Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Are we rolling and live? Yes. We recording sound is on. Okay. I know. I just kind of like flipped right into it. So, like being on a tonight show with no audience. Yeah. All right. So, we'll get into roll call. Commissioner Bole here. Commissioner Oler, everybody here. Commissioner Johnson present. Commissioner Sweat here. Commissioner Zaro here. Vice Chair Whan here. And Chair Elliott here. Any additions, deletions, or corrections to tonight's agenda? Oops. Going once. Going twice. Okay. Don't give me time to think. I just want to make sure. Public participation. Hello YouTube audience. Uh no one present to make any comments. Uh so with that we will go into agenda item five which is approval of minutes from March 12th 2025. Do I have a motion or any comments? I'll mute. Okay. We have a motion to approve the minutes March 12th 2025. We have a sec. All right. So second by uh Commissioner Zaro. All those in favor I I. All those opposed. Motion passes unanimous. Then we get into our public hearing for the use table of the drive-thru amendment. Would you like to introduce the topic? Yes. So this was briefly mentioned at the last planning commission meeting. Um during a recent discussion with some possible development um it came to my

attention that when we um I tracked it back and basically when I went from the draft version to sort of the final ordinance version the um allowing drive-throughs as an accessory use in the uptown mixed use inadvertently was marked no instead of yes or not allowed versus allowed. So this would just um basically correct that inadvertent deletion. Okay. Um as mentioned we don't have anyone in the audience but for the sake of formality it is 603. I call this public meeting open and it is 603 public meeting is closed regarding um PLN 2025003 amendment. All right move past. Um so that was the public hearing portion of it. I don't think there was any further discussion on it at all. was sir. Yes. And Commissioner Whan, just a real quick question. There's still yet to be design standards created for drive-throughs. So, it's still staff guiding things to be effective. And so, okay. Um, yes. So, it's on the list that when we do design guidelines, we will include drive-throughs. Um because this one happens to be in the uptown, it already has some guidelines already that the other zones don't have. But yes, it is it will come back with some just again some standards of helping like which direction, you know, making sure sound and vegetation and stuff. There's some things we can do to sort of protect the Jason businesses. So, okay, great. And I apologize that is actually moving right into agenda item 7A. I for some reason was thinking there was something else in between. So we can go ahead and

introduce it, open it up for discussion as far as um yeah, so the hope is that since this is such basically a correction um that if the commission is comfortable, we could make the recommendation tonight and then it would move on to um city council. All right. So um opening it up for any questions or clarifications first. I know it was discussed last meeting. Okay. um round of discussion. Would anyone like to make any comment or start? Yes, vice chair. Just glad to see that we are getting specific about where drive-thru type of uh service to the public would be uh effective and provide a good uh uh urban streetscape type of circumstance. So, thank you. Yes, Commissioner Bole. Was that a uh No, I just want to make sure that this like was discussed that this gets into more details of the uh codes for drive-throughs. Just for an update because, you know, you think about it, drive-throughs have become pretty prominent in the last 20 years, and here we are just now kind of deciding. Well, we do have the basics for the Uptown, which is good. the direction of which way they go, where they face. Uh but uh yeah, I wouldn't mind revamping this just once for a catch up. Uh you know, signage, things like that. Yeah. So, we will cover um later on this year when we start doing design guidelines. There are some specific issues that we've tagged that we want design standards for, as well as is there any general. So, it'll come back for that. But yeah, you're correct. Being in the uptown, we already have pretty good design standards, so they have to sort of work within those, which is nice.

All right, there's no further comments. Is there May I ask for a motion? Yes, Vice Chair Whan. I move to recommend to the city council the proposed amendment to Milton Municipal Code 17.14.010. 010 adding drivethru to the uptown mixeduse zone. 17 or 16. I was just about to ask. 17. 17. She said it correctly. It's written wrong. Okay. And is that a second? Second. Okay. Commissioner Zaro has seconded that action. Uh any discussion? All right. So, we'll take it to vote. All those in favor of moving to recommend to the city council the proposed amendment to Milton Municipal Code 171410 adding drive-thru back to the UMX zone. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes unanimous. Thank you for that one. 7B is unit lot subdivision. We will also turn this back over to staff. Yeah. So, this is one we've talked about um for a couple months now. Um it is one of those weird ones that it's sort of allowed, but we don't have guidelines for it. So, we're trying to do guidelines. Um but I also want to acknowledge that as we've kind of discussed it and looked into it, there's a few more things that we keep sort of popping up that do we want to address. So, I have it on here if the planning commission um feels like they want to move and make recommendation today. I also would understand if the planning commission is not ready because like I said, there's a few things that sort of brought get brought up from discussion.

Um and so it would make sense if we want to hold it off. Um so the main thing so the main thing that came out of the previous months was this idea of how do we make sure that all of the lots are um aware and how do we deal with all the common areas. So the it was discussed on whether or not we should require homeowners association. Um based on my research I'm not sure that I would recommend a formal homeowners association because you actually have to like file and it it is actually an entity. But I do I did recommend um improved language where before it sort of just relied on easements where this would revi um rely on covenants um agreements that would have to be recorded. So I I think if it's just a couple, you know, if you only got two or three, I think that by doing it that way, it it's more of um an understanding. It's going to pop up on title reports. It's going to have very specific language of how it's paid together, whose covers what um for those common things, but they don't have to necessarily go through the actual um kind of incorporating an LLC or it's not an LLC, but an HOA. So, again, um I I don't think there's anything that would stop us requiring it from being an HOA. I just um we don't even necessarily require an HOA um in you know for bigger projects if all like if all it is is storm then they just have to have a storm agreement. The only time we would do an HOA is if there was common um land like a park in common streets or whatever it's it becomes a city street or something. So, um that was that and then as we were going through the the conversation got bought brought up because um I was proposing a higher number than the short plats. Um I I sent it off to the attorneys to which he said we had a very

interesting discussion at that. They couldn't they there was not a unanimous decision on whether the unit lot subdivision had to match the short path numbers or if you could have them different but the consensus was we would be safer having the same. So that's the recommendation. Um again there's which um council member Whan pointed out there is um conflict between our definition and the actual shortcut. One says you're dividing into four which matches RCW. The actual section talks about um you're adding one to four lots from the original. So um either way, like I said, I I'm thinking that this is not ready to be moved on tonight. Um I would like direction on if we want to stay with the four like you were dividing one into four so the most you can get is four that that's fine but then let's go through and I will um at make sure that all the sections match that so that we're not confused or if you decide um juris local jurisdictions do have the ability to raise that number as far as nine. So that's why I kind of put it pure still does four, Edgewood does six, Fifen Summoner does nine. Um the main difference is again it comes back to process. So the main difference in the process is um with short plats we're still notifying the neighbors but it doesn't have a public hearing where if it's a full plat it does have a public hearing and it is a little more of a process. So, um, again, staff does not have a strong opinion on either e either one of those or three of those options as much as let's whatever we decide on, I will come back making sure everything agrees. Um, and then it it just felt like there should be some sort of language on on the common ownerships because it talks

