Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Retirement retirement's a good thing.

Well, I got a long way to go. Hang hang in there, man. And I'm and I'm way greater than you are. So that that's my own problem.

Yeah. I I can't help genetics.

Yeah. Okay. Are we ready to get started? Recording, Connor.

Recording in progress.

There we go. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the March 3 Planning Commission meeting. We'll go ahead and get started with the Pledge of Allegiance, if you'll all join me. Alright. Thank you, everybody. Now moving on to item number two, the welcome and introduction. I am Tyler McCloskey, the chair of the Planning Commission. We'll start with in the room first, and then we'll go online for those joining us remotely. Tiffany.

Tiffany Mitchell, Planning Commissioner.

Paul Fontenot, Planning Commissioner.

Jim Piss, principal planner.

Connor Delquist, associate planner.

Alright. And we'll go online. We'll start with Wayne.

Wayne Wright, planning commissioner.

Joe? Joe Morrison, planning commissioner.

And Stephanie.

Stephanie Bailey, planning commissioner.

Alright. Thanks, everybody. Item number three, audience comments. I don't have anyone in the room, but if anyone on Zoom would like three minutes to make a comment for a topic that is not listed on tonight's agenda, please raise your hand.

There are no hands raised online. Okay. We'll move

on to the approval of the minutes from the February meeting. Everyone had a chance to review them? Any additions, corrections, or a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion to approve.

Second. Alright. All in favor? Aye.

Any

abstentions or no's? No? Minutes pass. Alright. Moving on to business. Five a, discussion about landscaping. Jim?

Tonight, we're continuing our work on updates to POMC 20.128, city's landscaping standards. As a quick reminder, this effort started in November when we first walked through the need to clean up the chapter, make it clear and more predictable and better align it with the range of housing types we're planning for. That discussion also followed Public Works presentation on our NPDES obligations and their ongoing tree canopy inventory. That canopy work is still underway. And once it's complete, we expect it will guide additional edits.

In February, the commission reviewed an updated draft and talked through several pieces, open space expectations, invasive species control and some updated buffer and perimeter standards. We also spent time on the policy question of how to treat middle housing compared to detached homes given the equal treatment requirement under House Bill eleven ten. Since then, staff met with the, City Council's Land Use Committee. In February, the committee gave clear direction to exempt detached houses and middle housing from the landscaping requirements. The red lines in your March packet reflect that direction and show how the chapter has been adjusted.

The draft still includes the broader improvements we've discussed, an updated purpose statement, clear expectations for open space, strengthened invasive species standards and consolidated fence and retaining wall requirements. As Public Works finishes the canopy analysis, we anticipate bringing back additional refinements so the better so the code can better support the city's long term canopy goals. With that, we're looking for your questions in any direction on the March draft, especially whether the revisions reflect the committee's guidance and where you'd like staff to focus as the canopy work progresses.

Okay. I just wanted to say that I appreciated the update to the plant material and installation standards added to 20.1 to eight point o five o. Saw that there was a 30% of grassed area in a parking lot or buffer like that's the requirement that no more than 30%, was I reading that right? It's no more than 30% of of grass in in like, grassed areas in in like a parking lot or buffer?

Can you point me to Yeah. Section?

Hold on. Let me

I don't have it memorized entirety.

That's alright. Grast area. Hold on. Maybe if I can find it quickly. Hold on. 30%. It wasn't a big deal. It was just more of like how do we get to deciding the sizes of certain things. So like I believe it kind of said that too even when we get into the fencing standards that like there's no more than 30% of like

Oh, the transparency requirement?

Yeah. And stuff. Like, I I just don't know how we arrive at those numbers. Is it an arbitrary, like, space limitation or, like, where does that come from?

So that was a result of when we adopted residential design standards. So those standards currently exist in twenty point one three nine, which is specific to detached houses. However, fences are a little tricky because they don't require a building permit. So they really become more of a zoning, just a zoning regulation and then it's but without a permit, it's not actually something we can review. However, since then, since the adoption of that, and I think that was in 2019, and that's where they landed on that that was the appropriate amount of transparency in the front yard for a fence.

