Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I would like to welcome to everyone to tonight's hearing. It is 06/09/2025, and the time is now 06:04. This meeting will come to order. Tanja, will you please call the roll?

Yes. Ali Shosti?

Here.

Ben Reed? Here. Brian Kesterson? Here. Dion Ditmar? Here. Justice Phelps? He'll be here soon. Todd Oyo Fesso?

Here.

Sandra Perreira Reynolds is excused and for the record remote attendance for Todd Ollofesto has been approved for this meeting.

Thank you. Are there any added items or changes to the agenda from staff?

So there's a change from speaker from Kristen Holzworth to Tyler Quinn Smith.

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that please? Oh, thank you. Thank you. Okay.

The minutes from the previous meeting have been presented to the board. I call them for a motion to approve the minutes of 05/27/2025 as presented.

This is Dion Ditmar. I move to approve the minutes as presented.

Mrs. Ben Reid, I second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we will move to a vote. The motion on the floor is to approve the minutes of 05/27/2025 as presented. All those in favor say aye. All those against say nay. The vote is approved. Tonight, we are holding a public hearing in which the staff will give a brief recap on the housing ordinance. This is an action item and a vote will be held to take a formal recommendation to the city council for this item.

The process for tonight's hearing is as follows. I will open and close the public meeting, staff will make a presentation, then board members will have a chance to ask questions. Board members will place their miniature houses on the dais to indicate that they would like to speak. After board member questions, I will invite testimony from the public in chambers. Tanja will call on you one at a time.

When you are called, please come to the podium and state your first name and zip code for the record. You will each have three minutes to speak. After all public comments have been made, board members may have questions for the staff. If you have a member of the public and wish if you are a member of the public and wish to provide public comment, please notify Tanya by signing up in the sign in sheet near her desk. If there are no objections from the board members at this time, I will open the public hearing for a recap of the housing amendment. We will begin with a presentation by Tyler Quinn Smith.

Thank you, chair. Good evening, Land Use and Planning Board members. Tyler Quinn Smith here from Framework. Happy to kick off the public hearing for the code amendments as part of the Recode Kent project. Tonight, I have a relatively brief presentation for you all, mostly recapping what we shared on the 20.

However, there have been a few small changes made to the ordinance under consideration in light of some feedback we received from the Department of Commerce, so I'll be sure to indicate those throughout the presentation. Starting with one mandate that was passed in 2023, if I'm not mistaken, to enable the conversion of nonresidential buildings into residential buildings and to otherwise provide opportunities to provide more more residential dwelling units within existing residential structures so long as the building envelope doesn't increase in size. So the the code amendments that we've made to implement this law are relatively straightforward and per the baseline requirements of the law, a density bonus of 50% if, once again, those dwelling units can be provided for within the existing structure. There's some additional provisions here that kinda seek to navigate the balance of parking in the future. And then we also picked up on the city's preexisting efforts along pedestrian oriented or pedestrian priority corridors that really want the ground floor of structures to be held aside for retail and other active uses.

So we've included a provision in the code not to allow the additional uses on those ground floor along those corridors. Moving on to a topic of discussion that I know you all have have visited frequently with Kristen in past meetings. This is in response to the state's middle housing legislation that puts Kent or categorizes Kent as a tier one city, which basically means that the baseline requirement under this law is to allow for four units on all residentially zoned lots. And in some circumstances, providing a density bonus of up to two units if the lot is proximate to transit or if the project includes some level of affordability. And recognizing some of the larger lot opportunities in Kent, we've also provided an alternative net density pathway for applicants to take of 24 units an acre.

So that provides a little bit more optimization of those larger lots. And in order to kind of streamline the code going forward and recognize some of the nuances that aren't really relevant anymore under this legislation, we've consolidated some of the zones. And so that's what on the screen here. And in in in doing so, renamed some of the proposed zoning districts that not only, make it kind of obvious what is progressive in terms of intensity across the zones, but in a way that more closely aligns with the future land use map in the comprehensive plan. And so also part of this batch of updates, we've included some diagrams to help indicate or illustrate the the various dimensional standards for middle housing across the zones.

And it's certainly a topic that we look forward to continuing in a second phase of this project in the 2025 to more thoroughly optimize all of these housing choices across Kent. Okay. ADUs is another piece of legislation recode Kent is responding to. I'll note that the city was largely in compliance with this mandate before where it allowed up to two ADUs per lot. However, we've had to make some changes in the way that ADUs are counted toward density when recognizing how this bill course or interacts with the middle housing bill.