about again it's hard sometimes you start getting in you think about it too much but um common ownerships you're not selling or leasing. Um I could see so like you know if you had a um you know if you've got a house and two ADUs you know is it just then is the common area could be one but theoretically you could have divided it between the driveway and the commons yards or I've had short plats where they really were only creating three or four lots but then they wanted the storm so is that a fifth or Is that common? So that they can still do short. So um again just thinking feeling like there might want to be some clarifying language that says you know if it's a track and common ownership they're not limited by the four if that as the definition says or um saying yes any even if that particular one's not for sale it's shared common ownership it is within the four. So again, if it feels like since we're kind of opening this, it might be worth clarifying a few of these things. So to clarify, um the options with it would be four including shared lot four plus shared lot or we can make up a new number between four and nine. Correct. Okay. Um, I think that's a good pause point to just check for was there any other clarifications as far as what's been presented so far and then we can start going to discussion and consensus from there. We're going around. Yeah, if you'd like to start the motion. I just want to clarify. Oh, uh, just first going around and just asking if there's Yeah, if there's any questions or clarification so far to what's been presented. I agree it needs to wait a little bit. Oh, I I

don't y I agree. I think it needs to be wait a little bit because I think the whole idea bothers me. I understand what the state is doing, but I can envision how people behave now in our society and I don't see it getting any better. So, you have if you go up to nine on a lot say it's not so separate out just to clarify. Okay. This isn't it's still limited to what we say our limit is for housing. So the the only thing the difference between a four and nine is how you process it. So if if you're in the residential zone and we only allow one house with two ADUs you're three there. This does not override that three. Okay. So you're encompassing the larger area that we do multi. So the the so what we have now the four would cover the unit lot subdivision that we allow. Um what it would allow is if you raise that number is let's say someone was actually doing a true short plat like making new lots. Um if you you could go up to nine new lots if they had enough room right and they meet that um this the lot size and everything. Um again it would just be the simpler process versus the herring process. Okay. My question in this where in here does it state the limitation on the size of the lot? If you want nine to be broken down into a parcel where do we have the size that would allow nine. So again they would have to have which again nine's probably not even necessary for the city because probably don't have we hardly have anything. Well, I guess we have a few. We had one that just we just did that was the six. Um, so again, if you go through the actual short plat full section, which

is 16 d uh 16.28, it says you have to meet all of the um, you know, under the conditions, you have to meet all of the um, there it goes requirements. Yeah, basically all of the bulk and dimensions and all of the all of that. So, um, building standards. Yeah, bulk and dimensional regulations set forth in chapter 17.15a and 17.15b. So, it's just saying what it's not it it doesn't change how many is allowed in a zone. The zoning sets that. The difference is are we processing it as a in essence are we right now if it's four it's a staff level with neighborhood review if it's over four it's a public hearing um still with neighborhood review. So the argument from the state on this is we're trying to move the process of housing faster with the type of this plots we want to use on the short plots. So, you got this is the problem is that we've opened up I' I've opened up a can of worms. Um, the unit lot subdivision allows their their goal is to say, "Hey, you can allow you could sell them off on little almost like condos as little units." So, they're saying yes, you need to allow that. In the process of doing that is where I kind of came up with wait a minute it seems like our short and you do that under the short plat process which we already have. Okay. But then looking at it there's some parts that don't agree. So then my question is if right now it's four. If we leave it at four we just need to fix the few the one or two areas that it doesn't sound like four. My other question is how do the deeds reflect on this? In other words, we say we have a piece of property that has the main owner and

he's subdividing it down. So there'll be two other units which we say can have their own power and stuff if this power is allowed to be individual. And each one gets a deed for their unit that will clearly show common space for the entire property as part of the deed. Yeah. So it gets filed um it gets recorded with the county. The survey gets recorded. So whether it's a short flat or whether it's a unit lot subdivision, it gets um it gets signed by everybody. It gets recorded with the county and it lists everything on it that these are individual. They get individual parcel numbers. This is all the common area. It'll have instructions all the stuff we said that needs to be on that. So, um I guess I guess the the one question is if we're all comfortable with just four because in essence that's what it is. I I didn't um and and there's no great desire to increase that then that simplifies everything. I like four and we can just leave it at four. Yeah. Um, yeah. So, that's good. So, we I will just make sure that that other language gets fixed and make sure there's nothing else that conflicts with that. So, it says four. Yeah. And then the second part is do we feel it's necessary to acknowledge again just because it's written weirdly and maybe I just take that part out but it talks about you're creating for sale but then I'm like and it look and I and part of this came from when I looked back it it looks like there has been short plats processed in the past like they didn't count the storm water because it wasn't for sale. So this is where I get a little like I'd rather it be really clear like If we're creating a tract just for storm water, which is commonly owned, is that in the four or can that be above the four because we're only selling four? And I know that it gets a little

confusing. But when it goes to me actually processing, I get a little and I've had people argue with me about that. Well, that's not how it works. And I'm like, I well, especially with storm water. Like for instance, we're build twice. were built on the main house on the one lot and on the other lot were built separately on our storm water fee. So you've got three homes on the same lot. How do you divide the storm fee up with impervious surface impervious and you know all that crap? Oh, excuse me. Yeah. So, so yeah. So, and again this is really beyond the unit lot subdivision. This is more for traditional short plats. So, let's say someone's got a a big lot and they have enough to divide it into four plus they want like I had one that's coming that came in and they were only creating I think three lots but they wanted a track for storm water and a track for the street. So, in essence there's five different divisions of land but two are common ownership. I played it safe and said, "No, you got to have four." But then I read it and I go back and forth and I look at what's been done historically and there were times where it looked like they let them do four plus the storm. So then I'm like I just feel like we should clarify is common ownership if common ownership needs to be within that four then we need to say that or if the if we're comfortable and again we can set it as of today the state is fine either way or if we're like no four for sale but you could have your common ownership as a tract and we're not going to hold that against you. And would it be okay if those are not continuous? Like you've got, you know, a common area is a lawn here and another common area is over there. That won't be a problem under the definition that you clarify. So that's why Yeah. And sometimes people just do it as one big track even though they don't touch, which is a little weird, but it's been done. Okay. Or down the road. Or you

could have track A and track B. Like I said, they were wanting a track A for the road and a track B for the storm water. And then they were going to create Oh, yeah. you know, the four lots to sell, which in essence, you're creating six parcels of land. Do do does that can is that okay under the short plat if we add language, or do we say, "Nope, that's a full plat." And I know this is stretching outside of what the original topic was. So, I feel like I'm confusing people or I'm adding, but it sort of came up since we're messing with this that I sort of wanted to toss it out. So I I would say in in my mind um that four plus whatever common area for storms or rideway or whatever would be acceptable because the intent is that we're trying to create four homes essentially. Right? So to me that's what makes sense if anyone else wants to kind of go down and say whether they think it should be four including or four plus um for shared just trying to move the conversation along. Ladies first. Oh yeah. Uh vice chair. So uh I would agree with the idea of keeping our short plat or short subdivision definition because the plat's the map and the division is definitions too up the land. But anyway, we use those terms interchangeably. But anyway, I I support the four. Uh I was looking in the uh unit lot subdivision handout that we got in our February packet and it provides a definition for this short subdivision from the state which is may I quote the division or redivision of land into four or fewer lots, tracks, parcels, sites or

