Planning Commission Work Session   5/27/2025

Okay.

So whatever amount of time, wherever there is a good time to break.

Why should we start the round table or round robin table?

It doesn't have to be on the dot.

So for the record, you volunteered to go first this time.

Right.

That got all the way over here.

Chair with his fancy water Sparkling

Are we ready chair?

Good afternoon everybody, how's my audio?

A little.

How about now?

Yeah, better.

At this point, I will welcome any questions on the slide before I turn it back over to the chair to go over the questions in your packet.

Is there going to be any direct collaboration between us and Council on this?

There's not at this time there's not scheduled a joint City Council work session there is will be I believe on the 10th we're going to be bringing forward at our regular meeting materials will be sharing with City Council on the 16th but to date no there's not a joint City Council Planning Commission work session.

Yeah, so thank you.

Are we supposed to, at this point, are we supposed to limit our questions to the kind of, I see there's like three questions on the slide, whether any proposed amendments have been assigned to the incorrect tier, et cetera.

Let's wait till we get general questions, and then we'll go through the A, B, and C. OK, gotcha.

Right.

And Rory.

And whether we're thinking about how these two things integrate together.

But we have not had any conversations really about the SADM and revising it at this time.

I was just curious about how the tier two stuff got daylit.

So it gets added to, I won't say constantly, but we are adding to and keeping track of where we're running into not only the tier one, really all three is what we're doing.

up front about where tier three currently stands and how I imagine that backlog could grow quite sizable and just you know at what point does something fall off tier three and not get adopted but I don't know just maybe a little bit more clarity it seems like one and two you have a good sense of clarity this happens on an annual basis we have a process tier three I understand it's new but maybe be helpful once you go to council and other ones to have a sense of what that process looks like

some of those that might keep falling because they're just not raising to the level that shouldn't be addressed in this work plan yet.

I don't know maybe the tier three name is the issue because it kind of gives equity maybe it's an amendment sort of consideration group or something you know something that differentiates it because it sounds like if you were to drill down on tier three there's probably tiers of tier three of things that seem like we could do and other things maybe feel like they're beyond the grasp.

OK, thank you.

some way to make that happen while keeping the schedule as efficient as you have it.

I expect that will probably be overturned on appeal, but we may want to initiate prior to that just to be safe.

So it is my hope that we don't get back on the slippery slope again and we just do it over and over and over again and don't get to a point where we get a good decision.

So that's kind of been our litmus test, but as that dividing line between tier one, tier two, and tier three.

And the only point I'm attempting to make is we didn't know when enough was enough in the public outreach.

I think that will help.

This is relating to SB 974.

Those need to be approved administratively.

who the public understands we are no longer involved in special use threats.

That would not come back to you for approval.

Most of those approvals, if I remember correctly, have been ministerial anyway.

Most of those have been on consent.

The change is not going to be.

Correct.

Okay.

I know you guys have had issues of site plans in particular because of the file size, but it'd be great to either figure out those issues or just have them as sort of a notice on the next planning commission agenda after these are ministerially approved.

Our GIS analyst has worked very hard on that to get that up and running.

My recommendation, but I'll do whatever you like, is that we just take them individually so we don't miss anything.

That was my hope, and then that way each commissioner would have an opportunity to go over what they were thinking per these questions as you go around.

Anybody have any concerns?

This is the one that existing building exists now so therefore I can build a second home now.

The one thing I would just caution is if staff starts to feel or starts to get a lot of, what are we hearing from the community, what are we hearing from the community, our reaction is gonna be, okay, this needs to drop back down to tier three so that we can actually hear from the community.

Give the date in the line.

My other one is a little bit more future proof, which is if it's five years old since certificate of occupancy, it exists.

All right.

Is there anything else you guys would like to add?

You know, make a 3A and a 3D with a more expedited process for some of them.

So there's kind of two ways, I think, to look at that.

Is there anything else as it relates to these being in the right category?

The massing versus height?

