Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. This meeting is now called to order. Welcome to the 04/06/2026 planning commission meeting. Before we get going, I'd like to welcome two new planning commissioners, Elle and Samir. Welcome. Looking forward to working with you. And with that, we'll begin with the roll call. Casey, will you please call the roll?

Yes. Chair Quentin?

Here.

Vice chair Daniel Garcia? Here. Commissioner Berger?

Here.

And welcome. And then I still don't see commissioner Garcia. Commissioner Grubb? Here. Commissioner Ibrahimovic? Here. Commissioner Anujadi is excused this evening. Commissioner Saraw? Here. And commissioner Talias? Present. And we do have Quam. Did I forget anyone there? I think I got everybody. Alright.

Great. We have Kwam here.

Thank you, Casey. Our first order of business is approved tonight's agenda. Do I have a motion, and can the motion maker please state their name?

So moved. This is Aaron.

Seconded. This is Daniel.

It's been moved by Aaron and seconded by Daniel to approve the agenda for the April 6 planning commission meeting. All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Any abstentions? Alright. The agenda has been approved as submitted. Moving on to approval of the minutes from the March. Is there a motion?

So moved.

Oh, I'll second. Jessica, go.

It's been moved by Daniel and seconded by Jessica to approve the minutes from the 03/02/2026 planning commission meeting. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye. Any

opposed, nay. Any abstentions?

Yep. I abstain. Jason and Aaron, good. Jason,

Aaron, abstain. Alright. The meetings are or the minutes are approved. Move on to public comment. This portion of the meeting is an opportunity for members of the audience to speak on any items related to city business, including items on the agenda, except those items for which the commission held

a public hearing but has not yet completed its deliberations and issued a recommendation to city council or where

the speaker promotes or opposes a candidate for public office or ballot measure. Comments, on all topics will be allowed during this portion of the meeting except please hold comments on the twenty twenty six code amendments until the that portion later in the meeting. I will identify two to three speakers, and when your name is called, the host will unmute the microphone. You'll then need to unmute your microphone before you start speaking. Comments will be limited to three minutes, and staff or one of the commissioners will share a countdown clock.

We'll interrupt you and ask you to quickly finish your comments if you extend beyond three minutes. I'm seeing no one has signed up, to provide comments for tonight's meeting. If anyone in the audience would like to provide comments that is not for the twenty twenty six code amendment public hearing, go ahead and raise your hand, and we will let you in. Nobody in the room, Casey?

None in the room, Jerry.

Okay. Then we'll close public comment and move on to staff announcements. Casey.

Thank you, chair. I'll be very brief this evening. I sent out a message to commissioners asking them to take a look at a survey. This is related to city council's kind of update and evaluation of advisory commit commissions and committees citywide, seeking your feedback and on your experiences with, advisory committees. So commissioners, if you, don't still have that email, just let me know. I will send out a reminder. We're asking for that feedback. I believe it was by April 14. So please take a look at that. If you have any questions on that, please let me know.

At our April 20 meeting, I'm still tentatively scheduled to present an update on what that work will look like and kind of where that work will go from here. So should have a more robust update for that work here in the near future. As I mentioned in the email to you, that work is being led by some of our colleagues that advised the community livability and public safety committee. So a lot of the advisory committee work is happening at clips before it goes on to city council. So please provide any and all comments on your experiences that you possibly can. So that is really all I have for this evening, sir. Thank you.

Great. Thanks, Casey. Then we'll move on to business items. Tonight's first and only business item six a is a public hearing regarding twenty twenty six Olympia Municipal Code amendments. Joyce Phillips, long range planning manager of the community planning and economic development department, is here to present on this topic. Joyce?

Thank you. Sorry. I I think I'm a little bit rusty. I was like, how do I open this again? Let me, share my PowerPoint with you here.

Okay.

Sorry about that. I thought I was all ready. I'm gonna share screen two with you, and, hopefully, it will change to bring up my PowerPoint presentation in just a moment. Okay. I believe that's working.

Sorry about that. So, this evening, I am here to give you a briefing on the proposed 2026 code amendments prior to the Commission conducting its public hearing. And unfortunately it is a rather lengthy set of amendments and I apologize for that, This is because we did not process any unnecessary code amendments during the three year process, where we really focused our energies on updating the comprehensive plan. So this means that the list that's been that we keep that suggested by staff was longer than we typically have because we do generally try to make these types of adjustments every year or two. Last year you for the for those of you who were on the Commission, then you might recall that we did the the middle housing amendments and to address the state requirements.

We tackled that last year. Set of amendments right now does include some additional requirements from the state that mean we have to make additional changes to our code. So some of those requirements have a deadline for us to adopt them by June 2026 so those are included in this proposal tonight, and I will in a future slide try to kind of highlight what the state requirement. Amendments are. The the primary reason that most of these amendments are proposed is to address issues that we find that come up over time as we're applying the codes.

Sometimes it's once and, you know, challenging, or it's not as clear as we thought it was when we wrote it, or sometimes it's been something that's just kind of irritated planners for a while, and they just decided finally now is the time. Let's get this updated. So What we do is we kind of consolidate all of these when and then, when we have enough we typically run forward with a batch of proposed amendments. And so sometimes it's just changing the wording or providing a little more clarification, but we do also try to flag places where members of the public have identified. The language is confusing or or frustrating, and so we try to be more specific or use better wording, I also did provide a proposed outcomes handout to try to kind of provide a little bit more of a layman's terminology on what the proposed amendments would mean if they were adopted.

And I know that this is a lot to read, and I can tell by some of the questions that I received at the last briefing and and before this hearing that you guys have really done your homework and read your packets. Thank you. I know that a lot of people are not used to reading code language. So to help people understand which parts of the code is proposed for amendment, we do include the code citation down to the subsection level when it's applicable, and each proposal is numbered and shown in bill format to try to help it make it easier talk about each of the proposals. But when we show something in bill format, that means that the text proposed to be added is shown in underlying text and text that is proposed to be deleted is shown in strike through.

And then we always try to show this in red font to help the reader more find quickly find out which portion is being proposed for amendment, which is especially helpful if it's a really long section and and some of these are so. But tonight I am here to bring you this set of 45 proposed amendments and then to kind of help the public and the planning Commission through their review of the materials. So proposals two through six are at the request of fire department staff and we do have Randy Haynes with the fire department here this evening to help answer questions if there are any on those, parts of the proposal. Then, numbers 21 through 31 are at the request of our historic preservation staff, and those are related to the historic preservation code and the heritage commission. And we have Brittany Gillia with us this evening in case we have questions on those proposals.

She is our historic preservation officer. And then the other proposals are around the state requirements or at the request of primarily current planning staff that have come up during the review of different projects over the last few years. Two of the proposals, 12 and number 38, both have a portion of the proposal at the request of staff and then a portion of the proposal to implement new state requirements. So there might be a little bit of overlap on how I talk about these. And, again, I don't believe that any of the staff proposal amendments are are major or significant.

Like, we'd probably never really run those independently on their own. But when we consolidate them and run them through as part of a process, it it it it's worth us taking a crack at trying to get some some improvements to the code. So I will provide a little bit of detail. I'm happy to come back and answer questions about any of the proposals. I'm gonna try to quickly highlight the purpose of each amendment in the next few slides, and hopefully that paired with the, proposed outcomes document will answer most questions, but I'm happy to take more questions at the end.

