Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thanks. Welcome to the 05/28/2025 meeting of the Redmond Planning Commission. I'd like to call this meeting to order. We'll start with a roll call. Commissioner Aparna?

Present.

Commissioner Copely?

Present.

Commissioner Van Nyman? Present. Vice chair Whittier? Present. And I am chair Weston. Commissioner Coleman and commissioner Gagne are excused tonight. I'd like to thanks say thank you to the following staff for being, present tonight. Jeff Churchill, Lauren Alpert, Glenn Coyle, Francesca Liberte, and Chris Wyatt. I look for a meet a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Alright. Aye. Approved. And I also look for a motion to approve the meeting minutes from 04/23/2025, and the minutes from the annual workshop on 04/30/2025.

So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

Great.

Thank you. That's approved also. Alright. Now it's time for us to hear public comment and items for the audience. This is for topics that aren't addressed by our public hearing on the annual docket later tonight. I'd like to remind that RCW 4217A555 prohibits any public comment in support of or opposition to ballot propositions, measures, or candidates. And if people could keep their comments to three minutes.

Yes. We have one person on, items from the audience, David M. And, just remind that say your full name and address, please.

Good evening planning commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond nine eight zero five three. After reviewing the Redmond 2050 transportation element, its appendices, and the current transportation master plan, I wanna commend the city for its forward thinking and comprehensive approach. The vision of a Redmond in 2050 with a resilient, equitable, and sustainable transportation system is one that I wholeheartedly support. The focus on creating vibrant, connected neighborhoods centered around a high quality transit is precisely the direction you need to take to manage growth and enhance quality of life.

The commitment to a complete multimodal system with robust pedestrian and bicycle networks is particularly laudable. I'm especially encouraged by the emphasis on preparing for and organizing around the expansion of light rail. This along with the innovative plan based concurrency management system demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of how to link transportation and land use to build a better city. The detailed strategies for transportation demand management are also a key strength. However, as I look to this ambitious future as we look to it, there are a few points I'd like to raise.

First, while the vision is inspiring, its implementation is critical. I'm concerned about the ability to secure the necessary funding to make this vision a reality, especially given the scale of investment required. The appendices describe the transportation facilities plan as financially constrained, raising questions about which crucial projects might be delayed or unfunded. Furthermore, the appendices project a significant increase in total greenhouse gas emissions even as we aim to reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled. This is a serious concern.

I urge the commission to explore more aggressive strategies to ensure that Redmond's growth does not come at the expense of its climate goals. Finally, we must not lose sight of the present. The documents acknowledge that the condition of pavement in Redmond is worsening and that a staggering 80% of its curb ramps are not compliant with current ADA ADA standards. Failing to correct these fundamental issues undermines the plan's own goals of equity and inclusion. All residents must be able to navigate the city safely. This is foundational to the vision. Thank you for your time and your commitment to Redmond's future.

Thank you. Alright. That's all for tonight. Alright. Well, in that case, we will start our work on the twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six annual docket, bringing up Glenn Coyle.

Everybody, we're just waiting for the Thank you. So hello planning commissioners. Long time no see. Happy to see you all. I am Glenn Coyle, senior planner in Redmond's Planning and Community Development Department.

Also online is Francesca Liberdi from our Planning Department's Transportation Planning and Engineering team that's representing this one of the docket items here today. All right. So tonight we will go over the comprehensive plan amendment process known as the annual docket, which was discussed in more detail at the 02/12/2025 Planning Commission meeting. We will review the applications received, go over the threshold criteria for docket and amendments, and discuss next steps. We'll then hold a public hearing and afterwards the Commission may choose to hold a study session on this item.

The annual comprehensive plan docket process is the method in which a community's comprehensive plan can be amended in the period between periodic updates. This is required by state law and the process is adopted into Redmond zoning code. It's a two step process that occurs over a roughly eighteen month period. The first step, which is where we are at now, is shown on this slide and the city receives applications for possible amendments. Using the using the threshold criteria, staff analyzes and the planning commission recommends whether the amendment should be considered as part of the docket.