But what we've discovered is that we can't really apply fence standards anywhere else in the city. And so the idea here is to take those existing fence standards and put them in the landscaping code to make it applicable to all development. So in that section, which you'll see, which is new is fence standards when it is oriented to the front entry of a building. And so that way we're not ending up with chain link fences and apartment complexes and that sort of thing that which really disrupt the pedestrian space. So that's the intent of that. And

I found the section that my specific question was actually aimed at. So it says, let's see, it's the section right before tree and plant diversity. So it says in, part b of the one before that, grass areas shall be sodded or hydroseeded unless otherwise approved by the director. Grass shall only be permitted in active open spaces as described in the code or within parking lots, landscapes, and buffer areas. And so like let's see.

There was another part. Hold on. 3%. Wasn't a big deal. So maybe I should just let that one die because like I said it really wasn't a huge thing.

There was actually, now that I'm coming up on this question, there is a section about parking lots about the possible hold on. Figure twenty point one two eight point zero seven zero three a, parking lot perimeter landscape departure examples. And then there's a section in there that says above are two possible departure parking lot landscape buffer designs that may be acceptable in and then we took out more and put in urbanized areas such as downtown. And I realized that this part didn't really substantially change other than the more part. But, like, is urbanized area defined somewhere?

No. But that's something that we we should probably identify. And I think that for the most part, that's that's really an interpretation of the code. But the qualifier more is problematic because it either is urbanized or it is not.

And I think even urbanized is kind of subjective too. It becomes more subjective with the more. I appreciate that out. I think at some point we need to look at a definition for urbanized. There was I think another word in there at some point that was like distressed, which also related to fencing.

And if how do we determine that something is distressed? Because I don't think that was really defined in there either. Just so that we can let people know when they're not in compliance what distressed means. Let me make sure that I have everything. Hold on.

Okay. So I imagine that the changes to the fencing code for both, like, commercial and noncommercial, it's just for new development pretty much. Right? So, like, if I have a fence on my own property that is technically out of compliance now, my HOA would fine me for it. But the city wouldn't until I replace it and it doesn't meet code. Right? Is that kinda how that would go?

Well, again, fences six feet or less don't require a building permit. So there's no way that we can actually review it.

I'm talking about, like, if it's an because it talks about how, like, the finished side has to be facing the street. So if I have, like, the I can't remember the word that it was using, but, like, you know, it's an ugly fence. If I have an ugly fence that is clearly unfinished, not stained facing the the street, that is something that I could potentially like be out of compliance for and would the city then like?

So what would happen in that situation is you could potentially get a visit from our code enforcement officers. That being said, our code enforcement works on more of a reactive basis. It's complaint driven. So they're not actively looking for those types of nonconformities. But certainly, your neighbor could call something in if it did not meet code and then code enforcement would have to come out, do their investigation, determine when the fence was built, etcetera etcetera, and then continue that discussion.

Okay. And then also in relation to fences, sorry to continue to ask this. So there was a lot of language around the height of the fence and how long fences need to be and finished fencing. And when we say finished fencing, are we just talking about the staining and all of that or are we talking about the terminus points of where the fence ends? I'm thinking kind of like a weird situation because I have a neighbor in the middle of myself in another house.

I know this is an odd question that, like, has a fence on both sides between the between their neighbors, myself and the neighbor on the other end, but they didn't fence the back. So the back is open. It is not facing a street. But if it were facing a street, would that have to be fenced or does it matter? So

No. I mean, fences are completely voluntary. So I mean there's no requirement that this be constructive. It's not saying that.

Okay. I just it was just the language around like finished fencing. Oh. And so that's where I was trying to figure out are we talking finished as in staining? Yes. As in

the finish of the surface.

And that was also maybe just some additional feedback. Maybe people would not overthink that to the level that I did. But it may be helpful to define what finished is because that also is a somewhat subjective term too.

Appreciate it.

I think that's it for me. Sorry, I'll be quiet now.

Thanks, Stephanie. Paul?

Yeah, I mean in terms of the fences and the requirements, think that they're pretty much fine the way they are. Jim had mentioned, the issue really only comes up I guess if somebody calls it in or if somebody is reapplying for a permit. Beyond that I think that most of the determinations one way or another are made by local HOAs in that regard. In terms of the landscaping, thought it went pretty far to try. I like the part about noxious weeds being removed.