So the most substantive amendments are those that are required by the state, so I just wanna highlight those first. I did cover these in in, some detail at the briefing on, in March, but I'll just, quickly go over them a little bit right now. Proposal number seven is about lot splitting, which is a new type of land division or subdivision. It's a two lot subdivision that can be processed simultaneously with middle housing applications. Proposal number 12 is around daycare centers.

Do have a requirement to allow daycare centers as permitted uses in all residential zoning districts. Proposal number 14 is about addressing some specific requirements for new housing units when they're proposed within existing buildings. Number 18 has to do with when, we are required to allow increases to the maximum building height and, some limitations on when we can have requirements around facade modulation of a of a building and upper story step back requirements. So, basically, additional requirements for a setback, for, like, the 4th Floor and above or something like that. So, number 34 is some very specific requirements for residential parking standards.

And number 38 is about things we are required to allow for projects when existing buildings are being converted into housing units. A lot of these statutes have to do with the state trying to make it easier to get more housing units more quickly. And then number 47 is, the requirement to allow daycare centers as a permitted use in all commercial zoning districts. And so that one actually takes up a significant number of pages for a relatively minor change in the code. But, so those are the ones that are requirements to address, new state provisions.

And most of these, we just took the language from the statute and and put it into our code specifically. We tweaked the language a little bit to make it align better with our code, but it's essentially the the minimum requirements in order to meet the new state requirements. So there were some clarifications suggested by staff from the fire department, and these are entitled 16 so not a provision of the code we see very often. But we'll talk about that a little bit. And then there were some kind of cleanup and clarifications suggested by our historic preservation officer too.

And in these these ones, I wasn't planning to go through each one specifically. But for the fire department, the the proposed amendments address definitions. Access requirements and when certain fire safety and alarm provisions apply and then the amendments regarding historic preservation update the purpose and intent provisions. Update language about the heritage commission, clarify the duties and responsibilities, and then also add some code citations. I do believe that most of those actually, I believe all of those proposed amendments are very straightforward.

But if you have questions, we do have staff available to help answer those questions as well. The bulk of the proposed amendments are suggested by the current planner staff, those that do the development review based on issues that have come up over the last few years or that finally made it onto the list. Couple of them have been on the list for some time, and we're just now finally getting around to including them. So they're relatively minor. And again, they wouldn't necessarily make it to the point of amending the code on their own, but we do try to kinda clean these things up and and keep on top of our code and and go through this amendment process every year or two.

I'm gonna go through these rather quickly, but, again, please feel free to ask me questions about any of them at the end of the this presentation. So the first one has to do with treating parking enforcement the same in all of our residential districts. And I think this is this is a provision in title 18, and I think it just dates back to a time when it was written where we just didn't have as many residential districts as we have now. And so now I'm just referring to the entire residential chapter, instead of a particular zoning district or two. Proposal number eight has to do with adding renewable energy and the reduction of emissions as things that we want to encourage proposal number nine is about specific wording in the code and how it's used.

Currently, are we say that the word shall is a requirement. We're also changing that to add the word must because of the way. Just the way the terminology is is being updated as each of these ordinances go through. Now have shall and must in the code. Just want to be clear that they're both requirements, whereas things like should or may, those are more permissive or optional.

Proposal number 10 has to do with having a consolidated site plan for when properties are split by different zoning districts. Occasionally, you may have a portion of the property in one zoning district and the majority of the property in another zoning district. It's just how do we handle that when they want to come in for development. Proposal number 11 is adding some definitions to the code. Proposal number 12 is about clarifying that large multifamily projects.

This would be projects with seven or more units are allowed in the medium and high density zones, so that we don't have apartment complexes in the lower density zones. It's just kind of a little cleaning up a little loophole that was in the middle housing code that was adopted in November. Proposal number 13 has to do with eliminating the number of people that can be cared for in a hospice care facility and instead relying on the parameters of the state license for those. Proposal number 15 has to do with clarifying that Some some temporary surface parking options are available only when that temporary surface parking was previously approved we're not trying to. Create exceptions for illegally established parking areas.

It's rare, but it does come up from time to time. 16 has to do with hard surface bonuses and acknowledging that submerged lands do not count towards the amount of the lot that can can be covered. And and that's true for whether it's a wetland or a shoreline. A lot of times, those property lines will run out into the middle of a lake or into a part of the saltwater even. So just trying to clarify that.

Number 17 has to do with just increasing some readability of the language, again, addressing that large multifamily issue and then trying to match the tables. Eliminating a couple of the we don't need to have built, building coverage when we also have things like hard surface coverage and, other limitations on a particular property. Sorry. And then, again, proposal 19 has to do with hard surface coverage allowances. Proposal number 20 has to do with removing the 10 foot maximum setback from some streets in the high density corridor zones.

We do have specific streets where we are trying to sort of create that continuous street front where you have, weather protective, awnings and things like that on the structures. But the way it's written currently, it applies to the entire zoning district, not just the major corridor. So we obviously want it to still pertain to the corridor, but maybe not necessarily the side streets and so to provide a little more flexibility there. Proposal number 32 has to do with what is included in landscaping plans, we want to be able to see where underground utility lines and equipment and irrigation Lieberman: plans, if applicable, proposal number 33 has to do with addressing parking exemptions. Proposal number 35 has to do with some specific downtown parking exemptions for cars, but also clarifying that new development would We have requirements for adding bicycle parking proposal number 36 is about meeting the bicycle parking standards, even if even if the bicycle parking is not required if it is provided, it needs to be designed to meet the bicycle parking standards.

Virginia Fencing and hedge provisions are included in proposal 37 and basically that's just to acknowledge that in some areas, there may be additional, fence or hedge provisions, for example, in a master plan, like for Briggs Village or if, specialty fencing provisions that might apply into parts of the downtown. So just, providing those citations or acknowledging that people might also need to look in other parts of the code. Proposal number 38 has to do with mechanical equipment, location, height when it's in the side yard setback. Proposal 39 has to do with construction noise. Proposal number 40, it it's meant to so it's it it it acknowledges that there's a preference to have street frontage when possible.

Sometimes we had some odd shaped lots or lots that are served, with access to a public street by an easement. When properties are being subdivided, we would like them to at least have some street frontage whenever possible. Even if it's just a little bit, it helps us with the way, we determine and calculate which property lines are front property lines, side property lines, and rear yard, property lines. Almost there. Proposal 41 has to, do with painted signs.

So when someone has a painted sign on a commercial building, it does need to meet the size requirements, but there's not an actual building permit that's needed. We proposal 42 has to do with allowing two signs when there are two public rights of way adjacent to a property. That's for multifamily developments, apartment complexes. Number 43 has to do with design review when it's required and when it isn't. Proposal number 44 is also about design review applicability.

Proposal number 45 is about when land use review is waived or not required that design review will be conduct will be conducted by staff. And then proposal 46 is when board level design review is required, staff will follow the timelines in the administrative code. And so, just kind of linking things back to how we do our permit processing and the timelines that we follow. And so just to summarize where we are in the process, once the planning commission conducts the public hearing and completes its deliberations, the commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the council's land use and environment committee. Meeting with that committee is currently scheduled for May 28.

Then the land use and environment committee will consider the planning Commission recommendation and make a recommendation to the full city council. The council receives both the planning commission recommendation as well as the one from the land use and environment committee, but a date for the consideration by the full city council has not yet been scheduled. Although I hope it's in June so that we can meet the state deadline, it's not said yet. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions and, go into any more detail on any of those proposals if you'd like.

