►
From YouTube: Bothell Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 2023
Description
0:03:00 - Public Comments
0:03:40 - Approval of Minutes
0:04:40 - New Business
0:04:50 - Study Session: Outdoor Dining Proposed Code Amendments
0:41:50 - Unfinished Business
0:42:00 - Reports from Staff
0:44:55 - Reports from Members
A
A
Before
we
move
on
to
the
agenda
items
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
our
hybrid
meeting
format,
the
city
of
Bothell
is
providing
the
option
to
attend
this
meeting,
either
in
person
or
remotely
via
Zoom
for
those
participating
via
Zoom.
The
chat
and
question
functions
are
not
available
for
use
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
open
public
meetings.
Act.
A
We
have
a
public
comment
agenda
item
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting.
This
time
is
for
comments
on
issues
not
on
tonight's
agenda.
Please
limit
these
comments
to
three
minutes.
Public
comment
and
hearing
testimony
will
be
allowed
both
in
person
and
Via
Zoom.
Those
wishing
to
comment
via
Zoom
are
asked
to
submit
an
online
form
by
3
pm.
Today.
People
wishing
to
submit
written
comments
were
also
asked
to
submit
those
by
3
pm
and
I
know
we
received
one
so
we've
seen
that
email
was
also
encouraged
as
well
and
will
be
acknowledged.
A
A
The
video
of
this
meeting
will
be
streamed,
live
as
well
as
recorded
and
available
for
later
viewing
on
the
city's
YouTube
channel.
A
call-in
number
was
provided
on
the
meeting
agenda
for
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
call
in
by
phone
to
listen,
live
to
the
meeting
for
our
phone
and
callers
during
staff.
Presentations
staff
will
make
every
effort
to
specify
which
materials
they're
referencing
so
that
everyone
may
follow
along.
B
A
Lastly,
before
we
begin
I'd
like
to
reiterate
some
meeting
guidelines
for
all
attendees,
please
speak
clearly
and
pause,
frequently
state
your
name
each
time
before
speaking,
mute
your
microphone
when
not
speaking,
if
you
are
also
streaming
the
live,
video
feed.
Please
turn
the
sound
off
as
there
is
a
delay
for
Commissioners
at
specific
breaks
in
the
presentation.
I'll
be
calling
on
members
who
wish
to
speak
or
ask
a
question
if
you
want
to
speak,
please
indicate
this
by
raising
your
hand
and
I
will
call
on
you
as
I
see
you.
A
A
The
first
item
on
the
agenda
is
public
comment.
The
city
has
accepted
visitor
comment
in
writing,
as
well
as
accepted
sign
up
sheets
for
those
who
wish
to
speak
at
tonight's
meeting.
Written
comments
submitted
to
staff
no
later
than
3
pm
were
forwarded
to
all
Commissioners
and
are
part
of
the
record.
This
time
is
for
items
not
on
tonight's
agenda
and
seeing
we
have
no
members
of
the
public
in
the
audience
director
Winchell
have
we
received
any
comments
online.
The.
A
E
A
F
Sure
so
what
I
was
hoping
to
do
tonight?
I,
don't
have
really
a
formal
presentation,
since
it's
really
code
specific,
so
I
was
going
to
give
some
background
on.
Why
we're
even
talking
about
this
and
then
kind
of
go
into
our
thought
process
behind
putting
these
together
and
go
through
what
we've
done.
F
So,
as
you
all
are
probably
aware,
back
in
June
of
2020,
we
adopted
an
interim
temporary
ordinance
to
allow
outdoor
dining
that
has
since
been
renewed,
gosh
I.
Don't
even
remember
how
many
times
so
the
goal
with
these
code
amendments
is
that
we
don't
have
to
keep
renewing
the
temporary
ordinance
and
we
can
just
have
code
that
allows
for
these
structures
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
share
the
code,
as
proposed
here.
F
So
some
of
the
background
of
how
we
thought,
through
these,
in
terms
of
the
city-wide
code,
we
do
already
have
an
allowance
for
outdoor
dining
in
1206..
There
are
no
specific
regulations
that
explicitly
prohibit
outdoor
dining
spaces
to
be
in
parking
lot
areas.
So
we
didn't
really
feel
there
was
a
need
to
add
additional
language.
In
that
section,
there
is
a
table
note
associated
with
outdoor
dining.