Applications may be proposed by the community, city staff, the city council, or the planning commission. The amendment itself is not analyzed at this point and only council can adopt the amendment. For this cycle, we have received one application which was submitted by the city. The proposal is the transportation element and transportation master plan update. As noted in the application and your materials in attachment A, the application proposes update in the transportation master plan, which is adopted in part as part of the comprehensive plan, as well as related updates to the transportation element.

The intended outcomes of this amendment are a streamlined transportation element with some content required under the Growth Management Act moved to the transportation master plan, or as we call it, the TMP. Additionally, another outcome is an updated TMP that includes transportation element appendices, some of which are not required under the GMA Growth Management Act, and can be updated more easily and on a more frequent cadence. As noted, the purpose of this step in the amendment process is determine whether the amendment meets the docket and threshold criteria to be included on the docket. There are six considerations as noted in this slide. This slide summarizes that the proposed amendment meets the criteria.

Detailed analysis can be found in your packet as attachment B. It should be noted that this plan update, this amendment has been ongoing and due to timing issues will be completed next year outside of the Redmond 2050 update process, which is why it is proposed for the annual docket. Next steps. Staff is proposing that the Planning Commission make its recommendation by the June 11 meeting, but no later than July 1 per the schedule in the Redmond zoning code. This in effect would be the June 25 meeting. And that concludes our presentation and turn it back to Chair Weston for the public hearing. Thank you.

All right. So at this point, we are going to open the public hearing.

We have two speakers for the public hearing. The first one is Ben Wye, and I just remind you to, you have three minutes. Please state your name and your full name and address.

Ben Varen. Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Ben Varan. I'm here representing ownership to request consideration of a comprehensive plan amendment to address a split zone condition on the property located at 690180 Eighth Avenue Northeast. My statement tonight is supplementary to the email request sent to the planning commission earlier this afternoon from Rebecca Bloom.

You've heard our team comment on this site in the past. We are interested in pursuing residential use on the site, which is currently split zoned business park BP and corridor mixed use CMU. The zoning code is about to change to disallow residential uses in BP zones even though it is currently allowed in that zone. We suggested changes to the draft code to allow housing but the comprehensive plan docket before you tonight presents an alternative solution. We would urge you to put this map fix on the annual comprehensive plan docket.

The code provides the Planning Commission this authority. We'd simply be looking for uniform CMU zoning across the entire site. Under that designation residential use would be allowed which is an excellent outcome for this site considering adjacencies to school district property, a park, and other residential uses. Lastly, this request is consistent with the overall vision and goals of the comprehensive plan. Thank

you

for advancing this pragmatic solution to delivering more housing in Redmond.

Thank you. All right. Anyone else for the public hearing tonight?

Yes. The next speaker is, David M.

Good evening, Planning Commissioners and Staff. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I'm here to voice my strong support for adding the amendment of the comp plans transportation element and master plan update to the twenty twenty five to twenty twenty six annual docket. I've received or reviewed the application and the staff's analysis and I completely agree with the rationale presented. Streamlining the transportation element by moving the more technical dynamic appendices into the transportation master plan is a logical and efficient step.

This will provide the city with the necessary flexibility to keep its transportation plans current and responsive to Redmond's evolving needs, which is a critical function of good governance. However, my support for dock docketing this item goes beyond simple administrative efficiency. This update is not just a housekeeping task. It's an essential opportunity that you should seize. As I noted before, while the vision in the current transportation element is commendable, there are significant challenges that must be addressed.

This docketed update process is the correct forum for that work. Specifically, I urge you to use this opportunity to develop a more robust financing plan. This includes securing dedicated funding to complete the active transportation networks and to increase transit frequency, providing genuine alternatives to driving. Redmond should also develop more aggressive strategies to ensure that overall greenhouse gas emissions decline. While the goal of a 50% per capita vehicle miles traveled or VMT reduction is laudable, if total emissions still increase as forecast, Redmond is not meeting its climate obligations.