Thank you, Joyce. We will have time for, more questions and discussion after the public hearing, but if there's anything, that you'd like to clarify upfront now, we can we can take a couple minutes for that and then open the public hearing. Anything for folks? No one jumping up? Okay. Anybody in the room? Only the owl tells me who's moving papers. Jason, I see you.

Not seen anything.

No. I I'm harassing Jason in the Okay. Then we will move on to the public hearing. I will identify two to three speakers, and when your name is called, the host will unmute the microphone. You'll then need to unmute your microphone before you start speaking.

Comments will be limited to three minutes, and staff or one of the commissioners will share a countdown clock. We will interrupt you and ask you to quickly finish your comments if you extend beyond three minutes. And so I will open the public hearing at 06:55PM. And if you are in the audience, please raise your hand, and we'll let you comment. We didn't have anyone sign up. Right, Casey? So we're

Yeah. Nobody's in person, chair, and I'm not seeing anyone no participants online either.

Okay. Not seeing any hands. Then I will close the public hearing at sixty fifty five PM. I really need to get the second clock for these short ones. Samir and Al, they are not always that short. Okay. So if folks have further issues or questions for Joyce or discussion, this is the time. And I would also entertain amendments if they're already or entertain a motion at at some point. Go ahead in the room.

Few questions. Hi, Joyce, again. Under section 17, so I

guess it's proposal

seven, and it was seventeen point three one point zero three zero with the requirements in e. I was wondering if on the language of that, the city Of Olympia may not impose a limit on the total number of dwelling units allowed on the parent lot or newly created lot. Is the intent of that to be in perpetuity so that once these have been subdivided or split that if in the future there's some greater density allowed, it's no longer allowed, period. Or or say there's some total change in public opinion and there should be lesser density. And, you know, this newly split lot would potentially allow for a duplex.

But in the future, everyone's like, yeah. Actually, the population's way down. We don't wanna duplex here.

My apologies. I'm trying to catch up with you here real quick. Are you you're talking about the unit oh, I'm sorry. The lot splitting provisions?

Yeah. So it's under proposal seven, and it's section seventeen point three one point zero three zero, and it's specifically e. E.

This is actually language I believe. I can verify that in just a moment, but I believe this is language that is essentially straight from the statute.

Yeah. That's what I figured too. It just it kinda struck me that it was, it was baking in whatever is happening at the time of the split.

It doesn't necessarily say that we have to note it on the face of the plat, but it's saying that as a as a part of our review of the particular subdivision that we are not allowed to to impose a limit on the total number of dwelling units on the parent lot or on the newly created lot that's less than the number of dwelling units allowed by the underlying zone. My my belief is that we're this is always the type of thing that's hard to write because you're doing it to show that you're complying with the law, but it's not something that we would normally do anyway. So we typically what's more of a challenge for us is getting to someone to show how they're meeting the minimum density requirements. So, yeah, I I believe this is state from straight from the stat statute, and with that, we don't have a lot of leeway on that particular language, but it's also not something we would normally condition on the plat one way or the other. So when they came in so you can do this type of a subdivision simultaneously with the middle housing, but you don't have to.

You can also do the middle housing later. And so we likely wouldn't condition that specifically, and then it would be approved based off of whatever the requirements are at the time they come in and apply for the building permits, if that makes if that's if you're following there.

That makes a lot of sense. Anyone else has anything, we can jump in. Otherwise, I do have a couple more.

Anyone else? We can keep oh, go ahead, Dana. Hi,

Joyce.

Hi.

For proposal 14, I just wanted to make sure I was reading it right. It says under proposal 14, and I think it's f, it says that you will not allow ground floor residences except in retail areas. Is that I guess, can you explain what that means? Like, I I wasn't exactly sure what it meant. So

it's basically saying that we will not prohibit the addition of housing units in any part of the building. Unless they unless having a unit there would violate a building code or health and safety standards, except that we can prohibit the addition of housing units when there's a requirement for ground ground floor commercial or retail along a pedestrian street. And we do have a few oh, thank you. Whoever pulled that up, that's probably Casey. We do have a few pedestrian oriented streets in the, in the downtown.

How? This is maybe a little bit outside of, like, code regulations. But I know, like, right now, there's, like, a vacancy study going on that the city's doing about, like, a lot of the vacant storefronts downtown. And I think this has also been, like, state laws looking at, like, ground like, doing more, like, just ground floor residences because it doesn't always work out as intended to have ground floor on or commercial on the bottom and residences above. Do you think that this would, like, constrain that, or is this is that is that concern, like, part of it, or is that, like, not does that make sense, or is that not really part of it?

Well so it's not necessarily something we thought about specifically with this proposal. But a few years ago oh my goodness. I'm thinking it was 2019 or 2018 maybe when we did the, downtown commercial guidelines. And I don't recall if any of our currently seated commissioners were on the commission at the time. But at that time, we did go through and redesignate the downtown streets, and we removed the requirement to have ground floor commercial or retail in in a number of places that it had previously been required.

So we've already backed away from that, a fair amount. If something comes out of the downtown vacancy that that makes us think we should reconsider that, that would come come back in a future proposal, I'm sure. We still have mostly what we see when it comes to ground floor. We do have several places where we allow ground floor residential uses. But what a lot of what we see in the mixed use spaces is, the lobbies or appurtenances to the apartment complexes anyway or the residential units above.

Okay. Just flagging it. I just saw it, and I was just thinking. I was like, oh, that sounds maybe not good, but I don't I don't know. Maybe it's nothing.

Yeah. I mean, we we we did we did reduce it quite a while several years ago now, but, it's not something that we're opposed to reconsidering if if the vacancy study shows us there's a need.

I would advocate maybe, like, for amendments, just removing it now while we're doing that. But I don't know if maybe we could add that as, like, a letter or, like, like I don't know. I don't know what the options would be, but that's just maybe something I would think of maybe just proactively maybe looking at that and being like, maybe we should just remove that line and just say, you can

just keep it.

I can I say something?

Yeah. Go ahead.

You know, just from just from my standpoint and, from the phone calls that I take a lot on these type of things, it's not as simple when we have the commercial in the bottom floor and we have residential, the mixed taxpayers. Because when you have commercial zoned business and now we do a change of use to a residential, it trips a lot of different requirements. A change of use makes everybody bring everything up to new, what would be required today. So as you enter into that, I think you enter in cautiously knowing that people and instead of just going, oh, great. We can change this.

Well, all of a sudden, they get into the middle of this project, and they think they're gonna be able to do it. And now it's costing a lot of money because they're having to bring up the commercial as you're changing from commercial use to residential, creates a lot of other flags. So it's just something to think about.

Yeah. I I hear that, but I think that there's also just, other conversations of just, like like, also allowing just, like, residences, like, on the bottom floor. Like, I don't know. I just I feel like to me, it felt like it was kinda part of it.

Yeah. No. I think conversation is great that just throwing out some, like, phone calls I take from people calling because they always seem to call the fire department for something.

Because if

if I just gotta clarify. If they in in this the way it's written well, even if you allowed residential on the 1st Floor on a pedestrian street, they're gonna still have to update fire code and, like, health and safety building codes in that building. Right? Correct. Yep.

