've made those adjustments, have we seen the developers basically take us up on that offer of if we lower the threshold, they're gonna go to that lower threshold, they're not going above and beyond? Or what what has been your experience so far?

I think in large part to date, what we've seen is that developers have gone above what our, maximum, requirements are. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. That's kind of maximum minimums. It's so. Yeah. Yeah. It's weird. Funky language. Yeah. Yeah. But yeah. So while we require a certain amount, we typically see developers come in and build in addition to that amount depending on the type of use that's going in or what they're looking to do at the site.

Karen? No, sir. Karen? Go ahead.

No. It just seems like we're gonna have a lot of work to do around the the the the last slide of changes where we can't require minimum parking. I guess my biggest concern is what do we do with with with those with those places?

K. Jennifer?

Yeah. So it seems to me that, most of these policies and what's written out are making it easier to to make housing happen. I think that's good, even in the the rest of the you know, I looked at it beforehand. It just seems like most everything is in line with the comprehensive plan and the idea of having more affordable housing easier, which I think is great. And then it sounds like, after Robert's question that companies are going to do what the market demands in any case. So, yeah. So so far, so good.

So from my standpoint, you know, I've been working in my end use for almost forty years, talking to financiers and developers and landowners and that sort of thing, I am not one that is in favor of min minimum parking requirements because these developers, they know. If if I'm constructing this project, I need to be able to accommodate this because they know if they don't, then they're not gonna get what they're expecting in terms of business or tenants or anything like that. So it's almost kinda self regulating.

Mhmm.

Yep.

And that's been the experience in Lacey, at least, as far as what we've seen. So that is there'll be more to come on this. This is just kind of introduction at this point. But Yeah.

Like, I thought I heard you mention that there's a provision for offsetting parking for retention of trees. Do we have any further information on that?

Yep. So as far as, see if I can get back to where that was. Yeah. So that's incentive bill sixty fifteen, and it, I believe I copied it pretty much verbatim in the language there, but, still figuring out how to balance those two. I think protecting trees is something that we're definitely in favor of and is something that the

community has come out in favor of quite a

few times. So at first pass, I I think that this this seems in alignment to Jennifer's point, which a lot of what we've done in the conference plan and kinda where we're at in recent years. But as far as kind of what that language looks like or how to implement that, it is it is kind of loose language. So trying to write code around something that is kinda loosely defined is always a bit of a bit of an art form. So, it's it's gonna be something that we're gonna bring back to you guys for sure and as we kinda workshop it and kinda figure out what that lacy version of that language looks like.

Okay. And then what is a grass block paver?

Have you seen the lattice concrete pavers? Those.

Oh. So it's

I've never heard it referred that way.

Their ability for rainwater to still drain. Yeah. Yeah. Solid surface so it doesn't dig into it.

Gotcha. Yeah. I just never heard that terminology before.

Thank you. Well, you gotta keep up with the times.

That's true. Too much on the agenda.

I don't know that I've seen a lot of full scale parking lots constructed out of material, but more often where I see it used is either in patio formats or for individual driveways, things of that nature. So this is not requiring it, but it is creating, an opportunity or pathway for different types of parking surfaces, to be utilized. So there's more flexibility on that front is at least how I see that. But with that, the next section we have here is conversion of existing buildings. There's three different bills that, we flagged in the last couple legislative cycles that have to do with this.

Really and, really, what this has to do with this conversion of existing buildings for residential uses. So there's house bill ten forty two, use of existing buildings for residential purposes. House bill seventeen fifty seven, existing buildings used for residential purposes, various provisions. That bill is just kind of a catchall for everything that they kinda missed the first time around. Legislation is fun. And then eleven eighty three, energy efficient and affordable housing. So each one of these, kind of collectively works together, to create some additional, standards for, the creation of additional housing within existing buildings. I'm gonna

can I just real quick? So are these twenty twenty five bills or are these twenty twenty six bills?

So these are twenty twenty five and twenty twenty four bills. Okay. Twenty twenty six bills have just recently passed. Yes. They will they'll be next year.

