Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

[snorts] I'd like to call to order the uh November 10th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of 2025. Gina, roll call. Whenever you have a moment, please. Roco Gonzalez here. Mark Clener here. Mark Pontek here. Mayor Hickdorn here. John Borgman here. Chuck Watson. Chad Briggs here. Carolyn Wit. Mike Wood here. Aaron Beckman here. Pledge

of allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Before we continue the meeting tonight, I would like to ask for a moment of silence for a past chairman, Tom Holtmire. Tom was appointed in April of 1999 and served 26 years and 6 months on the commission at which he was a chairman from June of 203 for 22 years and four months. Thank you.

So our first order of business then is an election of a new chairperson. We entertain anyone's motions for that position. I'll make a motion for John Borgman. Second. Motion and a second for the commission to appoint me as chairman. All those in favor? I I opposed. I guess there's no So, thank you. We need a vice chairman now, too. Vice chairman. Yes. Uh we need to select a co-chair also.

So, I would entertain motions for that. I don't know. It's a good question. Can we nominate people that aren't here? Yes. [laughter] Why don't we postpone that till we get full here? I think that'd be better. So, all right. Moving on. Uh, approval of the minutes from the September 8th meeting. Entertain a motion for that. Motion to approve. Motion. Second. Second to approve the minutes from the September 8th meeting. All those in favor signify by saying I.

I. I. Mr. Mayor, are you talking about Yeah. um to take Tom's place. Um I've asked Ken Shear and he has graciously consented. So um Ken needs to go before the council like we all did or like you all did anyway. And so that will take place on Monday. So I anticipate him sailing through that process and uh he'll be seated up here next meeting with us. Welcome Ken.

Welcome. Thank you. Okay, moving on to file number 25-1102, plan amendment, Washington Redevelopment Corporation public hearing. Yes. So, this is about um amending [clears throat] the uh the redevelopment corporation plan um in order to sell uh 1.8 acres um of land to uh FRICS quality meets. Um they're planning uh expansion of their facilities out there. Charles and I have been and uh the rest of building engineering have been working through uh the logistics of that, but this is uh for the sale of uh the 1.8 acres. So,

and I understand they are redesigning the storm water retention basin to accommodate to pick up this acreage. Is that correct? Is that Yes, that's correct. Okay. Any questions from the commission? Anyone from the audience care to address us on this issue? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. I'll make a motion.

Motion by Chad, second. Second by Mike that we uh approve the uh sale of the property and the uh lot subdivision of the property at I forgot the address. Schultz Track 2 Industrial Park. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Eyes have it. And that's all we needed to do tonight. Correct. Correct.

All right. Next item on the agenda, file number 25-1103, sketch plan review of Beaker Point PDR.

Yes. So, this is the uh first step in a uh five-step process um for the uh planned uh residential development. Um so, what we've got here is uh 18 acres of land um just south of uh the East West Parkway um and uh Stonebridge. Um they uh it's it's along Beaker Road. The highlighted piece um right there is uh the the the land. um you can see um it a bit clearly now. It's a bit clearer. Um it's these two parcels and um here is we can we can go back to this um but uh this is the uh elevation of the site and um I will pull up the um the sketch plan uh itself. So this is a 57 lot um subdivision. Um it's pretty consistent with what the comp plan recommen recommends. Um you know lots 700 7,500 square feet or larger. Um a mix of detached single family homes, two and three car garages um curve linear streets um consistent with what the comp plan um recommends. The reason why this is going through the planned uh development process is because the applicant um wants uh 40 foot streets or excuse me a a 40ft ride ofway and uh 30 foot streets and um uh as as I I showed on the I can go back to the PowerPoint, but it's it's on a hill. Um so they want 12 foot grades um along these streets here. Um uh

12%. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate that. Um, let's see. Am I missing anything else? Uh, density is pretty similar to a lot of the uh R1D lots. Um, so that's that's the primary reason why this is going through the uh plan development uh process is because of the grades and the uh the rightway widths. Um, so u we've got the applicant here um to uh talk. Um, I guess I guess also um we don't need you to approve this per se. just accept it into the minutes and uh we'll take comments and uh hear what you folks have to say. So Cameron,

good evening. I just want to thank you all or thank John specifically for recognizing Tom as a chairman. I' I'd spoken in front of Tom uh a long time. I didn't realize it was that long. So that was that was kudos to Tom and uh I think the board made a wise decision in your [clears throat] position and I think mayor recommendation of kittens wise. So it was a big loss you know for Tom to leave but I think it's it's should be good from here. So congratulations big shoes to fill. Yeah. Yeah. I think you'll be fine. [clears throat]