And critically, Redmond must create a concrete action plan to rectify existing deficiencies, like the fact that 80% of the city's curb ramps are not ADA compliant. The plan's vision of a Redmond where residents can safely walk or roll to their destination destinations is directly undermined by this failing infrastructure. Addressing these foundational safety and equity issues cannot be postponed. Voting to docket this amendment not only approves a work item, it commits to a process that will directly tackle these fundamental challenges. I urge you to recommend that the council approve this item for the docket. Thank you.

Thank you. No further comments. All right, so we will, close the verbal portion of the public hearing and leave open the written portion. Alright, so turning this back to Glenn so that we can have our study session.

Alright, that actually goes back to you, Chair Weston, but we do have some general questions or context. A, is there any issues based on the public comments that should be discussed or included in the issues matrix? Are there any other issues to discuss? You noted about the hearing and then the schedule on a recommendation and with the hearing still being open, I guess we would defer that to the next meeting. So ultimately, it's just whatever issues you'd like to discuss on this.

Alright. So should we possibly start an issues matrix?

It's really up to the commission here.

Alright. Why don't we see what we come in with, and then we can go from there. Does anyone have any comments on the docket items? Commissioner Cobley.

Would now be a suitable time to recommend that we add the the changing of the zoning in the CMU site that is split zoned BP and CMU to the docket?

So I think that's an excellent question. Glenn, do you mind bringing up the timeline slide again? The timeline? Yes, please. And

I can provide some context to help you on that, co police question too.

That would be wonderful.

Timeline was just make sure we're talking about is it this timeline?

Yes, please.

And in terms of Commissioner Cobley's question, it is up to a vote of the commission whether that is something they would recommend being included in the docket. As staff though, we would ask, since this was a proposal that just came in today, that we would like to be able to at least have till the next meeting to do the threshold kind of criteria analysis to determine the feasibility of inclusion. But ultimately, it's a vote of the commission whether or not

So since it's been a very long time since we've had a docket, because the city's been doing Redmond 2025, can you remind us just how, so generally there would be a pre application meeting prior to March 15? So And then just how that process works Yes. In relationship to this item. So generally speaking, as

shown on this slide, this really, some of this is to help staff be able to prepare and community members. And this really applies more to privately proposed amendments because they're just a little bit different type applications. You know, there's a lot of different topics. So generally, we try to have a pre meeting if someone has an idea for an application. A, to see, is this even a comprehensive plan type amendment?

Maybe it is something totally different. Maybe they just need a permit to put a different water heater in their house because that wouldn't be a comprehensive plan amendment. I know that's an extreme example, but we would have a pre meeting like that in order to just determine whether the applicant should provide or could provide an application because there's also a fee associated with that. So we have that kind of pre meeting and then we just have this open window for about three months at the beginning of the year. And that's where we have the pre meeting.

And as noted, we try to have that at least a couple of weeks before the application period closes just so enough time they can prepare their materials, submit application, things like that, and also for staff. And then the applications are due April 1. And then now we're kind of in that process between April, May and June while we kind of review due to the threshold criteria. And normally there's multiple applications. But with that said, you know, city initiated type amendments don't necessarily have to go through that kind of similar process.

Usually internally, we're aware of potential applications. There could be just minor corrections that staff are aware of and know that, oh, yes, there was an error in the comprehensive plan. We need to make an amendment. There's multiple variables. Maybe a new state law came down, we needed to make some change to the comprehensive plan.

So we wouldn't have so even though we you know, staff would the city would still submit an application, it wouldn't really necessarily go through this process, but it still goes through the docket process because a state law says all amendment processes have to be studied concurrently so we can see the cumulative effects. So if there's a transportation amendment at the same time, a land use amendment, you know, we don't want these impacts to negatively or, yeah, negatively impact each other or cause some repercussions that are there. So that's why we have this kind of all move together in the same process there. So

And then for the private ones, in general so not necessarily this year, but just in the past and the standard way of happening. If someone misses this application window, then it rolls into the next year's

Yes. Generally, would work with the applicant to get them prepared for the next cycle, which again will open up January 1, and then they would have three months to submit their materials. Yes, there will be a docket next year that will be called the twenty six-twenty seven docket. And it'll be a rolling process until the next periodic update in about which will start in about, what, eight, nine years now.