My request would be if if you wanted to have this be part of the conversation to identify it or flag it for future consideration because because if this is a state requirement that we do need to address, we could come back and look at that later. But if it were to be part of today's requirements, there would be a lot of revisions that would have to be made to other parts of the city code, including eighteen one twenty, which is the commercial downtown design guidelines, and the potentially also eighteen sixteen, which has to do with pedestrian oriented streets. I'm not positive that that's part specifically would have prohibitions.

Exactly what was gonna say. It would be a

huge impact to our downtown design review chapters and our pedestrian street chapter as well. So Yeah. I mister Garcia, I think I I think what Joyce said in particular is flag it for future consideration. Striking it here is is not necessarily gonna address it because there is several follow on chapters where this would have to be further addressed. So I it's not I

I hear, but I I hear, but planning commission does make recommendations. It's okay that we can make a recommendation, and city council can take it early, but so it's just a recommendation.

No. And I'm and I'm perfectly okay with that being part of the recommendation and potentially even tying it to the outcome or the findings of the vacancy study. My only caution would be that it if it were to happen as quickly as June, there's a lot of other code sections that would have to be reconsidered and probably brought back through their own public hearing. So

Samir?

I would also add that there is a likelihood this is preempted once, the city adopts, senate bill sixty twenty six, which would, it would essentially tell cities they can't require mixed use or ground floor commercial as a condition of permitting for residential housing in these areas to begin with. So just knowing that that's coming and where this bill's at or where this code changes, I think provides important context. And then another thing I did wanna flag that was contentious, at least, at the legislature specifically was point, I believe it was f, regarding critical areas. The original version of this policy didn't provide protections for critical areas, And so a lot of people were concerned that people would just be selling under undeveloped undevelopable portions of their property that then nothing could happen with. So that got addressed, which is great.

And overall, the bill was a very bipartisan solution to opening up middle housing, but just knowing that there are more bills coming up our way to implement that are maybe bigger in scope.

And I appreciate the heads up on that bill. I actually just downloaded it this morning with a handful of other ones that passed this session, and we're starting to already frame up our future work plans for all of those different deadlines they have for those.

Yeah. One of the, for clarification for myself, though, if if we struck this with this, like, whatever we recommend we'll recommend, but it would be this is only for conversions. Right? So if you wanted to deal with this kinda, like, residential and commercial zones in totality, like, we have the $60.26 bill coming, and just doing it here wouldn't necessarily do that. Right? Like, this isn't a new building. This is only a conversion. Like, this this part only addresses conversions. Right? Is that is that right, Joyce?

Yeah. This is for new housing in existing buildings.

Right. So if you're building a new building, you now still you would still be following whatever the residential commercial until it's dealt with with whatever other state laws

are coming. Cool.

Other folks? Jason, you got more?

I guess I just wanted to solidify my understanding on proposal 10, choice, the establishment of zoning districts, and it was under c three. And, obviously, this is something when you have the rare case where the the single parcel has multiple zones across it. This is obviously not decided until a person comes in for a permit, correct, or for making the decision to develop the parcel. I I guess what I wanted to make sure as far as my understanding of it goes that there's the carve out on this for if part of the development happens only on within one area of the zone that you don't lose that for the parcel. Like, if the parcel is large enough that in the future, it could be subdivided further.

And I'm not seeing that you would lose it. I just wanna make sure that that's the case.

Yeah. The way it's written, I could see that it could be interpreted that you would lose it. So we could add a carve out for that if and and I think it could be something, you know, where you could say unless the property is subdivided or reserved in total you know, completely reserved and undeveloped for future development at a later date or something along those lines, I'd be happy to help draft language to address that issue.

Okay. I yeah. And I don't know that it's pressing. I more than anything, I think that's how I was reading it.

I think that's a fair fair interpretation.

K. Michelle Taylor, that was 10 c three. Correct? Correct. That's what I I I'm sharing here. I just wanna make sure.

Yeah.

Yep. And I'm just taking note that

10 c three possible clarification needed. And then

It's really it's the one the property must be developed with a consolidated site plan unless all proposed development is clearly and wholly located on a portion of the lot in one and only one zoning district, and that would seem to imply that you're not losing the alternate second zone if you're keeping everything on the one. K. But

It's pretty rare that this happens where we have a split a lot that's split by more than one zoning district, but it does occur occasionally. And, usually, it's like residential to residential or commercial to commercial, but sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's a residential zone immediately adjacent to a a portion of the lot that's in a completely different zoning district. So it comes up every once in a while. But

Which has all kinds of setback implications and everything else.

Mhmm.

So okay. Well, thank you.

Other folks have any clarifying questions? Go ahead, Al.

Hey. Hi, Joyce. It really is just a clarifying question. I'm looking at proposal 44, and lower in that proposal, there's an area of text that's highlighted, and I was just curious why it's highlighted.

Well, I probably forgot to remove my highlighting. It would be my I do that to help myself go back and look at things. But, what we're trying to do here is there so with the middle housing code amendments that were adopted in November, we had to make some modifications around when design review applied or did not apply, and this also affects accessory dwelling units. So accessory dwelling units now only go through design review when they are in the infill regulations design review district. And I wanted to go back and verify that before I issued this, which is why I highlighted it.

It's coming back. I did verify that that is correct, and so I should have removed my highlighting before I issued it, but I did not.

Okay.

But thank you.

Sure. Thank you. And I hate to catch you up twice. But if you look at 43 right before then, there's a list of 12 items that skipped number 11.

Oh, thank you. Yes. We actually ended up removing one of these during the, last round of code amendments. We can renumber those.

That was it for me. Just a couple questions.

Thank you. Thank you. That's the kind of stuff that just drives me nuts once it gets adopted if I don't if I don't see it.

Like, clarifying things? There's one one, I think we talked this through last time, but just for my own, recall, For the the purpose of the large multifamily really only it only, like, diverges from the unit lot if the lot is large enough that the maximum units of that zone are more than seven. Is that right?

So what happened and this happened after the planning commission, did its review. As as the ordinance was going through legal review. You might recall that we had we had modified a bunch of the and before we had a a a list of several, several, several different types of housing units. And what we did in the middle housing, code is we just said a residential unit is a residential unit. Here are a variety of types of residential units.

And so, what we had done at that time was to say that these residential types are allowed in in all of the zoning districts, and however many units that are allowed is based off of, the unit lot density of, and so in some parts of the city, it's four units per lot. In some parts of the city, it's up to six units per lot. And what happened, we ended up adding a definition during the the legal ordinance review and they of of large multifamily. But what we didn't do was come back and amend the table to say that large multifamily is only allowed in medium density and high density zoning districts. We never intended to allow more than six units per lot in the lower density zones.

We don't want apartment complexes in the lower density zones, but we'd still wanted to allow a wider variety and a higher number of units per lot. So it's really meant to just close that loophole, by adding that particular row in the in the table.

But the so the condition where where it would matter is if you say you had, r six to 12 zoning, you had a acre lot. And so by the unit lot density, you're limited to six or four. But by the our six to 12, you're limited to 12. And so this is saying you can't build that 12 as one building. You'd need to split the lot and go through that.

Yes. You could split the lot in in a variety of ways. You could have six single family lots. You could have two lots with two six plexes, one on each lot. We're not trying to say you can't get to 12. We're just saying that we wouldn't allow more than six on on any one lot in those lower density zones.

Right. Right.