I think that there should be more of an effort to do that in a lot of the places. So if people are reapplying for permits or new developments trying to come in, think that them making an effort to remove noxious weeds according to Kitsap County standards is a step in the right direction. I saw the area that Tiffany had pointed out about a grass area being soldered and hydro seeded unless otherwise approved by the director. Frankly, I'm of the mind that we should be encouraging as little grass as possible in the Pacific Northwest, especially seeing as how most of the grasses that are here are not native to here and they don't really work very well to control like storm water and things to that degree. And as that becomes more and more of a concern as the years go on I think that should be also a concern to the city and should be considered when we're doing our landscaping policies of trying to find, as Commissioner Wright had pointed out in the previous meeting, I saw the video on that, looking for native species of plants as well.

But overall I think it's pretty good.

Online to Joe. Did you have anything?

Let's have Wayne go first, and then I'll collect my thoughts. I'm a little bit I'm I'm actually wrestling with some of the fencing stuff too a little bit and some of the open space. I guess I'll yeah. Let me ask a question, and then I'll turn it over to Wayne. And then if I have anything, I'll speak up. But when is the landscaping chapter triggered? Like, if I pull a bunch like, if I take my front yard and let's imagine it faces the street, then I rip everything out of there and install a fence. Am I triggering the landscaping requirements of the city code?

The simple answer is no. But you may be triggering other permit types.

Well, that sounds less fun to me. What what permitting types might I be triggering when I conduct landscaping activity on my property?

We we actually in the land disturbing activity per Uh-huh. Portion of the code. Yeah. It actually talks about clearing and grubbing and the trimming of trees when you dig into the definitions. And so years ago, we split the Land Disturbing Activity Permit into two types.

And so we often get type one land disturbing activity permits when folks want to cut down trees because technically by code and definition that a permit is required for that. Now the planners only really get involved in that if there's a critical area or if it's a significant tree, and then they have to replace the trees. But otherwise, know, it actually says just trimming. So technically, if somebody was just gonna trim a limb off, they're supposed to get a permit. That doesn't happen.

So it's really intended for the cutting of trees. To answer your question though, general landscaping and that sort of thing is kind of exempted out of Land Disturbing Activity Permits. And with the policy direction that was given by the Land Use Committee, there in this draft, there are no requirements for landscaping for single family or middle housing.

Okay. And so this really gets triggered for developments then?

Yeah. It's really intended for new development.

Thank you. No further questions. Sorry, Wayne.

No. No. You you led into my thoughts too, Tiffany as well and Paul as well. We, I live in McCormick Woods, and I happen to be very, very, very familiar with all of the HOA requirements regarding landscaping and fences. And the one thing that I would say that this ordinance could benefit from is to refer to those established HOA requirements that are driving development within that HOA regarding trees, buffers, fences, colors.

There is so much more detail in the McCormick Woods HOA than this ordinance could ever do. So I would highly recommend, Jim, and the staff that you look at bringing something into this thing that accommodates what already exists, especially respecting the HOA at at McCormick Woods. We've got way more detail than what you've got in here. So that's something I think is important that we bring up and talk about. Tiffany touched on it.

Joe just touched on it. The developers are gonna have a interesting mishmash of meeting the city code and the HOA codes, and they may not be the same. So that I see a potential problem there. If the HOA is established, my recommendation would be that this ordinance default to the HOA. It's already been established.

Plans have been made. Years and years of planning have gone into it, and away we go. Also, I'm I'm glad, Joe, you brought up the fact about single families because that was one of my biggest concerns is can this split into somebody that has a 10 acre single family, 10 acre plot, and they wanna grow wheat or have a pasture for cows or horses? And it's probably low it's probably allowed. I don't wanna see this get in the way of somebody having their dream, place disrupted because of this.

So I think that we need to be very mindful of of those opportunities out there. Paul, I I I liked your points. I will say, though, grassland swales have been in the state of Washington stormwater manual for about twenty five years, and grassland swales are still out there. The city owns a bunch of them. So let's not give grass too bad of a a deal. It's it's done a good job for us in many years. Still does a good job. It's just no more maintenance. We have to know what to do about it. But grass is okay if in the right places in the right times, so I don't wanna get too down on the grass thing.

