Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome. Uh we're we're online. Sorry, I I jumped ahead while you was trying to get us get us online. Okay, so um let's do our roll call. Uh Bruce Morton, present. Honor Davis, present. Uh Jennifer Davis present and Janice Sexford I am here. Thank you. My stage brain. Okay. Uh we have three members that are uh that are not able to make it. Uh Amy Ludowski and

or two. That's right. Um and um and uh Mike Dur and uh are not able to make it today. So could we have uh a motion to excuse them? So moved and a second. Commissioner Connor Davis seconds. Okay. Uh and all in favor? I.

Any opposed? Okay. Uh and as you all saw in the email today, uh Commissioner Sauls has not uh has he has resigned today. He has um not been able to he has other priorities that he needs to attend to. So we'll uh hopefully get the word out to get uh someone to fill in his uh his shoes. Um, as we move into the uh agenda, uh, we have Has anyone had a chance to um, uh, to review the, uh, agenda from or the the meeting minutes from last meeting. And if there are no comments, we could um, put these into the record.

I'll move that we approve them. Okay. This is Jana Suxur. I'll second Jennifer Davis. Uh all all in favor. Any opposed? All right. We have the meetings the meeting minutes approved. All right. Now we will open the public meeting public hearing. Right. And uh the purpose of this public hearing is to review items in the docket and we'll uh and to give a recommendation to the city council and we'll hand that over to Christie.

Thank you Commissioner Morton. U this evening Christy Schmidt, planning manager. I'm presenting the 2025 docket this evening for the purposes of updating the sixyear and the 20-year CIPs and that includes the capital facilities element and the transportation elements. So you do have quite the hearing packet. There is 12 exhibits. I did place two new exhibits from today and yesterday uh in front of you. That would be exhibits 11 and 12. And that is the letter from Thomas E. Hansen. and then the city's consultants response which would be exhibit 12. So you have those before you and then you were emailed exhibit 10 the day before which would be the master builders association of King and Snomish County and that was dated May 4th. So with that said in addition to the staff report some background information on how we got to be at this point in 2026. Tonight, the purpose of the amendments is we're amending the 2024 comprehensive plan. As stated, we're going to be amending the transportation and capital elements. And the city did contract with Transpo is our engineering consultant to assist us with updating the methodology and our six-year and our 20-year CIP plans. City Council did adopt as with planning commission's recommendations the updates to the concurrency chapters and along with the traffic mitigation code updates that was done in late 2025. I would like to point out that these comprehensive plan changes tonight do not have any comprehensive land use map changes. It's literally just text and figure updates. previous meetings, we went ahead and as far as public notice goes, we issued the 60-day notice to Department of Commerce

back in March. We met with the master builders on March 25th. That was Russ and I. We met with four master builder representatives. In addition, we held the planning commission work session on April 1st and the SEA determination or the addendum was issued on April 3rd. And then we had a city council work session just a few weeks ago on April 21st. So the public notice provided we there was or the public process the planning commission back in January of 2025 you did ratify this docket. This docket has been a little bit late because we had to amend our methodology twice. We took a second look at it. So that's why we are now adopting these in early 2026. The public notice was sent out and it's been advertised. It'll be advertised twice. Once for this meeting, then once for the future city council meeting pending the planning commission's recommendation this evening. And I just have another slide regarding the purposes of the amendments, which I just did you an overview of. So we've already done that. So, I'm going to go ahead and move into the first section that's being amended, which is the traffic impact fees. Uh, we've been over this a couple times before. I am including it for the sake of the public record tonight in case anyone was online and or listening and they could have the recorded audio. The city is broken up into three different zones, one, two, and three. Zone one is the downtown area. Zones two and three comprise the west side of the city and the south portion of the city. Zones two and three have a combined fee because they have main arterials and highways that connect them. So this way they share equity in the funding as well as project improvements and traffic