F
That
speaks
to
the
need
for
outdoor
dining
and
sidewalk
areas
to
not
come
into
the
five
foot
walkable
area,
but
it
doesn't
say
anything
that
it
has
to
be
on
the
sidewalk,
and
so
we
thought,
for
simplicity's
sake,
just
leave
that
be
for
the
Citywide
code.
The
consideration
there
is
also
that
city-wide,
a
lot
of
the
developments
by
and
large
have
quite
a
lot
of
parking,
one
that
comes
to
mind
that
I
was
I
was
kind
of
going
through,
and
thinking
of
some
good
examples
is
the
Outback
Steakhouse
in
Canyon
Park.
F
Another
component
is
the
size,
so
we
decided
to
go
with
the
thousand
square
feet,
an
area
or
less,
because
those
are
the
size
of
the
structures
at
Julio's
and
the
cottage
they
seem
to
be
a
good
size.
They
took
up
three
spaces,
which
makes
it
easy
to
kind
of
count
how
many
spaces
they
might
be
in
other
places.
F
So
that
was
the
size
we
went
on
for
the
remainder
of
the
code
sections
as
we
were
looking
at
this,
so
the
first
code
section
we
looked
at
was
wanting
to
make
sure
that
we
were
capturing
everything
that
was
in
the
temporary
ordinance
as
well
as
any
other
potential
areas
that
might
get
triggered
by
these.
That
may
have
not
been
considered
in
the
ordinance,
the
first
being
in
the
application
of
the
parking
regulations.
F
So
we
added
a
note
here
that
these
structures,
again
the
thousand
square
feet
or
less,
is
associated
with
an
existing
business,
are
exempt
from
the
provisions
of
the
chapter.
The
goal
here
is
really
that
these
aren't
going
to
be
considered
additions
that
might
trigger
all
sorts
of
other
requirements
for
additional
parking
spaces,
potentially
additional
Landscaping.
You
know
all
sorts
of
things
in
a
typical
addition
might
trigger
that.
F
We're
not
treating
them
that
way,
and
this
is
a
sentence
you
will
have
seen
repeated
throughout
the
code
as
it
makes
sense
the
subsection
D
we
deleted,
because
it
seemed
to
be
directly
at
odds
with
the
added
language.
We
also
felt
it
was
kind
of
vague
and
also
could
set
a
concerning
precedent
whenever
someone
wanted
to
convert
a
parking
space
to
something
else
in
Redevelopment,
so
we
figured
that
seems
to
be
a
really
old
piece
of
code.
It
doesn't
really.
F
F
So
when
this
one
just
clarifying
all
of
the
uses
that
we
wouldn't
trigger
parking
for
and
those
already
include
vendor
carts,
but
there's
all
sorts
of
other
types
of
similar
types
of
things
we
wouldn't
trigger
parking
for,
such
as
vendor
carts
spaces,
stalls,
vendor
trucks
and
these
outdoor
dining
areas.
So
creating
a
new
line
item
in
that
table
just
specifying
that
nothing
additional
is
required
just
to
reinforce
that
and
then
removing
vendor
carts
from
the
prior
line
item
that
excludes
them.
F
The
next
section
came
up
in
talking
with
some
of
the
current
planners.
There
were
some
concerns.
I
had
asked
them
about
this.
If
we
had
concerns
about
parking
lot,
Landscaping
spaces,
because
those
are
there
for
a
reason
not
just
for
aesthetic
purposes
but
for
storm
water
purposes,
so
not
that
that
has
come
up
yet.
But
if
there
was
a
business
that
wanted
to
remove
some
parking
lot
landscape
escaping
areas
to
have
some
of
these
structures,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
being
captured
elsewhere,
so
they
could
potentially
redesign
the
parking
lot
area.
F
Add
some
Landscaping,
where
it
makes
sense.
Potentially,
if
say
they
wanted
to
straighten
out
some
parking
spots
and
not
make
them
angled,
then
there
would
maybe
be
an
opportunity
to
put
some
landscaping
or
if
they
wanted
to
remove
a
strip
that
made
it
more
difficult
to
place
certain
structures,
and
there
would
be
some
flexibility
for
them
to
put
it
somewhere
else.
F
And
then
there
were
some
considerations
for
the
sub
areas,
because
both
Canyon
Park
and
downtown
have
their
own
parking
regulations.
And
so
we
wanted
to
make
sure
we
captured
that
one
in
the
Canyon
Park
sub
area,
they
have
a
whole
applicability
section
kind
of
similar
to
downtown
a
little
bit
different.