Okay. I just

wanna clarify this. Yeah. We're we're typically operate, one to two years, after whenever the legislation goes through. And the legislation typically will have some level of implementation timeline built into it. So nothing that we're looking at tonight has to do with, recent legislation within this year that just passed, but it will be coming your way in the future.

But yeah. So house bill, ten forty two, existing buildings, can be converted for residential purposes. The big one that I wanted to flag here is that first bullet. So allowance of, 50% density increase, if the housing is constructed entirely within the existing, envelope of a building. So that's a new one.

It is gonna really touch all of our zoning chapters that allow any type of housing. So that is gonna be an interesting one to figure out how we work that into our code. We do have kind of a general catch all sections of title 16 that are kind of for language that really relates to a lot of different zones. So that's likely where a lot of these are gonna end up landing because they really do apply to the majority of our zoning designations within the city. We also have some additional parameters placed on architectural requirements, for, buildings, anything kind of, facades or anything that steps back, above ground floor, roof heights.

There's there's a range of different types of, building requirements that we currently have in place, that when residential uses are being applied to a building, we're not allowed to require those additional, building treatments, if you will. So that said that there is a carve out here for character defining streetscapes. We have similar language to this within our code, but it might be an opportunity to review the language that they use and see if we can match ours up with the language that's in the legislation so that it's a little bit more consistent there. And then by doing that would maybe give us some pathways to still have some control over how, the architectural features of the building are constructed. But still early on in that one.

Again, there's some additional callouts here for major pedestrian corridors. That is a designation that we do have within the community. It's called out in our zoning maps and also our transportation element of our comprehensive plan. So there's some allowances for those building treatments within those environments as well. So looking at what that looks like in different portions of the community, again, these are all things that we'll be bringing back to you guys for discussion and collaboration on on what the right blend or balance of this looks like.

And then there's one last thing that I wanna call out here is that for buildings that are receiving additional, residential uses that are being added to them, transportation concurrency studies and environmental studies are not gonna be something that we're allowed to require as part of that style of development, based on this bill. So, again, these are existing buildings. They're not new ones. New ones have their own requirements. But, where residential is being added to existing buildings, there are some additional limitations on what level of review we can require.

And then house bill seventeen fifty seven, existing buildings used for residential purposes. Again, this is that, catch all. Cities are not allowed to require a change of use permit. So say if there's a commercial building, that then is converted to a residential, historically, that is something that trigger a change of use because that use is changing, which would also impact, how people interact with that building throughout the hours of the day, whereas maybe something like a traditional office building with a nine to five inflow outflow of people is going to interact differently in an urban environment than, say, something where somebody lives or it's a multifamily that has people coming and going throughout the day. So, normally, that would be something that we'd be able to look at.

Based on this language, it looks like that is no longer something that we're gonna be able to, look at. And then there's also requirements for meeting the current energy code. If a building goes through a pretty significant renovation right now currently, we are allowed to require the whatever that renovation, whatever that portion of the building is that's being renovated to be updated to meet, current energy codes. If that renovation is specific to that will come residential uses, that is no longer something that we'd be able to take a look at. But

yeah. Mimi.

So with that, if we no longer have to require a change of use permit, how do we trigger things like an inspections to ensure that they're meeting the dwelling standards that we just passed and all of those other regulatory things that would be initiated by that process.

Mhmm.

Is that what you're going to have to determine?

Yeah. So there still will be a construction permit. There will still be other permits that Okay. Any kind of development does go through that will give us the opportunity to be involved in that process. This is just eliminating a step. Yeah. There's just yeah. Normally, this is the trigger. Or, historically, I would say that this is the trigger of how we would do that review. We're just gonna have to do that review as part of our other engagement with that development.

Thank you. And then yeah. This is this is a duplicate of some of our other, legislative updates. But, when residential is added to an existing structure, there's no additional parking requirements that we would be allowed to assign based on that construction. It's echoed here and then a couple of the other bills that were passed in the last couple cycles.