So, going forward, ADUs will be counted as unit just like any other middle housing unit to amount to that unit density or net density requirement in the zone. Okay. Design standards are kind of implicated across several pieces of legislation. And the city, fortunately, into this amendment process had a very kind of simple and modest approach to design review where it only had a few standards for residential development that were administratively reviewed, which is largely in alignment with the intent of this law. The However, the city did have a few standards that impacted this scale and building envelope of residential projects.

We've had to move those standards such as maximum facade length any way anywhere there was a modulation requirement. For example, we needed to move those into the into the broader zoning district standards just so they would more uniformly apply to all residential development. We've also had to eliminate some some restrictions on ADUs that might have previously required them to match the the aesthetic of the principal unit, for for example. But largely, the city was was in compliance with this bill, we just had to make a few changes. I will note that one small batch of architectural detail requirements do exist in the design standards part of the the code, which would be administratively reviewed by staff.

Okay. Unit lot subdivision. This is a new requirement for all cities across Washington, recognizing the the preexisting challenges and delay that goes into putting forward like a fully fledged subdivision proposal. This is an alternative mechanisms that allow streamlined and easy way of just slicing up a lot for the purposes of selling fee simple units that are either attached to one another or detached and scattered throughout the lot. Once again, primarily to advance the opportunities for home ownership.

And so, I'm gonna just point out example. I know you shared I shared it with you last time, but it bears repeating here because there has been some confusion in this all across the state. When using unit lot subdivision, the development standards for the zone are applied to the parent lot. So, that might be the larger preexisting lot. That's where we evaluate the compliance against density, against coverage, setbacks, etcetera.

And then once the unit lot subdivision tool is used to slice up these units for purposes of selling, excuse me, those are no longer really subject to the coverage or setbacks as individual child lots. And one more thing I'll mention here, in recognition of the guidance provided by the Department of Commerce, which recognizes a lot of cities don't really have the tools to accommodate large scale middle housing projects. They have, me, suggested that cities align unit lot subdivision with their existing short subdivision procedures, which caps the number of unit lots, in this case to nine units or excuse me, nine lots. Okay. Moving now on to step housing.

This is in response to a rather large piece of legislation known as HB twelve twenty that had a driving force on the comprehensive plan in terms of planning for and accommodating housing at all income levels and subsequently in the zoning code. And so step housing collectively refers to permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, emergency housing, and emergency shelters. The baseline requirements of the law have been pulled through the ordinance before you, generally just defining those four types of housing, permitting them as required by the law. However, after review with the Department of Commerce, we've made a couple small updates in the last two weeks, mostly regarding the definition of permanent supportive housing, small small shift there. The allowance of transitional housing in the a 10 zone previously was not allowed there.

The the RCW statute does require cities to allow permanent supportive housing and transitional housing. So, two of the step housing types on all lots that allow residential development. So, it's a fairly basic compliance change that we need to make there. And then this third bullet point I'm going to unpack little more thoroughly for you, and I'm happy to take questions if there's some confusion. But we had to disentangle two separate but very similar footnotes in fifteen o four.

There was a a bill passed a couple years ago, 1754, that essentially allowed cities to allow religious organizations to accommodate the homeless through either outdoor emergency shelters such as, like, tiny home villages, safe parking areas, tiny temporary homes. The city passed an ordinance, forgive me, I think just in the last year in order to implement that requirement. Subsequently, 11 or twelve twenty was passed, which which only addresses indoor emergency shelter and indoor emergency housing. And so in the draft before you, we've made some additional changes there to really separate those two footnotes because one addresses the temporary outdoor type of shelter, the other the indoor type. So happy to take more questions if you need some additional clarification there.

And then second to last slide here. Some parking flexibility mandates were passed in the last two or last two years. One of which was implemented through a, director's rule in past iterations of the code that has since been codified in this draft, essentially, you know, shrinking the minimum size requirements for parking stalls. Developers will always be allowed to build larger stalls, this recognizing recognizes kind of those spatial constraints that come with previously larger minimums for a small stall sizes. Excuse me.

It also allows some flexibility in the surfacing requirements for residential parking. And so those have been included in this draft. And as a last slide, I will introduce you to a piece of legislation that was not in the in the May 27 draft. So, this was flagged through our review with the Department of Commerce, and it requires cities to or it is in light of a piece of legislation that requires cities to provide development or density bonuses to religious institutions for developing affordable housing on their properties. So this is kind of grown in popularity all across the country for that matter, And there's some some great examples in some of of your neighbors to the north.