Correct. Yes.

So if you wanted to get to your 12, you just need more lots.

You could do the lot split or the unit lot subdivision or it just a standard type. There's so many different types of subdivisions now. But, yes, any type of land division could get you there. Cool. Thanks.

Can I ask a question on change number six?

Go for it.

What is defined as a constantly monitored location? Just for my information. For Sprinklr location or for not Sprinklr location.

Alarm code fire alarms.

Yeah.

So are we talking about, like, a lobby in a hotel or, like, a dormitory or something like that? Just an area where everyone has, like, central access to it rather than near an exit. Or

And you're looking at Number 21? Yes. Constantly monitored location? Yes. Alright. I'm gonna have to defer to Randy on that one.

Think you're muted. Sorry.

Sorry about that. Yeah. So what we've done really with our cleanup and the language is just to follow what we've already done in the adopted code with the international fire code. We found there's a lot of conflictions. And so what has happened, is manual fire alarm pull stations have became a nuisance nationwide, but we still have to maintain one in that control room where you have a riser room, a fire alarm control panel.

And that is if they're working on the system, they still have and something's down, they can still pull that pull station and active so we let all the building, occupants know that there's something going on. So that's really been the changes in our code. It's as you read through it, there is a lot of stuff that they put dates and where our codes change in every three years. And so we just wanted it to clean up so there wasn't confusion as they talk about a lot of phone calls that we take. And we have confliction on code, and we do a great job with adopting our international fire codes and building codes. We wanted to keep it simple, and easier for, outward facing to the people that are doing the projects.

Thanks, Randy. Just

clarifying there, Randy. A constantly monitored location by that is that meant a fire a fire alarm that's just on passive monitoring?

Yes.

So, like, if it's a smoke alarm okay.

Okay. So if there's no more clarifying questions, our next step is to get a motion on board. And then if there are recommendations or changes that folks would like to get in, we can vote on amendments. And so the the options for a motion are recommend approval of the council as proposed, recommend approval of council with revisions, or conduct deliberations at a future meeting. Like, we at least have the time and and sounds like most of the agreement to do the deliberations now.

So but I would welcome a a motion or approval or recommend recommended approval. We don't do the actual approvals. And then we can always make amendments to this. So this is just the opening opening move. Anyone have a motion?

Yes, Aaron. I'll recommend approval as proposed.

Do I have a second?

I'll second. This is Jessica.

Alright. It's been, moved and second moved by Aaron and seconded by Jessica to recommend approval to council as proposed. Are there, questions, discussion, or amendments that folks would like to talk through?

There I guess, would there be any reason not to recommend, I guess, not early adoption of the recently passed laws around allowing ground floor.

Yeah. So

actually in commercial zones. Or

Yeah. So we can also we can certainly recommend approval as proposed, but then also in our comment letter, add some notes and and recommendations that aren't actually revisions to the code. Sounds like there might be a couple of those that we'd wanna put in. Yeah. So we can we often if it's just gonna be approval, we often don't, like, make formal rec or formal, revisions to that, but we can we can then add a letter with our our recommendations as discussed.

So if there aren't any comments on well, I guess maybe we can list list out some of those recommendations then then finish out the voting if we don't have any actual amendments to deal with.

Or may I share some of the notes that I captured?

Sounds great.

And I'll be looking to commissioners for clarification. So based on the questions and discussion so far, we had, commissioner Talius, you had highlighted, proposal 10 c three. Clarification needed on the property must be developed, and that was still kind of the lot line split line. So I think I captured that as best I could. I think there's some follow on language there.

And then vice chair Garcia, you had 14 e. You were proposing to consider striking that and then to possibly, tie that to the vacancy study that is being worked off by our economic team. And then, commissioner, you just noted that proposals 43, 44 had some formatting more or less to take care of. So not necessarily something we would include in a comment letter, but like I said, I'm just kinda trying to capture the notes as well. So that's what I had thus far. Joyce, I don't know if you captured anything different or, commissioners, if you had anything else there.

Yeah. For the benefit of, well, all of us and also Alan, Samir, we usually with with these recommendations, we try to transmit, a letter with our recommendations. Sometimes those include, like, detailed specific revisions we're looking for in the, document. Sometimes it's just recommend approval, and we still wanna, like, bring to counsel some of the discussion and and ideas. So we'll we'll throw in some of these recommendations and things to to look for.

And I noticed with the ground for residential, I get it would be good to highlight. Sounds like Samir probably knows the the numbers, for the bill that's coming through and highlight that to council because that that could be something, to address.

I just wanna make sure too. It's I believe it's 14 f in mine. I just wanna make sure that's the right one. Because I think 14E was talking about, like, architectural. So I just wanna make sure we're talking about the right one before we tell counsel something.

Yeah. I had flagged 14F too.

Okay. I'll update that. Sorry about that.

No worries. Just wanna make sure that they if they get it, they're not like, what are you talking about? Yeah. I think it's worth mentioning. I think that, at least as I read it, it seems relevant to, like, some of the other conversations that are going on. I hear the concerns expressed, but I guess if we have to change it later, why not just change it now while we're already changing things? That's kinda my thought. I think it's worth at least mentioning. And like I said, I think it's just a recommendation. And if council decides that that it is not worth pursuing, then maybe it's not. But I think it's at least worth a mention. I thought it rose to that level.

And I I think as part of that, if I remember correctly from reading I don't I don't know that I read the bill as it was passed, but in reading the original, it was specific to new construction.

And that's bill sixty twenty six. Is that right? For the red the ground floor residential

area.

So sixty twenty six is just cities may not require mixed use or ground floor commercial or retail as a condition of permitting development within certain requirements. So then 40% of total acreage in areas zone for commercial mixed use. So my concern with if we wanted to change,

I think,

four or sub point four of, 17.3, 1.03, to approving a permit administratively if it's in an exclusively nonresidential zone. Well, a lot of areas are about to become exclusively nonresidential zones or mixed use developments just under depending on how the city identifies which lands are within that 40% versus the other requirements of the bill.

So I think, yeah, it's there's gonna be a

lot of changes as is. So kind of echoing what Daniel said earlier.

Yeah, Daniel. I was I'm wondering if if here it's it's a recommendation and, like, suggesting to deal with whatever the fallout is of having residential units on first floors in kind of, like, pedestrian places or pedestrian streets. It sounds like there would be more work to make that all flow together even well, Joyce Joyce can let me know on that. But but there there are, like, pedestrian street issues and some of the commercial zone issues and, like, we just wanna make sure that we get this unit conversion considered

Yeah.

In in the whole mix of of dealing with new buildings too.

Yeah. Could we yes to that, Greg. Could we maybe take a step back? So the part that my my recommendation, I guess, or, like, my thought was just eliminating the part that just because it's like, unless well, it's like the thing that the the part that I would think is it seems to talk about pedestrian streets. So I guess that's kinda my question is, Joyce and Casey, can you give us an example of a pedestrian street? Because I don't even know. I think I tried to look it up quickly, but I just think maybe could you tell me, like, what is a pedestrian street, or, like, what's an exam example of a pedestrian street?

Sure. Let me just pull up the map real quick. We have our pedestrian streets in the downtown, identified in, chapter eighteen one twenty of the code. So, hopefully, that is starting to populate. And the ones that are shown in red. So 4th, Washington, Capitol Boulevard, lead parts of just parts. No. It's not even the whole street. It's parts of those streets are identified. So those things that are shown in red on that map, I hope you're seeing that. Let me know if you want me to zoom in on it more. But, essentially, in the core of the downtown and and capital Most of capital.