And then one final question just on this for my understanding. Because we did hear from this group previously when we were doing the zoning code discussions. And then there was, we'd said this feels much more like a docket item, not necessarily that we weren't going to change the zone across the city to accommodate one place's request. How would, like, would that normally be something where the city does the outreach at that point? Or would you expect the applicant to come back to you and follow-up on that direction?

I would say it lean more towards the applicant. But I should also note that the the planning commission and the council, if they think it's an important issue that should be that, you know, we can be directed to, you know, pursue that. So they, you know, you have the authority, the council has the authority to say, you know, that that was that was something important that should be considered. You know, please get this on the docket kind of thing. Or we recommend that it be put on the docket. You know, council council theoretically could also have the discretion this summer when we're reviewing it with the docket with them. Like, this issue emerged. We believe this should be added to the docket.

So Okay. That is very helpful context. With that background, other comments by commissioners? Commissioner Copely?

I'd be inclined to push this to the next docket except for the fact that we have some familiarity with this site because we've seen, emails and gotten communication from this group on multiple occasions, just in the year I've been here. So I think there should be some commission and, I would say, staff familiarity with the issue. I agree with Chair Weston that it's super helpful context to understand how this typically should take place. But given what I'm looking at, which is that it meets all of the different criteria for docketing, I would recommend it.

Well, we don't know that because the city hasn't actually done the evaluation yet.

Got it.

Commissioner Aparna.

So I had another question, Glenn. This calendar was published earlier. Correct?

Yes.

Like, was this calendar published to the public in terms of this year's docket process?

This this is actually adopted into the Redmond zoning code, and I believe it's been part of the code for ten, fifteen, maybe twenty years. It's a requirement under the Growth Management Act, RCW, you know, a revised code of Washington that lays out all our processes for comprehensive plans, including comprehensive plan amendments. So I don't have the specific date of when this, was officially adopted, but we know the first comprehensive plan was done in 1995. So some version of this has been around since then.

We've also had a recent reminder this year because this was in our training Yes. On February 12.

No. Because the reason I'm asking this is the dates haven't changed. Just out of curiosity, did the applicant even do a preliminary reach out to staff before April 1?

Not that I'm aware of, but I would prefer to check on that to confirm.

So maybe what we could do here is start an issues matrix, add this item to. And I think the issues that we'd be interested in are just the history of communication or a summary of the history of the communication on this item relative to this year's docket. And then also if sorry, one more second. So I think what I would say is I think there's a second separate question here on this item of if we should get additional information, if it is actually suited to the docket as is, or

if That would be the threshold criteria.

Exactly.

Generally, it's a binary meets or does not meet. We can provide some reasoning for each of that.

Do you have enough information at this point from the email today and the public comment to answer We that

believe so. Confirm with my manager, Jeff Churchill, we believe when we saw the email that we have enough information at least to do the threshold criteria analysis in terms in time for the next meeting.

Okay. So maybe if we add those two items to the issues matrix, that would be helpful. And then we can discuss further in June. Vice Chair Woodier?

And I just add to that that it would be really helpful to summarize the previous conversations from the previous issues. I remember this call I remember this discussion. It was a very interesting discussion. But it would be helpful if I have all the background

The questions then were actually

Assuming it meets the criteria.

But the questions that were asked in relation to the zoning code were actually different than the ones in the email today. It's like the same

obvious

route, desire to develop the property, but it's what they've asked for has changed. So I'm not let's maybe start fresh

Yeah. Where we are. And I guess we're just I'm saying the same thing as you. I just want would love to have the full context so we can we can make a decision and feel good about it as quickly as possible within your timelines.