But essentially, in exchange for providing housing development that is entirely affordable to moderate income households earning up to 80% of the area median income, the city has the has the ability to provide a density or or development bonus. And so, in the last week in kind of figuring out what to do with this mandate, the city has decided to provide a one story height increase or a 10 foot increase in height in exchange for that sort of affordability public benefit that a religious institution would be providing the city. So with that, I will turn it back to you, chair, for questions and comments. That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you staff. Are there any questions for staff? I recognize justice. So

with the outdoor, what did we call it? Outdoor, think you're back a couple slides. Distinction between indoor and outdoor emergency shelters. So I noticed in the outdoor one, we don't have it that they have to have Narcan on-site, but the indoor one, we do. What was the required change for that? Or not including it in there. I don't know which, if our staff wants to take it or

I can start and then look to Deja or others for more context. Great question. The law does not prohibit the city from requiring Narcan to be on-site for the indoor shelters, for example, or excuse me, for the outdoor shelters is your point here. So just to clarify something, this form of emergency shelter outdoors on presumably parking lots of religious institutions, the city can put in place a little bit more mechanisms for the purposes of public health, life safety, and having Narcan on-site is certainly one of those and and would be permissible requirement for the city to to make.

But as of right now, it's

not in the code. Can I Hi, y'all? Sorry. I'm operating remotely this week recovering. Justice, I I am looking at the ordinance right now, and it does appear that we do require Narcan. Our intent was not to remove it. I'm looking and it is in footnote 31. We have it under section in 31. It's under if you look on page 80 hold on. Let me find it again really quickly.

Page 83, it's the it's in the middle of the page, x I I. It says emergency house housing and outside emergency shelter facilities must have two kits.

Okay. So it

does say

it in there?

Yes. So the intent was to keep it for both. Okay.

So I have a question for our legal counsel in the back. I was corresponding with Tanya earlier about a lot of the questions, a lot of the comments that we've received in writing and presumably later on this evening are in the form of requested amendments. What is the process for processing those amendments, making decisions about what will what if anything will change and what is this board's role in it?

I can answer that question as it really pulling a recent planning board. Then, Christina, if you wanna jump in. Yes. Okay. I see a head nod. So so we so just a reminder a little bit. This is phase one of a multistep process. So we will be, to the extent possible, incorporating comments as we've received them. So what we presented tonight incorporated feedback from the Department of Commerce. The land use and planning board acts as an advisory board.

You all are welcome to you have a suggested amendment before you. Once that amendment is on the floor, there's a motion on the floor. You're welcome to, suggest a proposal if, proposed change, like a secondary change, if you would like to, to say you would like to see a certain amendment. At this point in the game, staff are really in the direction of of our city council is focused on what's required to comply with state law because we know there's going to be another phase where where we will be cleaning up a lot more. So if there are specific changes, you are welcome to, after the original motion is on the floor, propose an amendment to say, we recommend that this section be changed to incorporate x, y, or z.

That is a recommendation, again, from the advisory board that you all would vote on. And then, ultimately, it's council's decision whether to incorporate those changes before they adopt the final ordinance or to decide not to. So you all have the ability to recommend changes. They do have to go through a motion process.

Okay. Thank you. Are there further questions for staff?

Yes. Kristen, what is a one in our code? Where is that? Or a 10 not one. Okay.

Was like, I'm not sure where a one is. This is a good question.

Was like, wait a minute. No. Yeah. A 10.

Ad ten land is mostly around the the Green River area.

So we're going to commerce is requiring that we allow transitional housing in our ag land?

It would still be subject to all of the density requirements. So it would be one unit per 10 acres. But that is we thought it was weird, but commerce is saying there's no exemption for agricultural lands. So if we have land that allows housing, we have to allow that transitional and permanent supportive housing at this time. But it is subject to all those other requirements.

The likelihood that it will be developed is very slim because normally those are built at greater intensities, just because of the way the financing and the funding works. But it's potentially a possibility in commerce. It is a state requirement, not the city's choice or it's a little bit weird because it goes against some of our other ideals of protecting agricultural and flood hazard areas.

Well, I thought that fell under King County's guidance as well because didn't count the King County recognized that we had to keep our ag zones.

So if the land is designated as a King County wide, in the County wide planning policies as an urban separator, that is not subject to the middle housing requirements. But that was a specific, effort that we made with the state to make sure we had compliance between the state and the the county requirements. That same requirement does not apply for permanent supportive housing and transitional housing.

