Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm gonna try this again. Uh I will be calling the Wednesday, April 8th, 2026 uh Lacy Planning City Commission. Uh roll call. Everyone is here outside of the excused absence for Spencer Zean and Chair Gadman. Um so I will be acting as chair today in my vice chair role. Uh, and Tanya is going to do our land acknowledgement.

We, the city of Lacy, are on the essential land of the tribal people of the Treaty of Medicine Creek, including the Squaly Indian tribe and the Squats 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 the treaty of medicine as a 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 the responsibility to call attention to the histories of dispossession, force removal, and a bridge treaty rights that allow our nation, state, and city to develop as they have today. We recommend that the community members read the Medicine Creek Treaty Act of 1854.

Thank you. Uh I'm looking for an approval of the agenda and consent agenda items. So moved secondary second. All approved say I. All opposed. Motion passes. Similarly, I'm looking for the approval of the March 25th, 2026 meeting minutes. So, moved. Aaron, second that. Perion. Uh, all oppo or all approved? I.

All opposed. I'll abstain. Motion passes. Next is public comment. It does not look like there's anyone in the chat. There's no one here present. So, we'll move right along to commissioners reports. Uh, commissioners, is there anything that you'd like to report? I'll start with Alan. Anything? I have nothing at this time. Curio.

Uh, yeah. I just wanted to share I meant to share it at the last meeting, but uh when I was over in the Philippines, I ended up staying in in one of the co-live uh buildings, and I saw that that is something that the city just passed uh into city code on March 3rd. But I just wanted to say it was an amazing space. And we were talking about what it looked like and the room was just about as wide as a queen bed is long. But uh it was affordable. It was amazing. It was a great community. And that shared communal space where everyone was meeting like you know the students were coming in there who were um you know saying to be nurses or doctors and it was a really great space and in each of the rooms had its own little bathroom. I know that was something that we were really talking about, but even people that were staying on as like permanent housing, like month by month, they had the option of even renting a fridge and a microwave so that they could have their own little food space in their room. And I thought it was just it was such an amazing, beautiful community to see what they had created within that that co-ive experience. And I don't know if anybody has shared this. I can't remember, but I know that uh Canoe Journey is at Nquali this this year and I believe they're looking for volunteers to help you know with with the pot latch and so that would be a great opportunity to build community.

Thank you. I don't have anything. No. Jennifer, anything from you? No report. Thanks. Um, all I have was I went to the opening night for the Lacy Night Market. It was really fun. Um, and if you you missed it, the next opportunity is April 17th, which is superhero night. Um, and I expect there to be some interesting sites. So, uh, perfect. Uh, we'll move on to department reports. Yeah. So, no department report from us for this evening.

Okay. Uh next is public hearing which we do not have and so we will move right into new business uh talking about tree regulation amendments with bonds. All right. So, that's gonna be me. Gonna take a second here to share my presentation. We get to it. I'll go full screen. There we go. And uh as a really quick note, we also have Joey with us here this evening from public works. Um some of the tree related content that we're going to run through touches on some of the uh work that they're doing. So Joey's here to also provide additional information or answer questions uh if they come up. So yeah, thanks for being here. Um so yeah, my presentation is going to cover docket number 11 for the 2026 uh community economic development work program. Um it's kind of a catchall docket bucket if you will. Uh there are a lot of different tree related topics uh that council asked us to take a look at and they're all dropped into this kind of tree category if you will. Um so they have the similarity with each other that they're about trees but each one of these kind of subdockets isn't necessarily related to each other. So um beyond this evening when these items come back to you guys they may come back separately or um in different uh forms if you will but we can get into that in a little bit. Um that advance there we go a little bit delayed. Um so yeah, as a bit of background as far as tree related related uh work that we've done in the city in the last few years, um the urban

forest management plan was last updated in 2021. Uh we're looking at uh that being docketed for an update to that for 2027 2028 kind of timeline. So that is on the horizon. Um so a lot of tree related uh topics are actually going to be captured within or as part of that update. Uh, but these items that we're going to be talking about tonight are a few that council asked us to take a look at in advance of that process. So, some of these may even bleed over into that, but uh we're going to start the the the review of these topics uh earlier on and then kind of work into that as we get there. Um, as part of that update, we're also going to be doing a canopy assessment, which is a newer requirement and something that we haven't historically done very often in the past. Uh but that's actually going to look at uh the entire kind of canopy across the entire city uh and how that's actually changed over time. So it's going to be a pretty cool result of that. Um our primary tree and vegetation uh Lacy municipal code is 1432. Uh that was last updated in 2022. Um since then we've also updated the Lacy comprehensive plan which you all have been involved with uh to some degree or another. uh we completed that at the end of last year and then uh as part of uh ongoing work this time around and one of the reasons Joe is with us here this evening is that uh there's some 2026 development guidelines and public work standards that are also uh being updated as well that's come to you guys I think a little bit last year but will also come to you I think again in the future. Um but uh all of these different updates have impacted how trees exist and how we monitor, regulate, interact with them within the city um since the the last time that forestry management plan was updated. So um that has generated some uh as far as implementation, we've had some time to actually see how these different policies work in practice and