impact growths with our growth allocations. As part of our impact fee update, we have went in and we've updated our developers worksheet. This is the formula and the workbook that you would turn in if you were doing a new single family home as an example. And I just uh filled it in so you could see for the sake um of your own sake on how it's actually filled out and implemented. It's a fillable form that will now be available online um pending approval of these amendments. We've also went in and updated the city's traffic impact fee cost basis. It's the first time it's been updated since 2012, so it was overdue. It is our legal framework on how we establish our traffic impact fees and how we accommodate growth and our level of service. Table 9.1, which is our 20-year transportation improvement list. This has been refined. It goes through literally every department. So you'll see it has streets, roads, it has surface, water, parks in there. Everything's colorcoded. Uh there are first two graphs in there I would point out that aren't fully colorcoded yet. I do plan to color code those um prior before it makes it to city council. And that is exhibit 4 in your packet this evening. And this is what will be inserted into the comprehensive plan pending adoption. So how are projects rated in the PM peak fee base calculated? I think this is the new slide. I put this in here for council. So I'll go ahead and go over it for you. I've broken it down into six basic steps essentially and you'll see exhibit 12 in your packet from transpo. It's essentially these six steps but in a little more detail. So first we look at

the project elements and it's based on vehicular operation, safety and now active transportation, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. and complete streets and preservations. We look at the level of service existing along with the future projected growth. Then we apply a tiff eligibility and this is and this is the process um I would like to point out that Thomas E. Hansen commented on. He had some comments regarding active transportation and so that's what exhibit 12 clarifies. So a percentage of the projects are eligible for impact fees and a portion of growth. The growth is calculated on the projects based on increase of housing and commercial development. So they're calculated using both growth growth rates. Then the tiff eligibility is applied consistently through each level of service items on the projects. Then the projects are reduced based on grant funding. And then we calculate the new base cost per PM peak hour trips. And that's essentially how we come up with our new tiff rates. So that's the math for you on that. That's the short version anyway of it. So this translates into what are we going to do for the next year and then our six years for our projects. This is usually a topic at the council. They talk about um what are the hot items in the city? Where are level service deficiencies and that's what the six-year transportation improvement list is the projects that you'll see being constructed around the city over the next few years. This list is updated on an annual basis. Since this is a late adoption for 2025, I would like to point out that you will see this list being updated later this year also in the 2026 docket

and that is exhibit five within your packet. There is one item, a level of service discrepancy to be corrected. That's at the South Lake Stevens Road and South Davies Road. that's been evaluated and that is being moved forward with the 2026 docket. So that will be coming back to you later this year. So this leads us to the bottom line so to speak. What is going to be the increase the proposed increase for impact fees? We're looking at a doubling in cost for TIZ1. That is the downtown area. That was the blue area on the map. This is where the bulk of our projects are for the next six years. And the increase is going to increase almost $3,000. So it about doubles the rate to $5,600. The two TIZ's two and three, this increase is fairly low. It's only increasing $60. The recommendation within your staff report this evening is for the planning commission to forward a letter of recommendation to the city council. We have found that the these proposed amendments are consistent with the text in the amendment criteria within the comprehensive plan and the Lake Stevens code. And that would be 1416 C40. The five tables that are proposing to be updated. Let's see. 1 2 3 4 5 I think five. We have five. We have table tables 8.8 9.1 9.2 2 and the two figures are 8.14 and 8.5 and those are all included within your packet this evening. And with that, that would conclude my staff's presentation and I would like to open it up for any questions or discussion amongst the commission.

Who would like to start? Any comments? Oh, that's right. Um I I I forgot to ask we had anyone on the Okay. All right. Well, then you close the public. Okay.

Given that there are no there's no public in the meeting in person or online. Um I guess we will uh and we do have some comment that was submitted and we'll discuss that in our discussion here. But uh we can now would be an appropriate time to close the public portion the the public uh hearing part of it. So uh would that be a motion that would have to be done or no? I just I'll just Okay, I'll just close. Okay. Well, then I will close that and uh and then we will then discuss our thoughts. Two public comments. Oh, two two public comments in response. Yep. Yes.

So those comments would be exhibits 10, 11, and 12.

Okay. So, uh I I on exhibit 11, the email from Thomas Hansen, I do had I was trying to figure out where he was getting these percentages from. And uh you did mention that a little bit in your in your discussion. And uh but I still don't quite understand. Is he saying that the 50% of the cost of uh of like a sidewalk in front of a of a new home would have to be borne by the by the the builder or the homeowner?

No, actually he's referring to So these project numbers here, they are actually transportation improvement projects for active transportation on the 20-year list. Mhm.