divisions for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership. So, um, I I like that definition, the idea, and it could well be, I don't know, when I first started on the commission, that idea of a critical areas tracked or this idea of setting aside parts of land, I don't remember it coming up that frequently as now it's and the way density was calculated years ago, it was a gross calculation. Now, it's net. So I I would value the clarity to talk about lots that are in common ownership uh would not be counted for uh the lots number of lots uh for a short plat or a short subdivision or a full subdivision. The question a couple of questions bubble up. Are short plats uh common in the world of non-residential development because that's not really specified in the state law and so I didn't want to make an assumption it can um it doesn't I don't think it happens very often um more what you get is which um I do appreciate your clarification on binding site plans. Um, more often than not, it's sort of the binding site plan. Um and actually the Safeway complex is a prime example that and actually they they've talking to me that a lot of times what they want to do is again they want to divide so they can like Safeway actually owns its little parcel and then like the the um section next to it is owned by the actual owner

of everything else. So, but they all want to intermingle because they all want shared parking lots. They all have shared storms. So, they're more apt and they're not usually going to use like a short plat because they are tied together. So, what they will use is the binding site plan that says, "Yes, this is you can sell this section individually, but we still are all tied together for all of these issues." So again, it's that it's and most modern most current recent um like strip malls and a lot of those things commercial that's what um in essence that's what um not Boeing because they already had um multiple partials. We actually just simplified it down to four or five. But that's but again they also have a lot of CN they have all their agreements too. But yeah, it's not very common to do short plats for commercial or industrial. I guess it would be if for some reason somebody had a chunk that they're like, I don't want, so I might divide it off. But in most cases, that's it's not because with houses, you're like you you're selling off so people can buy their houses. They're by their own lots. Most times if a business, they want more land, not less. If I may, another question. uh the common ownership concept like a uh critical areas or u hazardous well that's a critical areas too uh an access corridor or easement utility easement um might be a park or a pardon might be storm might be a park right would there ever be something where that would be sold off and maybe that's just fruit food for thought later getting things too complicated this this thought thing, but I think in most cases um one it would still hold that the

limit is you know you can't resubdivide for x number of years either way. So okay they couldn't transfer it within I think it's at least five years that if you short plat you can't reshort plat if it's going to put you over that whatever is that number for sale. So for us it would be four. Um, and in most cases you're not going to be able to because if it's wetlands that's the there's actually specific language that says if an area was wetlands you can't like re you can't sh you know cut it in half to try to then get loopholes to build things and so um or to fill it in and say well I'll mitigate somewhere else that is the thinking I yes so there is some already some precautions um that would protect that sort of stuff. And the last comment is I agree with um the thought that this needs a little more work before going forward. Thank you. uh continuing on with any questions, comments, or um yeah, it's just my understanding is we just want to make them match um the short subdivision with the unit lot subdivision and that's four lots for both. I think um the only question is that ambiguity, what is that shared property? Is that considered a lot? Yeah. And I think that's that's where I that's what I'm that's where I'm at too. I I think it sounds like the most the groups would like to just keep it at four, which is fine. I'll fix the language so it matches in both sections. So then the question is I personally would like some language that acknowledges that. And again, we could make that, you know, like we could even say up to two tracks or something if we wanted to. could be in addition if it's

for common ownership such as storm critical areas you know we could be real spec you know we could put a little limit on it or add some language to it but it would be nice I think um to have that so it just gives a little bit of buffer yeah okay okay Tom did you sorry not to overstep the chair I'll uh uh I'll just say that I'm with the four. I was willing last meeting I was leaning on five, but I think with the five with the let's call them bonus tracks for storm drainage, easements, wetlands, the things like that, you know, uh I mean, hey, it's open space. Look at behind post office. Their open space is probably their dumpster area, but at least it's their designated space. You know what I mean? So, and they have the storm thing in the back with that. But kind of an example of what how I was thinking about it is is doing it that way. They're still crammed in there, but uh Yeah. And they're all sold. Yeah. Like that. They couldn't build them fast enough. It's built in the attraction. Thank you. Yeah. Commissioner Johnson, Michaela, um yeah, I agree with four four plus. Um when you say we can limit to for example two tracks, is that relevant if they can take two different areas and call those one tract? [Music] Probably not. But it does at least makes them think. Makes them think or at least it'd have to be the similar like it'd be hard to say. It'd be one thing if you're like, "Okay, these are our two open park spaces." That might be, but it'd be hard to say storm and at access and whatever all the same similar thing. So, I think

there'd be some parameters there. Okay. Yeah, I'm good with uh four plus um and writing some language to limit it as long as that, you know, makes sense and they can't call all those things one track. Yeah. Uh Commissioner Johnson, the one behind the post office, did are they in HOA? Yes, they are. Because they are private roads, private storm water, and private Okay. common space. Right. because I know there's some conflict on the road between some of the homes and them. The other thing is, okay, so someone says, "I want to do this, but they're not going to sell the homes. They're going to go ahead and rent them." Does that have a difference? So, if they were going to rent them, they wouldn't worry about doing a binding site plan. They would just But maybe he's the person may be doing it. So, in the future, for in the future, they could. And that's there's nothing one way or the other. But why does he got to be a he? She You said he MX to you. She's assuming he No, I won't say that on the record. Um I said he she they um I mean theoretically because of under our current you could own a house and build two ADUs and rent them all. So either way they could be rentals. I I don't think they would go through the I mean again they might. Yeah. But it's less likely they would go through the effort and not sell them. So it we'd also look that it would be an investor who would come in build the four units and actually not live in one and sell all four units on its own. Mhm. And again for me I look at the buyers and the way transition is to make sure things are covered that all the responsibility stays with the four different owners that one sells

um to another person that's not in the original group that it's still part of they still have to adhere. Where is that to protect that? And then uh the roads, is it going to be like a common road in or does each one have their own driveway? They could only have one driveway in because we have to treat if if we're talking about the unit lot subdivision because you're dealing with everything, right? Um all of our standards um for setbacks, driveways, everything has to meet as if it was which we see like on 15th. So, they have to have one that goes in. Okay. Um Yeah. Okay. I wonder how many parcels we have that would be eligible. Like, would they have to merge parcels together to really do what they want to do? And I thought at one time we talked about where they didn't want individual utility boxes that you know do remember that at one time we were wondering if each one could have its own or it had to be one and so as Yeah. So as to utilities let's um unless there's if are we um so I guess just quick checking for consensus. So, are we okay with the idea of four plus with her doing more research to figure out the best way of wording that additional tracks for storm water park open space? You mean four units and then the rest would be the property common? Okay. Just checking for consensus on that so we can close that topic and then we'll move into more of utilities binding site plan and kind of how that works or not binding site plan but um so commissioner has a comment but then yeah let's just a quick comment on