But, yep, wanted to call that out. And then there's some definitions. Not gonna run through all of these, but part of these updates that'll be helpful is making sure our definitions within our city code are in alignment with RCW definitions and or where we don't have definitions for certain uses that we update our definition section to capture those new definitions. For example, in this one, passive house requirements, modular construction, mass timber construction, those are all things that we don't currently have defined in our code, but we'll want to add and or have at least a minimum of reference to the RCW so that we can at least be consistent with that if those types of develop development were to come in. And then once defined, house bill eleven eighty three, energy efficient and affordable housing, places additional kind of limitations on our ability to, dictate setbacks, and or height height requirements for energy efficient styles of construction, to a degree.

So, really, these setbacks, there's new allowances that allow whatever our existing setback is an additional kind of intrusion into that to accommodate buildings receiving additional energy efficient retrofits. Right now, we do have some existing language that already speak to this, so I don't know if this will be a heavy lift. I believe the language in here is about eight additional inch inches of intrusion into established setbacks to accommodate further installation and things like that. And then also there's some language on roof height allowances to allow things like solar systems and other energy oriented installations of that nature, which we'll have to work in door code at some point as part of this update. And then I did speak earlier to facade modulation, upper level setback requirements, and off street parking.

These things are no longer something that we can require as part of affordable housing, new construction that meets passive house requirements, retrofit of existing buildings meeting passive house requirements, the conversion of existing buildings to housing or mixed use developments that includes housing, modular construction, or mass timber construction. So, again, a range of different types of building treatments that we're not gonna allow not going to be permitted to review as part of these types of projects. And then house bill eleven eighty three, energy efficient and affordable housing continued. There's some added language in here about the housing units and how large they're allowed to be. We don't currently set standards on the size of these types of housing units.

So by actually being silent on this, we are more flexible than what this code says. So right now, our our the strategy that I think that we're gonna probably employ is to remain silent on this, which will be in alignment with this kind of language, but then also create additional flexibility on top of that. The international building code does set standards that are less than this for these types of units, so that's typically what we revert to in these instances. So additional language here, but not something that's really gonna be a big impact, I think, for anything that we're doing currently. And then, again, a list of the different chapters that we currently have within our lacy municipal code that will likely be impacted by these building conversions.

Touches a little bit of title 11, title 14, and title 16 depending on what component of the bills we're looking at. But, again, yeah, this is the conversion of existing buildings. You guys have any questions on any of this?

Should we start with Jennifer?

No questions. Thanks.

Tanya?

Eric? Yeah. Just a couple on 1042. Yeah. And this may still be early in the process. But the that 50% density bonus Mhmm. Increase. So this would I mean, this wouldn't be like we're making, like, micro units. I think it it this one you might have asked a question, like, a a number of memes ago about, like, there's certain things that need to be in a living like, a dwelling unit to be considered dwelling. So with this bonus, we're not like, say, it's a big warehouse because it's converted to housing.

It's just, you know, we're making a bunch of 1,200 square foot units instead of bunch of 500 square foot or something. So is that how it maybe would play out? Like, it's it's Yeah. We're not making, like, micro units. It's just maybe there's a a few users are a little smaller, but we're trying to bump up the number that can be fit in it.

Yeah. So it would still exist within an existing footprint of a building that's in place today. So it's not creating, like, a warehouse and then quickly converting it over to residential. As part of any residential use, you still have all of your requirements as far as being fully autonomous and having your kitchens and your bathrooms and your bedrooms and all that. What it does, for example, in our low density residential, we currently have a max density of six units per acre. In in with this code, a, say, a larger building that currently exists within one of our low density residential zoning districts would allow being permitted to increase, actually, the density in excess of that six units per acre by 50%.

Oh, so per acre. Okay.

Yeah. The way our code is currently written right now

Okay. Yeah. Okay. That makes sense.

So it's it's more like a residential unit or structure that's currently in place today. They would be allowed to increase their units above what our current maximums are, by 50%.

Okay. I make

they don't kind of create or bump out or change the the existing kind of footprint of that building.

Yeah. Okay. That makes sense.

And then the the third bullet

on the major pedestrian quarters, are there any in Lacey major pedestrian corridors?