But that's my biggest thing is just really just make sure we're protecting the single family guys. Let the developers do their thing. But if they're in the HOA, that the HOA rules apply because you can't force the HOA to comply with this as I understand it. Now that might be a legal as a legal opinion from somebody more experienced than I in legal stuff, but, we gotta be careful not to get crossways with that. That's my thoughts.

Stephanie, did you have anything?

No. I actually had nothing to add other than what has already been touched on. Thank you. I actually do have another question. Tiffany? Yeah. Sorry. Sorry to go back. This is for you, Jim. So one last question that I realized I missed in my notes here of questions.

So because the rest of the folks brought up the noxious weed stuff, and I I do like that we have that. As I recall from trying to remember the exact verbiage that it was like developers need to basically get a bond to, like, continue to pay for that, like, three years after the property is developed and and all of that. So after that period, some weeds, I can't remember. I think it was the big one that you guys were all concerned about, that's got like yellow

Scotch broom.

Scotch broom. Like, that that the seeds for that can lie dormant for a long long time. And so I'm just I'm wondering, like, after that three year period, how do we continue to enforce noxious weed standards? Or is it sort of, like, up to whoever owns the property at that point, we just kinda hope for the best?

It's up county has a noxious weed program. Okay. And so it it may benefit us to to have a little communication with them and and see what if we can right size it for the city. But they do have programs to kind of address those things, noxious weeds. But we're really limited to, again, new development and that kind of maintenance period afterward.

My brain is just going too big on it. So that's okay. All right. That's fine. Cool.

And you all brought up a couple of things. So I'd like to address them, if that's all right. The SOD question. Now that is really intended to only allow turf, grass turf in active open space where folks are required question. We'll next next Instead of with replanting it with native vegetation, question.

They just turf it. And so that's not really providing any ecological benefit. And so that's really the intent of the grass being limited to 30%, etcetera, etcetera, and really only for active.

And what my thought was in bringing that up is I was actually thinking, like, less grassy space, more native plants, kind of what Paul was was, like, actually reducing that size outside of the active areas to have a smaller space of grass so that we, you know, have more trees or more shrubs, something more native ground cover, that sort of thing. So

And and that's really how this draft was that's what it intends to do. Right? And so if you think there's there's if you have suggestions on better language to make that clear, you know, I'm welcome to take this.

Just arbitrarily say 20%, not 30%, something like that.

And then the fence standards. Now remember, they are currently in the residential design standards. It only applies to those building types that are subject to the standards of twenty point one three nine. So that's detached houses and all middle housing. It does not address multifamily, does not address commercial.

And so in this case, what would happen and so we might need to rethink where fences occur in the code. With the guidance we've gotten that the landscape standards won't apply to detached houses or middle housing, then these fence standards, they only apply to now the opposite being multifamily and commercial. So we may be just moving the problem somewhere else and not addressing it fully. So we may need to rethink this a little bit.

Yes. Timothy brought up another good point. We've been struggling in McCormick Woods right now with landscaping around recreational facilities. We have a new one in the trails that's got a pickleball court, basketball court, kids playground. They basically left all the scrub alder, the stuff that's about this size of my forearm, and all the stuff below it.

And the wind came, of course, and blew all that stuff down. The other thing that they did poorly was that they didn't take care of the drainage. So everything when it rained really hard, the, playground flooded and all the alders died, which exacerbated everything blowing down. So when we talk about landscaping, especially for a commercial property, a commercial development, there needs to be something in there about drainage control and proper management and proper proper, forest management. If you're gonna leave trees that are gonna fall down on the playground and bonk little kids in the head playing soccer, I'm not in favor of it.

And we're fighting right now with Nick Tosti here in McCormick Woods about this exact same thing. So if you're gonna do a landscape program, we should think it through all the way to what causes landscapes to work and what causes landscapes to fail. And drainage and plant propagation, proper plant installation, proper plant management for common areas and buffers is is super important. We've also had issues where buffers were so small in Port Orchard that Winthrow caused all kinds of power outages. I met with the engineer for the developer and said, will have problems here, here, and here.