how you were um summarizing things and I really appreciate um you're keeping us on track. Thank you. Uh because this is a new concept, I've I wonder is there going to be like a common backyard area type of a thing. Um I know of housing developments where there's a green belt that everybody shares and then their property line butts up to it. Uh but uh so the it's just when we when you go through that concept because my mind is okay, a storm water detention facility. Okay, that that's Medina Xing. But if it's a shared backyard, how do people feel about that versus where we were getting real mechanical about access into the property or So again, if you're dealing with the unit lot subdivision, they have to meet the requirements of the zone for so in the case of single family, they have to have a 25 foot setback. So everyone's got that. So there's going to be a 20 foot yard set back which will be possibly they could do it as common. They could also just divide it in half and say you get half and you get half but um there's no one way. Yeah, but it does definitely everyone will get yard. Okay. However you do that because there'll be the 20 in the front, the 25 in the back and the seven and a half on each side. So I Yeah. So that part stays the same. And then if you're doing an actual short plot, again, it's hard because it's different concepts. Um, if you're doing an actual short plot to create new lots, well then each individual lot has to meet those. They have to be 8,000 square ft. They have to have a 25 foot backyard, 20 foot front yard. So either way, people are going to have that versus um mult, you know, and if you're a

multif family, then you have to meet those setbacks. And those we do I think I think we'll work on making multif family when we get to design standards we could look at some of that for them as well. Okay. And so there could be a lot I'm thinking of when the day we make biscuits little plugs are cut out little biscuits are cut out and then one lot would have all these holes in it. So it have three theoretically have three holes in it and then everything else is shared but then you have your agreement that says how it works. And like anything if you have neighbor disputes you have neighbor disputes. So, okay, I have that right now with traditional laws. It's like the backyard against. So, all right. So, so thank you for just the clarification on th those that topic of number of lots for a unit lot subdivision. All right. So, so we kind of got into a consensus of four plus the idea of something for utilities if necessary or needed. not required, but if necessary. And then we're kind of getting into more of the nitty-gritty of like how access works, kind of just our general questions on Yeah, just a couple deeds work. And yeah, so a couple um things to follow up on. So on page 12 um I thought I added I'm a little confused here. feel like there should be another page. But um so on page 12, it talks about that I added this idea of um that joy joint use agreements and maintenance agreements identifying the rights and responsibilities of property owners and any homeowners association shall be executed for use and maintenance of so for the common areas. Um and it shall be recorded with the county.

Um, I did I thought it was in the memo, but maybe it was in the email that I sent out because my memo says it was only one page. um is if we would like um there is um there was again language that I thought I sent to everybody but I'm not seeing it here that basically was a little it literally listed instead of saying agreement maintenance agreements don't use agreements it said um covenants basically mimic the language that Helen owners associate should use. So, I'm thinking um I will put that language in because I think it's stronger language and I think that more addresses what I'm hearing from the planning commission is, you know, make sure they don't just, oh, well, here's a half a page agreement that it really is the covenants that they record that says how everything's being used. You're talking about page 17. Uh, go down to 1630C I think is what you were just talking easements joint use and maintenance agreements covenants. Yeah, the CCRs declaration of covenants conditions and restrictions. Sure. So that's what the binding site plan language is. I will um we can put similar strong language. Um it's a little softer in the unit lot subdivision. So I'll um it just says joint use and maintenance agreements. So we'll we'll use that harder language in both. Okay. And then the fi you were talking about utilities and I did want to um interesting because we're all having to do this. I have discussion with other planners and so we actually had um a meeting that they were city planners were asking other city planners how are you handling this? What are you doing? What are you thinking? Um, and so I did, let's see, let me find the right page.

Um, because it deals with All right. So on um page 15 um and again maybe that's not exactly the right term but basically um there was discussion of the separate utility meters and Tacoma um I was talking to a Tacoma planner that I um I have a really good relationship with and she says yes they um normally require and I think there was another city that that popped in saying and they did the very similar that um they require separate utility meters unless there is a um an agreement that outlines how those utilities are going to be shared. So, um I think the preference I mean we the the preference would probably be separate utilities, but if it was one that was, you know, is an older one that already had shared utilities and now later they want to divide, it might be worth having the option of a utility agreement or do we want to leave in that they have to have separate utility meters before they sell? either and you're only talking the utility meters and such, not that they can't have like a shared storm sewer because those are considered utilities and stuff, right? Specifically utilities. So, yeah, it would be um water basically be water and electric so that they'd have their own the advantage is that way they all have their own bills and if whoever gets the main one doesn't pay it, not everyone gets shut off. That's why Tacoma Power basically requires individual units when they can for that reason. Um, so quick story along these lines, current events. I got a development up in this area and their individual lots. There's only two

completed and like two of the uh, you know, liloo lots that are finished, but nobody's really using. So there's a community septic system. So there's only really two houses feeding this current system. and it has blowers and pumps and all these things. And was out there, we're starting to do one of the lots and the guy hasn't developer has not paid his bills very well. And so now we're back. We've been paid. And I go out there and I'm like, "Uh, you guys hear any blowers going?" They're like, "No." And I go over and look at the panels. All the green lights are off. And I'm like, "Well, there's power to this meter. there's power to those two houses. Uh, so I go, I got to call the electrician. All the breakers are on. He comes out the next day and it's like, yeah, somebody shut this power off. So the developer didn't was because there's no HOA yet. So the bill for that goes to the developer and he didn't pay the bill. And so here's these people actively using this system that needs to have processing and all this and pumps going and uh so yeah, it's still not on. I don't know. I told them you might want to pay your bill, dude. But the importance of uh I think individual uh bills and meters is why they do it. Otherwise, you could you would have your whole street. Why wouldn't you just have your street split it, you know, or something like that? So, I think individual uh meters is important. Sorry for the long story. Just No, you're good. Work story I wanted to share. Well, also a personal question. Yeah. Yeah. Also, when we look at some subdivisions that are for seniors, they will have one meter for water and stuff and it's spread among all the other people. Well, one person may not use as much water as the one

main person who's watering the yard and everything. The other qu So that why the each individual meter shows that each unit is an individual unit and not owned by one person. The other thing is when we're looking at utilities, is it only electric? Is gas going to be allowed? You said water and electric, but there is gas in Milton. So, how is that determined ahead by the developer that each house is going to be with gas because we know what PSC is doing right now because of the state, but you know, we've got to change now. We're getting different power coming back. No. Well, that's why you just sort of say utility meters and it covers whatever they choose to hook up. So, I think it's what I'm hearing is let's require utility meters. Yeah. Anyone who's dealt with a bad roommate or Yeah. Yeah. No. And I from past lives there were poor triplexes where one person was supposed to pay and they didn't pay and everybody gets it turned off. So yeah. All right. I will make sure that's done. So that's all the things I had. Okay. All right. So just kind of open discussion as far as um everyone that's read through it. Was there anything else that caught your eye or questions or things that um what is it? Wonderings. Hi. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'll go vice chair first. Go ahead. Um, is there a value that was discussed at the uh, planners meeting that you mentioned discussing limiting the size or either to the max or to the like you you couldn't make a unit lot subdivision any smaller than I thought I read something in Seattle that was you couldn't go less than a thousand square feet, but I just put that out there as Uh uh is and it