So this is just a decision to include it, not a decision to decide it. That's correct. Commissioner Van Nyman.

I just wanna summarize what I think I heard you say, which is that there was a due date of April 1, which was missed in this particular example. But what I hear you saying is it's not a total drop dead date. We certainly could add it if we wanted. And I guess what I would say is, I personally am am not given the given the lack of other items on the docketing process, if we're dealing with one and now we have to deal with the second, we choose to deal with the second. You know, hypothetically, I'm in favor of that because I don't wanna get too hung up on, you you need to wait a year because you missed the date.

Like, if it's possible, I would be inclined to move forward with it.

I actually, I have the actual opposite preference where if there unless there's a good reason to change a process for one candidate.

But what I heard is we're not changing the process, that the that we're still operating inside of a normal process.

I think that's the clarification we were asking for.

I will repeat that. The Planning Commission and Council has the authority if they consider items that are of city importance or that are worth studying. They can propose that it be included, know, with with special exceptions, know, and kind of right. The timing is is okay at the it is this is in August where council it's before council, and they're about to pass the amendment, to adopt the docket. That's just where some time and challenges. As an example, that's only theoretical, but we'll let

Jeff Churchill.

Hi. Jeff Churchill. So the code gives the Planning Commission and the City Council authority to add items to the docket. The code does not set a timeline for the Planning Commission and City Council to do that. Planning Commission's decision to do that would have to be before its recommendation. City Council have to do it before they adopt the docket. We have the process laid out here for all the reasons that Glenn described, And the process also says if the planning commissioner and city council decides that there's something that they want to independently add, that either body can do that, you can recommend it to the council. The council makes the decision, of course. And then considering that, you can consider all the threshold criteria. You can consider the timeline.

All of those are valid considerations, then it's up to you to decide whether or not those are which direction you wanna take it. And I think having answers to the questions that you've put on the issues matrix should help inform that discussion.

Helpful. Thank you. Other commissioner, either questions for the issues matrix or comments? Commissioner Cobley.

I would prefer that all of these things happen within processes that are prescribed by staff. That said, I would also prefer that there's more housing in Redmond than there is gravel. And the zoning in that area was initially for a gravel pit, I think, if I read the email right. I think we all share that belief. So if there's any way that we can do this without unfairly allowing someone to do something that others can't, then I think we should consider it.

All right. So we will follow-up on that next week with the results of the issues matrix. Does anyone have any questions specific to the city request that they would like to add? Commissioner Van Dyemen?

I just want a bigger picture of, like or maybe it's not a bigger picture, maybe it's a smaller picture of an example of how this changes. You know, some specific change that would have been handled down this other path and now would be handled this way. Like an example that I can really get my head around.

Can you be With the the city change?

Right.

So moving things between the plans and the elements. Right. Great. So I don't know if it's possible to add that to the issues matrix or respond now.

I would say that that might be more of a discussion of the plan itself as opposed to whether it's going to be docketed or not. Yes. Yeah. But I will also note that the Transportation Master Plan has come to the Commission previously that this update's been ongoing. I believe they came in October.

And actually Francesca and their team will be here at the next meeting to provide a status update of the Transportation Master Plan because that process is still just going forward. You know, this is really the process for them to adopt this master plan, which has been an ongoing project for the city. And as noted, why it's part of the docket versus not Redmond 02/1950. And it's essentially a timing issue.

And if it's possible for me to just add a comment. In our planning meeting, talked about this a little bit because I was very unused to the two step process, like the nature of the two step process. And one thing that was very helpful is just understanding, like, the way the notification works relative to the calendar on these two plans. So to go through Redmond 02/1950, that whole comp plan process versus the transportation plan and that update cycle, But there's still the notification that's separate, if I'm getting that correct.