I got some things fixed, but, frankly, we had several power outages where trees were thrown onto power lines, very predictable because they didn't manage the buffer properly. So when it comes down to landscaping and you wanna do a landscaping regulation that makes good sense, I think there's some things to be said about drainage, buffer widths, tree management, wind throw opportunities. There's a whole bunch of stuff that could be done. Arborist could be used to take care of a lot of these issues we're seeing in the Port Orchard development area, but we're also now seeing that they're cutting everything down and we have nothing left to go with. I mean, they're using they're using every square foot, so there's no trees left, which is also a shame.

It could be there's no balance right now in Port in McCormick Woods, and it's actually a heartbreaker because, like Paul, I wanna see more trees. I wanna see more, you know, good quality opportunities to to view the woods, but right now, the woods is becoming no more woods. So we're we're I'm not sure any of this regulation even applied to McCormick Woods because of the way the whole setup is going, but it would be sad to see the future not, address some of these issues. And I can give you direct details. And and Jim and and staff, I can take you to these places and show you exactly what I'm talking about. So, I think we need to give it some good thought there.

Let's just add more trees altogether. Like, every single section, add 20 trees.

And remember, Public Works is still going I know through

their tree tree canopy stuff, yes.

So this is all going to come back. And hopefully we have a long term solution.

Yeah. And just to mention, that's sort of my hesitation oftentimes with trying to abide our code by developer standards or by HOA standards or this that the other is that a lot of the times they're not really focused on sustainability as much as making a nice looking neighborhood now or making a profitable neighborhood now and not focused on twenty, thirty years down the road. And so like Wayne's concerns, it's like we want something that's built sustainable that's gonna look good after a few decades. I think that looking forward on this stuff, I mean again, I think this is maybe the conversation's kind of gone outside the current code that we're discussing here. But it's worth keeping in mind of what existed for thousands of years before development ever got here and trying to focus on that a little bit because nature kind of knew what it was doing before we came in and started building houses.

So I think it's worth considering.

Alright. Anything else on landscaping before we move on? Alright. Five b, discussion about permitting and development approval. Jim?

Tonight, we're returning to the proposed amendments to POMC Title 20 that would establish an administrative process for final plat approval. As you'll recall from our February discussion, the goal is to bring our procedures into alignment with state law and streamline the final plat stage so it functions as a ministerial compliance check rather than a second public hearing process. In February, we walked through how final plats are currently processed as Type four permits, even though all public comment, conditions of approval and substantive review And the we've

progress

the past.

And to staff and a public hearing is not

required. Pleased Since that meeting, staff discussed the issue with the council's land use committee. The committee directed staff to move forward with creating an administrative final plat approval process. The red line amendments included in your March packet reflect that direction and show how the code would be updated across chapters 20.22, 20.8, 20.9, and 20.98. Tonight, we're asking for your feedback on the draft amendments before the department proceeds with the next steps, which is drafting the adopting ordinance based on the red lines, issuing an environmental determination, and routing the proposal to the Washington Department of Commerce.

Those steps are required before we can schedule a public hearing. Tentatively, we anticipate bringing this back for a public hearing at your May meeting where you'll take public testimony, deliberate, and provide a recommendation to the city council. With that, we welcome your questions and any direction on the March draft so we can continue refining the amendments ahead of the formal review process.

Thanks, Jim. Tiffany?

So I didn't have tons of comments on this because as I understood it from our last meeting and then what you just kind of reiterated right now, it's not like changing this process removes any potential additional like like if somebody did oppose a certain thing happening of a a plat, they've already had their opportunity to to say something, the final plat approval, there would be nothing for them to do anyway. It would just be the city talking back and forth with with the the the applicant and basically saying, like, you've met all the requirements or you haven't, and that's why we're moving forward with this. So, I mean, like, as far as I could tell, all the changes were just supporting that. I didn't see anything that, really jumped out at me. So I'm I'm fine with where it goes.

Paul?

Yeah. I wasn't here for the last meeting. I did see the video, but one question and then a comment. Question is you had mentioned that it's to fall in line with state standards by sort of amending our code to fall in line with state standards. Could you clarify for me exactly what we're talking about there?