Thank you.

Are there any further questions from the board? If there are no further questions from the board, we will call on the public speakers. Tanya, is there anyone signed up to speak?

Yes, Michael Johnson.

Please state your first name and last name and zip code for the record and then make your comments please.

Michael Johnson, zip code is 98030. I'm here to advocate for the Mill Creek Historic District. If I only have three minutes, I guess I wanna ask you, are you aware that we have a historic district and you know where it is?

Yep. Okay. Everybody?

Okay, well let me go through the history a little bit. I sent some emails to miss Hothworth and also miss Walker, so that's on the record. But Kent Landmarks Commission approved the establishment of the Mill Creek Historic District in 2014. It's 60 parcels, it's between Clark Avenue and Hazel and between Cedar Street and Smith, just east of town. I was the chair of the design guidelines committee, road design guidelines for it.

And in 2020, the Kent Landmarks Commission approved those design guidelines. So what I'm here to advocate tonight for is for zoning to protect the historic district. Mainly, I'd like zoning to say you can't tear down these houses. That's the only that's a historic district that there's only one in South King County, it's here in Kent for residential. So I'd like something in there to protect from tearing down the house.

On density, we don't disallow more density on the lots as long as the property is in the back and you can't just stick it in front. We're trying to protect the view of the front of the house. So we allow more density, but it has to be on the back. The other thing we want is the design guidelines, which have been adopted to be part of the zoning, so that when people see these properties, they have some guidance on what they can and can't do. There are some non contributing houses in that area.

There's 49 contributing and about eight or nine non contributing. You could tear down a non contributing house, but you have to put back up a house that has a common architecture to any of the rest of the houses. That's in the design guidelines. The third thing we wanted was a buffer the district and the downtown in terms of height. And I've been informed by staff that that buffer is still in the code.

It was a 300 foot buffer with a height restriction. We got that in through the city a few years ago. So that's what I'm pleading for. I'm also I'm on the Kent, Greater Kent Historical Society Board and that board officers met Friday and they approved that we should support this zoning to protect the historic district. With that, I'll take any questions.

That's three.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Tanya, who's next?

Next is Sam Pace.

Will you please state your first name and last name and ZIP code for the record?

Yes. Thank you, Chairman Kesterson.

Good to see you again. Good to

be able to be seen. My name is Sam Pace 98042 and I'm here tonight on behalf of 7,000 representing 7,000 realtors in King County in connection with this very long haul, very difficult piece of work that the city has undertaken. And I first wanna begin by congratulating you on being one of the cities that has managed to meet both the June dead December 31 deadline and the and the June deadline that's coming up. There are a lot of a lot of cities that have not done done that. As you may know, the history of this is that prior to 2020, legislature used incentives in 2019 with House Bill nineteen twenty three.

They tried to use incentives on steroids. That didn't work. So in 2021, they stepped up with House Bill twelve twenty and went to a mandates approach. And then in 2023, we had the middle housing, the accessory dwelling units and the unit lot subdivision legislation in house bills eleven ten, thirteen thirty seven senate bill fifty two fifty five. Then this year, there have been a couple of of other bills that I wanna just mention briefly in a moment.

House bill ten ninety six regarding lot splitting and senate bill fifty fifty five fifty nine. And the bottom line of what I'm gonna say about those, it would is it would be helpful if you can. The work unfortunately is not yet done. There are new mandates in those bills. The sooner that you can do that, the more important it will be and the bigger impact it will have.

Before I just mention that, I want to indicate that we appreciate these most recent amendments of note, including the conversions, the affordable housing, net density on larger lots, what gets built is not going to be torn down for fifty years. So the extent you can maximize the opportunities that you have with that additional density now makes your future that future decisions may not be easy, but they will be easier because of those kinds of amendments, the five forty five density involving public benefits, the administrative design review, the codification of the restraints on parking mandates. Just want to close with this thought. In the big picture, the subdivision process and the condominium process are both expensive, they take time, they lack predictability. Middle housing and the ADUs and the unit lot subdivisions will produce more housing over time, but it's going to take time.

But those are most all likely to be rentals, not ownership housing. I know that Chamber of Commerce is interested in what you're doing tonight. It's important for them as well that that you take advantage of the unit lot subdivision and the and the lot splitting as quickly as possible. Because what it does, it doesn't increase the number of units, but it makes pop makes it possible to split the legal title to

That's three minutes.