we're always trying to improve and better where we're at. So that's that's the primary driver be behind a lot of these topics that we're going to be covering. Um but yeah, so council asked us specifically to take a look at uh public works and design standards, rightway tree planting draft standards. That was one of the things I just referenced. Uh there's some uh tree implications there that we'll get into in a little bit. Uh there's residential lot tree retention standards. uh council's encountered quite a few actual public comments as of late related to these. Uh our uh um code enforcement officers also had to navigate some uh unpermitted tree clearing as of late. So there's some discussions around that that they want us to take a look at. Uh tree track requirements within commercial areas uh specifically uh around kind of more of our heavily developed uh woodland district, some of our central business districts. um they were primarily developed before a lot of our tree regulations, a lot of our vegetation regulations were actually in existence. Uh so some of our language requires the reintroduction of things like tree tracks. So trying to figure out what that looks like and I'll get into that in a little bit here. And then we also have some class 4 uh definition updates that we'd like to do uh just to further clarify some of the language in there. But each one of these I will get into in a little bit. And then as part of the comprehensive plan, uh, one of the deliverables of that update process, we also took a specific look at how our goals and policies relate to, uh, trees. And then uh one of our consultants actually did an audit of our code um to look at how what the relationship was with our code and our newly adopted comprehensive plan goals and policies and to see how they that what that interaction looked like if and if there were any opportunities for us to update our code to better align with the comprehensive plan. Um and I believe that was one of the attachments in your guys' packet as well. And we'll touch on

that a little bit as well. Um any initial questions on any of that? I'm going to get into a little bit more detail, but I wanted to give you guys a second to ask anything if you haven't. Seeing none, uh I'll jump right into that first one. Uh which is the public works design standards uh rightway tree planting draft uh standards. So, this is something that came to you guys last year. Uh it was still in the works. Um I believe will come to you again. Um but some of the draft outcomes of that uh as we're currently looking at it include uh updating the tree spacing uh within the planter strip uh and additional setbacks as it relates to different utility related things. So stepped uh boxes and tanks, driveways, street lights, fire hydrants, water meters, that kind of thing. Um there's been a lot of the the interaction between trees, specifically roots, and how they impact these buried utilities has been an ongoing kind of balancing act, if you will. Um so there's some updated language there uh that may result in a reduction of trees within the planter strip. So it's looking at other areas within a lot to reintroduce or ways to accommodate additional trees in other spaces. Uh so that's something that we're going to want to talk about in the future. Um but yeah, so the potential loss of tree canopy, looking at uh driveway dimensional standards, for example, uh location of utilities, uh parking reductions, there's a lot of uh state level requirements recently that came on down the line that reduce parking requirements. So there might be some uh tree opportunities there as far as new places that weren't previously available. uh alleyway requirements. We're looking at some new annexations in the next couple years. Uh that's going to activate a lot of new development opportunities in certain areas of the community. So, making sure that some of these dimensional requirements are in place at the time of when those uh lots are annexed and potentially develop. Um

so, those are going to be things that we're going to be talking about in the future. And then as far as residential lot tree retention standards, this is the one that I was referencing that in the last couple months or so, we've had a lot of community members that are coming in and uh speaking to council about the struggles that they're facing uh having to do with our existing tree retention standards. Uh we're also getting a fair amount of reports to our public work or not our public works uh or code enforcement that there's been tree clearing uh without uh permit uh that's been happening in the community. So, as a result of those kind of related ongoing uh community related uh feedback that we're getting, um council's asked us to kind of look at our existing standards that were last adopted in 2022, I believe. Uh specifically, uh the number of permitted trees to be removed on residential lot within a 5year period. Uh expanded allowances for specific situations that are related to residential lots and tree removal. uh update of our city tree account or fee in lie of program. This is one that we set up uh quite a while ago, but uh I think in 2016 um but since then we actually really haven't been utilizing this and it is kind of a four unique circumstances where for whatever reason um trees aren't possible or maybe they're maxed out the capacity for trees but they're still required to plant more. Uh this is another avenue to pay into a fee in Lua program that would provide funding for the city to plant trees in their neighborhood or in other public spaces to kind of recapture some of that canopy loss. Um and then review and update enforcement and mitigation options. Uh one of the things speaking with our code enforcement uh that they're running into is even when trees are cleared uh without any kind of permit and then they go out to address them, the the code isn't very flexible or nuanced on the level of potential fines that are assessed in those instances or any kind

of follow-up or recourse beyond that. Uh so maybe looking at updating code there uh to give our code enforcement officers a little bit more flexibility on how they apply those standards depending on the each situation. Um I might actually bring in Kevin's wing to speak with you guys at one of our future meetings because he he's got some ideas on how to better implement that. But that's something to look forward to in the future. And then as far as tree track requirements within commercial zones, this was actually one of those things that our urban forestry management plan specifically called out as one of our largest challenges. Uh we do have a lot of trees throughout the city, but in our urban centers is really where that tree canopy is the lowest and that has a lot to do with just the the code that was in place at the time of that development. Uh right now we do have language that essentially requires uh new commercial development in those areas or if there's redevelopment uh that there is a 5% tree cover requirement within 15 years. Um and the plan also goes on to recommend a fee in Lua program to provide tree canopy balancing um with urban forestry goals and urban development goals. Uh so looking at again this might get back around to that fee and lia program that we I referenced previously. Right now it does exist but the code itself is pretty brief and doesn't really kind of go into a lot of the different scenarios that we're actually encountering now that we have this in place. So maybe opening up that code, looking at ways to expand it to better uh be be more responsive to the different situations that we're actually encountering on a day-to-day basis, both in kind of commercial areas and then in residential ones. Um and then a continuation of that uh so specifically within that code, we're kind of missing language as far as trigger events or when does that code kick in? Uh where and how are funds used? uh the health, location, upkeep of