And so he's saying the portion of the sidewalk or the bike lane that's eligible should be a different rate than what our consultant calculated. And so we had our consultant transpo look at each individual one and they provided the response in exhibit 12 that these projects have been accurately calculated and they've been consistently applied to each project in a consistent methodology approach

that's done. And so this particular person who commented um they do not have a consistent rate that's being applied or what's being suggested. And so our consultant took a look at that. They stand behind their methodology and their numbers for accuracy and that's been applied consistently throughout the whole CIP chart and matrix. Okay. So when when it it says this 50%, what is that a 50% of? I'm just trying to understand what that

So that's 50% of the total cost of the active transportation cost. So let's say it's 70 ft of linear sidewalk, 70 ft of linear bike lane. 50% of that cost is what's eligible for funding is what they're talking about. And in another way to explain that, so under the growth management act, the city cannot pass on the entirety of project costs to applicants. So that 50% it's a 50% rebate and the city is obligated then to cover that other percentage of the the project cost.

Okay. And that's and that's paid uh during the uh application. No, during construction of the project, it would be construction of a project. So, these are all city projects. So, these aren't private individual projects. These are all city projects on our 20-year comprehensive plan list that's in the comp plan. It's an extensive list. And so, the first one that he mentioned, sorry, this commissioner Connor Davis, the 20th Street Northeast, the the neighborhood connector is T4. And where I was confused about this that Yeah. because this is a city project. So it is a city project. This seems to be a non-starter,

right? Okay. That's I was Yeah, I was going through the list earlier and that just these don't add up because they are municipal projects. They are municipal projects. Okay. Okay. Because there's there's no development. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. It's not private development at all. These are all city projects. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And he will be providing comment at the city council meeting. He was not able to make it this evening, so he sent in a letter. He's actually out of town, so Okay. Um Thomas Hansen will be at the city council meeting. This is the same gentleman who's um came from uh the city of Woodenville's Yes, that is correct. And Muckle Tio, yeah, the previous public works director.

Yes. Thank you. Yes. So, I uh I was looking at the at these projects kind of at random and I looked at like the uh the most expensive ones and I did notice that uh the see one specific one which is TE6 um which is the the the grade road um upgrade. Uh and I I appreciate that in the uh in the latter part of the packet it shows that that TE6 is split up.

It is we that was part of our redo and our methodology when we went back we broke it up for cost savings essentially and looked at efficiencies in existing infrastructure. What could we utilize that's currently there that we really don't need to replace? Yeah. And how could we have the same level of service but with maybe a reduced roadway width so to speak that doesn't impact level of service. So you get the same level of service but cheaper costs for capital improvements. Yeah. And I know I think I saw that like the um the green space is like it's not no longer in the project that the like the

that I believe is proposed to be removed. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. It would have looked nice, but you know, it's there's a a cost and a maintenance cost to it also. Exactly. So, we were just looking at future care and maintenance costs to the city. And then the master builders did provide a comment letter that is dated May 4th from them. Yeah. They took a look at that. It is a letter of support. Yeah. about that letter and I'm gonna keep commenting. I just I I'll wait until you're done. So, just you do your thing.

Sorry. I I do uh appreciate this one paragraph where they they actually put some numbers uh on the impact that they say that for every $1,000 increase in the median price of a home uh that uh a,025 families are priced out or unable to obtain financing to purchase the home. Uh yeah. So those are people on the margin who uh who are unable to. So essentially what they're saying is at least in my mind is that they're saying we need to be very careful uh every time we add a regulation or fee or uh or transfer costs. It's that uh even though homes nowadays are 700k or more for the typical home, uh it's um uh even adding a few thousand here, a few thousand there may not seem like much on a percentage basis, but on a margin that that really prices people out. So, we have to be very uh wary of that. Uh and also on there is um the vesting of fees. uh they do make they they do make one suggestion here about uh investing in fees and that I I and I don't fully understand but it looks like what they're saying is that they they want the fees to be fixed. Are they saying that they want the fees to be once you fill in the application or once you apply they want those fees to be fixed not not changing afterwards or is that is that what

essentially so what they're asking for is that we have a process with land use entitlement we call it vesting and that's when the project is deemed complete when they have a complete application and so what they're asking for is that the city consider vesting impact fees and we do not we do not vest impact fees fees. It's the uh impact fee in effect at the time of building permit payment is what it is. So, do those So, it's subject to change. It may potentially change on a project. So, that's one thing that they're complaining about is that if those fees can change over time, that makes it more that increases the risks for a loan. Uh because correct.