So maybe Francesca can add more to that. Our separate planning processes have different outreach kind of schedules that it's kind of determined what the product is, what's being updated. We have a there's a lot of different planning and project processes, you know, between construction projects that have different public notice and requirement, you know, requirements, things like that. You know, as a, as a, as a master plan and process, there's, there's, there's their own kind of public outreach plan. But then there's also, because this is also part of the comprehensive plan, there are also legal requirements for public outreach, which at the minimum includes a public hearing at the Planning Commission.

That's really the kind of legal minimum for any of these, but generally it's our city and our staff and our teams and directors' best practice that we usually have a comprehensive outreach process for our different planning processes. You know, attending Derby Days, email newsletters, workshops, stakeholder groups. There's a lot of different things like that, but it's really topic dependent. And I think Francesca has her hand up.

Yeah. Glenn, I'm happy to add. So, when we come back on June 11, we'll be bringing our streets chapter, transit chapter, bicycle chapter, and pedestrian chapter to plan and commit commission. Those components are, we're bringing them to you because they are all part of the GMA requirements that are within the TMP. So, and that's part of why we're we're making this adjustment, because some of those, GMA required items that are in Remnant 2050 right now will be expanded upon and, updated within the transportation master plan.

In addition, there'll be much more within the transportation master plan as well. But starting on June 11 and with a few more meetings to come later in the year, we'll be bringing each of the, items within the TMP that are part of those GMA requirements. So hopefully hopefully that helps clarify a bit. As far as outreach goes, I can speak a little to that right now. I'm happy to go into more detail, on the eleventh when we're back.

We have we've done quite a of outreach over the last, year plus. Most recently, we've had groups, led by and in collaboration with Eastside For All and some other of Redmond's, organizations that, Eastside For All works with. And we're happy to bring some of that feedback, from those groups to our next meeting if you'd like to hear a recap.

Great. Thank you. So mostly, this would be setting us up so that at the next comp plan update, things are properly divided so the GMA topics are separate. But without that, we need to go through the docket process. Is that correct?

It would help streamline that. The plan, all our different city, we have a lot of different city plans that are adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. You've seen, there's water plan, storm water plan, capital facilities plan, parks plan. They all have also different state and federal requirements. They also all have their own timelines of being updated.

So the challenge a lot of times is to sync those updates at the same time as Redmond 02/1950. Some of those updates did sync with Redmond 2050 and we were able to do at the same time as you saw with the Park Plan a couple of years ago. We did a specific we updated the wastewater plan just before Rebyn 02/1950, but that also triggered some additional amendments to update that as part of Rebyn 02/1950. So that came through Planning Commission at the same time. The water system plan, as the same thing, that plan was being updated irregardless, but we were able to keep it within the periodic update of the Redmond 2050 plan.

So it could all be updated kind of in the same schedule. We do have a couple of additional plans that are being updated this year, and we're hoping to be adopted by the end of this year. Like our capital facilities plan for government facilities, our storm water plan, and our fire functional plan. So that's actually why they're not part of the docket because it's still within the umbrella of Redmond 02/1950. The transportation master plan was also part of that, but just, you know, as was determined by staff, the timing of completion of that just did not sync with the schedule.

We felt that it was kind of out of the outer limits of Redmond 2050 process that that is going to be a docket item as opposed to the Redmond 2,050 umbrella. But it is essentially a Redmond 2,050 update.

Great. Does anyone have further questions about that to add to the matrix? No. Are there questions about anything else to add to the matrix? All right, so it looks like we will see you next time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. Next up is our study session on the 2025 annual cleanup package for the Redmond zoning code. And with Jeff Churchill.

Good evening, again. It's nice to be with you. For the first time in, I didn't count how many years, it's been a while, we have an annual code cleanup package. In the past few years, a lot of code amendments have been subsumed into the code rewrite and into Rev in 02/1950. So it's been a while since we had a code cleanup. So my purpose here tonight is to introduce those items in preparation for a public hearing that is scheduled at your next meeting on June 11. Broadly, are three kinds of zoning code amendments. We're only talking about the box on the left. The minor amendments, these are typos. There might be incorrect references.