existing tree tracks. There's also a monitoring component that we're not really currently keeping up on. So, there are existing tree tracks out in the community. Number one, we don't really know where they are. Uh we know at the time of permitting, but beyond that, there's not really a tracking system in place. And then there's an expectation that they're maintained and those trees exist uh in perpetuity in those tree tracks and there's not really a monitoring component there. So looking at other ways to really kind of ensure that they do exist and that they are being maintained based on the intent of those tracks. Uh yeah, and then tracking enforcement. Um so those are all different areas that this might lead us in the future as far as how we look at that code and and areas that we might want to create some language or clarity around. Um but yeah, that'll be more to come on that one when we bring it back to you guys. And then the last or the second to last one on here is class uh four forest practices uh definitions. Right now we have a definition within our code uh that speaks to uh when these uh uh these permits are required uh and it references uh Washington administrative code uh 222, but it does leave out a specific uh part of that language uh that's highlighted down here. So 5,000 ft or more uh board feet are removed from a site. Uh that language exists within the wack uh did not get carried over into our Lacy code, but our Lacy code currently does reference that whack as the justification and definition of when it's used. So our current planners have actually asked us to bring this definition all the way into the Lacy code to just help with clarity. Um so that's that topic there. And then at the beginning of the presentation, I did reference uh that code audit that was completed as part of the comprehensive plan. Uh it wasn't specifically called out by council, but as we do crack open these other topics, if there is parallel opportunities to use some of the guidance that we've collected or learned

from the code audit and work it into the updates that we're doing, um we figured that would be a good opportunity to take a look at that and work that in. And that was also included in your packet. Um, but with that, uh, as far as next steps, each one of these is a little bit different. Yes, they're all related to trees. Um, but likely the the how we carry each one of these tasks forward is going to be different. Um, so, uh, they might range from minor code updates to like that definition doesn't seem like it's a big lift. Uh but some of these larger questions about how tree removal in residential areas within a 5-year period, I imagine that's going to deserve some larger discussion. Um so some of the questions that we wanted to ask you guys tonight uh while this is very early in the process and introductory is uh are there any uh approaches that you guys want to see as far as how we present these topics to the community? Um, do you want to see us carry them forward as kind of a collective tree package, if you will, or does it make sense to kind of break them up and carry them forward separately? Uh, levels of community engagement for each one of these. Uh, what does that look like? Uh, we definitely have some ideas, but we want to hear from you what the what the right balance of that looks like. And then if there on each one of these, if there are target audiences or groups or subject matter experts that you'd like to hear from while we kind of explore these topics. So with that, that's my last slide. So I did want to turn over to you here if you have any initial feedback and again I will reiterate that all of this will be coming back to you with more targeted detail in the future.

Perfect. Um so as a reminder the questions that he has are on the slide if you didn't memorize what Han said. Uh and we'll just kind of go one at a time and give any feedback that you might have for the questions that Hans has. And we'll start with Aaron. Yeah, I mean I guess with Yeah. How how we approach it. Uh I mean, yeah, there's some variability between each one. So maybe like you could kind of look at like a couple collectives of things like the residential ones obviously like with the community engagement, you're probably going to be targeting HOAs, households, housing developers, and then with the commercial side of it and the the was it the class 4 uh forestry one that might be targeted more toward like a commercial audience. So you could package them up different ways, but um

uh yeah, that might be an approach for looking at those. And then uh and and then yeah, with community engagement, you could probably look at uh targeting different again like a like a residential package like if especially if there's a a lot a lot of feedback from from the public and and there's these uh uh you're going out to the to to sites where trees have been removed already and um there may be more need for that probably because uh certainly folks that I could see more more input there. Um, and then yeah, maybe another commercial sort of community engagement or partnered toward that audience.

I actually kind of have a different perspective on that. So, experience has has shown us here that Lacy residents are very passionate about the tree topic

and I think we often have competing agendas from our stakeholders. We have the homeowner perspective. We've had very passionate protect the environment voices here. Then we've had developer voices come in and talk about a different angle on that and and what's valuable and what they can sell and what they can market. They can't market trees. They can market buildings because of that. I'd like to see that in one setting. I'd like to have those tree scenarios and proposals and guard rails and things that are being developed bring both of those groups together in in the same engagement setting. And I think when we talk about the targets, I also think we need to mix the passion of the homeowners and the environmentally aware folks with the knowledge, the technical knowledge of the arborist, a specialist. And I I really differentiate, you know, landscaping entities from arborists because um they really talk about the health of the tree. And I think they're like the perfect middle ground stakeholder between a business-minded developer for profit and a passionate homeowner who just likes the look or the aesthetic um that trees bring to the community or to their private property. So for all of those reasons, I'd like the engagement. I my recommendation would be that it'd be a common engagement. Bring it on. What are your thoughts? Um and then it kind of creates a a soup of feedback for the city to digest and and come forward with what what really makes sense. Well, I was leaning towards separate, but after listening to like Judy's idea, honestly, I was lean I was leaning towards separate um just having the group like the HOA, the

residential, but I like Judy's idea of bringing everybody together and kind of listen have the commercial and the residential, the arborist, and everybody there at one and having everybody there at one time and listening to the differences and have everybody kind of listen to each other um so we can really get a good flavor of what is best. So I'm for Judy's approach.

Yeah, I was reading through this and it's kind of nice how you explained everything and then kind of put it in those nice little package so that we could see the different concepts that were needed to be added in. And I appreciate the fact that there's going to be an enforcement cuz we're seeing so many new housing tracks with trees, giant future trees planted like right at the foundation or right underneath power lines and you just know those are coming out, you know, pretty shortly. So, it's lovely that this is being considered so that we have tree preservation instead of just checking a box. But I think that when I don't know what the sanitation team people that came through and they were really explaining to us about how they couldn't even get into properties that where they needed to like maintain steps or or clean out septic systems was it and and so I think having them on hand to explain like why trees can't be in certain communities or even how can we plan housing tracks so that we don't have this you know all the asphalt in the summer just getting super hot without that tree canopy to really shade it. Um, and then reclaiming parking lots. It sounds amazing. I'm seeing in California and other a lot of places they have now solar uh fields over over parking lots, but with our deciduous trees, you know, providing that shade in the summer and and and sunshine in the winter, it seems like those are great things to consider. Um yeah and then I had a question you were there was discussion in here about um non-f fruitbearing trees to make sure that it like beautiful trees but not ones that are going to create a safety hazard. And I know the Cuyo Park, I don't know if if that's in place have all the the like fruit bearing trees in place. Would some of like if you're

looking at those things, are we saying like maybe you're buying a tree to plant in in a park or how would those those uh in le of Yeah. How like where would they be placed? Would they be is that something that's still being considered like whether they're placed in the city to provide a canopy in the city or would they be in a park?