Okay. Moving on. So yeah as I think Erin did a good job of [clears throat] excuse me outlining kind of where it's at. Um, as as you know, there are the regular codes um that we can utilize and that's what And by the way, it's uh uh Vic Horse Camp's here with uh Northern Star Homes. This is another community of Northern Star. Uh basically, it started at Malburn on the Stone Bridge overlook the creek. So, this is a continuation of that community out there. So, he's the he's the uh builder building this. So Vic was able to acquire these two properties here side by side and so south of the east west gateway and basically we're fixed on the east by an existing boundary fixed on the west by an existing boundary fixed on the south by maker road and fixed on the north by his prior development and uh so as as Aaron alluded to that uh these PDRs plan develop residential are a mechanism by which we can utilize to uh entertain different things related to the code. So, um, in this particular thing, it's the it's the rideway widths and the street widths. And why are we asking for that? So, from the east side to the west side, the product that Vick's the Vic wants to build by [cough] by [clears throat] having these rightway narrowed, he picks up basically 30 feet across the site. And so that's just enough for him to get the buildings and the the decks and the all the product he wants to build across that site. Doesn't seem like much, but it but every foot counts, so to speak. Um, and another thing um that is kind of related to the interconnectivity. I saw that on the agenda tonight was that typically the market wants a culde-sac a wooded culde-sac walkout lot. So the buyers typically want wooded culde-sac walkout

lots. The interconnectivity committee was talking about how to basically attract more interconnectivity within a development and this is um one way this is done meaning that u you know having this loop road um you know coming up slope rather than down slope on the culdeac that's all things that I can get into if we want to talk about how it it kind of works but basically this was a good I guess prelude or a result of the talk uh with the interconnectivity meeting meaning that we saw an opportunity here to basically say hey here's a perfect example of how we can use the PDR mechanism to I guess achieve what's a balance between what the market wants and between what the EMS folks want. So, um, we talked about, uh, connecting other portions of the subdivision to, uh, other sides in in a couple different, uh, site plan review and and other other comment periods, but basically we looking at what's around it, we thought it was best not to, but we did talk about Erin, you want to scroll to north a little bit there, please? So, we talked about how people are using that area out there. And what the builders noticed is that the Rabbit Trail Drive extension. There's a sidewalk there on the west side. And by connecting in the middle of that between lot 11 and 12 there's a side I'm sorry a walking trail pedestrian trail that's going to connect the uh basically this development to the east west gateway which would then allow someone to walk from this subdivision to the north along east west gateway along the the bike path on east west gateway out to beaker road up rabbit trail drive. So in theory, you could live in this subdivision and walk to Target via your existing network, which was a and so the builder identified that, you know, out there on Rabbit Trail Drive,

you know, it's a lot of people walk out there and it's nice and level and all that. So we thought that was a good connectivity approach to to this also. So um and as I forgot to mention on the north side, there's also a gas line running through through there and we put that in the common ground there. So, there's be a large common ground section, a large green space there, proposed detention basin, water quality basin. Um, I'm not not sure if I've forgotten anything or not. Uh, we submitted the the house plans, elevation views like the the code wanted. Also, it's just a little more on the uh PDR portion. There's just a little more things that the code requires in this. So, this is a typical thing that uh Vic's been building out there and will continue to build here. Um, so I I'll stop talking now and you guys got any questions, ask me and or got a question for Vic, you'd be more than happy to ask.

So Cameron, I want to elaborate a little bit on the discussions that we had. Uh, so the commission on those all of the houses will either have twocar or threecar garages. That's right. And are offset back far enough that they'll be able to park their cars or park additional cars in the driveway without impinging on the street.

Correct. We we did not ask for relaxation of the conventional setback. It's all 25 foot setback. In this [clears throat] case, it' be a 30-foot street centered in a 40ft rideway. So that means on each side, there's 5T of green space between the edge of the concrete and the rideway. There's additional 25 ft. So in this case, it's 30 feet from the edge of the pavement to the face of the garage at a minimum. Uh whereas in a normal subdivision, it's 37 1/2 ft. So, it's just most people can't see 2 and 1/2 ft, but there is a difference of two and a half feet of green space.

And if we would approve this, uh, it would require no parking on one side. Um, and I believe we talked about which side would be the best one to do that on, didn't we? Did we? Yeah, we did. Uh, was it the the inside, Charles? Do you do you remember inside? It was the inside, wasn't it? I believe it was actually the outside. Was it the outside because you you identified as the snow plow was going down the hill. You're right. You know, that's what you talked about. But we I think we're open to either one. You know, whatever makes sense for you guys, right? We decided it would be easier that to hit a mailbox than it would be to hit a car.

Yeah. I mean, it's we were actually we were talking about lots on the east side when we were talking about that. So it's the west side, you know, could be this a different argument because you're, you know, but we don't want to switch obviously.

So I don't know that we care have any input, you know, but the other thing I talked to Aaron today about and Charles too was what type of signage would be required for the no parking. And the best we could determine is at minimum would be no parking signs. Very similar to what's in uh Locust Valley if you've been to the one down here off of 8th Street. Um but we could add since this is a PDR, we can require more, you know, if we wanted the curbs painted yellow or something else too. Just bear in mind that's the city maintains that after the developer does that. that would be have to be added to the street maintenance pro program too. So we have that ability to do those kind of things with the PD also if we feel it's necessary. Um I did go through and spend a little time down at Locust uh down there just to see what's different times of days and I never found a problem with parking down there. So, um, I'll leave it up for discussion if anybody has any questions of Cameron, but that's kind of some of the background that either he and I or Charles and I and Aaron have been talking about this for the last couple weeks.