So that they can be sold. Can I have one breath, one additional breath real quick? Yes. To the extent we can get would be home buyers out of the rental market and not only helps them, it minimizes the pressure in the rental market for folks who can only afford to rent long term. Thank you. Thank you.

Tanya, who's next?

There's no one else signed up, but there may be one more person in the audience who would like

to speak.

Is there any audience anyone in the audience not signed up who would care to speak? Seeing none, seeing no further speakers from the public, I would like to ask the staff if they have any further comments.

Thank you. Yes, a couple points of clarification. I wanna thank both people who came and provided comments. We also did receive some letters in, the form of emails from a few people. And so those have been provided to you all in your pockets, and we would like to submit them as exhibits for the record just for the sake of the entirety of the record in the comments.

A couple of notes. So right now, we are staff are well aware of the Mill Creek Historic District, and, we work in partnership with King County as well as the Greater Historical Kent Society on on historic preservation and the design requirements. I did wanna say that currently, our code incentivizes the, the the preservation. It's something that we would continue conversation on actually to to explore whether we are allowed to mandate the preservation of that primary unit, something with commerce that we would, we're working on discussing further. So I do appreciate that comment, and we do work with the design guidelines.

There's a whole process if if changes are permitted within. I appreciate, the speaker's comments about allowing the density as it is, behind the units and in compliance with the design guidelines. I hear the the wanting to call out those design guidelines loud and clear, and that's something that we can study at a future date of how to make sure that is well known or better publicized. And then to reiterate, yes, we do still maintain that building separation, between the downtown and and the historic district. In terms of mister Pace's comments, thank you so much for just providing additional input.

We will be continuing to look at the new state laws and continuing to do ongoing opportunities to implement them. We do believe so through the unit lot subdivision process, I know it's not nearly as fast as what the lot splitting process will be, but it does offer substantial homeownership opportunities. And our comprehensive plan and our housing needs assessment did say that, homeownership opportunities are a significant need, and so we are working as a city to identify those opportunities and find find ways to incentivize and encourage them when we can. So that is very much in line with the direction that, these code changes before you and what we anticipate in future iterations will have. So I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, but thank you so much for, the the people that did come out for public comment and to those who provided written letters.

Are there any questions? Seeing none, I will call for a motion to accept the exhibits of the written comments that were emailed earlier today for the record. Is there any motions? I second the motion? Yeah, somebody's got to move. Make the motion first. I make the motion to enter those exhibits. Those. Except the exhibits. Except the written comments as exhibits. Except the written comments as exhibits. Is there a second? Aye, Ali Shasti. Second. Is there debate?

Hearing none, the motion on the floor is to accept as exhibits the written comments that were distributed earlier today. All those in favor say Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries.

Let's see. I now call for a motion to close the public hearing.

This is Justice Phelps. I move to close the public hearing. Motion

on the floor is to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. The motion passes.

I will now wait a

minute. Okay.

I will call to a vote to approve the minutes. I guess we should have done that earlier. Flip over. Over. How about if I There we go. Okay. Okay. I will now call for a motion to recommend the council adopt the plan. And there is a full written motion there.

Okay. This is Ali Shasti. I move to recommend that the Kent City Council adopt the ordinance updating housing requirement to comply with new state legislation and the city's 2044 comprehensive plan and all of its reference and incorporated elements and appendices as presented by staff. Subject to final incorporation of edits to address community input and minor revisions by the city attorney during the final ordinance review.

Is there a second?

This is Dion Ditmar, I second.

Is there a discussion? No, it's this is it's just the board at this point. So that was the discussion earlier that the recommendations will also be processed and they will go process separately as well. So it's not the end for the recommendations will sorry, would somebody else please feel Is that so

Kristen wanting it? Okay.

I can't hear things that are

Can we

have

on legal the the question was asked if they could if there were comments or amendments that could be taken from the floor. I said no, the question and then the question was again asked about what will happen to these amendments as the request from the public. And so, I was trying to repeat what you said earlier and failing miserably. So Okay. I figured I'd just turn it back to you.

Great. So, at this point, Land Use and Planning Board, the record is closed, and so it is up to the land use and planning board to, and there is a motion on the table saying that they, move to recommend that this set of this ordinance of the code changes move forward to city council for approval. There's that provision in there subject to minor changes. A lot of times, we include that, and it's really in case there's some technical edits we need to do. Nothing that would be substantive of adding additional things that weren't already discussed before you today.

Council does have the prerogative to add more things in if they would like to. So, really, this is land use and planning board's ability to then if there are things you would like to recommend that are added in that are not currently included in the ordinance, you could provide a, second motion to say, I would like to move that, and you would say what you would like to see amended. And this is really the only op this is the opportunity for land use and planning board only at this time because, the public has had their opportunity to provide comments.