State law allows the city council to delegate the authority for final plat approval to a hearing body or to staff. And so what we've chosen to do is to go towards staff because at the end of a final plat process, developers are usually in quite a hurry to get their Platts recorded so that they have legal lots of record for sale. When we have to time it up with a public meeting, that becomes problematic just as far as they have closing dates set and that sort of thing, and that can throw things off just waiting on those. So the idea of just shifting it to staff, nothing would be approved that didn't already satisfy all their requirements. That's just not something that happens.

And so we're simply, at that point checking things off to make sure that they've done everything they're supposed to do, and then they have the permission, essentially the approval to go record it.

So it's mostly just like a usually there's an issue for the person trying to get it approved if they have to time it up with a public hearing so it'd be far more efficient because it's gonna go through the design standards or the standards that we have anyway?

Well, we are technically by state law not allowed to hold another public hearing on it. Okay. So we can't hold a public hearing. The code currently says it's a Type four permit. Type four permit requires a public hearing. We're not allowed to have another public hearing at final plat. It's simply have they done what they're supposed to do or not. And so at that point, the city council who currently approves final plats, they're really put into a corner and they're obligated to approve it regardless. And so it just makes sense to take that from the council and make it a ministerial review.

Yeah, I would say I'm in agreement with that. The only concern I had or the only thought I had as I was getting the rundown is being on the Planning Commission I've seen a few times, it hasn't happened too frequently, but a few times where the public has been at the final stages of these sort of things of being approved and then they come in furiously angry wondering why they didn't know about this until a few nights ago or something along those lines. But I feel like that's more of a public outreach issue or just like before that ends up going to the last stages how do they know about that. But yeah I would say that in terms of the code as it currently is.

So just for your benefit, what happens now when somebody wants to subdivide their land, they have the legal right to do that as long as they meet code, meet zoning, all of these things. And so when a preliminary plat application is submitted to the city, the city does a notice of application that goes to all property owners within 300 feet. The city also issues a SEPA determination, goes to all property owners within 300 feet. Then there is a notice of hearing, which goes to all those same property owners where they then have the opportunity to testify at a public hearing and and and provide their comments. The hearing examiner reviews the record and compares it to code, essentially reviews it for consistency with the code, takes into consideration any comments that are received and may put in conditions of approval that address those comments.

Once that preliminary plat decision is issued, there is an appeal process there that needs to be submitted in a timely manner. The developer then will submit a land disturbing activity permit, which is a Type two permit that also requires a notice of application. It also there is a decision that's issued distributed to any parties of record. There's also an appeal period associated with that. At that point when they receive the land disturbing activity permit, the developer will then go build the roads, build grade the lots, put all the infrastructure in the ground that they need.

And once they've satisfied all of those requirements, then they will submit a final application. So at that point, it really doesn't make any sense to have another public hearing and have this notification because they've already been given the right to do this to the property with those expectations and that's what they follow.

Okay. Yeah. In light of that information, I agree completely. I would say that's as long as those processes are going through then yeah.

Limited by waiting for a city council meeting for city council to approve it. It's something you could do.

Yeah. It's that, and at that point, the city council or hearing body really doesn't have a choice. Yeah. So

Going online. We'll start with Stephanie. Do you have any questions or comments?

No. I do not. Thanks, Tyler.

Alright. Thanks, Stephanie. Wayne.

Jim, I appreciate the comments. There was something happened in 2024 in McCormick Woods where the current planning that's going on right now got zoned from r six to r five or r 5 to R 6, and and I don't recall ever getting an information request for comment concerns about what happened there. And I sent you an email. I I left you a voice mail about two or three months ago about this because I never understood how they got so many small, tiny lots right next to the golf course on three different big plats. We're talking hundreds of lots.

And the drainage is an issue. The trees are an issue. Everything's coming out. It's gonna be a complete devastation along the golf course, and the drainage is gonna go right down to the bottom of the slope onto the golf course. And I've got extreme serious concerns about that. So I don't recall ever getting the conversation with the city of, hey. Guess what? They're gonna do something different. And and maybe it was with the whole master plan and the way it all worked out, but, boy, I I was shocked when I learned that information. I testified recently at a at a public hearing about this.