So, is there anything we can do to make those fees so they don't change? So currently what we're proposing, and feel free to to chime in, is that we're proposing a delay in the impact fee shouldn't if it be adopted by the council, we're proposing it not to go into effect until July 1st. And then we do offer if they have a building permit in, they're allowed to pay their fees. And so then hence they could pay at the current rate and not be subject to uh perhaps increase if they were in TIZ1. So this is a one time. Does that make sense? Yes. It's not like it's a No. Yeah. It's a one time. All right.

And standard vesting law in Washington state, it vesting means you set the development regulations. So the rules that we're reviewing a project under. So that's your zoning standards. What is your setback? What is your height? What is your lot coverage? All of those. Then there are things outside of that that don't vest. And one example of that is fees don't vest because the needs of a community may vary over time and the cost to do government business may vary. So they're asking that the city consider regulations that would um be and they want to use the term vesting. I would probably come up with a different term because it wouldn't be consistent with vesting law. but they want to set the the fee at the time of the complete application that we would honor that fee through the life of that project. So that's something we can talk about more as you set your work program for 2027. But as Christie said, for right now, there would be a delay for active projects so they can um catch up or recognize that. And often projects once they vest per say, they take sometimes several years for them to pull a building permit. We've had some go on for 3 to five years. So

yeah, if they're going to wait that long, then it was 9 or 12 in. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So there are pros and cons to that.

That's all my comments and questions. So anybody else? Well, I have several and I'm going to back up. Um, so we've split the city into three zones. The zone that is going to be um increasing substantially is doing so because in theory the people that are going to build and live there are going to be traveling through the other zones. Is that how it's been explained in the past? the the fee for zone one is increasing because it has the highest growth rate and it has le the most level of service deficiencies. So it has more capital project improvements. Okay, to address those level of service deficiencies whether it's in active transportation, roadway, etc. sidewalks, bike lanes,

but what was the discussion of traveling through the because you're using I9 or highway 9 to get to two and three shre a lot of infrastructure and connectivity. Okay. Historically since 2012, we have merged those under a single impact fee. So the monies within those two zones could go to So essentially they've already paid for their infrastructure. Yes. And now uh T1 is in the mode that those other two were in let's say 10 years ago when we were discussing this 10 years ago essentially. They're behind. They need repairs.

Well, I just that's been asked and it's going to be asked again. So I will I need to simplify it. If anybody listens to this in the future, Yes, please do. um that it be simplified to a place where it's not that there's certain projects that are going on in T1. There's not certain Yeah, it's it's been done elsewhere and now it's just T1's time.

It's a good way to simplify it. Okay. My second question was what was just discussed. So, master builders and I'm torn because I'm in the space where I like to have a fixed budget. I like to know going into a project what it's going to cost. But I was also part of this discussion um back in 2007208 where there were people that uh worked that very well to lock in to have fixed rates and then we saw this huge growth starting in 2012ish and then moving forward where they hung on to what they had negotiated. So I I see it from both sides. I'm simply saying that um there are people that do this very very well. This is their job.

And um I I appreciate people that do their job well, but I also would caution that um I call it locking instead of vesting. They're they're locking up a future project and then no one can touch it and then they've got better rates than anybody else moving forward. Yeah. I didn't realize it was we're talking about years and years of uh of waiting u in some cases. Yes. Yeah. That's understandable.

So I but I did appreciate their dollars your point to the paragraph when they're talking about the equation of and the cost of and um I mean right now look at it of what it costs to put gas in your tank. All of that is being sent down the pipeline. It is making it more costly for people to build. Therefore, they're going to pass that cost on to to you when you go to buy.

And and um so I I I'm I'm in the middle of where I feel on their points because I think that they make some good ones. I also think that they have a vested interest in in our uh development industry and and Mass Builders is a good organization. I'm not saying anything bad against them. I'm just saying look at where that information comes from. And then I also want to keep clarity when it comes to the different zones because it looks like you're picking on T1 and I don't want anybody to think that that's the case. Uh this is Commissioner Jennifer Davis. Uh my question has been asked and answered. It had to do with Mr. Hansen's notes. So that was very helpful explanation. Um but I have one other question which has to do with the master builder letter. Do you they don't really reference where the where the calculation comes from for that um dollar amount offset that we've been discussing. Do you in your experience or your knowledge of the region? Is that an accurate do you think that's in the right zone? Um, I I won't speak specifically to the number they throw out, but I can agree that every extra um cost put on a housing proposal does equate to uh how the area median income, the standard family in Snowomish County, King County can access that that property. So I don't have reference of the documents they've used but as yes a trend affordability and the additional costs that go into housing create cost burden.