But staff will also be reviewing the comments. Was that not correct?

So staff have reviewed the comments that have been written. At this point, staff's recommendation is to, move the ordinance forward as it is written, subject to any minor adjustments. As as I previously stated, at this time, we, are not recommending or we do not intend to incorporate the mandatory preservation of the Mill Creek Historic District units because we need to have further conversations with the Department of Commerce about that, and we haven't gotten clear guidance yet. So that would be a we would recommend a staff that that be something that we address in the second iteration of code amendments.

Is there any further discussion? That recognizes justice.

Kristen, can you walk me through again the motion, the amendment to make an amendment to this already?

Yes. So your, if I'm going to use you as an example, justice. So if you want to say, and this would not be legal, but I'm just using it as an example of I move to amend the the proposed ordinance that's before us to include a mandatory provision that all houses be painted purple. Whatever that language is of what you would like to move, you would make that motion. Someone would need to second it in order for there to be discussion about it, and then you would need to vote on that amendment before you go back to the original amendment.

So if someone doesn't like from Landis and Planning Board, if you don't believe that the motion that was written for the ordinance as it's currently written, if you think there should be changes to what's in that ordinance, now is the time that you would make that recommendation and we can incorporate it in.

So, for clarification, we do not need exact wording and page and line number for the change. You need, you're at this point, we'd be looking for motions that are general changes.

From land use and planning board, you are if it's a land use and planning board member, you're welcome to provide the overview of what you would like to see incorporated as a change.

Thank you. Okay. So, I make a motion that under section 61, we remove the requirements of having window shutters.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second? Yeah. Okay. Is there a discussion? Would you like to speak to your motion? Yes.

I recognize all the hard work that staff has put into this, all of our discussions around some of this. The thing that struck out to me in reading the letter that we got from the master builders association is they did talk about the elimination of design and review requirements. That is something that I think that we need to explore in future meetings, but I do recognize that there are some things on here that are outdated, including window shutters. Most new homes, if you go out into other communities in the East or even North or South, they don't require that or have window shutters as a requirement. They also don't have things like balconies as a requirement or the different materials that we have to use unless you go to a place up in Leavenworth area.

So I do recognize that there has been a lot of work, but I think that we need to start taking some steps into allowing our developers who know what the buyers want to start to develop the way that the market will allow and increase that.

Kristen? Go ahead, Kristen. Thanks. A little bit of background on this. So this is a long standing requirement. Through phase two, we would like to update our architectural design requirements. I think no one would like to see that more. A quick point of clarification is we are we do not require window shutters. The requirement, if you look on page one fifty two above, it says that, building facades must incorporate three of the following details, and there are six detail options to select as well as an option of an other methods approved by the planning director. So if it meets the intent of that.

So we currently have window shutters as one of the ways, but it is not a requirement. It's one way to satisfy the requirement that there you can pick from the list or propose something similar. We did have a really extensive meeting with the Master Builders Association, and, we've had really productive comments. Overall, they were very supportive of the changes to this point. And, also, everyone agrees, we need to update the design standards.

But the the goal at this point was carry over what legally complies, and phase two, we will discuss, more, more recent design and and standards that we can incorporate. So just wanted to give a little bit of a background if we do not require the shutters. It's one way to then fly out of, to meet the three out of the six or that other off menu option.

Are there is there a speaker against? Hearing none, we will move to a vote. The motion on the floor is to remove shutters as a requirement for architectural design. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed?

Aye.

Three ayes. Four. Who's the fourth?

We had Todd and then Detmar and me. There's one more I thought.

Okay. And all those opposed? You're you're a no or you're not not voting? I don't know where. I don't care. Like, so I'm abstaining. You're abstaining.

Is that okay if

I abstain? You absolutely have the right to abstain. Yes. And I will vote no, but it doesn't matter because the vote winds up being four to one. So the motion carries.

Are there any further motions? Hearing none, we will move to a vote. The motion on the floor is recommend that the Kent City Council adopt the ordinance updating housing requirements to comply with the new state legislation and the city's 2044 comprehensive plan and all of its reference that incorporated elements and appendices as presented by staff subject to final incorporation of edits to address community input and minor revisions by the city attorney to the final ordinance review. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

All those opposed say nay. No. The ayes have it. Is there further business to bring before the board? Since there is no further business, this meeting is adjourned.