I don't know if it would make sense to do like to paint the curbs yellow. I just feel like the I don't know the it wouldn't look the best, right, as a neighborhood, but especially if we're getting pretty good through traffic and not much parking in other subdivisions like this, I think the the signs make the most sense. I know from like a connectivity standpoint for the walking trail or anything like that, I'm always a proponent of trying to do anything that does help with our interconnectivity, whether that's walking, biking, things like that, especially without any parking or without, you know, street parking. That should also help like with walking, biking, what have you. So, I think it's a win-win there.

Cameron, I noticed you changed the position of that compared to what we have in our packet. Yeah, that's correct. So, good observation. So, yeah, I was originally had the we had the trail between lots nine and 10. And what happened there was after we graded out after we talked, it just got too steep going down there. So, by moving the detention basin east and that trail east, we gained about a 12t delta elevation of savings. So, it made the trail flatter. So, we want to make sure that if we build it, people use it. So, we're trying to make it Yeah, that's why. What is that grade for trail? So, don't hold me to this, but we're trying to keep it under 10%. We're trying to we had got it 17%.

You got to want it that walking trail. Any other questions for Cameron? Well, Cameron, I think it's all a great design. Thank you. And I really like the walking trail as well. Um, now, is that an an expense that's picked up by the developer? Yeah, it'll be at it'll be at the developer's expense. Yes. Okay. Unless you guys want to contribute to it, you know, we're I mean, we set up a GoFundMe or something like that if you wanted to. [laughter] I'm just wondering, thank you. What about the maintenance of that down the road? So, I think I think what we'll do is we'll build it to the city standard and I think you guys would be willing to take it. I would guess maybe not. I don't know. [laughter]

I guess we we're open for discussion on that. You know, I don't know. To be honest, well, we're gonna I'm thinking we're probably going to start getting more of these when we start talking about interconnectivity. And I just wanted to bring that up just to make sure that all parties kind of understand who's going to do what 10 years from. Yeah. I think I hear Darren and Charles talk about it now and I think we probably need to have that convers. Okay. I I'm just worried about I don't know if there's ADA standards for grade if the city takes that over. home association. I mean, we've we've run into problems before with [laughter]

you. We've run into problems before with our own design, just like even putting a sidewalk through a park to get to the city pool and the grade being a lot less than that and having issues. So, I was just we need to confer and talk about that. That's all. Very good. What is the current state? I forget what the park's name is, but like south of Target. There's already there's a walking trail right there between the subdivision. Yeah. Is that maintained by the city or is this that's a good example, Roco, because between the two phases there, so a handicap ramp is 8.7%. Okay. That's what that's what a grade on a handicap ramp is. Now, granted, you can only go so far and then you have to have a landing and then you go so far so far again.

But there that trail I mean there's parts of that trail that is that is pretty steep.

Oh yeah. So, I think we can figure it out. Uh, the other thing that they're asking is 12% grade on the streets. So, I had Charles do pull some numbers for us, too. Uh, just to give you an example, 14th Street west of Jefferson is 15%. Uh, Westway Drive off of Fifth Street is 15%. Sunnyside by Washington High School is 12 and Jefferson Street south of Front is 12. Just to give you some driving feeling for what what that 12% grade would do. And we have a street out in the U Stone Bridge now that we approved several months ago that is at 12%. So if you really wanted to get a good look at that, you could go out there and see what that looks like in that development. And I understand that makes it tough for snow plowing, but we also have to understand that the community that we live in, we have hills and valleys and we have to work with the developers in order to get land developed.

There's a balance. I didn't realize it was that important until we had the connectivity meetings with the street department and we started talking about all this stuff and right it really kind of I didn't even think about trash collection, snow plowing, but yeah, that makes a difference too. Yeah, I appreciate that comment, Chad. To to your point and and discussion going on here. When we started Stonebridge, no, I'm sorry, the overlook, we had some tough grades there

and that question came up and you may remember not may or may not remember, but that was in 201 18ish, 18ish, I want to say. And at that time, I think I counted 49 streets that were over 10% in Washington. So there's a lot of just to your point, topographically speaking, as we go south, it just gets steeper in places, you know, and so if we that's it's a situation that we're faced with. Any other questions of the commission? This is going to be considered affordable housing, right? Yeah. I be in the neighbor of what 300,000. Yes, I believe that's accurate. Yes. I mean, that's what we talked about street connectivity, too, was that that kind of seems to be the number for affordable housing. And that's correct

something that I think our comprehensive plan and we've talked about for a long period of time is that portioning continues to be affordable housing. Yeah. This is not intended to be another stone crust, you know, type of Yeah. It's intended to be on the affordable side. Well, and I think what's interesting in relation to that is that all the houses that have been built out there are being sold as fast as he can build them, right?