And this is the the line is except Ground Floor commercial or retail that is along a pedestrian street. And so it's it's both Ground Floor commercial and or or retail on the like, these streets only matter for half of that statement. Right? But all ground ground floor commercial is can't

My and my understanding is that, so we we re we used to have pedestrian identified streets. And then in the downtown, we made pedestrian a, pedestrian b, and and then everything else is a c street. I believe it's only the streets that were shown in red, the a streets that prohibit residential units on the ground floor, if that helps, Daniel.

But if it was already streets as well?

I thought it was b streets as well choice.

I don't recall specifically. Britt Britney, do you, by chance, know? It's not it's not some I'm sure of, like, Nicole

But if it's already if if

it's

already already ground floor commercial, then it Right. You can't convert it anyway. Right? And then it's just whether or not

Correct. If depending I mean, if you were converting it, whatever you were converting it to would have to meet the code requirements.

Of that of, like, the street.

Of that of that street classification.

I guess Okay. And I guess Casey and Casey and Joyce, tell me if I'm wrong, but it's, like, the way I read it was it was, like, there's some, like, single story buildings in downtown that are, like, retail right now. And, like, basically, the idea, I think, would be, like, putting housing above them would be a good thing. And it feels like this would maybe, like, make that harder or, like, change that. And so I don't that's, I guess, my concern. So, like, if that concern is, like, not what what it's doing or, like, if that concern is, like, not real, then, like, totally, like, open to, like, not mentioning it. But I guess I just felt like it was like, well, we're here. We're talking about it. So maybe we could mention it.

I don't I don't think it makes it harder. And I just I pulled up the summary we've received this morning from the Washington State Department of Commerce because it included the deadlines. So the city is required to adopt an ordinance to address senate bill sixty twenty six by December 2027. So we're gonna have to start working on that quickly no matter what.

So, Daniel, are you so you're talking in your scenario, that's a, like, set 2nd Floor residential, and I think that would be okay. It's just if you had, like, a a two story building in the you had a shop on the 1st Floor and you wanted to turn that shop into maybe, like, a work live unit, that would Yeah. Be

I guess yeah. That's I guess yeah.

Can't think of in any zoning district in the downtown that would preclude that. Or anywhere in the city, actually. I mean, we allow residential uses. Most of our zoning districts are somewhat mixed use anyway.

Mhmm. But on the street, the 1st Floor not that that the street specifically, though. That's, like, that's my concern. It's like if somebody wanted to build apartments and put the front door of an apartment building on 4th Ave, is that that is allowed.

If I was gonna ask how you deal with the yeah. Like, a a a one front door that leads to a second story or two or three stories up. Is that is that a a, like

Unless they've changed that, we have quite a few of those on 4th Avenue. Yeah. They definitely exist. People can't

see what's They get their mail there, maybe. Yeah.

Yeah. Angeles, although so, yeah, that's you you enter in right from the street level.

Yeah. So it's really about having the living units on the 1st Floor, not, like, support space for the apartment.

Of course. Yep.

Dana, do you wanna swing. Oh, go ahead.

Oh, I was gonna say just circling back to the code. It is specifically that the city will not prohibit the addition of housing units, not housing access.

Yeah. Okay. So you could build your apartment building with units above, but you just can't put a living unit on the or you cannot change a a cafe to a apartment on the 1st Floor.

At least on at least on the A Streets, if possibly the B Streets, I guess, Casey and I don't know for sure.

Well, isn't isn't yours well, the the as it stands right now, it says, except ground floor commercial or retail and pedestrian streets, but that's, like, any ground floor commercial. Right?

I suppose it could say if it's re if it's required.

Whereas if it just if it wasn't banned in general, then you could do it. Right?

Correct. Yeah. And we would I mean, that's that's part of when they go through development review. If they propose something and it's allowed, great. If they propose something and it's not allowed, then we require them to amend their plans.

Yeah. And what you'll see coming is the city will still be able to prohibit it in 40% of total acreage. Once we adopt sixty twenty six, it's just provides more flexibility outside of that in that 60%.

Yep. Yeah. And then and then there. Sorry. Just to just to clarify, there's one other place in the city where we have desk designated pedestrian oriented streets, and we have a And B Streets over in the, Kaiser Harrison Opportunity area.

So some of the streets near Capital Medical Center.

Cool. Dana, do you wanna

Ground floor setbacks and and design, like, facade details. Yeah. The a And B Streets are are made specifically to I mean, if they're pedestrian streets, they're supposed to be pedestrian oriented. So it's supposed to be that if you're walking through downtown, you have shops, businesses to look into and interact with. So it it's the idea is that it's drawing people there.

Whereas if if you have ground floor apartments, we have a lot more design requirements for ground floor apartments that include, like, kind of elevation changes, different types of of blocks that basically, it's great privacy on ground floor apartments in nonpedestrian design review streets. So it's it's really it's really specific on on making sure that you have kind of person scale downtown business, but also providing privacy for the residents that live in those apartments. So it it would be a significant change, and I think I I don't think that's necessarily that anyways, necessarily opposed to ground floor apartments, but there would be a huge impact in a lot of our our other chapters that we would have to address. And it would be a significant change in our design review chapter review.

Great. Thanks, Casey.

Yeah. I hear all that, but I feel like that's, like, part of why we have the vacancy study right now is because, like, that idea of, like, ground for retail isn't really working out. And, like, even, like, I can just say, like, I live in a building that is, like, one of those, like, five over one that's, like, commercial on the bottom and five floors of living above it. And, basically, almost the entirety of, like, the bottom floor of retail has sat empty. And I've lived in the building since 2022, and I was like, oh, it's gonna be a Vietnamese restaurant.

It's gonna be this. And, like, nothing has moved in really. So I think maybe I'm also just it feels kind of, like, close to home for me where it's like, I feel like it'd be more like, the vision was cool to have shops on the bottom, but it just hasn't worked out that way. And so I guess I'm just thinking while we're in the chapter while while we're in the code, while we're doing this and we know that this state law is coming, why not just change it now? Because we know that it we can look around and see that it has not worked out the way that we thought it would. So

And I and I think two things. I mean, we did, reduce the amount of places where that was required. But I also think that, the reason I'm not totally on board saying, yes. Great. Let's let's put that in the recommendation letter.

And that because I'm not opposed to you putting that in the recommendation letter. But my concern is, we could change it here, but it's going to affect other parts of the code, and we don't want to create an inconsistency. And I normally would be like, let's take the time to go and look at that and make sure we don't create an inconsistency. However, we have the timeline of getting this adopted by June. But what I think is is probably fantastic in order to address your concern is that Casey or David is gonna be back next year with some code amendments that specifically look at it in holistically across not just the downtown, but the other pedestrian oriented streets as well.

Because, obviously, we have a proposal to get more housing in other parts of the city too. So that's why I think I think I think raising the issue and saying that we need to take a look at this in regard to upcoming legislation and and naming the bill and to to keep it on the radar, but I think you will see something specifically to get at that in the next year anyway.

Yes. And I think that's my only is that we add it to the recommendation letter. We're an advisory body. We're advising. This is an this is a device. As we saw a problem, and we're advising city council. And if city council and city staff decide that this is not something worth pursuing, completely understand. But we're an advisory body. We're making recommendations and advice, and that's just what it is.