So conceptually conceptually yes okay thank you. It didn't seem outlandish. No no no it made sense. I just was curious what their how they calculated. So, Commissioner Connor. Oh, no comments at this point. So, our task this evening is to uh pass on a recommendation. And so, do we have a motion on the recommendation that's on exhibit nine, which is the letter um uh that uh we can uh the pre-written?

Yeah, the pre-written letter. Um I'm sorry you guys had your discussion. You should close the public hearing and then go to your final deliberation and ask for okay the motion. Thank you. Okay. So um so let's Okay, we'll close the public before we close the public hearing. We have uh I thought we already had but I'm going to reopen it. That's fine. Uh we have some visitors here. Uh do does anyone in the audience have any comment about the things we're talking about? Okay. All right. Well, welcome to planning commission meeting. Thanks for being here.

Okay. Great. Uh so we'll close the public hearing and now uh we've we've had a discussion among us about this. Uh but we haven't had discussion pro or con on the on this. But we'll let's let's get a motion on the table and then we can have our discussion and then we can vote on it. So, uh, I move that we close the hearing. Okay. Commissioner Connor Davis seconds. Okay. Uh, any discussion? Uh, I'll say any all in favor? I I All right. Any opposed? Okay. We're

closed on the discussion. All right. So, do we have a motion on the recommendation to the city council on the docket? My only um concerns in forwarding this, and I don't think it'll change, but I wish that we had comment from Commissioner Stewart

and um Luendowski. I just I think that it's a limited discussion with the four of us and um not knowing that they were going to be here and then of course um being surprised by Commissioner Saul's um this evening, I just feel like I would like more opportunity for them to weigh in. Now, with that said, is that worth holding up a recommendation that's up for others to to think about? Do we have any deadlines that we're running up against on this?

The only thing that we do have is that I have pre-advertised for the city council hearings set for May 26th. That would be it. And that technically could be readvertised or opened and continued. There was just a lot of information that came in as you know I love at the end of this. So, even if they had the time to open up their packet, um depending on uh where they are and what they're doing with their um time away from us, um would there be something that they wanted to make comment on? Um so, I guess uh we could make the recommendation that it be forwarded upon the opportunity for those to weigh in by email. I mean, if they wanted to make any sort of I don't know if holding it over is going to change a whole lot.

This is Commissioner Davis, Jennifer Davis. Um I Another option would be to um for us if we're if we decided that we were comfortable with moving it forward to council, there's going to be a public hearing at city council. So, um Commissioner Der and Commissioner Lwendowski, if they had, you know, something they wanted city council to know about their thoughts, they could send a message at that point or attend. Sure. Good point. But can Do we feel comfortable as a commission because we're doing this as a body doing it without input from the entire body? No duty of having a quorum.

I I mean I do just because the they they've we've seen because we they've seen they what they didn't maybe didn't see was the letters that we got today. But um in terms of like the total package they've seen that in my opinion I I don't see anything really controversial in in this. Good. But then again, u I I may not be seeing anything. U I'm just posing a thought.

Okay. All right. You know, I like the idea of uh you providing the opportunity to send a message into the city council leading up to the next council meeting. Um you know, should they have any feedback, any concerns? Okay. So, do is everybody though comfortable with um sending this on? Well, that's let's put it on a motion and then we can Could I ask one more question? I'm sorry. Are we meeting again? That that's important to the what we decided in May before that 20th. We are coming back on the 20th. The 20th.

Does that make a difference? Because we could talk about it then. Yeah, you can hold it over until the 20th if that's your desire. Yeah, that doesn't necessarily pose um an issue. So, that wouldn't disrupt the public hearing with the council. No, it shouldn't. Would that disrupt the communication, the uh the advertising that you've had? Um, no. Just depending on the outcome, I may need to extend counsel. It just depends, you know, what happens. I can't foreshadow what people's decisions will be. Sure. So, you know, I just revertise.

Okay. Even then, you wouldn't have to. I mean, even if there was a recommendation to not approve, council's going to hold their independent hearing anyway and take advisement from the planning commission and they would hold their own hearing. Oh, so they could just pass it without our recommendation anyway. Yeah. If you're going to continue discussion this evening, you would have to continue the hearing to the 20th. Well, the hearing's been closed already. Yeah, you're done. So, it's done. Actually, you are at deliberation. So, it I I I should have mentioned that. So, really, it's going back, I think, to your original

You've already voted on closing the public hearing. So, it really would go back to the recommendation that they could pro provide citizen comment to the the city council if they had any different opinions than the rest of the body at this point.