So, I think I think we're in the right market. So I think it's a good way to continue that. So any other questions for sure talk about this lots 55 if you can go down lots 55 through 57 those are obviously according to this going to have direct access onto beaker road which is a major roadway. We don't try to typically have those. I mean, I I don't know like if you look at South Point where Stone Crest was and where those duplexes are located. So, I was just going to ask and see if he was he could address whether there's going to be some turnaround areas on those lots.

Yes, that's a good point, Darren. Yes. And we did talk to Vic about that and we talked about making sure that those people can turn around in their own property and then drive out forward facing onto Beaker Road. That way they're not backing out onto Beaker Road. On Beaker. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah. the setbacks on those three lots be the same as all the others. It's shown the same. Uh John, if we need to make a little bit further back, we could. Uh there's a little more room there on those lots. Those are bigger lots. Uh but yeah, we'll make sure there's enough room, you know, to get the car turned around before it exits onto Beaker Road. And those be any parking allowed on Beaker Road. No. Right. So those lots are required to have turnarounds in our code. So they are. Yep.

Okay. because [clears throat] they're on Beaker Road. Okay. Any other questions for Cameron? Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Cameron. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this?

If not, we don't need a motion, but this just just accept it into your minutes and

into our minutes and I think it's a good [clears throat] plan. Thank you. Okay, moving on. Uh Aaron, update on street connectivity index steering committee. Yeah. So, um I have here just kind of a brief summarized version of what we talked about a couple weeks ago in October. Um so, we got a um good good turnout. Several of uh you and some people in the audience as well um and some other developers and stakeholders. So um this is a project that um Sarah and Charles started um ear last year this year.

Earlier earlier this year um as you know we were talking about interconnectivity making uh the streets more connected for a variety of reasons. Uh the the uh the the main reasons being to uh reducing reducing travel distance, improving utility connections, uh better emergency vehicle access, uh more efficient uh public service access, mail, trash, snowplowing, etc. These things that you know we're we're we're talking about. Um you know, for uh uh and and one way that uh we can do that um was uh by establishing a street connectivity index. Uh this is proposed by uh uh in our comp plan. Um and what this would be is um uh you would calculate the street connectivity of each subdivision. So taking uh and that would be calculated by taking the number of links divided by the number of nodes. Links are um roadway sections and nodes are the roadway intersections themselves. So um the comp plan uh put put out that number of 1.4. Um we uh Charles and I and and those in uh engineering and building kind of looked at that and said maybe maybe more in the range of 1.6 is where we kind of want to want to strive for. Um because 1.4 just kind of felt like a lot of the stuff we were we were getting um uh originally or just you know without the street connectivity index just the amount of connectivity that we're getting right now. Um so that being said this is uh various connectivity uh within the city of Washington. We've got a more established uh block um off high high and fifth there um with a street connectivity index of 1.57. Um and then you've got a a newer subdivision in the grand scheme of things. Um Autumn Leaf with a street connectivity index of 1.13. So, uh, as you can see, um, you know, having, uh, more gritted structure, um, a lot more

streets intersecting with each other really really boost boost that up, um, there. So, um, that being said, um, at the meeting, um, we, uh, we came up with sort of a a framework, um, kind of big big picture thinking. Hey, this is you know in in so many years you know what what would it take to have uh an interconnect have new development in Washington be uh interconnected and uh what what are the mechanisms that we can do to achieve that. So as I was saying earlier um having a connectivity index uh minimum of 1.6 six required for most um residential dwellings or residential subdivisions. Um and uh we decided to sort sort this out um based on the uh density of the subdivision. Um you know, because if you have more people who are living in a specific area, you're going to need uh better uh access for services, emergency responders, that sort of thing. So you want more connectivity for more people who uh live in a specific area. So um how this would work is uh yeah each each each development would be required to uh meet the connectivity index um for the level of density they would be at. Um and uh if if for some reason you know you couldn't meet that level of connectivity um we came up with some incentives um to kind of uh pad that connectivity. Um so some of those included um sidewalks um along local streets, sidewalks along culde-sacs, um sidewalks kind of like the uh one we just saw at Beaker Point connecting like from the end of the culde-sac to a major road or to a park or something um or uh sidewalks along a uh major street. Those those would uh boost the connectivity and uh make it so let's say you're you know just with by uh dividing the links by the nodes you would get like 1.4