Yeah. I agree. And and my recommendation would be that it be considered potentially even more quickly than is required by the statute, so that this issue does not get lost or forgotten, I suppose. And my only caution would be to not recommend the change be made specifically right now in this section of code because I wouldn't wanna create inconsistencies with other sections of the code that we hadn't looked at in regard to this issue. That's that's the only part I was trying to get at.

Yeah. Daniel, do you wanna move for an amendment to to strike this now, or, we can definitely hash out a recommendation for the letter? I just think suggesting an amendment is different than than recommendations in the letter that are that are just to, you know, pursue this in the future.

I would recommend maybe that city council or the city manager or somebody look into it, see what those inconsistencies are, see how feasible it is, and does it align with does it line up with, like, the timelines of the vacancy study? So I guess maybe just, like, look into it. And city council, I think, can make the decision on what they want to do with it. But I think that we should just flag it, say that we want them to look into it, and they can look into it.

Yep. Do you wanna have any comments or objections to writing a because it'll be a bullet point on recommending the, you know, follow-up. We have the, I think, there's the vacancy survey going on. We have the six twenty sixty twenty six coming down, which will be a nice forcing function for, addressing it. Any other context people would like me to include in the letter around that?

I would just second that Ground Floor retail has always been an issue to hold back housing. I think that provision in the bill originally in October is why Master Builders and the Building Industry Association were supportive of the build to begin with and maybe why it was a more of a fight with 6026 to arrive at that 40% number, that we'll deal with down the road. But, yeah, ground floor retail has always been used as a wedge when it comes to providing housing flexibility.

Does anyone object to putting that recommendation in the letter? You throw up a hand or anything? Okay. Cool. We will move on then other folks' comments. Jason, were your questions addressed? Does that need anything in the letter specifically, or is that

I don't think so. It was addressed.

Okay. And, Samir, I think you had some some comments. Oh, go ahead, Aaron.

Yeah. One more just

comment about this topic. I it's a I I don't wanna accidentally oversimplify. Make sure I don't I think we should be careful not to imply that this is a simple conversation, because that I think it might be not a nice opportunity to pair it with the downtown revitalization conversation, because I think there are a lot of reasons why, downtown retail spaces are

vacant. And

maybe one of the answers to consider is to address some of those reasons. So explore that and make sure we're really looking at the whole picture.

And

not just simply say, like, oh, it's not working. They're vacant. Scrap that out of the

you know? But Yeah. Yep.

And let's make sure we're looking at why they're not why it's not working. What are why aren't the places working there? Yeah.

Yep. And, yeah, and hopefully, the vacancy survey gives us some of that information. Great. Samir, I Casey, I forgot some of the notes. But did you have any comments outside of kind of this residential commercial piece that you you're bringing forward? I I know you had comments, but I think they were mostly in conjunction with this discussion. Is that right? Cool. Take that as I guess. One, question, Joyce, that I had the in let me find the right number here.

In number 18, this deals with I was looking for the one with the facades. Yeah. Okay. So number there's a I was just as I was looking through the code, the section on facades and setback at height. I know the the the setbacks that are multiple stories up, I think that's mostly to try to let sunlight down to the street surface.

And I don't have the, like, the specific facade language, here, but I know that there's there are drawbacks to, like, facade modulation for energy efficiency and and affordability of construction. And it looks like we can now have kind of a slew of I'm not gonna eat the right word. Places you don't have to have to apply these setbacks. And I'm I'm wondering, like, if there's any if you have any thoughts on ways we could streamline that so that it's maybe either the requirements are streamlined because now affordable housing and various construction approaches don't require it or, a way to streamline kind of these approaches that that aren't affected by it.

Yeah. And I think that's part of what number four was trying to get at as well. It's like if the entire set if the entire building is setback, then they don't have to do the upper story setbacks stepbacks. It's a tough issue because we're now we're asking more of our of our market rate builders than of our affordable housing builders.

But Mhmm.

Or or those doing it to meet specific energy provisions, which I'm obviously advocate for all of those things. I want affordable housing. I want passive house buildings. I want, you know, more housing in general. So I think it's a it's a challenge.

We still want to what we might do is is I don't wanna throw this out there and then forget about it, but I could see as part of the requirements for certain things that potentially we do like we did with the, you know, pedestrian oriented streets. It's like maybe you only required on a certain number of streets where you wanna have the most activity, where you wanna have the most light hitting the sidewalk or the pavement or, you know, those types of things and not require it everywhere. It might be where they sort of take a more geographical approach to it. I don't think there are there are not a ton of places in our code where we do require the upper story step backs. I think some of that might be tied to downtown, but I think some of it is also tied to some of the zoning districts we have have transitional zoning provisions built into them.

So some of the high density corridors or the professional office residential multifamily, the PORM zone. Those zones have some built in provisions to try to serve as a transition between the higher intensity commercial uses that that might be over here, and then these sort of step down in a way to the lower density residential zones. You know? So it they they serve as a transition. And so it would be something where, potentially, as part of the look at the ground floor retail things, those other types of things might be considered at the same time.

But it is sort of a way we try to have have those transitions so we don't have some of our most intense commercial zones right next to a low density residential neighborhood or, you know, we want there to be a transition so you don't have high rises on one side of the street and, you know, a one or two or even three story home on the other side of the street. So I I it would probably have to be a holistic look at where they are required and why, and then is that still appropriate. It would it would be not necessarily an incredibly time consuming look to to come up with that general assessment material. Off the top of my head, I don't recall specifically which zones require that. Some of those transitional zones may not require it specifically, but may require that portions of a building that are built within a certain distance of the lower density or lower intensity zone, have portions of the building that are shorter, but it but they may not specifically require step backs per se.

Yep.

That's an interesting question.

Yeah. I'm I just I know facades have been like, facade modulation has been brought up as a, drawback for I mean, you can just think of it as more complicated front.

More More more cost than

a Yeah. And then step back seem more more connected to something physical like light to the street that you could

Yeah. And I also like it too because a lot of people use that to provide outdoor open space area for the tenants. Yep. I always like And I always like that.

Pros and cons.

What's that?

It's pros and cons.

Yeah.

Mhmm.

Okay. Does anyone else have, either, revisions they'd like to suggest or recommendations for the letter? I realize that some somewhat splitting hairs on that. But

And Here I have maybe just Yeah. For our new commissioners that we will write the letter, and they will probably see a draft of it before it gets sent to counsel.

Yeah. So the, if there are, if there are revisions, we want those. Well, we would vote on those, now. Generally, the kind of if we have, like, a set of recommendations for the letter, Daniel or I will draft it. And then but we'll we'll transmit the the approval, the recommendation overall for the piece, and then, finalize the letter with folks, afterwards, and that'll go along with it. But we can write the letter while the the wheels turn to keep things moving for for, Joyce or whoever is shepherding through the the business.

Did you have a specific proposal for, or, amendment to, proposal 18 around modulation, or was it just a question, conversation point? Because I

Just conversation point. Yeah. I don't think it rose to a recommendation.

Just circling back to that really quickly, Joyce, 18, those exceptions were another one required by the state. Correct? Mhmm.

All of them were requirements except for the the one that's set four. The upper story step back is not required when the entire an entire structure structure is set back from the property line. The distance required by the step back are or farther. That was requested by staff. But everything under five, the the the more technical aspects of that amendment were from the state requirements.