Yeah. So, uh there's a lot of different uh approaches that are in play there. Um and that's one of the questions that we're going to hopefully circle back around to with this group once we have some recommendations. Right now the language uh tries to keep the replanting as geographically close to the area that those tree tracks would otherwise be required. Uh one of the I think it actually is kind of echoed in a couple different places but in our forest um within our parks plan within our comp plan within our uh forest management plan. Um it's echoed in a couple different ways, but the the tree canopy, we want to keep it kind of evenly distributed across the city as much as possible so that uh all of our community members have close proximity and access to that. Um so while that is kind of a an elevated and highlighted component of the fianua program that whenever possible, our goal would be to uh replant trees in close proximity to wherever those tree tracks would otherwise otherwise be required. Um sometimes that's not always available whether or not that we just don't have the public property or land dedicated for that use in that area. Um so then in certain situations it might be farther along. Uh city parks is a great example of that. City parks are also we try to strategically locate those evenly across the city. Um so sometimes those are the closest uh in proximity option for replanting and and that is typically where a lot of that does take place right now. Uh as far as your fruit tree uh question, we do have a list of uh recommended trees for planting within the city that tend to do well in our climate, but then also tend to do well in kind of more urban environments where their the roots may have competing uh blockades, if you will, whether it's a street or sidewalk or other utilities are in place. So trees that aren't necessarily very aggressive in their

root patterns as far as buckling or other impacts to that infrastructure. Um so yeah uh one of the things that as part of our urban forest management plan that's updated next year the year after that uh we do have a tree list and that will likely continue to get updated uh over time uh as our conditions change. But does that answer some of your questions or Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I'm going to go with Aaron just uh just what all she brought up. I think it'd be better for um to separate the information packets in based on residential and commercial. Um I know I have some questions. I I have a green belt behind my house and um city of Lacy last year took down a disease tree in one of the um their spaces uh in front of the house. So, um try to take those packages and gear them up towards uh uh probably HOAs. Uh I know we've gone through our HOA's gone through a lot of iterations on some of our own private spaces and how it looks in the community space wise holistically within our our division. So, um I think if you break it up, uh into residential and commercial and then maybe um um once we get all that information in, you know, have a big big pow-wow with, you know, what Judy's suggestion, but I think right now with all the information that's going on, I think it'd be best to to break it up uh and just focus on um the residential demographics of those of the the community. Um, I'll go and then I'll call in Jennifer. I would say, um, for me, I would I would echo, uh, Judy's statement of trees just seem to be a very common theme in all of our community outreach. And so, um, and something that I've also noticed from most of our community outreach and around Thirstston County is people feel like they just heard about something for the very first time. So, the idea of packaging it together, I think, is is really enticing because we could almost create a subpage on the Lacy, right? Whatever our news blog, however we're pushing this out, it's we're trying to get people to be engaged because it it really like it makes me sad when people feel and it's happened to me, too, where I've shown up and I'm like, "Oh my god, how how long have we

been working on this?" And someone's like, "Four and a half years, and this is the first time that I've heard about it."

Right? and and it and you know you never want to discredit the work that the city's doing or that our out outsourced individuals are doing um and simultaneously we want to get people involved and so I think overcommunicating and and packaging it as one um has a chance of drawing more attention to it which I don't think is a bad thing um because it's such a passion project for us now whether that means that we do multiple reachouts when it comes to residential commercial um because even if you're residential I still have feelings about what happens in the commercial space even if I'm not the owner and taking the risk, right? It's we are part of this community together. So, it's important to realize that consensus building is hard and it often times makes everyone leave with a less than ideal but workable path forward. Um, so I think that that's uh an opportunity for us to kind of package it together, maybe do a little bit of side uh work with the different subgroups. Um, so yeah, and I I do I do agree that uh arborist is kind of that neutral point. Um, as well as like they they're not in in it for anyone other than the trees, which is if the trees are the most important thing on our list, then we should listen to the the people who have the expertise in the trees potentially. Um, and I think that's all I have right now. Jennifer,

hey. Yeah. Um, well, I immediately liked Aaron's train of thought of having engagement packages for res residential and commercial, but um, then I think Judith and and Tanya made fantastic points of bringing together more of a coalition of those affected together. Um, that's the stakeholders and those who interact with the specific tree areas on a day-to-day basis. Um, I think this has a better chance of leading to the best informed community. Uh, kind of like what you were saying, Robert. Um, and yeah, Hans, I'm curious as to whether you guys have some facilitated events in mind and what kind of approaches you found results in the outcome of hearing all these kinds of voices of community members.

Yeah, for sure. Um, I mean, I will start out by saying first and foremost, anytime we have a meeting or go out to the community, they're all open and everybody's invited to participate and encouraged to participate. So, nothing that will come of this will be exclusive to one group or another or anything like that. So, um, really really what this gets to for us is kind of our our awareness campaign and who we're targeting. Um, I mean, our I view the success of of programs that we do based on the level of community participation we get. Um, at the end of the day, that's kind of the best metric to make sure that we really are getting the the word out there. Um, and we do have a lot of great communication channels available to us. We have all of the HOA contacts. We have different developer groups that have identified that they want to be contacted when other whenever certain subjects come up. We have a good relationship with the uh the master builders. Um so there are a lot of different existing community organizations that we typically will reach out to just automatically as part of any update or any code revision that we do. Um there is I will say sometimes a divergence between who we reach out to and who shows up. So, it's it's and finding finding th those target audiences that we really want to put that extra effort into making sure that they show up and are aware of what's going on and brought on as part of this project as early as possible. So, um this is still very high level and open- edge at this point and um it will get refined as we move forward, but we just wanted to basically get your feedback early as possible as this as we start developing what those game plans are uh for each one of these strategies. I have one more question.