There might be unclear code for which administrative interpretations have been written. And this is an opportunity to actually clarify the code so that that interpretation is not needed anymore. So that's the box we're in. But there are other kinds that we've been dealing with over the past few years. Substantive amendments, so actually changing standards that are maybe within the existing vision and existing policy framework.

And then also substantive changes that require a new policy foundation or updated policy framework. So those are the other kinds that we see. And the kind that involve a new policy framework usually involve a comp plan amendment as well. There are six items that were identified by staff and ready by the time that this was scheduled to come to the Planning Commission. I've included three that were in either the appendix one or appendix three of the zoning code.

Actually, the technical committee has the authority to approve changes to the appendices. And so that's already done. But I wanted you to know what actually happened so that you could see the full suite of changes. The other three are for Planning Commission review because they live in the body of the code. I'm gonna go through all of them individually. Sorry. Oops. What did happen? Get back to the right screen here. I will go through each of them individually, but they deal with parking type five permits and definitions.

Okay. So first one, nonconforming parking, everybody's favorite topic, but this minor code amendment says, it clarifies really something that is ambiguous in the code, that where there are sites with nonconforming parking quantities, that typically means, say, a building in old town that was built without parking requirements that came along later, like in the sixties or seventies. So if there are not if there are nonconforming parking quantities, a change of use, let's say it changes from a retail outlet to a restaurant, that that change of use is not a trigger for requiring additional parking. Now if the building gets bigger, then it could be. But if it's if it's not changing size, then it's not a trigger for requiring additional parking.

And the purpose really is that it makes those spaces easier to retenant. And often it would be very cost prohibitive to add parking. Usually a site is, often a site is developed, especially if you're talking about somewhere in old town. It's not like there's a lot of space. And tearing down the building seems like a not ideal outcome so that we can provide some more parking spaces. So that's what this does. It just clarifies that that is the intent, and it's consistent with policy t r 35. That's really the policy basis for it. And if you go back and read that, it it basically says prioritize space for people in a nutshell. Okay.

This one's a really simple one. There's an error about when public hearings are required. There's a table, and it says that there is no public hearing is required for a type five permit application. An example of a type five permit application is a master plan, for example. And the process is a type five process goes directly to city council for a decision. And it's not a it's not a it's it's not a legislative land use legislative change. It's not the kind of thing that comes to the Planning Commission. But anyway, the table says there's no public hearing required, but actually that's not true. There is. The text of the code says that there is, and so we need to say that there is in the table, and that's it.

A definition for culvert, this is not in the code. It is an often enough used term by applicants and staff that it would be ideal if everybody meant the same thing when they were talking about culvert. So we proposed to define it so that everybody knows what we mean when we talk about a culvert in the context of a development application and the review of development applications. The proposed definition's on the screen, and it comes to us from our utility engineers in the Public Works Department. A structure typically under a roadway, rail line, trail, or embankment that is used to convey flow from a natural channel or drainage ditch.

Okay. Moving on to the three for which no action is required. This is for information. There was a the use of a wrong word in RZC appendix one. The correct term is zero rise floodways in the context of its use, and so it has been changed to the correct terminology.

There is another section of appendix one, and this requires a little bit of background. A few years ago, city council adopted an ordinance that repealed a portion of the critical areas regulations and moved it into 1524. But the reference was not updated in the appendix. So what we need to do is update the appendix to take into account that a few years ago, the CDC Council repealed or moved, really, a portion of text into 1524. So that's the purpose of that one.

And then last, as we've been looking at different chapters, you know that we have been removing gender specific language where appropriate. In appendix three, there is a term draftsman, and you can get by in that sentence without using that term or actually several other professions at all. And so the text the sentence was changed just not to ref not to reference those specific professions and does not change the meaning of the sentence. And there were no other instances in appendix three of any gender specific language, so that should take care of that entire appendix. The next steps for this minor amendment code package, this cleanup, is a public hearing on June 11.