So just verifying four really quickly. If you were in a situation where you're in a commercial zone that has a maximum, say, five foot setback and the encouragement is to go up to the property line, then no modulation is required?

It would have to be usually, the module modulation. You mean the step back? Usually, the step back is eight feet. So you'd have the building would have to be set back eight feet or more.

But if if you're in

It would depend on the zone. Yes.

Yeah. If you were in a I'm thinking of there are some commercial zones where instead of a minimum

There's a max one.

There's a maximum setback. Yeah. And so in that situation where the encouragement is to build up to the property line for passersby, you now have a situation of a building not requiring at least with four. There's just no requirement for any step back.

Not necessarily The step back would still be required unless you could move the entire building back farther. The if there's a maximum setback you may not be eligible for an ability to not you may have to build the step back if you have a maximum setback. Oh my goodness.

That's good clarification. Unless they meet one of items number five. Right.

Yes.

Premium and.

Yeah. I I'm kinda baffled about item e, about modular construction. And I guess, just to clarify, that's coming down from the state.

Yes.

Oof. It's going smoothly. I have some questions.

Yeah. I mean, I understand my understanding around that is that potentially the setback would be a problem for some of that modular construction. But

Yeah.

Okay.

If there aren't other comments or revisions or recommendations, we can let's see. I'm gonna why I've forgotten who, Casey, could you remind me who Yes. Moved and seconded?

So yeah. Here. It was moved by me. Yeah.

So recommend approval as proposed by commissioner Sarov with a second by commissioner Grubb.

Alright. So it has been been moved by Aaron and seconded by Jessica to approve to recommend approval to council as proposed, and we will include a a letter with it with the discussed recommendations. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Any abstentions? Alright.

Then we what's that? Do you all abstain? Okay. All abstains. And with that, the motion passes, and we will, you'll see a a draft of that letter probably the next meeting or or emailed out.

Thank you.

So we can

fine fine tune any words, but, Joyce can keep the twenty twenty six code amendments open.

Thank you.

Yep. Thank you.

Thank you, you, Jordan.

Big lift.

Great. So that Greg,

you Yes.

Randy and Britney as well. Thanks for being here.

Oh, yeah. Thanks, Randy. Thank you, Randy.

Yeah. Have a great day.

It's nice meeting everyone, and love hearing your comments.

Great. Thanks for the input.

Welcome anytime.

Bye. What? Go ahead, Daniel.

Public or editing on the Word document, we are not supposed to discuss. We're only supposed to

Right.

Say what we want. I don't know.

Yeah. So so sometimes, I guess my preferred, roundabout is that we bring a revised or, like, a a draft to, our planning commission meetings, and then people bring whatever small revisions there. If we ever share, like, a document that anyone can edit, then we which we don't usually do. K c I can see k c. But then just part part of the, drawback of that is that you don't wanna have any back and forth with people not, in public for transparency's sake.

So a comment for everybody, but we don't usually do it that way to avoid that anyhow. Okay. That's the conclusion of business items, and and then we move on to reports. If anyone has anything to report on such as a meeting, relevant book, or article. I spent three hours on I five today, so I have no fun reports. I have one. Go ahead.

If anybody's familiar with the organization Strong Towns, they do sort of, like, urbanism, transportation, housing sort of stuff. They're having a national gathering this year in Arkansas, and I was very lucky, and I applied for a scholarship to go. And so I'll be going. And so I'll go to the Strong Towns National Gathering in May, and I will hope to go to it. Well, I will go to it, and we'll hope to bring some learnings back to this group. And we'll probably share more once I go. So stay tuned for more. I'm looking forward to it.

Any other reports? Go ahead, Aaron.

Yeah. I have a really cool event to talk about real quick. April 22, the Northwest EcoBuilding Guild, we're putting on a this we have our monthly education sessions, and this one is about using low carbon concrete in projects with some really awesome industry professionals. There's a lot of development in that field. And so we're gonna get some really cool updates and technical dive you know, deep dives in how to use low carbon concrete from the perspective of architects and designers and builders and developers and owners and enthusiasts.

April 22, up in South Seattle, Georgetown. It's also hybrid, so reach out to me or go to the Northwest EcoBuilding Guild website for the link and register.

That almost sounds like embodied carbon. That's the conversation. Perfect.

I'd love to And you want the recording for one two weeks ago? It was about using using bio based materials. That one was really cool.

Awesome. Yep.

I'll report that the Rockaway planning commissioner here, who I had the pleasure of bumping into, thanks all the cities up here for all the work on middle housing. He mentioned a lot of times even in small seaside cities like this, they end up looking to what we're doing to figure out their solutions. But he did take credit for Oregon beating Washington to the punch on GMA. So fair enough.

Yeah. No. Friendly competition is fine.

Ours is better.

Just international incident.

Yours is biased but not wrong.

Very good. Well, before we start any real trouble, other topics, the one piece I have we've talked about in the past trying to well, there being a desire to have more in in real life interactions, and we'll hopefully, we'll get that with a retreat here that we'll organize in in the future that we'll you'll start seeing communications about. But, also, we talked about having a couple meetings a year where we at least designate some optimism for having more people in person. And so we're gonna try to do that at the next meeting on April 20. I will certainly try to attend, and I think other people will, but it is not required at all.

And we know one of the the big, for folks that missed the conversation, it certainly impacts some people's ability to participate. And so it is in no way required, and if it becomes any sort of problem, we will not do it. Yeah. So see folks who I see. Just Where is that? Go ahead, Casey.

No. I was just gonna say for for commissioners, the the meeting on April 20, we're we're tentatively scheduled to have a speaker from Intercity Transit, and it's it's just informational conversation. So it it it would be a a good meeting to show up in person. The person from IT will also has, indicated that they'd like to be here in person. So, to to kind of move that conversation forward, and, you know, where some of the the Zoom awkwardness, that might be a good opportunity to to be here in person.

So we'll even though there's no public hearing or anything like that, we will have the room set up for an in person meeting on April 12.

Yep. Nice. Yeah.

And I'm I'm aware too just having the well, having me in person and other people online, I will try to make sure everyone is included. If that doesn't work out somehow, please email me, and I will rectify it as best as possible. So experimental. See how it goes. I don't actually think I've ever well, I guess I've we've done a couple we've done a couple of sessions in person, but I feel like I've never done, like, a regular standing commission meeting at City Hall. So, you know, new experiences.

I miss our I mean, it's nice to be able to be on Zoom, but I I miss when we would go into our site plan review committee meetings and everyone was sitting in Room 207 or where we wherever we we met at that time. It was it was nice to be able to interact and with people live in the room. Yeah. I think

there's there's a real when we discussed it, there's this, like, seesaw between really enjoying having in person interactions and then also enjoying people being able to participate that might not be able to, otherwise. So we will try to thread the needle.

And the only commissioner left, that's still The before times? Are creek. The before times, I wanna say, it's really nice, and it it helps.

Excellent. Any other topics? I don't think so. Well, then our next meeting will be Monday, April 20, same time, and this meeting is adjourned at 08:05PM. Thanks, everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you, guys. Joyce, thanks for all your work on this.

Oh, sure. Anytime. Thanks for your patience.

Right right to the end.

Yeah. Thanks for your patience.

Oh, alright. Thank you so much.