Yep. So we do have a definition for those. I don't read yeah. So one of things we're gonna have to do is make sure that I don't know that that's the exact terminology that we use, but we do essentially have corridors that are designated pedestrian corridors. So we might need to go through our code and throw the word major in front of that. Okay. Changes like that. But we do have those identified throughout the city. So there's probably a couple steps here. One, we'll be making sure that our terminology is consistent, and then two, making sure that those exist in the areas that we want them to. Because once this is kind of implemented, that's kind of our shot at it. So we wanna make sure that those are located in areas that that make sense for this code.

So would you make sure when this comes back for this particular element that we get a list of what those Yeah.

Illustrate. Yeah. Where where are those? Yeah. Yeah. That's it. Absolutely. So right now in our 2025 zoning map, they are illustrated, and then we do define them within our transportation element. But we'll come back with a more of a robust, explanation of what those are, what that definition is, and where they exist.

Perfect.

And then oh, I just have one.

I'm gonna let yeah. Okay. So what I typically do is give everybody one or two, and then then I'll come back. Yep. Okay. Kieran? Robert? I'm good.

Yes. My comment was also about the 50% increase in density scenario. Is the city concerned at all that this would put a greater demand on water, sewer, things that aren't visible to the space that would be modified but put a load of pressure on needing more fresh water, drawing from, you know, our sources, treating the lot things and all of that. Is there any concern that that would put us under an undue stress, or is that level already built into the size of the pipes that you, you know, go into buildings?

So that's a good question. We are and have been in pretty direct communication with our public works department as far as specifically the population allocations for Lacey and then to a fine finer grained level where those allocations are actually going to likely take place over the next fifty years within Lacey. So we get actually down to each sewer basin, and we actually have projections for each sewer basin based on, what's currently constructed there today, what additional capacity may take place

Mhmm.

And then things like growth projections. And and and so we do work pretty hand in glove with them as far as trying to anticipate where these where these increases are gonna take place. So at least at a high level, they are where where these population increases as a result of these bills aren't going to take place is something that we are planning for. That said, there's always kind of surprises and and things that we're not

I'm just thinking there's the macro level and the micro level. Like, macro, I remember when Meridian campus expanded with the apartment buildings.

Mhmm.

They had

to put in all those gravity stations and all that. That's brand new. They knew how many hundreds of new units would be there. But if there's an existing building with an expected usage of a pipe at this diameter, now you need a pipe this diameter for a 50% increase.

So we actually have an example of that in Lacey.

Okay.

So you remember where Lacey Lanes used to be, the bowling alley? Over there were seven Eleven and Chipotle

and all.

Oh, the new yeah.

Yeah. So there was a bowling alley with a tavern on the backside. When that building sold, they converted the use to a restaurant, a dental office. There was a small Mexican grocery there and a couple of retail spaces. And the load calculation that was done did require an increase in size of the sewer outlet. So that is part of your that that's health and safety.

Okay. Good.

Yeah.

Yep. So to the degree that is possible, we are planning for those growth, projections. That said, there are many examples where increased capacity is gonna be necessary to accommodate that.

Thank you.

Ellen?

Nothing.

Okay. Back to you.

Okay. Yeah. This is

So typically, just for the new members, what I typically do, give you an opportunity to do one or two questions and give everybody a chance to speak, and then I'll come back.

Yeah. Makes sense. Okay. Then last one

I just had was on character divine defining streetscapes. Is there a definition? Is that, like like, say, it's, historical buildings? Like Yeah. When they do the redevelopment, you're just trying to keep that, or is is there something

So that one, we don't broader a great parallel to within our code today. We do have the major pedestrian corridors pretty well defined, and I think that we do have a good fit to respond to that next bullet down. But the character defining streetscapes, that's when we're gonna have to take a little bit more of a look at to figure out where that fits within our code. It might just be another way of saying that we sometimes we'll have a definition within our code, and then we'll have a secondary definition after it. So it's also known as, so that might be an example there given I'm get given I'm getting a little ahead of us here as far as to where we might go with that.