before it lets then you would install sidewalks in this development and you would uh meet the minimum connectivity. Um and to uh encourage development that's above this required connectivity um we came up with a list of uh some incentives um for uh uh developments. Um so we said for every 0.2 two above the minimum connectivity required um you get a specific development bonus and those were kind of work in progress things. We didn't have like a uh we we we had a list but it was it was it was very rough. Um we said like you know v varying setbacks, varying parking requirements um uh just kind of that that part still needed some work. Uh so um so what would development look like under the street connectivity index? Well, you would still have uh you could still build a lot of um residential suburban neighborhoods. Um culde- stacks can still be uh built large high-quality single family homes. Um street layouts promote connected, safe, and efficient neighborhoods. Um and you could get a uh uh various incentives if you um met the required connectivity index. Um if challenging topography or other hardships are present, exceptions can be made to these requirements. Um and then those who live in these subdivisions uh will get a greater return on city services um by having you know better emergency response times uh smoother snow removal uh and trash pickup and etc. So it was also brought up in the meeting uh that you know uh there was an interest to see how uh some of the current development in Washington uh current new new uh construction in Washington me uh held up against this proposed connectivity index. Um so

here's Stonebridge plat 4 um connectivity index of two. Um so there's only really one one street one one node there. Um so that really helps it uh it works works in its favor. It exceeds the desired connectivity index by about uh point4 there. Um and I could come back to these um looking at stone bridge plat one uh connectivity index of 1.3. Um you know the 1.6 was the the target there less than the desired connectivity index. The lot a lot of culde-sacs kind of um you know making it not as not as connected. Um the creek at uh Coke Farm Plat 2 connectivity index of 1.1. This one's all culde-sacs. So that really, you know, doesn't doesn't work in its favor. Uh 1.6 was the uh desired connectivity index. And uh the Highlands uh with a connectivity index of 1.8. Um this this development was in the uh 2.6 to 4 um density. Um I I just realized I didn't explain that. That's a dwelling units per acre. So number of homes divided by the area um is how we get we get that uh metric um and that that met the uh connectivity index. So talking about um what happened at the meeting and next steps. So the idea of a street connectivity index was discussed and committee members seemed somewhat receptive to some of the development bonuses. Uh there was a concern concern expressed about how certain development bonuses work together. Um there was also a discussion a pretty lengthy discussion about developing a grading scale for the connectivity index as much of the projected growth area south of town has steep terrain. So like you know um areas that are flatter have a higher connectivity index than areas that are steeper. Um there was some concern expressed exactly about how uh sidewalks

were accounted for when adding to the connectivity index. Um and uh in terms of next steps, um it's clear that we're we're going to need to work on this um a lot more before we get something final to you because uh we we need buyin from uh you folks, the development community, uh staff, and uh we're we're not quite there yet. So, um, over the next couple months, you know, uh, Charles and I and, um, everyone else are going to get together and get get you folks a more, uh, concrete list of, hey, this is this is how we're going to do this. Um, because, uh, we we we need to we need to build build more consensus than we have with this this version of things. Um, and just to reiterate, this this whole presentation um was just kind of uh then the regulations I I talked about were all very pie in the sky, like we're no we're not going to come to you next month and say this is what we're doing. So, um just just uh just just a discussion prompter, but overall I'd say it was a pretty good meeting. Um for those of you that were there, I thought some good conversations were had and um I guess if uh any comments from you folks. Well, I'll add to Erin. I think Chuck, myself, Mike, and Tom were the four that were there from the commission and it was really heartwarming to see the discussions between real estate realators and developers and and everything. And I think it was very good discussions between everybody to try to come to some common ground. And I think this is a good start towards heading [clears throat] to that. So, you'll hear more about it and we'll be meeting more. And I guess if there's others that want to come sit in on it, they're welcome to from the commission anytime.

Yeah, absolutely. Please, please email me and I'll get get you on that list. So, okay. My only because [clears throat] I wasn't able to go there. My question is I mean, how does this interconnectivity the 1.6 or what the green that you had, how does that compare to other communities like either that are commonly sized as us? Is there like a a national standard for, you know, street connectivity index?

Yeah, the the street connectivity index itself is a pretty fringe sort of uh land use tool. There's not very many communities that that have it at all. Um I I I actually contacted um some some planners in uh Utah and um other places um about how they you know uh implemented the connectivity index. And uh a lot of the feedback I got from them was uh that developers there just kind of treated it as a as a as a minimum and they didn't uh they didn't really like the incentives or you know didn't didn't really go for them a lot. So it was kind of just hey this is the standard and you know we're just going to go about our business. In terms of your question uh directly, there's there's not really a I I don't know. It's there there's not really a a national standard for street connectivity.

Fair enough. Fair enough. And then yeah, to your point of the incentives, I I'm glad that you had actual developers, like folks that were wanting to incentivize at this meeting because honestly, I would not know like what would be a good incentive. So I'm thankful that developers are able to engage us in that process. There were some very good open dialogue. I thought it was good good folks we brought together because it's like help me help you kind of thing. I mean we're all in this together to develop relevant community or like develop building just to have the discussion I thought was good. I learned a lot coming out. I think the people at the meeting had learned because I don't always think like they think and where they have to go based upon

what they have to work with and we don't I hadn't thought of that a lot. I think we we saw it today with that uh development that that is moving forward as well. I think that was a key piece to it. Beautiful.