Yeah. Um I don't know I know that we talked about the canopy level and what explicitly it meant to be a tree city. Do we have like a definition of like what is it a percentage of our city that needs to be covered with a tree camp canopy or an evergreen or

I'm going to have to get back to you on the full answer. Uh but I do know that to be a tree city there is a list of criteria uh that's required as part of that designation. Uh, one of those criterion is canopy cover. Uh, there's also, uh, there's programmatic requirements of that as well. There's also code requirements of that as well. So, there's a couple different, um, topics that we'd have to hit and make sure that we maintain in order to keep that designation. What those numbers specifically are, I'm going to have to get back to you on. Any other questions for Hans?

Oh, yeah. Just one more. Cool. Good one. I I know you there is a I think you'd mentioned there's like there was a state requirement or some state legislation. Are there does this interact with anything at the state level? I mean there's the whack. Um but yeah, is there any sort of like tree canopy coverage requirements the state has and then subsequently I guess even the county level. Anything that we have to comply with when we think of these? So as part of the docket items that were identified in this presentation, none of that is driven from the state level this time around. Uh last time I was in front of you guys, pretty sure everything that I was talking about had to do with that. And just when we are talking about the built environment, there is always interplay and overlap because it is a confined limited space. Uh so uh there are definitely like like for example parking requirements is something that doesn't directly relate to this but there could be some opportunities there. So we are trying to track all of these different kind of moving targets if you will and and taking uh advantage of those opportunities when they exist. So um but nothing that's that we've discussed tonight is really a result of new legislation. Any other questions? Wonderful. Well, with that, I will stop sharing. And that will be the end of our new business. So, we'll be going into old business with Infill housing draft code amendments from Jennifer.

Welcome back. Yes, please. Are you able to upload my presentation? Could be right. Hi everyone. It's really great to be here. It's good to see you all again and gorgeous day. So I move that we hold our meetings outdoors this summer. Hey, it's nice outside and hi Jennifer um on screen there.

You got me. Hi. I think I put it under present. Yeah. And then advisory boards.

Yeah. What do you want both of them up? That one's me. That one. Yep. That April. Yep. I'm good. Thanks, Sarah. Thank you. Sarah, you can if you want or you can stay. No, I'm I'm interested. It's probably going to affect me at some point.

Affect you. Absolutely. Absolutely it is. So, welcome uh to the next phase of our infill uh residential development. Uh so, I am excited to just kind of bring forward uh kind of the the latest phase of the work that we've done. Um what I'd like to um do uh if that's okay um is just talk about where we left off. Um, I also want to extend, I know that there are a few commissioners not here this evening, but to everyone, including those that aren't here, I do want to extend that if uh additional review is needed, we can certainly take time to to take a step back. Um, I do have some slides that we can pull up and go back through those things. So, don't don't hesitate if you know something's not clicking or we need to review that, just kind of let me know. Um, and we'll go back through this. Yeah. Sorry.

Oh, I don't know if this being shared or not. You have the mouse. Jennifer, can you see this? Jennifer, how are you? Can you see this? Did I lose Did I lose the escape button really quick? Okay, let me just do that. Because you're right. I I don't think that I did. Get rid of that. You want to exit out of that if you want. Exit out of this. Yep. Okay. And then go to share down at the bottom there. up a little bit. This up into the black. Oh, up into the black right there down next to that raised hand. There it is. Thanks. Oh my gosh. Thanks, you guys. Okay,

there it is. I think I here. Sure. Okay. Yep. There it is. Is that better? Okay. And then you everyone. All right. We'll get rid of my funky notes on there.

All right. reset. All right. So, I did want to go back a slide, though. So, my back option is here. Yay. Okay. Um, and I guess this format does kind of cut us off. So, I I apologize. And I'm I'm going to work with uh somebody here at the city that that can help with moving forward so that we're not cutting off text on this. So, my apologies on that. Move it to drag it up. Oh, do you think it might I just love it when everyone is so much smarter than me. It makes life so nice. Okay, awesome.

Okay, so just a little bit um again about where we left off. Um so we introduced at our last meeting was the first time that we actually brought some code uh forward and said you know this is the direction that we are going in. This is kind of a staff proposal. Um, and then in that discussion, we talked about um some of really kind of the meat and potatoes of where we're going with um uh again backing up just a little bit again with these um housing mandates at the state level. Right. So, two bills really driving this. Again, those are how the House Bill uh 1110, which represents the middle housing sort of um suite of of uh mandates, and then um House Bill 1337 was that additional layer of um ADU um updates. And so we're kind of combining those uh together in one suite. Um and so we introduced kind of the unit-based framework. Uh so we talked about this sort of structure where a unit becomes a unit. Um, so in other words, as we look at this infill development as I'm going to use the term pathway, that may or may not be the the term that really resonates throughout this entire process, but today we'll just use that as sort of a a pathway if you will. Um uh so so under the under this pathway it kind of changes um the concept of density uh following these state mandates which then uh looks at housing as how many units are we putting on a lot uh versus traditional sort of zoning calculations that look at how many units are per acre, right? Um so if you look at these uh tracks our traditional or legacy zoning existing zoning and then we just bring this alongside of it right so it's not really an overlay um it's not replacing existing zoning but it's just uh coming alongside with another