That's what I think. Uh if the if they have any concerns uh they can share those with at the city council level and I think they would that their opinion would have great weight uh even then. It would be kind of like a minority report if was it was uh if it was different from what we recommend. So um given that let's let's put it to a vote. Uh we've we've discussed it. Um uh so I'll make a motion uh that we uh pass on to the city council uh this uh this letter that we recommend the uh the the comprehensive plan docket uh amendment and uh you know with the recommended that they do pass it uh as as written in the um in this letter uh as shown in on exhibit 9

with if I can stop you for um noting commissioners absent. Oh yeah, we could do that. Um so let's note who we have here in the room and who we don't. Yeah, we can do that. Okay. Yeah. So uh so then the motion would be uh that we uh that we submit this letter as written uh on exhibit 9 but with the names of uh those present and absent. And then I'd like to point out in addition exhibit 9 has not been completed the top part. So it would need to be yeah filled in correctly with your motion to be made.

Yes. Um, so do we have a second? Commissioner Connor Davis seconds. Great. Um, so for the U Let's have discussion on pro and con on recommending this. Any Well, you've made a motion and we've got a second. So, are we all those in favor or do we have any that are not? After you make a motion, you you then have discussion pro and con on it and then you then you then you vote, I think. Right. If anybody has additional comments, now would be the time to make them. Yes. Your um your final discussion.

I think that's the way Robert's rules works. So no hearing further discussion. Actually there already is you would call for the motion.

There actually um uh yeah I can do that. Uh actually there already is a a a highlighted part here for all members present and uh for the list of members present and uh ones who are absent. So we can fill that in uh or if you can fill that in. And so we'll have zero members of the public provided oral testimony. uh and it would be uh commissioners briefly discussed proposal uh providing motion to approve the staff's recommended recommended text amendments. So uh I will absent any discussion. All in favor? I I

any oppos I any opposed? Motion passes. Okay. So we can fill in those blanks as as we talked about and then uh and then it will be emailed to you for signature. Oh, okay. Wow. Yes, it'll be formal. Can we have perhaps those two commissioners be sent um I don't even um the new exhibits the new exhibits to make sure that they've just received them and given the opportunity to make comment. Yeah, they should have received it on the emails. They were all included. If they're if they're gone, I don't know. But yes, um I just

Yes, we'll make sure that they have that one opportunity. Absolutely. We'll make sure that that's done. Thank you. Okay, great. Uh so we'll now move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the nuisance animals. Yes. So I'm just bringing something completely different.

There's there's nothing in the packet for you. This is just simply a verbal update that I wanted to let you know. It's not a development code regulation. However, it was brought to our department's attention through code enforcement and through PD community service officer that their division, their department, the police is looking at and we have a draft of proposed changes to our nuisance ordinance along with our pasture plan. So, it won't be coming to planning commission because it's not a land use regulation, but it'll be going directly to city council. But I did want to tell you about it to let you know, okay, that they are looking at prohibiting roosters within the city. So it' be hens only.

And then in addition, they're looking at doing away with eliminating the lifetime licensing requirements for pets because it's simply not proving to be effective. And they're going to look at an education outreach process for microchipping and QR coding instead. and and apparently most cities have moved away from lifetime licensing of animals. Oh, so uh that rooster uh prohibition has was that initiated by anybody? Uh just curious if anyone's been complaining.

Yeah, there has been a numerous amount of rooster complaints and that is what is spurring it. Pun intended is what's spurring the code change. So our Yes. Yes. Especially Yeah. The summer, man. Yes. So, our community service officer. Yes. This is driven based on complaint basis in the city. I wish there was going to be goats. I know. Trying to think of where you were going to go with that. Yeah. Well, it'll be interesting. Uh hopefully those uh those people who do have roosters will be well, we'll get word of this.

They will. They'll be notified. We can we'll run a report in our permitting system for who has pasture plans and they'd be sent a notice. Even then it will be through attrition most likely. Oh yeah, we're not doing a rooster round up. Well, we'll have them fight it up. Okay. Um All right. So, let's go move on to uh the uh to our individual reports. This commissioner's reports and Jennifer Davis.