Yeah, if I can say something. So, yeah, I think that last uh PDR that we just talked about, it's a great example. We use that in the in the discussion that those are some of the you know incentives that could be there are the um the smaller rightaways, the narrower streets and is is that something that we want to offer as far as incentives or do we want them to go through the PDR process to kind of get some of these things? So that's something for you all to consider is what incentives are we willing to leave open to developers choosing if they meet the index. You know what I mean? So, um, you don't want to give too much or too many options out there, um, just because they meet the the connectivity index either. So, something to think about. Very good.

Thank you. Awesome. The only question I have is how did we come about with the 1.6 when our comprehensive plan was 1.4? Well, I I frank frankly Charles and I sat down and we we looked at the 1.4 and said, I I don't I don't know about all that. So it was kind of just a judgment call on on our part saying that hey 1.4 is maybe not getting us the uh the intended connectivity. Um so I don't know we just have different different opinions than the consultants who worked on the comp plan. Nope. I think it was it was just a starting point. You know let's let's see what that looks like. How does that like you said? How's it compare in town?

Can people get up using some of the other ways the sidewalks the other things to get higher up or does that is that 1.6 not achievable? Because that's the other thing we just talked about. Um there's a lot of hills in town, a lot of grades that are hard to achieve um and re that uh meet the street connectivity or even just putting sidewalks in. So we don't want every development to come and be the exception that hey, there's a grade problem. Okay, we can't meet it, right? If that's the case, then we don't doing this, right? That's my only concern is maybe we should start a little lower and see how it goes. And if it's if they're meeting it, then we can, you know, maybe bump it up in a year or two or something instead of I feel like we don't have anything and we're trying to go to 1.6. I don't know.

I don't know how achievable that is is what I'm saying. And maybe we have a number that they meet, but then to start the incentives that is much higher. Yeah. Something something like that, right? Here's the goal 1.2, right? At least you want you to meet that. And then 1.6 is where you actually can start getting these these incentives. Yeah. Okay, that makes sense. So different different ways. Like you said, it's very early. This is just kind of it's a tough topic because like he said, there's there's only a few places that do it. He's talking about Utah and Arizona, places that are a little bit flatter, um bigger cities where, you know, there's much more development. So if we're going to implement something like this, we we're getting really creative here and and kind of forging our own path. So

very good. Absolutely. So, any other questions or comments about that to Aaron?

Sad I missed that meeting. [laughter] I think you guys, you know, as we grow south and that's our pattern that presents challenging terrain no matter where which direction we go. And I thank you guys Vic Austin for doing that. That's that's a great plan. We need to do more of that. We need to be all of us in this room on the same page as we grow south. Unless we want to buy farmland across some Missouri River, put in a damn big levy over there. [laughter] All right. Any other comments? All right. Item number seven, code changes. R1C zoning district code change recommendations. Aaron.

All right. Um, so, uh, first of all, uh, I'd like to say that I, in in your packet, um, I have, uh, several different, uh, markups of of different ordinances. Um, those are, uh, just kind of, uh, the theoretical discussion prompters. I don't I don't want, you know, if if you folks think that, uh, it's all it's all bad. You know, we could I I can go back to the drawing board. No biggie. So, I just want to get that out of the way. Um [clears throat] but so uh when I first came on, Darren, uh talked to me and said, "Hey, this is something that we uh we need to look at our our R1C, um zoning district, um and you know, some potential uh solutions for the current problems that it's having." So, we'll we'll get into it. [snorts] So, uh why does Washington have the R1C zoning district? So 2008 uh kind of restructured uh financing for ownerattached uh occupied housing or condos. It made it a lot more difficult to uh get financing uh for that type of housing. Uh so this district was created as a way to allow duplex owners to subdivide their property to get financing uh while maintaining uh the standards of conventional single family zoning. Uh the district currently has a one-sided zero lot line setback. um a 6-foot uh side setback or excuse me and a 6- foot 10-ft side setback on the other side conditional on the height of the structure. Uh the district has a more restrictive has more restrictive lot coverage standards um and setbacks but a smaller minimum lot size than most of R2 um equal minimum lot size to the R2 overlay. So talking about um the differences between duplexes and attached single family. Duplexes in the R2 attached single family in uh R1C uh duplex

uh structure with two dwelling units uh on the same piece of land. one owner or um uh an organization owns the underlying land um and the individual units can be sold, rented out um while the uh original owner still possesses the underlying land. Attached single family um one person owns the whole thing land and all um and there can be more than one single family uh more than one unit in each single family home uh that's that's attached to. So, town home style, right? You got you got like six uh homes in a row all attached to each other. Everyone owns the underlying land. Think like the villas at uh oh, what's that called? It's on High Street. Villas at I have it later in the presentation. Anyhoo, it's it's a bunch of town. It's town home style. Uh units have a shared wall, shared roof, no shared entrances. So, getting to some of the issues with R1C. Um first is the lot size. So, um, duplex owners in the R2 district who want to subdivide their property and, um, sell part of their duplex or all of their duplex or, um, just have it have it financed, uh, need to reszone their property to R1C because currently we don't allow, uh, attached single family, uh, units in R2. Occasionally, property owners run into difficulties um as the minimum lot size in the R2 overlay for two family dwellings is six 6,000 square feet while the minimum lot size in R1C for one unit is 6,000 square ft. So that's where we get uh run into a lot of uh variance requests. Um over the past 10 years, uh planning and zoning department has received nine variances for properties in the R1C zone to bypass the minimum lot size. Average size of these properties 4500 square feet. Uh much lower compared to the minimum lot size of 6,000 square