And then we think it is possible that on the twenty fifth or even possibly after the hearing on the eleventh, just depending on what issues come up, that the Planning Commission would be ready to make a recommendation. We have time reserved with the council later this summer and fall for their review and action. That concludes the introduction to this item. And if there are discussion questions that commissioners would like to add to the matrix or just information questions that I can answer, happy to do that.

Commissioners, any comments or questions? Commissioner Copely.

I think these are great. I just have a question out of curiosity. What was the least parking required for any previous use where the nonconforming parking might trigger no additional need for parking but like it's a massive site or something like that in the past?

Let's see. I'm I in the past versions of the zoning code, non a change of use would trigger the and it didn't there wasn't a threshold. Really, it's like if you needed one additional parking space, you needed to find one additional parking space. With the revisions adopted in November by the city council, that went away, but it became unclear in all circumstances if a change of use would be a trigger. So this is really just a clear, like, no. We really meant it. No. No. It's not it's not a trigger. But in the past, prior to prior to last November, it it was a trigger.

If you if you if you went from a less parking intensive use to a more parking intensive use, then there would be a need to provide more parking if it wasn't already on-site.

Would you like that added to the issues matrix or just happy to have the Okay. Other questions? So I actually had one on one of the ones that we're not responsible for, because the technical committee already did it. On the one about the zero rise floodways, just going back and looking at the Redmond zoning code, like the text, where it actually was, I'm still confused. So there's a section where they're talking about FEMA and zero rise floodplains.

Are those two separate definitions, or is it like FEMA floodplains and zero rise floodplains, or is it all one thing?

My understanding, and I could certainly we could certainly add this to the matrix. I could answer in writing, and so that way we make sure it's accurate. But a zero rise floodplain is not a thing. It's just an error. The correct terminology is a zero rise floodway.

Might have said it wrong. But this I see. But in the text it's so then switch it the other way. Is there a FEMA floodway and a zero rise floodway as separate things? Or is there a floodplain and a zero rise floodway? Because I was just I when you actually look at the text that this came from, it's still confusing.

I'll get an answer from someone who knows for sure

Amazing.

Before I just blurt out what I think.

Great. Thank you. And then anyone else? Anything pop out? These seem very straightforward. It's actually fun to see this in process because it's been described, and it happens every year. Yes. Great.

Every year that there are necessary changes identified, then we have a package. And they're actually just for the benefit of all who might be listening and for commissioners, on the revan.gov/zoningcode web page, there's like a button you can push on the right. It says like, I have a suggestion for the zoning code. If you find something that needs to be fixed, that's a great place to let us know.

Great. All right. So if it looks like there isn't anything else, then we will be back for a public hearing next session. Great. Next up, we have Lauren Alpert with a review of the Planning Commission norms. These were updated at the twenty twenty five annual workshop last month.

So we discussed adding, some language to the norms, but I don't think we formally voted on it or decided. So I wanted to give the commissioners an opportunity to do that. If you recall, we added be curious to the top of the norms for the Planning Commission.

And just a reminder for the community who wasn't there at the workshop. So this is these aren't our rules. These are just how we work together as a commission and our expectations from each other. In general, these kind of get passed down year to year, and then we have one chance to get together and modify them. On the whole, these seemed nice to have. Had a good discussion about some of them, but largely leaving it the same. So with that, does anyone have additional comments? Commissioner Van Amman?

That was the only change that we made?

Yes. Okay.

Yep, this whole change was be curious. And then in that case, I look for a motion to approve these for the following year.

So moved.

Second. All in favor?

Aye. Great.

Thank you. All right. So next step is staff and commissioner updates.

The only update that I have is that we did hear from Francesca just before about the TMP. They'll be coming back in June. And ahead of that, since there's a large few chapters to review, we wanted to give you some extra time. So I'll be sending some of those chapters, tomorrow, for you to start your review ahead of the June meeting. Just wanted to give you a heads up.

Great. And then any commissioner updates? No. Okay. Well, in that case, I look for a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

And we are adjourned.