was briefly mentioned in that fact sheet from Department of Commerce um and it mentioned that some cities have guard rails. Ever requires unit lots to be large enough to contain a dwelling unit and accessory improvements such as decks, fences, driveways, parking and private yard areas. So, uh, spo city of Spokane allows a unit lot to be as small as the footprint of the building situated upon it subject to the requirements of the building and fire code. So, it sounds like it can be just where your foundation connects with the ground or planning for something that's got a little more you require a buffer around it like it must be at least three feet. Yeah. So, I didn't see anything like that in the code. I I tend to favor the idea of saying you got to make it big enough to have a yard, but I, you know, I haven't looked at Everett's code to say, "Well, the yard's got to be big enough for a dog in a a waiting pool." I mean I mean it gets kind of detailed and um I just put it out there as a point of discussion from the perspective of maybe we visit this again in a year or something to see how things are working out and and if anyone even does it. Yeah. Yeah. Um so that was uh one question that had come up. Another question that had come up was uh relative to access requirements and frontage improvements because currently it's all based on the short plat quantity of lots and thinking about um residential zones that allow 12 dwelling units per acre or in the example of the town center 20

dwelling units per acre. Uh, I mean it I just wonder, gee, should we really think through the idea of frontage requirements? I don't think we can do frontage requirements for ADUs. We can do them for we do them for basically your first house. So, if it's a single family house or duplex, we require frontage and privates. You can't do it for ADUs. Um, if you again, if you're for the first time multifamily, anything new is going to require it. Okay. So, any new commercial, residential, anything new, we require it. Okay. So, uh frontage recruit requirements, excuse me, access requirements, street improvement requirements, that's all based on the quantity of lots, meaning the parent lot. And my question is, is there a threshold where someone in the building world would say, you know, you kind of need a wider access corridor there because you're, you know, yes, it's serving one parent lot, but you've you had the land area to make, for example, 12 unit lots. So, it it's that's just something to mull on. other people having thoughts about that. So again, if if if you do a if if you're doing a short plat or full plat, our current code requires you to do street um and or frontage improvements. Um we are fine-tuning that um outside of the planning commission role in that um we are working with uh Grant Osborne our engineers to update the public works

standards. So we're actually looking at making sure that that language is clear and we're all up to date on all of those things. Um, so again, yeah, if so, right now, if you have a lot and you have a house on it and you divide a section off um to sell, you have to do frontage on the part you're selling. You don't have to do it in front of the part that you already own or that has already has the house. If you're taking a lot that's, you know, completely empty and you're dividing up, you have to do frontage. So that's kind of the way our current frontage stuff works. And I frontage in lie of traffic impact or is it No, both. Both. Okay. So yeah, and right now you do have to pay 50% of the traffic impact if you add an ADU. So you are still getting traffic impact. You're just not requiring frontage. Yeah. Commissioner Bole, go ahead. Oh, thank you. Uh, so not to rehash something too much and not to skip over what the vice chair was talking about, but I've had this in my head is um as far as frontage improvements, and this may be for another discussion as well is these developers uh the city having them pay the inla fee instead of actually doing the frontage improvement. I I would like to look that over and see if we can just a month get rid of it or when how are how are we going to hold the city responsible for the sidewalks that they promise us? And it's the goal that we've all had at any community uh outreach that we've done has always been public safety and people having sidewalks. If we're having these uh all they're doing right here, okay, let's take this development here was done 15 years

ago. They paid the inlu fee. I brought it up. Why are they paying the inlu fee? Well, we put it in an account and then we use that in areas to connect other areas. And I go, really? So, you're taking something that would have been a public safety improvement and now you've created a gravel area along 10th and people are parking there. Where are the kids getting to the bus? Where how are these people getting around now that when there's vehicles parked there and there's no sidewalks? Uh so, I'd like to see that just gotten rid of. So I um I wouldn't staff's recommendation wouldn't be to completely get rid of it. Like I said, we are reviewing it as part of the public works standards review and the streets standard review because there are places like we have a a new development that's going in like they're putting in a couple houses where comment dead ends on I next to I5 off of Fifth A and it's all developed around it. If we had him put in sidewalks, there would be sidewalk. It would just be this little chunk of sidewalks and then you'd hear like, well, the city's making them do sidewalks to nowhere. So, instead, we make him pay, we have made him pay the in lie of which has paid for the sidewalks that we've put on 19th this last year and we are um hopefully if we can get certain property owners to agree, we should in the next year or two have 23rd from one end all the way to the other. So there are times when in lie of makes sense for some of these little isolated areas to use in places where where we have more main traffic of pedestrians to kind of connect everything. Um I do think like I said it's it's more under the public works and they're working through that. Um we are um we are looking at some of the language because some of the language actually lets like a property owner decide and we felt like it shouldn't be

the property owner who decides if they pay in le of it should be the city who decides if they pay in lie of. So we are looking at it from that perspective. Um, so I will pass on your your thoughts to make sure that that we do have wording like if because I said under the current staffing I I can't imagine we wouldn't have made them put sidewalks but obviously a different staff didn't make them. So I will pass on the concerns to to see how we can what wording we have to try to make sure that some of the more central streets get them. I don't mean my street. Well, and again there are way of saying like I remember on our traffic that there was like arterials or certain types that you would basically say if a road is a dead end side street this one you've got 10 houses and this may not be a busy street but it's a wellused street and uh well and we do have I mean they did end up putting sidewalk down to the trail so yeah it it probably again it's probably yeah and most of that was probably grant money. Yeah. So, the traffic the my guess is the transportation improvement plan probably identifies our priority streets. I think if you look at the city's budget for streets and streets improvements and you see some of the sidewalks that have been put in in the city in the last 10 to 15 years, it was grant money. Yeah. It's a very It's got to be just a very small percentage that the actual city contracts out uh to go and put sidewalks in in a specific area. It's got to be minimal. And I would say in the last two years with your new staff, we've probably done a lot. So I will pass those numbers on to grant work. Grant work is amazing. No, a lot of ours is from traffic budgets that we have. So I will I will see if we can get you those numbers. Um Continuing on. Yes, Mr. You know, I

don't know, maybe it's just me. I just find this whole thing with this unit lot subdivisions uh stupid because we have things in the neighborhoods that are already the doing the same thing which we had to do with ADUs, you know, spread things out. And so I'm still trying to understand the full purpose that the state has done for this city to have to accept unit lot subdivision. And I thought it was so it could incre speed speed up the process of permitting. So unit lot subdivision is to increase ownership of those houses. But it doesn't mean it will because nothing says you have to be the owner. No. But the but it can be rentals. It could be. It's not home ownership. It's it's housing. Okay. And that's the 200,000 housing units they think they're gonna bring in. No, I'm sorry. I'm really angry with the time that has to be wasted on redefining short plat short plats. But it's not you. It's just some of it is but some of it is me. Some of me some of it got off on me finding things or trying to clarify things. The the whole point of unit I mean we are allowing three units per property as is. As it is those there's no way to sell them. They have to be rentals. They have to be rentals as it is right now. Like for an ADU, you mean? For an ADU. So, the idea of a unit lot, I mean, the primary use of a of a unit lot subdivision is to take those three units and make them so you could sell them to provide ownership. That's the point behind that, right? So, and theoretically, if someone came in tomorrow, I would have to do it even though I don't have the guidelines that I want. though because the state Yeah. because it was part of the ad I think or middle it was part of something that all of us didn't quite focus in on as we were