feet for the R1C zone. Um this is a potential issue that I can see happening with the R1C district is the maximum lot coverage requirement. So as I mentioned earlier, R2 no minimum lot coverage standards. Uh R1C has a maximum lot coverage standard of 35%. uh meaning the structures area can only be 35% of the lot's total area. Um this means that some existing R2 lots will not be compliant with uh current uh R1C zoning requirements um if they're subdivided. So this is an example of uh this this happening. This is a uh R2 lot um south of Highway 100. Um it's uh current lot coverage is 37%. So already not not meeting the current uh uh lot lot coverage for R1C. Uh if this person were to subdivide this lot, they would be looking at 48% lot coverage um for their uh their subdivision and would need a variance um for that. Um properties zoned R1C are dispersed throughout Washington. um area zoned R2 both in in R2 zones and uh dispersed along the R2 overlay kind of uh bringing up some uh implications of of spot zoning um which is uh questionable. Um so currently if you uh are a property owner in R2, you can't use your structure as an owner occupied attached single family dwelling unless you reszone R1C and subdivide your property. Uh this image here is just showing that I mean you know R2 R1C I mean to the average person you know walking by or driving by they're they're not going to know the difference you know it's it all it all looks the same uh to them and and sometimes it's uh it's it's even the same floor plan uh that that has uh

different different zoning standards. So um I say here regardless um there are still single family attached properties zoned R2 within Washington. Um the additional bureaucracy and administrative costs for us to maintain a separate zoning district for attached single family units uh in my professional opinion does not make sense especially since these structures have similar impacts and as I mentioned were built with the same floor plan. Um talking about a this is this is kind of a separate issue but still related. Um, currently the R1C zoning district only allows for uh one uh single family dwelling unit to be attached to one other single family dwelling unit. That means that developers who want to create owner occupied town style development villas at high street, that's what it's called. Uh, you know, they they must reszone to a planned development residential. uh attached single family dwellings have a similar similar density transportation needs and impact neighboring properties um as this town home style development you see here. Um from from an administrative point of view as in in my opinion um it's bad precedent to set um saying that you know we're going to have we're going to uh stop it stop the stop the district at uh one uh you know one uh ownerattached unit to another. um and and and hold hold the line there. Um so that gets into possible solutions. Um the the first solution is the uh most clear-cut and that's to just change the uh R1C district to have a minimum lot size from anywhere from 3,000 ft to 4,500 ft². Um and this is because lots in the R2 overlay have a minimum lot size of 6,000 ft. Um, and also on top of that removing the lot coverage standard. This would eliminate uh all the need for

variances or I I shouldn't say all, most of the need for variances when reszoning from R2 to R1C. Um, another solution is um allowing single family attached dwellings as a permitted use in the R2 district. Um, and then additionally removing the side setbacks in R2 to allow for attached single family units and larger uh town home style developments. Um, and then lowering the minimum lot area lot. Yeah, lowering the minimum lot area for single family dwellings in R2 to 3,000 ft² and two family dwellings to 6,000 square ft. Uh, another solution is um separating out R2. So, creating an R2A district for uh uh uh town, let's see, excuse me, the current have the current R rename the current R2 district to R2A and then have a separate R2 district for um ownerattached uh town home style developments with zero line lot line setbacks. Um so, those are some solutions. Um I mainly brought brought this to you all to have a discussion and if you think one of these is hey this is the bee's knees we can recommend it to uh go to council. Um but really this is just to have a discussion and talk about this because this is something that's we've been dealing with for for a while. So

yeah we've had quite a few if you remember coming through here to have to address this. So, I got together with Aaron prior to this meeting because I was unclear myself of what this really was all about. And I would like to probably table it for a month. And maybe if you could send us this PowerPoint that we can sit and digest this a little bit along with maybe notes of all the changes that you have here because I think it's it's a something that we need to do, but I want to make sure we have all the things right before we make any changes to it. Absolutely. That sounds like a great job.

I think I think that would be one way to do it. And since Chief Frankenberger's walked up, Chief, this just just Good evening. Thank you. Um, with that, I would ask another favor of staff. Um, put together a basically a table of what the district would be, the square footage, setbacks, front, sideyard, so we can kind of get a snapshot of all of that in a in a single table. um to kind of get an understanding of what this is really looking like because you've got my head spinning right now. I'm gonna first time I look through it when I got the pack. I'm a numbers guy and I'm struggling here. So, a table would really be helpful to look at this, please. Absolutely. Very good.