So I'm I'm just I'm just concerned that we're not necessarily taking care of the overall environment with some of these decisions, and I don't think the public's getting a good chance to comment on it. And it could be because of the way the master plan at McCormick Woods was laid out. I could just be too late to the game, but, I was pretty surprised when that went down, and I learned that. Can you enlighten me here? Or or am I just to. Yeah. Please. Thank you.

So the R 6 District was created in, gosh, I want to say 2018 or so. And really the only difference between the R6 District and the R2 District were setbacks. When we went through the we've done some updates to our zoning districts between that 2018 and prior to starting the comprehensive plan process. But when we started the comprehensive plan periodic update, this was something that we spoke at length about, I think, and we showed on the zoning map where that R6 was being changed from R6 to R2. And then the middle housing regulations to implement the comprehensive plan actually repealed the R6 designation.

The application that you're talking about was submitted prior to the middle housing ordinance being adopted. It was kind of in between the end of the comprehensive plan and that middle housing implementation for the comprehensive plan. So that's where that all occurred. We brought it here to the Planning Commission, talked about repealing R6 and that's how that happened. Now to that end, the current zoning is very similar to what was there before.

In fact, some of the lot sizes that were approved through the middle housing have actually increased the minimum size of a lot where some lots were permitted to be 3,200 square feet. Now pretty much across the board in all our districts, the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet. And so that it was a fairly significant change and made everything the same as before, it really depended on which zoning district you were in. And so there was a very public process to that that change that amended the zoning map. In fact, I I think you were, on the commission at that time.

I was, but it wasn't clear how that was affecting McCormick Woods when that was described. So I was that was I was still surprised when that all went down, and it was not at all clear to me at the time that McCormick Woods was being affected this way because those lots are going to be a disaster. They will all need pumps in the bottom of their basements. There's a lot of water running off. I already commented on the critical areas, and I've I didn't disagree a bit professionally with the way that went down, but the city has made its decision.

But I wanna go on record that there are gonna be people that are gonna be very angry when this gets built. That's after forty five years of being a development consultant that this is gonna be a problem on lot everything along thirteen, fourteen, and 15 holes are are gonna be a problem. So get ready because there's gonna be all kinds of issues.

I can certainly share your concerns with the, engineering department when they review this, as part of the land disturbing activity permit. I mean, that that's part of it, the storm drainage permit, land disturbing activity. They are addressing storm water concerns there. So I I will bring it to their attention to keep an eye on it.

Well, that storm water's gotta go right across the golf course and onto where the ponds are, which are actually quasi natural wetlands that have been converted to storm ponds that they're using as as storm water facilities, which is another one of those unusual little gimmies to them. And I'm I'm just concerned that that's all gonna come back to the HOA that's gotta pay for the future maintenance of all this stuff. And that's where I'm concerned about this because as a homeowner out here, and Tiffany is as well, this is stuff that we pay for if if the city does a bad job or the development does a bad job, it becomes HOA ownership. We've got all kinds of problems and a a ruined golf course because the developer wanted to make a bunch of money, and we let them. So I just I just wanna be fair and honest about this upfront.

So please tell the engineering department that there's some serious concerns here. Those three lot those three big developments are not well designed right now.

Commissioner Wright, I hear what you're saying. I think it's outside of what we're discussing, obviously, as far as final processing. So I would encourage you to keep an eye out on a public notice sign that comes up as part of the Land of Serving Activity Permit and make comment if you feel it's necessary. And that way you can be on record with your concerns and also set yourself up as a party of record.

And that has been done already.

Joe, any comments about, permitting in the the development approval?

Thanks. For, operational process, this is a good idea. Under you know, when it when it comes to, the multiple hearings that exist, and the need for a potentially third and final hearing, I agree an administrative process should be used.

Alright. Moving on to five c, the director's report. Is that you, Jim?

Yeah. Only one thing to report. McCormick West Division 15, the city council approved it at their last regular meeting. So several more lots, think it's I think I'm speculating, but I believe it's about 50 lots. So, yeah, that that's all I have to report.

Else for the good of the order? Nope. Alright. We will go ahead and adjourn, and we will see everybody at the April 7 meeting. Thanks, everybody.

Everyone. Bye. Enjoy California, Wayne. See you.

Recording stopped.