trying to get our comp plan and then went oh shoot I got to put some guard rails around this. I'd like to put some guardrails around it. We haven't heard from Commissioner Zaro for a while. So I just want to make sure you have Okay, good. Thank you. Just wanting to make sure we give opportunity. Commissioner Sweat. Um I just so I am sure that I understand this and I'm afraid I agree with you. Uh this is stupid and it's going to open up a can of worms like uh you guys have never seen. I'll guarantee it. Uh yes, everybody should have their own uh meters for utilities. Absolutely. Um, when you say frontage, what all is involved in the frontage of the primary residence? Curb, gutter, sidewalk. Yeah. And not a rolled curb. Right. Say that again. Curb, gutter, sidewalk. Yeah. Okay. And occasionally planter strips. Okay. Now, these three extra houses you're putting on your lot, they're going to be required to have a driveway, right? So again, the the ADU this the unit lot subdivision only applies in essence to the ADUs that we've created. So you're talking about one house and two ADUs. They all have to have a share driveway. They all have to have they all have to be within the standard setbacks. Um, and so that's the idea being that you're you're condomin it allows them to basically condo the house with a little bit of property or all or chunks of property versus having them be rentals. So that's the only that's the unit lot subdivision part because they're using the they're trying to they are using the short plat process. It sort of makes it convoluted.

So again, it provides ownership instead of rentals. That's the whole point. But either way, we it is what it is. Yeah. Just to give you guys an idea, check if you check Redfin or Zillow or any of those, uh I think I checked a week or two ago, and in the entire city of Milton, there was 12 parcels for sale, period. Two of them were houses over a million dollars. Um, three of them were like the that strip on the Comet where it's they're getting permits to build houses and they're basically selling the lots with, hey, we have permits coming so that you can use our builder. So that and then I think two of them were over a million dollar parcels and that left like five houses left that ranged from 350 I think three in Heather Hills that were somewhat affordable and I think one house that was in that five to 500 to $700,000 range. If you're 25 to 35, how many of you guys are How many 25 to 35 year olds or 40 year olds are able to buy a house? My point. Not many. O over $700,000. I say we solve the problem. If part of it is we have to have affordable housing and that's the goal in Virginia. I was raised in town homes. Town houses. Yeah. Why don't we say these are only for town houses that you have a front yard, you have a backyard, and it's affordable housing. Single family homes on these are not going to allow a lot of people. What will happen is you'll have investors coming in and buying them and renting them out. That's my concern because it's happening with the single family homes now. So, can we say our

design for these are t not apartments? We're talking not duplexes. The the the unit lot subdivision is primarily for ADUs. ADU rules are already set. So, this is just how you convert them in our multifamily zones. Yes, you can use the binding site plan to do town homes or something like it. And we have in essence, I mean, right now I think they're going to rent them, but they could. There's a town home stretch going in over there. So, but at this point, it's a done deal. Well, I Well, I Yes. While I appreciate the discussion, we are limited by the guidelines of the state and I think we're well we're within that and I'm not sure we can add anything else to it. I'm done. Yes. Commission or vice chair was commission I'm happy that we've got the um declaration of covenants conditions and restrictions. That was what I was after when I even brought up HOAs. Not because I wanted HOAs. I do not. But I wanted everybody to have uh really clear guidelines on who owns what since we got to do this anyway. Who and if there's any dispute, if you have your neighbor not paying their bills or whatever, it won't hurt you. That's what that was about. Yeah. So, uh a couple of smaller topics. Uh looking on page 14, applicability uh the language currently provided says that uh the provisions of this chapter uh etc etc up can be used to develop middle housing ADUs and multiple detached single family residents. I looked for a definition for middle housing. I couldn't find it in title 17, which is

where I assume it would be like that area defines duplexes and multif family. So, because in reading some other cities, they were very specific about not all middle housing was allowed to use it. They named a few types of middle housing. So that's what piqued my curiosity about how do we want it to apply to all middle housing because this is going to apply in a the NR2 zone the urban uh residential multif family. I mean it's there's going to be uh interest u I'm sure beyond just the single family zone. So, um I don't think we have any provisions yet for middle housing. Am I did I miss that one? The only thing we are required for middle housing specifically is to middle housing is considered kind of duplexes through um maybe quadplexes or garden apartments or whatever. So, the only thing we're required to allow in our single family is duplexes, but we could allow we do allow in our multifamily. you could have a triplex or a quadplex or something. And so you could use this process up to four because we're only going to allow four if it had it. But um so I just put that as a uh food for thought uh because I saw some cities being very specific about like I mentioned cottage housing. They were they they listed specific things. I didn't do enough studying to see if they were uh specifying in particular zones. And here you were mentioning, well, you know, you're not allowed to do certain things in the NR1 zone. So, it just something else to think through a bit.

Um, and I won't go forward until I see you're done reading. Manager Staller, if it might make more sense to say provisions of this chapter shall apply to parcels that are developed for residential use in which no dwelling unit are stacked on another dwelling unit. I'm my assumption is that I pulled that language. Um Mhm. though, yes, there's not we don't have middle housing definition, but it's sort of right now out there. It's on page 13, too, of unit lot subdivision. Yeah. Uh definition. Yeah. So, I I'm suspic I'm suspect that I pulled it as the state's definition of it. Um or at least the commerce guidelines definition of it, but I can look at that. And yeah, we could definitely say it's for um well, it does say I mean we could it does say it's middle it's housing dwelling units and so it definitely is clear that it's residential. Yeah. The reason why I was kind of thinking I was restating for residential use in which no dwelling units are stacked on top of on another dwelling unit was because I mean how many different terms have we come up with just in the last 5 years since I've been on planning commission. So, you know, we've seen it go from granny flats to accessory apartments to ADUs to so trying to always keep up on that term versus just saying residential use in which no dwelling units are stacked. Okay, if everyone's okay with that. Could you clarify that because I I've seen in rules that middle housing can have side by side units or can have stacked units and then uh what I've seen was mostly this uh not allowing it to be on stacked on

another use. Well, this is specific to unit lot subdivision applicability. So, and so with the applicability here, it's that you can't subplot or subdivide a stacked. So, you can't say first level belongs to this person, second level belongs to this person, and third. It's saying you have to have the unit lot subdivision only works doesn't work from vertical. It only works for horizontal. So, it's okay. Or or a use. So if you had a business like mixeduse building, unit lot subdivision would not be applicable. Correct. Okay. So my question was just the definition of what what middle housing is. Um and we I didn't see one in the zoning code. Someone help me and correct me if I wrong. Looks like it's an RCW. Yeah. Growth management. We can I mean we can at a future date add a definition for middle housing in the zoning in title 17 or I could replace middle housing like you said with some sort of more residential. Okay. Uh and I wanted to confirm process type three that's listed in section 162502. uh process type three is that also the way short plats. Yes. Okay. So it's it's staff level with a notice of 500 feet and notice of the property. Okay. And the other thing in trying to think this to me is like Russian dolls nesting in one another to try to get it all sorted out. And um I respect the folks who can really keep all of this straight in their head. Uh but I wanted to make sure I understood that the new code we