Um we mentioned it kind of in passing a couple times, but I just wanted to say um how much I appreciated Commissioner Saul's time with us and wish him he and both he and his family well. It was a pleasure to meet him and work with him. Yeah. Commissioner Huxford, I had the opportunity to have dinner with friends from Mary'sville that have um an adjoining piece of property to theirs that has now been sold, is being subdivided, and four transitional homes are being built, at least are being permitted or approved for permit, and 50 sexual offenders will be moving into those four homes. the

um they are both in law enforcement and they attest to the fact that the uh crime rate in Mary'sville has um uh increased. Um that anything that they have tried to do as a community has failed, including bringing up the fact that there's a running trail behind this property that the high school um girls running team uh uses. Uh they have daycarees in the area. They have done everything that we discussed during that period of time and it has not succeeded. This will be done and the property values of everybody in that area have plummeted. So what we do have real repercussions and I just wanted to make sure that I brought this up today so that we don't feel like um our time here is wasted. Commissioner Caravus.

Yeah. Um so uh talking about running well with the cross country program or track program uh you know I've mentioned in justest that I don't know that people in Lake Stevens understand pedestrian right ofway. I really say it as a joke, but I truly don't think that people understand that pedestrians do have the right of way. Um, I implore the city to if it's signage, some kind of e educational program so that people truly understand the rights that pedestrians have uh in cyclists have on the roads. Um, for myself, uh, you know, along 20th Street here between, uh, kids trying to head to North Lake Middle School or Mount Pilchuck Elementary, uh, vehicles that are, you know, traveling 40, 45 miles an hour down 20th Street and barely passing an eye at the kids that are just simply trying to cross the street to get to school. Um, it's embarrassing and it the I I'm speechless about it. Uh, and I mean at some point it's going to be really something terrible is going to happen. U, but it's I look at it as the obligation of the city to uh to not only enforce those those rules and our police department too, but uh to really just educate folks um the dynamic the demographic of our city is changing uh you know very fast and for the better. We are a youthful city and people are out there enjoying the amenities that we have. I just want to make sure that we can all do it safely. Thank you.

So, um how's Commissioner Morton? Um uh last month I traveled with my family to go visit our son and his family in Lancing, Michigan. And uh uh they live in a a very old home uh that's on just right down the street from the state capital of Michigan. And uh as we were there, we traveled a lot back and forth around the city. And I was appalled at the quality of the roads in Lancing, Michigan. There were patches, potholes, patches on patches. Uh just it was just horrible. and and it was it's so refreshing to come back here and uh our roads are well maintained uh regraded before they become a mess. Uh I know we've got a lot of road work going on especially in the downtown area and and I know that I don't have to worry that once all that work is done they're going to nice put a nice smooth black top on it and will be uh clear as they've done elsewhere. So, I just want to say I really appreciate what he's been doing with keeping our roads up because the people in Michigan, they just live with it and and I don't see how they've got to be having a lot of uh suspension problems in their cars because it's it's ridiculous. So, anyway, just a comment. All right. The other thing I wanted to ask about is I noticed that the um that the uh the the farmers market is going to be on Tuesday. Uh and traditionally the last several years we've been changing our commission meeting to Mondays in the summer. So it looks like we won't have to do that. So are is that going to be okay that we keep it on Wednesdays in the summer?

The Yeah. Yeah. the planning commission there is no intention of moving the night since we're not going to be working with farmers markets. So again, let's make people aware because the last email that came out said that we would be moving to Mondays. That was my fault, but I was not aware that they were moving to farmers market. So that's great. No worries. I just want it to be well communicated because I I had done some changes. So that's great. Okay. No, thanks for bringing that up. Appreciate it.

Sure. That's all I got. So Okay, on to the director's report. So, u I had um Christie print a copy of our Q1 report. Um we didn't get it out to you at the last meeting, but this is what we presented to the city council. It just goes over, you know, what you have done and the work we've done together as well as some of the permitting statistics with the city, an overview of our long range work program, and then it goes through some of our special projects that the city has been working on. So anyway, I won't go over it individually. You have it in front of you to read, but it gives you a good synopsis of what we've been doing for the last few months. It's great. Right. So, uh, we've gone through our agenda. So, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

So, moved. Commissioner Connor Davis seconds. And all in favor? I I journed. Well, thank you. Thank you. Good discussion this evening.