That
depends
on
the
level
of
improvements
from
the
most
minimal
to
the
most
high
redevelopable.
It's
a
level.
F
One
is
basically
remodels
Editions
small
site
improvements,
less
than
50
percent
of
the
site,
and
so
I
added
a
note
in
there
again
reiterating
that
these
dining
space
structures
would
be
technically
otherwise.
If
we
didn't
put
in
this
exemption,
they
could
be
considered
a
level
one
Improvement,
so
just
putting
in
a
qualification
that
that
would
not
apply.
F
Other
section
I
think
that
was
that
was
the
only
thing
in
Canyon
Park,
because
I
always
wanted
to
make
sure
nothing's
applicable.
They
can
do
these
and
then
in
Canyon
Park,
there's
a
lot
of
other
items
that
are
city-wide
so
where
there
aren't
specific
regulations
that
would
apply
through
Canyon
Park
than
the
city-wide
requirement
would
apply.
F
I
did
want
to
make
a
caveat
for
the
provision
of
parking.
I
have
a
typo.
There
are
17
spaces
on
that
site,
not
16.,
and
then
in
the
provision
of
parking
section.
This
is
where
we
had
to
do
a
little
bit
of
thinking
in
terms
of
the
Julios
and
cottage
site,
because
they
don't
have
enough
parking
technically.
If
we
were
to
calculate
out
what
would
be
required
today,
so
we
considered
that
their
parking
situation
is
illegal
non-conformity
or
you
know,
grandfathered
in
so.
F
We
don't
want
to
make
them
have
to
provide
those
spaces
elsewhere
and
we
won't-
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
still
in
compliance
or
considered
to
be
in
compliance
so
for
subsection,
A2
here,
I'm
actually
recommending,
rather
than
the
minimum
number
of
required
parking
spaces,
which
could
create
a
lot
of
issues
with
trying
to
calculate
that
out.
I
had
a
lot
of
issues
trying
to
figure
out
what
all
the
square
footages
were,
even
in
that
building
from
1969
and
subsequent
Renovations
we're
actually
recommending
changing
that
to
the
existing
parking
spaces.
F
So
the
one-third
number
is
what
I
came
up
with
from
calculating
it
for
that
site
and
making
that
work.
So
what
that
just
means
is
there's
17
spaces
on
the
site
up
to
a
third
of
those
could
be
counted
towards
or
could
be
used
as
outdoor
dining
and
for
this
site
that
works
so
there's
six
spaces
right
now
that
are
being
used
for
outdoor
dining,
so
minus
those
six
spaces.
F
F
And
I
believe
that
is
it.
I
did
want
to
also
just
address
the
letter
that
we
got.
They
did
have
some
good
questions,
the
first
one
being
about
other
restaurants
that
might
be
interested
in
adopting
the
model
we
haven't
heard
from
anybody
else
that
hasn't
already
done
it.
So
that's
kind
of
a
hard
question
to
to
answer,
since
we
just
haven't
heard
so.
The
interest
that
we've
had
has
been
what
you've
seen
happen.
F
Her
second
question:
it
appears
that
it's
being
limited
to
the
central
business
district
in
Canyon
Park,
because
I'm
not
directly
addressing
the
Citywide
code
because,
as
I
said
before,
we
didn't
really
think
it
was
necessary
to
add
new
code
to
address
it.
We
like
to
keep
things
as
simple
and
streamlined
as
possible
with
our
code,
and
so,
if
we
figured
if
it's
not
explicitly
excluded,
we
don't
see
any
reason
why
it
couldn't
be
there
just
so
long
as
they're
still
meeting
their
parking
minimums.
F
In
terms
of
how
other
businesses
in
the
area
are
being
impacted
again,
we
haven't
heard
any
direct
complaints
or
any
issues
from
adjacent
businesses
or
businesses
in
the
area.
So,
as
far
as
we
can
tell,
there's
has
been
no
impact,
at
least
that
we've
been
able
to
hear
and
then
on
the
last
question.
Why
should
this
option
to
use
private
parking
areas
where
businesses
be
limited
only
to
restaurants?
F
It
answers
it
doesn't
have
to
be
necessarily.
We
don't
currently
have
anything
in
the
retail
use,
charts
that
allows
outdoor
sales.
That
said,
we
know
that
there
are
plenty
of
businesses
that
just
have
outdoor
sales
I.