opportunity for how a developer um or a just any property owner that has the capacity um can look at options and see what might work for them. And so then within this uh unit-based framework and this new sort of density approach um we just really saw this natural opportunity. It lent itself to really this mix and match um uh opportunity of housing types. So instead of really looking at um regulating uh sort of the type of housing, um this pathway sort of uh really backs off on that a bit and really looks at how are we achieving density um you know that the state would like us to achieve and sort of getting those opportunities out there for possibly some more housing units in our community. Um, and then we talked about the need for other areas of our code needing to have some updates in order for this to sort of harmonize together, right? Um, and so, um, that piece right there has been what, uh, we've staff has been at work at since the last time that that we saw you here. And that's what's in your packet this evening is, um, I do want to preface that what you see, uh, these are just they are just drafts. Although by the time we come to commission, we do want our drafts to, you know, to to really make a statement about this is the direction that that we are proposing to to move forward in um but knowing that things are will still be refined um before we see you uh again the next time. Um, and then just as a quick reminder, a discussion point we had for you at the last meeting was we talked about, you know, um, with what we're doing with ADUs. Now, let me give you a little a little context on that as well. Joey, this might be first time for you. I'm not sure. Um, but so where traditionally the ADU has really been this um, additional allowance, right? Almost like a true bonus um, not

counting towards density. Um the state has really just entered a territory where um though they're still by definition considering this an accessory to something an accessory to a single family home um it it kind of really we're not sure that it really distinguishes itself enough anymore to do that. And so, um, here in Lacy, what we are proposing is we just pull that into sort of this middle housing bucket. Even though by def by definition, an ADU is not under the definition of middle housing, it can still sort of uh meet that purpose of achieving density, it is a popular housing type. And we talked a little bit too about its probably continued popularity u for a number of reasons. One of those guiding reasons is that we have kind of this pre-approved ADU plan sets which have been fairly popular um within Lacy. So we we do anticipate it that housing form still moving forward. Um so we don't think it's going to get lost, you know, in the shuffle if you will. Um but essentially ADUs will be one of those housing types alongside the middle housing types and then also in conjunction with single family homes that under this infill packet can be mixed and matched. Um so let's go ahead. Um oh I I apologize. So that we talked to you about, you know, there's a five-foot um sort of uh bonus, if you will, um with the setbacks for ADUs currently in our code. But because we're moving towards all of these housing types really deferring to the existing or underlying zoning standards, um I think collectively what we heard here from the commission was let's go ahead and just standardize that and make that the same 15t setback as the others. And we talked about, you know, even with

with with additional density uh possibly on lots, it did make more sense to kind of, you know, pull that back in just a little bit. So you will see that moving forward. we have um incorporated that. Um so let's let's move forward here. Um so we can probably just just skip this. I think tonight we just want to you know go ahead and share a few examples with you. Make sure confirm we're still headed in the right direction. Um if you see any major hiccups, we certainly want to hear from you on that. Um, and then just quickly, this is just another way to just categorically look at what you see in your packets just at a quicker glance. Um, to this point, uh, each one of these represents a chapter where we are in there sort of making some adjustments, uh, making some refinements. This may not be an exhaustive list. So just, you know, an FYI that as we continue with refinements in the next couple of weeks, we may say, "Oops, you know, here's another area that that needs a little bit of updating in order to uh again make this sort of harmonize uh with the infill chapter. Um so looking at those two uh major places of the code where we're making some adjustments, that's uh in the zoning chapter, so title 16 uh where the infill chapter, proposed chapter will live. Um and those three main uh zoning districts for the infill chapter we have identified as the lowdensity residential, the lazy historic neighborhood and then the moderate density residential area. And when we were in these chapters, pretty minimal in terms of what we needed to do there with language. But I think the main um objectives there were to just make sure that we're clarifying the relationship to the infill chapter. Um and and then again just maintaining the existing development standards. So again really not replacing anything but you know just

making sure that there's some clarity where it's needed. Um so light touches um on those chapters to this point. I do want to take this opportunity as well just to um make a comment that um could this be possible in the highdensity zone? Possibly. You know, there may be some small pockets or some sort of one-off situations where there's a rent residential parcel that could potentially do infill development. Um I think uh what we are proposing at this point is um simply to to not allow the infill opportunity within the high density um district. So um and we can certainly circle around back to that if there's any concerns or questions about that. Um so let's move on to the next. Um sorry I keep using the wrong mouse. Um so the design review. So, in chapter 1423, that's where we find all of our design standards for the varying types um of housing um in our community. And this is where we saw or see kind of a more of a substantial opportunity to make some updates, some clarification. Um a couple of things about how these are currently sort of written. And I I don't know, maybe Hans, you do, but I don't know exactly when some of these were written. Um, but there's I'm going to use the word wonky because there's a little, you know, there's there's some wonky sort of uh stuff going on in these chapters. Um, and what I mean by that is um they were trying to do too many things at one time. Uh so really instead of just uh being clear about here's some objective standards for design, what you see is sort of this layering of some comprehensive plan uh language, a lot of sort of intent language that really should live in a comprehensive plan and not necessarily live in the how-to, the code. Um and so we were just seeing it kind of, you know, get get a little bit

cluttered up um and and unclear in some some places. And so part of this um process has been well trying to find the balance of um how much do we do now? Um and there's some opportunity to sort of start to move that needle a bit. What is important to know is that we aren't necessarily under a mandate right now today to do a complete code overhaul um you know to update all of our and modernize all of the language. So there's nothing at the state level that's telling us we must do that. But what we are seeing at the state level across many many bills is you know moving towards language that sort of really limits or moves away from subjectivity and really goes more towards objective standards. You know if if two people can come up with a different conclusion to something then there's probably some subjectivity in there that probably could be cleared up. So again, not mandated at this point, but seeing some opportunity as staff to start making some changes, but this is not what you see before you is not, you know, again, it's not exhaustive of making this more clear, but we do see that it is a starting point and an opportunity to pull it into this package and start to set that stage for future sort of code updates. Um, so that's kind of where we're at there. Um, and then, um, so again, you know, just just kind of quickly looking at I did pull I was interested in this and so I did pull the RCW on the local design review requirements. Um, very short, very simple, but it's also very clear. Um, you know, that the state direction is emphasize objective standards only, right? So again um you know how can a developer look at your code and have a really good idea of what's going to be allowed in what is not outside of you know some other discretionary process.