Thanks. I agree. Anything to avoid the variance issue we've had to have. Yeah. Yes. Because they're pretty cut and dried and then there the steps that are involved to get them that way. So, I I like the direction we're heading. I think because we've seen these before, we kind of know what we're talking about. But then when you start putting the numbers with it,

that's when it's like drinking from the fire hose, right? But I I I think we got a pretty good idea where we want to end up. It's just a matter of how to get there. A a quick statistic I forgot to mention was uh the the number of properties in R1C that have had variances for this issue is 10% of the total properties in the R1C zoning district which is not an ins not an insignificant number. So that's and that's pretty much the variance that's the the added bureaucracy that we see with regards to is taking that extra step to go to the board of adjustment get the lot when we discussed this zoning district uh creating this back from when as Aaron pointed out the 2008 housing bubble burst and we had started to see problems that banks did not want to go ahead and refinance uh anything to do with a condo association is basically what it was how it was brought up. Um, we just said, "Okay, what's the minimum lot size you want to have then on the side?" And we took 12,000 for R2 and just said, "Okay, split that in half, 6,000 per unit." And as Aeron's pointed out, there's plenty of places in town though where you have just a normal size lots or whatever. There was a case on Eugenia Drive up there behind Walmart. I know that was on the end of a culde-sac. it didn't meet that. But and so that's I I don't even though I can see the problem that Aeron's brought up with regards to the lot coverage. I don't remember requests going to the board of adjustment yet. I don't know if I looked [clears throat] and saw any research.

No, that's that's just a that's a possible issue that we might face in the future. There's been no case of that happening. I just want to, you know, get ahead of that happening because I know that this is the direction that things are headed. You know, we've we've seen more and more of these. No, but it's interesting to hear that 10% of the cases that we've we've had or properties that have requested the R1C, the lot line inclusion or whatever, 10% of them had to go to the board of adjustment. So,

and we could I think at that time some questions were raised and said, well, why don't you just go ahead and take all take the R1C zoning district and apply that to all of these areas? It's like, well, we don't need to reszone it because some of these don't need it. I mean, they don't, you know, it's like it's kind of up to the buyers if if if uh they own it outright, which we saw a lot of them in these older communities where they're owned outright, they don't need the financing, but then they may need it when they come to turn around and go ahead and sell. yourself.

Yeah, because I sat down with the Apple Blossom uh group up there because that's where my parents were living at the time and I think we had one or two that came through here uh at that time, but the rest of them, they all owned theirs and they didn't really see a need or didn't want to pursue it or anything. So I think we need to number one eliminate some administrative headaches for people when they come here to if they incur incur that type of situation, we need to be able to accommodate. I think the last couple we've had haven't been a proposed sale. They just wanted to get it done because their neighbors had a pro proposed sale on it. So they said they got together with their neighbor and said, "Let's go ahead and do it." Right. While Frankenberg was down there doing the surveying, they right

y did their neighbors and got it all taken care of. They were just being proactive on the sit, I guess, proactive on the situation so they didn't have to worry about it later. Yeah. Those areas that you see in paint up there, the R2 overlay that now that Aeron's got this map up, um those are older parts of town and a lot of times you may have a two family where it's up above. It's not horizontal, it's vertical. Um, and so you really don't and and a lot of those areas in around where where that pink is outlined on that map uh do not reflect the type of right ranchstyle duplex that was built south of 100 primary. So,

so I think the conclusion is if you can send us the PowerPoint and any information and then uh try to put together a spreadsheet for like the chief was asking and I think that would help us study this a little bit more. currently have what we could be looking at on all that. I think you put those back to back because I know when I read through all the paperwork it was like, "Oh, I got to go talk to Aaron." Yep. Yep. Any other comments or permission? Anyone else from the audience want to speak to this? Okay, I'll do my homework. Thank you. Thanks, Aaron. Thanks, Aaron. Thank you.

And I think that's it. Unless there's any other business to bring to the commission. So next month when we have a full slate hopefully we'll select a co-chair then. If nothing else then I'll entertain one last motion. Motion to adjurnn. Motion made and seconded to adjurnn. All those in favor? I I reading adjourned. [clears throat] Well done, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, you're on fire. Oh yeah. Thank you for John. [laughter] Welld deserved. I figured so that I know. I figured I would have

I didn't realize that Tom was on this commission so long. I didn't either. And chairman that long too. I knew it was a while, but quite a long time. My boss Bill knows saw you down at the storefront today putting flags up. Putting the flags up. Yeah. you wanted me to like ask you about that like you guys have been doing that for a few years or something. Uh yeah, it's been four years that the council's been doing it and it's just whoever can do it at that time. We pretty much share I know um Mike's done it, I've done it, Jeff's done it. Al's done it.

That might be it. Uh yeah, Dwayne Reed helped when he was on the council. I show I'm stickler official thing with the council that you guys like voted to do that or you just the police explorers used to do it and I guess they disbanded so when Mike and I got on the council they said that they would do it. Yep. So then we just help out and try to whoever can do it at that time that's who does it.

It's all it's the the