Think
if,
like
QFC,
has
flowers
and
stuff
outside
it's
not
creating
a
problem,
it's
not
encroaching
into
the
sidewalk,
so
don't
really
think
much
about
it.
But
if
you,
if
it's
something
that
wants
to
be
more
explicitly
codified,
that's
certainly
something
we
could
look
at
doing
too.
F
Generally,
the
zoning
code
doesn't
speak
to
the
Ada
standards
as
those
would
be
reviewed
by
other
divisions,
and
that's
always
something
we
do
check
for
when
people
are
requesting
to
utilize
Ada
spaces.
If
that's
something
that
we
think
would
be
important
to
add
into
the
land
use
code,
we
could
look
at
doing
that.
I
do
know
in
the
past,
when
I've
reviewed,
I'm
thinking
of
a
application
to
put
in
a
big
gas
tank
in
Canyon
Park
for
a
biomed
facility.
E
E
I
mean
the
code
should
last
for
a
while
right
and
things
can
change
over
time,
and
so
I
do
worry
a
little
bit
about
ADA,
okay,
but
the
other
question
I
had
or
on
really
it's
a
question
to
ask
you
for
an
explanation
because
I
don't
understand
it
and
that
is
the
so
the
outdoor
dining
structures
on
Main
Street
in
the
downtown
sub
area
zone.
So
those
aren't
in
parking
lots.
Those
are
in
right-of-way
how
I'm,
assuming
that's
not
covered
by
this,
is
it
covered
by
something
else.
Main.
F
Street
is
kind
of
its
own
special
Beast,
so
those
were
are
originally
before
we
shut
Main
Street.
Those
were
Flex
spaces,
but
I
think
that's
what
the
official
term
is,
so
those
were
parking
spaces
that
were
permitted
to
be
used
as
outdoor
dining,
just
by
the
nature
of
how
Main
Street
was
designed
when
it
got
realigned.
C
Thank
you,
yeah
I
would
add
one
thing
to
that
as
well,
so
they're
also
in
the
right-of-way
and
so
the
way
right-of-way
is
used
and
the
way
private
property
is
used
is
different,
so
Public
Works
actually
would
administer
what
happens
in
the
right-of-way.
Then
the
street,
like
those
and
then
this
is
in
on
private
property.
So
we
would
use
the
zoning
code
to
review
and
allow
it.
E
F
D
Thank
you.
This
is
Carrie
westerbeck,
I
love.
This
I
really
appreciate
it.
I've
been
supportive
of
using
the
parking
lots
for
restaurants,
not
only
throughout
the
pandemic,
but
but
since
because
it
creates
a
really
great
sense
of
community,
brings
a
lot
more
people
out
it's
great
for
the
businesses
and
really
it's
just
pure
pure
dollars.
It's
much
better
for
the
city
to
we're
getting
a
lot
more
productivity
out
of
those
those
spots.
D
Having
dining
there,
then
parking
parking
is
really
a
net
loss
as
far
as
Financial
productivity
for
a
city,
but
you
guys
probably
know
that
I
have
a
few
questions
and
comments.
The
landscape
thing
totally
get
that
especially
the
storm
water
functions.
What,
if
like
some
of
them,
are
raised
like
a
cottage
in
Julio,
but
they're
usually
raised
on
Piers
or
something
like
that?
D
I
don't
know
if
this
would
happen
very
often
because
often
they're
going
to
have
parking
right
right
up
onto
the
sidewalk,
but
sometimes
there's
little
islands
of
of
especially
newer
developments,
landscaping
and
then
parking.
What,
if
they're
floating,
they're
building
their
platform
over
Landscaping
but
they're,
not
necessarily
tearing
it
out
but
they're
making
it.
You
know
non-use
usable,
you
can't
see
it
anymore,
but
someday
they'd
be
torn
up
and
it's
there
again
with
dead
plants
underneath
I
know.
That's
a
really.
You
know
weird
gray
area,
but
has
that
been
considered?
D
F
D
D
D
D
D
Yeah
yeah
I'm
old
enough
to
remember
permitting
projects
where
decks
were
considered,
pervious
so
and
gravel
was
half
and
there's
all
these
different
rules
have
changed
anyway.
It
doesn't
matter
anyway.
I
really
appreciate
this
I
think
it's
really
thoughtful
code
and
I
like
that.
We're
thinking,
agile
and
and
ways
that
we
can
preserve
these
spaces
for
people
to
keep
using
restaurants.