Um and then along with that is you know limiting the subjective criteria and then um you know looking at how can we make things more predict more predictable. Um, a few things that we did see across a lot of our code. Um, and it's fairly common. It's not not it's not uncommon to have director discretion language within a code. Um, some of the and most of it was okay, but there were a few instances where director discretion came up and it came up many like probably 20 or more times just within inside of four to five chapters. um a few times it was just kind of floating there and not anchored to a standard. Um so that would be an area where we say we we definitely can't do that. We've got to change that. So we grappled we went back and forth with you know do we completely eliminate director discretion um and just kind of get rid of that or do we just do a better job of making sure that it's clear clearly anchored to some standards. Right? And so that's where we've landed right now. So, uh, what we feel like we've heard from council across time is really having a city where we do retain some flexibility, um, for, you know, just different or interesting, uh, property circumstances. Um, and so that's kind of the direction we've gone in at this point is proposing to maintain the director discretion, anchoring it well to standards, so just making sure that that's clear. Um, doing some cleanup to clarify that if needed. Um and then also just adding a little bit which is uh director or designate. And part of the um benefit of director or designate um is helpful because then uh the the director can empower their staff to make certain decisions. Um and the director doesn't always have to, you know, be on site and be available for things that would then potentially hold

up say permit reviews and and things like that. So that's where we currently um what we are currently proposing to do there. Um and then I just want to take a quick look uh at some examples because I know that redline documents get you know it's just a lot but um I did pull a couple of examples that I thought were fairly good ones um to just kind of show you know what this process is looking like as we're going through this line by line. So, uh, this happened to be in, um, the single family, uh, dwelling, uh, design criteria. Um, I think this loops in cottage housing as well. So, this section had to do with garages and driveways. And so, the existing code read, um, other design techniques that meet the intent as determined by the director. Um, so there's a few problems with this, right? Like a, what is the intent? Um B, we also I should have prefaced with we also are you know proposing to remove a lot of the intent language. So this then doesn't make a lot of sense anymore. So a way that we could rectify that is uh looking at you know this change here that gets a little more specific. So other design techniques that achieve a similar level of visual articulation and garage deemphasis as the features listed above as determined by the director director or their designate. So in this case even though more words were added it actually gained a little bit of clarity and grounded this to some standards. Um so that's one example of you know how we're approaching some of these updates. Um and then another example, this would be one that um we would find just probably needs to be eliminated. And so um this uh was in the design criteria for duplexes and triplexes. And what you see really is what it says. Uh to locate duplex and triplex units in areas developed with single family structures will be controversial because of

perceptions that rental units could potentially devalue traditional single family units. this just really doesn't belong in code. Um, you know, these would be things that even by today's standards, this language in it of itself probably would have to be massage massage to even live in the comprehensive plan. Um, but definitely we would propose to strike language uh like this. Um, so you'll you'll see that there. Um, and then uh so again, just a reminder, what are we not doing? This is not a major code overhaul at this point, but a way to again just gently start to move that needle a little bit toward modernization of our language. Um, and then what we are doing uh is just really kind of targeted refinement and that's what we will uh continue to do. Um, and so next steps uh for us will be just that. We're just going to keep sort of uh gently massaging uh the things you see here again that may we may say, "Oh gosh, we forgot about another area." you know, this needs a touch and this needs a touch. So, there may be a few more things. Um, by the time we come come again with a public hearing. Um, so that's where we're at with that. Um, and then as the next step beyond that would be, um, I believe Ryan has a public hearing to take place on May the 13th, um, if I'm not mistaken on that. Um, so that's all I really had for you tonight. So, um, I'm glad it, you know, I can hopefully give you back some of your life this evening. Um, but I do want to just generally open it up for any questions, concerns, um, if you need more information, um, any of those things. Oh, I am so sorry. I did want to talk about the maps.

I wanted to thank you for that. Yes. Yes. So, sorry. They're a little bit difficult to put into a slide because of their orientation. Um, and so, but you all have access to them, right? On

the color coding was really helpful in the legends and all of that. So, I I did want to say thank you. Okay, excellent. Yeah, so Gary um I don't know if any of you have met Gary, but you know, he's just so helpful when it comes to putting together some maps for us. I'm just pulling mine up so I can see them as well. So again, yeah, what you're seeing on those maps is sort of the uh high level those three main districts where we would anticipate infill uh working well. Um and Hans, if you have context, uh you've lived in the community longer well and you you all have probably lived here longer than I have as well. Um, but if you have any context about any of this, feel free to to jump in. I guess you don't have the map in front of you, do you? Um, but so, uh, uh, the lazy historic, the low density residential, and then the mod moderate density residential. And so, um, that's, you know, definitely it's more, I would say, in the south uh, east of Lacy and not so much in the newer northern uh, portions of the city. Um and then hopefully that the personal map and again we realize this isn't you know uh down to all of the nitty-gritty but hopefully visually it does help with knowing you know where where now the the criteria for these as well especially these parcel ones is 10,000 square foot lots or larger and then within 200 uh 200 feet of um sewer. So that was the two criteria on this and we could start layering on all kinds of other criteria and if we you know need to do that we will in the future do that as well but just at a glance that's kind of kind of where we might see some of these things. So I'm going to stop sharing and where is the stop? There it is. We can pull Jennifer into the conversation and

yeah we want to start with any comments or questions from Jennifer this time. Sorry to put Yeah. No. Um, I just wanted to support your um striking of intent language. I don't think that's a good idea. Thanks. Thanks, Jennifer. Um, my only question was uh when you talked about not having high density and scope, I'm just assuming it's because their initial purpose is to already have a high amount of dwelling units. So, it just doesn't seem feasible. Just just kind of understanding the meaning making behind it.