We talked about the townhouse effect.

You were making the alternate form?

Yes, the four foot.

I'd love to see all of these day, you know, not get bogged down in tier three, but that one I do think we need to talk about.

So that's been kind of the driving.

Disregulation seems to allow a whole block of them versus I think it seems like you'd be getting more building mass than we would have before so it just seemed like more of a discussion needed to happen.

The other has to be four so that it prevents having a lot that has zero on both sides.

So I guess are we going to see that draft at our planning commission meeting when we're

Yes, I mean when we'd come forward with a public hearing we would have this all our final.

So I don't know if there's another opportunity somewhere in between now and when we vote to approve the amendments to have a chance to look at that again.

I mean I'm definitely open to trying to see if we want to have a

You got something, Rory?

So, again, I hate to kick it to sea, but I kind of agree with Carl that it's a bigger or complex item.

Have the sublots been completely unworkable?

Well, no, it doesn't seem straightforward.

OK, just curious.

Are we just trying to solve something that is already existing in the building code?

Staff had made the argument about keeping it consistent.

If you go less than that, you just have to have more of a protected wall.

Yeah, it's still, even the fire protection though, it doesn't get away from the physical separation from the boundary is the issue.

Changes.

I don't see the value in mandating the same guidelines for off-street parking.

Not that I want to remove them or add some, but that I want to modify and kind of do that later?

We'll come around.

I think that was it for sections to delete as well.

All right, let's go to seat.

Rory?

Um, I'm not sure that I have anything else.

Betsy, let's get you in before we lose you.

Is that right?

Let me look at where the other one is.

You know, there just seems like there could be some making sure that they're all working together in the way they're described because there's some that were by use and some that are by, you know, material.

Do you have a number, like a B or a... Oh, I thought I did, but I can't remember.

okay so B-24 active space talking about what's habitable space residential commercial and then I'm looking for the one about parking but it seemed like it was asking the same question there so the I believe it was so B-24 about you know better defining our active depth because we had this active depth requirement of 9 feet

you know the parking garage very similar like Water Street where you have you know in theory of active depth but a lot of the district's active depth is the whole facade up and so that would mean pushing your parking back that nine feet once you got above the first floor.

I will say just one of the lenses that we are looking at through this is we

So that's why some things that might be, oh, that's interesting, but might be on tier three is because we're like, yeah, this might involve a lot of discussion, so we push it down a little so we get that discussion and get that community engagement.

Yeah, I think that's it.

Is that, am I missing it or is that intentional?

There might need to be more thought into it than what we put into it when we initially adopted the code

Is there a reason why that's not in tier three or is that something you're kind of looking at at a longer time frame?

But I would be happy to put it in just so we're making sure we're capturing it.

I think that's all I have for now.

I don't need to read through that, right?

Yes, and we're working on responses.

Those were my additions.

So I'm very interested to get an understanding of how well our inclusionary zoning ordinance is doing in providing the affordable units we need and any tools that we can provide to tweak those numbers to get more on the ground.

We're still going to be dealing with our legacy projects for years with the bulk of the units we see come online in the next three to four years.

Great.

I really am.

I think a conversation with the PHAs and the

As this list moves forward maybe there's something that we're all totally missing.

If you're going to be doing engagement, especially in a neighborhood with lots of RNA parcels, you could get feedback directly from people at the same time as doing your small area plan.

And I would like to keep things that will require extensive public engagement to those that the public will actually care about.

Again, I'd love to contribute more comments, but I think given the situation, I don't think it's in the universe interest to dictate how the city mandates its zoning code, so I'm going to refrain from any comments.

That was the one that stating what an existing building is how long ago it has to be built and just using the date of the code I think is a that seems like a perfectly good cutoff Yes, that's it for me

If we could make this simple and move forward, I think that's fantastic.

Matt, have you gotten what you need?

But yeah, I mean I think this has been good feedback.

Oh, would you like to move to

I would like to move to adjourn at this time.