But depending on how our code is structured, that might be a good example of where we have mayor major pedestrian corridors defined, also known as character defining street skates or something like that. So then anytime either one of those shows up, then then we have kinda one set of code that just kinda generally applies to that. But that's that's something

we'll we'll review and and run through with

you guys in the future.

So if anybody on the commission wants to see an example of a converted building, go by the hub on Woodland Square Loop. MJR took an office building and converted it into studio and one bedroom apartments. It's an amazing job. You would drive by it today. You would not know it was ever an office building, so I encourage you all to to go past it.

And that's a good example of where there was existing parking associated with that use before it was converted. That existing parking, to some degree, does remain today, and that's a a good example of a lot of what this code is gonna do. It's not necessarily taking away parking, but we're not allowed to require any changes to that parking based on a change of use.

So I do have a question. When when we're talking about not going beyond the existing building envelope

Mhmm.

So with the hard structure, MJR did not do that at the hub. But, like, with the patios and such, they did.

Mhmm.

So how does that fit with what the legislation is saying?

Based on our initial review of the legislation, it is kind of silent on that, or that would be kind of a gray area. So while a lot of this is pretty specific and you shall do this or you must or you can't do this, there is some level of gray area, which is, I think, a lot of what we're gonna focus on, as the planning commission, figuring out what that Lacey blend looks like. So there there will be some opportunity for for refining that to to make it fit kind of what our goals are.

Okay.

But, yeah, again, that'll be a once once we dig a little bit more into it. Anything else on any of those? Nope. Okay. Well, then this is, I believe, my last slide.

It really kinda runs through next steps. The big one is figuring out how all of these bills fit in with our existing code, figuring out where those changes, exist that are needed. Likely outcomes, I did list these in the, staff report, but, in a lot of cases, we're gonna just be in alignment with that existing code, or we will be silent on whatever that code is. And those may both lead to no action necessary either because we're already doing something, above and beyond what is required in that code or it's it's language that doesn't really apply to Lacey. I think in large part, a lot of the the things that we've actually ran through tonight are going to fall into one of those two first categories.

And then where we will be spending a lot of our time, in the future when we're looking at these bills and how they fit within our code is gonna be on this third one where adjustments are gonna be needed, whether or not that's new definitions or updating our parking tables, allowing daycares and all the different zones, things of that nature. So that's where I anticipate we're gonna be spending our time. But looking forward, as far as, next steps, that next one is gonna be the draft code review that I was talking about. Following that, we'll have a public hearing, where we'll invite the community to share any thoughts, feedback that they have on what what we're proposing in response to these bills. And then following that, ideally, we'll get a recommendation from you guys that we'll then take to counsel, and then counsel will have the opportunity to review all of that, have a work session on it, before potential future review and adoption.

Awesome. It's good

to see you again. It's good to be here. Yeah. So yeah. I almost made it three months before I had to come on back. But yeah. No. I think on the eighth, I will be with you guys again as well. We'll be talking about some, tree provisions on that one, where we have a little bit more, opportunity to have kind of a a lacy sway on on how how we approach those standards. I believe Jennifer is also gonna be there on the eighth to do some more housing work. But yeah. Okay. We'll be we'll be ping ponging back and forth on as we kind of progress all these different, legislative requirements that we're working with.

So Nice. Okay. So our next meeting is the April 8. I will not be here. Judy?

Sorry. Something just occurred to me for old business.

Okay.

There. Can I ask about old Sure? Jennifer was here with us at last meeting and talked about sending a map to all of us of where the extra housing is going to be allowed and kinda like an aerial view, right, where we could see where the areas are accommodating. Is that something we can still get? Is that still on the Yeah.

She was supposed

to be here tonight, actually, and it was just a lot for her Yes. Too. I am gone tomorrow and Friday, but I will talk to her on Monday about it. Wonder if she'll probably get it out before

that next meeting. Thank you. Yeah.

You're welcome. Perfect. Thank you. Alright. We're adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Still

daylight. Thanks, Hans. Yeah. It's little bit right now.

So Raining.

Good to

have you in

the same room, so I won't think you're the same person wearing different clothes.