created had a table specific for dimension standards and a table specific for building bulk regulations and unit lot development. You can ignore for the unit lot the dimension standards. Yeah. So the parent lot had to meet all of the the parent lot has to meet the this the setbacks and all of that but then they can be abudded within the law. So the idea being that yeah so if the par I mean it has to meet the par you know when you draw a box around whatever those units are it has to meet the dimensions of setbacks impervious coverage structure coverage all of that. So when you add them all together and draw a little line around it has to meet all those. Um, and then each if it's a primary house, it has to meet all of our um bulk regulations and design regulations for a house. If they're ADUs, it has to meet it for ADUs. Okay. because I I was looking at the bulk table versus the because they used to be co-mingled uh and so forth and really could you just take another look at those two tables and just make sure that with the language in the code as I understand it the dimensional regulations don't apply to unit lot development u and I just wanted to make sure that u there wasn't something in the dimension table that they had to abide by. But unit lot development doesn't have to does have to abide by the bulk table. That's where I get tripped up. Yeah. So the the development as a whole on the parent lot meet this is the criteria meets the

applicable dimensional and bulk building regulations. So as a whole it has to meet the setbacks, it has to meet the coverages, all of that. And then each individual home would have to meet, like I said, if it's a single family or duplex, it has to meet those. If they're ADUs, it has to meet the ADU section. So, so they have to abide by the building height. Mhm. The total structure coverage. Yep. Yep. Each little one. And I thought that that was not how it was done. that each little one is aggregated together and as a whole it's the it's it's treated as a whole um entity. So we can talk about that later but that's that's the gist or the theme of the question. Yep. Is reviewing the standards. Yep. I will the two tables verify and and make sure that it Yeah. I mean that's the intent and I think it's there but I will double check because there may be a value in being specific about what is required uh for the unit lot development to meet. Um the other question is I was looking for information about impact fees. I know we had something in the code presented about uh parking and how to count the unit for certain things. So is there something did I miss it in here? I might have again unit lot subdivision is simply taking what's there and making them sellable. the if you actually go to the ADU section, it says that AD so the the first house would be at the full single family impact fee level and then our ADU section says each ADU would be at 50% of

impact. So they're paying 50% of parks, 50% of traffic, 50% of schools and we're doing that now. So they're going to pay the impact fees when they get built. Like I said, the ADUs are at 50%, the the first house is at the full amount. Okay. And then we the applicability says multiple detached single family residences. So are they going to pay the full if it's allowed by the zone? If you did a duplex, you're paying I believe each unit is paying the full amount. So yeah. Okay. So the ADU gets the reduced fee, but if a single family home is built on a unit lot subdivision parcel, they pay the full impact fee. And again, we don't currently I don't think we currently allow that. I mean, like I said, it would have to it would we allow again. So, it's like yours have to kind of go back to what does the zoning allow and then this allows you how you want to separate it out. Okay. But right now, we only allow a sing a single family with two ADUs, duplex with one ADU. We don't allow so they have to hit that ADU mark of a thousand. So if they get we wouldn't allow anything bigger than a thousand because that would be a single family and we don't allow more than one single family. So they all sort of inter you know that's how it's covered. What about in other zones like where did calculated? So in our multif family zones we um so like I said we did the site we did the binding site plan did allow sort of these single because it allowed so I suppose if it was in that way you you might be able to but once you get over four you would get kicked into the binding site plan category. So, you know, that's what they did in they still had to like the house, you know, the size of it has to meet that zone. So,

you're looking at that zone. What is the density? Okay. So, cuz and we can talk more about it later, but that was the other uh question. Yeah, it doesn't nothing in these override the densities or the housing limits. It does nothing in this overrides those. Okay. And I I want to make sure others get to speak as well. So, stop there. Commissioner Bo, you had your hand up about impact. Speaking of impact fees, I had two things. Uh impact fees. Um now that um we're allowing more ADUs on a property, do we want to remove that discount impact fee that we're giving these people when they're creating such high impacts on such small lots? Um, I don't know if you guys still think it stands. You're uh uh I see a single family home as a single family home and so they should abide by the same fees that a uh that uh any new builder would put into place. I will to toss out that the um city council has talked about um staff has mentioned and city council has talked about because in in essence they set the impact fees about maybe doing some um kind of a a new study on impact fees um to see if we're where we still want to be because we have to justify them. Um there's also a trend looking at instead of just saying single family or ADU or apartments is looking at bedrooms that you know if you have a structure with one bedroom it's got a lot you know right now we're charging for you know you could have a two-bedroom house that's got the same impact fees as a six-bedroom house where you can put a

lot more people in a six-bedroom house um with more cars and more whatever. So, um, so there is the the council as a you like I said, I I we have mentioned to council, um, and we have had discussions at staff that I think will probably in the next year or two be doing just a overall impact fee um, study with a consultant to see where we should be and how we want to if the and some of the council members want to get rid of the impact fees because um, they add I mean they do add pricing. you're talking up to $10,000 you're adding per house by impact fees, which is a lot of money if you're trying to build housing. So, again, it's all over the place, you know, just something I wanted to just make sure the commissioners were comfortable with uh giving the 50% on the ADUs and also now the unit lots as well will also, right? Well, aren't the unit lots getting uh So, if you build the parent lot, you're paying the impact fees for that house. Then you build three smaller houses. So, when you build those, it would fall under the the it you can do unit lot at any time. So, you could so that the impact fees are at the time of the building of the structure. So, really the this section doesn't deal with the impact fees. It's when you build the structures that it deals with those and there um it's actually not in title I mean the 50% off is in title 17 but the actual impact fees is not um that is set by council under the whole different section. So and they don't uh they have to they actually council has to actually hire a consultant versus just looking at what other cities our size impact fees are and what their roads are like and asking questions and doing some research. We've heard in order to have impact fees and and I will say this is

getting off the topic of tonight feel free with the ch the chair. Um you have to justif so impact fees are very specific what you can use them for. You can't use them for maintenance. You have to use them to like if for schools is the easiest like hey we're going to be we're getting more people so we're going to have to build another school. Impact fees can go towards building that new school. when you're dealing with traffic impact fees, um we're not necessarily building any more roads. We can't use it to maintain our roads. So, what are we using them for now? We are using them for um you can use them for multimmobile. So, idea is that we can use them towards sidewalks, bicycle routes, that kind of stuff. Um with parks, we're not building any more parks, but we're taking park impact fees. So, but we can there are ways that we can say yes, but we are you can't use it for maintenance, but you can use it for certain improvements. So, if we're adding a use to a park, you can use those. So, you have to So, yes. So, in most cases, it's not just like, oh, well, they're charging this much. You have to show you have to justify why are we charging this? In essence, it's a tax on new houses. Why are we charging this? Um, and so you have to show that that those that subdivision, that new house, that we are having to build more something for it. And then you have to figure out what that cost is. So, yeah, in essence, it's it's going to it'll take a study to to justify what we're doing and why we're collecting it instead of just infrastructure. So, it's not as easy as I thought. It's just impact. Uh last thing, um maybe uh next time we do something like this, I know you had the little printouts with the unit lots on it with the ADUs and we have such a broad spectrum of um between four and nine and three ADUs