Yeah. and and the the man uh the the bills themselves um by default kind of exclude those areas anyway just because they read something like unless densities or intensities are already higher. That's right. You know, which they are. So, we we aren't under a state mandate to have to allow it in in those zones. And I think just looking at all other uh development um scenarios and where we're trying to guide development types of development, it just made the most sense um at this point to to you know to not I I hate to use the word to disallow but you know

yeah I mean the I think with our code the way it's currently written it actually runs the potential of lowering the level of development in some of these areas and with this being infill housing and the intent of that is creating more housing that would be kind of counter the the the underlying objectives of this. So I think it's a great fit for a lot of our different jurisdiction or zoning designations, but yeah, the higher density ones are already kind of doing their job in that arena. So yeah, I think uh that was a good question, but you just answered so she answered. So yeah, I'm good.

Did have a couple questions when I was reading through the code in the updates. Um, it's talking about the zero lot line and how some structures could be built right up to the the lot. And so I don't know if it's mo with the ADUs now having to be have a 15 foot setback, but if um other buildings are coming into place where they're larger structures, does zero lot line mean they can literally be built right to the edge of the lot without a setback? So I mean that is my understanding of zero lot line. Um I may ha I was do you have a broad knowledge of zero lot line?

So zero lot line is typically it takes place with duplexes triplexes any kind of building that has a shared role in it. Um so as far as development goes that would be the the primary place where that would exist. So, um, so that's splitting a building in half, not necessarily because I was confused about the 18 in of easement over the property line, whether that meant like if it was built to the edge of a sidewalk that it could go 18 in over the sidewalk or 18 in into their neighbor's yard because my neighborhood's kind of ground zero for all the new duplex and triex configurations as they're taking out the older, smaller homes and building them up. So,

yeah, I would feel more comfortable checking in with a current planner um to get you a specific answer if you are okay with that. Yeah. Yeah. Um and feel free to I'm not sure the the email exchange if maybe you can email Ryan or I'm not sure how that works, but in other words, I'm happy to reply if you want to if you have the time to list that out as a specific question. um then I could have a quick consult with a current planner on that.

And we do have allowances within all of our existing setbacks as far as the overhangs of your roof line and other things like that that there are certain building features that are allowed to intrude upon that uh established setback. So, and actually that's one of the things that last time I was with you guys uh is something that we're going to be taking a look at based on state level uh legislation that just came through. So, we're actually going to be potentially even updating that language further to accommodate the recent bills that have just passed.

And then my only other question was about the window placement. And I saw that how in section G of the section that you kind of stroke they had been a strike through of all like the very specific ones. And I do like that it's kind of rewritten in a general. So it's a privacy standards uh point one development shall provide privacy between adjacent dwellings units through building placement, window placement or screening elements. And it clarifies a little bit in the part two section C about the zero lot line configuration without transparent windows uh on the privacy wall. So at least there's that that privacy there. Um, so it just seemed I I wasn't quite sure if the language provided too much wiggle room or just enough wiggle room, but I do like the clarification of the the non-transparent windows on that privacy wall section for the developments.

Okay.

Sorry. Oh yeah, those are my make I didn't want to go back piggy backing off her window question. So I know it's 15 ft back for ADU. If you have two, what's the spacing between the two? So between so if you have two ADUs if you put two ADUs. So yeah. So we don't have anything in our code that mandates uh spacing between. So everything will have to follow whatever those underlying uh standards are for that zone. Okay.

Um and so I don't think it'll be a one-size fit ffits-all for each pro. Does that make sense? For each project. There will be standards that overall for the lot will have to be worked out. Um so there may be, you know, each project will take some creativity. Okay. Um, unless there's a fire, you know, maybe on the on the building code side of things, there might be, you know, something that I'm not completely aware of with spacing between units, but

yeah. So, as far as the and we we encounter this in a couple different areas. One one of which is uh accessory dwelling units. uh the placement of those on property. It's typically I think it's it's based on the building code around 10 ft. Anything within that uh the type of materials that you're allowed to use uh changes uh because it has to delay the the burn rate essentially of those buildings. So because as you reduce that or increase that proximity the the transfer of a potential fire becomes greater. So there are there is code language around that we definitely need to take a look at navigate.

And these are these are really good good questions and I I'm don't want to be dismissive of these questions. Um just some of these areas are helpful to me to consult with the current planners who are you know actually in applying the code um you know on a daily basis. So thank you

Judy. Not a question, just a comment from my side. Um, we have been on this journey with you as you have really um tried to thread the needle of the state mandates and maintaining the beauty of Lacy while we know we need to grow and change. And I really appreciate your your process. You're taking us in a very thoughtful stepwise um and responsive to our questions and our and our individual experiences. So, keep doing what you're doing. Thank you. Thanks, Judy. Very good.

Uh, no, I I just echo Jennifer. Uh, and yeah, I agree that we're moving away from a ton and having like an objective standard to to point to uh in there. That's that's a better better route. Anything else for Jennifer? And then Joey, we're going to bring you back at some point to talk about what we're going to do with utilities. Oh yeah, that'll be a fun discussion.

Yeah, absolutely. So, so that's all to come. So, more to come. Um, same back to you as a group. Um, you know, the sentiment is the same like really appreciate this group very much. The feedback has been critical to this process and um just incredibly helpful. So, Yeah.

Well, as a reminder for our next uh scheduled visit on the 17th, we'll be going over parking amendments, daycare amendments, and conversations of existing buildings. And May 8th, we or I'm sorry, May 13th, um we will have a public hearing on Nville Housing. So, I think they're moving forward. Um and with that, I'm going to adjourn the meeting at 7:10. Thanks everybody. I have a question that I didn't want to ask at all. For sure.