and this some examples of the extreme of what the worst it could in my opinion the worst it could look like and then what the most presentable would look like and you know kind of where we sit now. You'd like some graphics brought back a little bit. Yeah. Just because I think it's important especially when we're having a public hearing that people understand visually what we're talking about especially when all of us are even asking unit lot questions, unit lot subdivision, unit lot this. Maybe a few more pictures would especially help the public, but it would help me too. I like it. And you do good pictures. You do. That's all I had. Thank you. Uh I support this. You get this other stuff re wrote up and and uh I'm ready. Why don't we say last round for comments, questions? [Music] Vice Chair, uh just a couple things to add on. Um, I understand the reduction of impact fees was prompted by trying to make the housing more affordable, but the costs are the costs. I don't think it's particularly fair. Uh, you know, so I support the idea of uh prorating or number of bedrooms. It's just food for thought. I mean, the cost is the cost and you're to to put it on someone else isn't particularly fair when you're causing the impact. Uh the other thing is uh my assumption is that we could end up with some pretty surprising things with a mix of housing types. But to really get into discussing anything along those lines of trying to tame, you know, the contrast of a single family home and then a very big town host town home setup somewhere. Uh in and and and this applies throughout residential

areas. is not just our NR1 but that that kind of a concept is set aside for design standards or something of that nature. Correct. And again, this question is prompted by looking at the example of a house in this handout. It was like something about and I will I will point out that a a huge chunk of the jurisdictions um the larger jurisdictions have to allow up to like true middle housing, which means that like Tacoma has to allow sixlexes in their single family. We don't have to allow anything other than a duplex in a sing in an ADU or a house in ADU. So, most of those things don't apply to Milton. Okay. Well, u I appreciate that and I I look forward to the rewrite and and and talking with you later. Thank you. All right. One once twice. All right. I think um as we said for homework there uh staff is going to do some revisions, edits and come back to us next meeting and I will um look through the other fun topics that we have on the agenda and bring at least one of those back um to start moving forward because I think hopefully this one's about wrapped up and so some of those like I said design, landscaping, parking, all of those um are triggered to come back. So, I'll I'll take a look and see which one I feel most comfortable with bringing that back next meeting to start working on that. Um, all right. So, with that, I think it get to staff reports. Trying to think if there's anything else exit spring, so a lot more conversations with people building, wanting to build,

wanting to add on, what can we do? Um, so that's been kind of fun, but also means I've been busy. Um, I have pictures of my trip if anyone wants to see them after the meeting. Um, and we have another interview for a building inspector on Friday. So, happy thoughts for me that maybe it'll be a good fit. Um, I really think it would be valuable for the city to have our own brie. So, other than that, I think we're um doing pretty good. And um if we get some I I can share, which I it's been in the I think the packet that went out, but the gravity coffee that's in front next to the post office that went out is um appears to be going to be a drive up pizza place. So, um like of pizza. Yeah. So, I don't know if it's like you call ahead or if it or if it's by the slice, but yes. Yeah. It's almost like it's not a Papa Murphy's drive-thru. No, it's a I can never say it right. It's a brick oven pizza. Yeah. Yeah. Cuz if you get those hot enough, they just go in and then they come out. Cuz I was wondering I'll be sitting watching traffic. Yeah. So, like I said, I don't know if it's like you order a head and pick up or you just pick up a slice or both, but anyway, it's kind of different. I thought it sounded kind of cool. Well, they also have trucks, the company is what I saw in the news. Don't they go up to Acorn? Yeah. So, anyway, so that that should be hopefully coming soon. Um, we're getting a UPS store if you hadn't heard that. Um, again, yes, it's back. It's back. UPS to the um hopefully the car wash is getting done soon. the one up on Emerald. So, anything rabbit gave me requested another extension. I I think I don't know. They'll probably do something

else. Well, I I get Yeah, I think they changed or something changed. So, I think they've been trying to sell it to somebody else and anyway, I get a couple of these that never go anywhere. So, that's the fun stuff. All right. Commissioner reports. Yes, Commissioner Sweat. My term on this uh commission is up next month. Oh. So uh and I've decided not to to reup and uh so next month will be my last meeting. Okay. And I'm staying on the uh civil service board and I'll probably keep doing that for long as I can. But I appreciate all the help. Thanks for working things out. so I could hear. It was a struggle for the first year and a half. So, but uh thanks for you know it's been quite an experience. That's all. He wants a seance check. Perfect survey then. Well, in case I don't see you next month, um I just want to say thank you for your uh level-headedness and the opportunity to u just get your perspective and um giving so much to the city to help us have a well-rounded vision and um code to implement that vision. So, thank you for your service. Um I don't have anything to report otherwise tonight. Um, yeah. I'd also like to just thank you for your service. I do appreciate your perspective and how you're able to kind of when we start rambling go, wait, hold on, time out. Yeah. What are we saying? And really get through to the heart of I think you're you're really great at summing that up real quick. And then saying, okay, here's my opinion.

I'm ready to move forward. So, I appreciate that from you and um I look forward to continuing to see you throughout the city. Thank you, Commissioner Sarah. I have nothing. Thank you. Uh Milton Days is August 16th. Uh I'm hoping the city will do another booth and to see all of you there. At least stop by and visit, watch the parade and uh stage and the stage. Uh I don't know if that new stage is going to be ready. Uh we'll get you up there when we But you know, the city people uh always like to have you come up and get back there and uh chat with the citizens and so they can take a break. And you know, they usually have free popsicles and stuff and it's a good time to interact with people and even if you're just shaking hands and saying hi to your neighbors, it's it's a fun experience. Uh uh another you brought up the car wash. I'm glad to see that that development finally cleared their storm water pond and did some maintenance on that area. It looked terrible. Uh I hope there's some kind of covenant for that uh because uh those are important. Um, and uh, Al, Commissioner Sweat, I found I was like, "Who's quitting?" And he goes, he just put his head down like this and he says, "But I'm going to finish my term. It's very respectable of you. Uh, thank you for your service." And uh and also like they said uh you know it's basically for Milton it's almost groundbreaking to have someone get an actual hearing impaired system uh put in here you know and so uh I commend you on that and holding your ground and on that. I appreciate that. And then uh uh I don't know if this is offensive or but it's it's look like I'm gonna be the only dude here. Maybe possibly there's a

5050 chance. So, uh, thanks a lot, Al, for your service. Oh. Oh, are you done? Oh, you my rebuttal. The reality is you can't leave unless you find a male replacement. Anyway, I'll be here next month and I'll I'll say my by the guy goodbyes then. I don't like it. But it is hard when you have more than one one commission or board to do as a citizen. And that's why we need more to volunteer to spread it out because it takes if you're doing your research. It's it's a lot of commitment and people don't realize it. But it's been fun with you. But I'll see you next month. Find the male or we could become a a what's the female version? A hen party. You better You better just You're taking a lot of heat off of me, but it is next meeting is May 14th.