D
The
accessible
spots
I
think
it
was
a
really
good
point,
commissioner,
Jones
and
I'm
really
glad
you
brought
it
up.
I
wonder
if
we
would
say
something
like
no
net
loss
of
more
than
25
percent
of
existing
accessible
spaces
or
just
just
throwing
out
a
number.
It
could
be
anything
you
could
say
completely
like
no
net
loss
at
all.
It
means
they
just
have
to
be
moved.
D
D
D
D
I
would
for
sure
think
that
in
other
ways,
they'd
be
out
of
compliance.
Otherwise,
but
I
would
think
if
you're
going
to
cover
up
accessible
spaces,
that's
kind
of
a
red
flag
so
that
they
have
to
be
thinking
about
that
at
least
we
have
to
either
codify
it
or
we
have
to
put
in
a
warning
that
you
know
you're
allowed
to
go
this
much
under
the
minimum
by
Bothell
code.
If
we're
even
allowed
to
do
that,
I
don't
know
if
we
are
but
warning
them
that
you
know
if
they
go
below
a
certain
threshold.
D
Personally,
don't
you
know
again,
I
think
that's
much
more
productive
to
have
tables
for
people
to
dine
at
than
the
parking,
and
there
are
hardly
any
place
in
Bothell
I've
ever
been
that
you
couldn't
find
a
parking
spot,
so
I'm
kind
of
wondering
if
we
think
about
if
there's
even
a
way
to
make
a
provision
for
a
smaller
business
that
doesn't
have
one-third
to
give
up,
but
we'd
still
need
that.
Maybe
they
just
have
to
do.
You
know
two
spots
and
it's
500
square
feet
or
600
square
feet,
or
something
like
that.
D
D
A
D
D
E
E
D
F
Yeah,
so
the
reason
I
started
at
a
third
is
because
that
is,
as
the
case
study
being
Julio's
and
the
cottage
that
would
be
the
minimum
amount
to
make
their
current
site
design
work.
So
that's
sort
of
the
starting
point
to
think
about.
Are
we
good
with
that,
or
is
there
a
consideration
that
you
want
to
go
higher?
We
want
to
make
a
recommendation
for
more.
A
D
Just
commenting
on
that,
if
I
may,
commissioner
westerback
I
think
a
lot
of
the
businesses
or
are
like
the
strip,
mall
owners
and
stuff
apportion
them
out,
like
oh
you've
got
these
eight
at
least
that's
how
it
is
behind.
On
the
south
side
of
Main,
Street
I
talked
to
one
of
those
business
owners
a
few
years
ago.
Did
a
small
project
for
him
and
he's
like.
Oh,
these
are
my
seven
and
that's
they're
12
and
you
know
they're
all
very
carefully
in
needed.
D
F
Yeah
and
I
know
I
can
speak
to
a
new
development.
That's
proposing
shared
parking.
We
have
some
really
specific
regulations
as
to
how
to
manage
that,
but
for
older
situations
like
which
is
most
of
downtown.
As
far
as
we
know,
they
kind
of
figured
out
themselves.
It's
not
something
that
we're
involved
with
that
could
be
a
consideration
as
part
of
these
regulations.
If
there's
something
that
you
feel
like
would
maybe
need
to
be
codified
in
terms
of
figuring
out
how
the
shared
use
would
work.
F
D
I
think
your
point
is
really
important,
though
commissioner
Robson,
because
we're
going
to
see
more
shared
parking
throughout
time
because
that's
going
to
be
a
more
common
thing,
so
I
think
then
it
becomes
a
real
issue
because
it's
like,
oh,
we
all
share
30
spots
and
you're
going
to
take
up
some.
You
know
you're
going
to
steal
from
us,
so
I
think
that's
a
good
point
for
annuities.
Newer,
newer
ideas
or
newer
developments.
I.
C
That,
if,
if
they
are
a
tenant,
if
they're,
not
the
property
owner,
they
would
most
likely
need
the
property
owner's
permission
to
do
this
in
the
parking
lot,
and
so
the
landlord
May
intervene
and
say
like
parking's
too
tight
or
you
know,
we
don't
want
that
situation.
So
I
think
there
might
be
some
self-policing
just
through
the
permitting
process
that
they
couldn't
do
it
without
permission
of
the
property
owner,
if
they're
just
a
tenant.
B
F
Yeah
and
I'm
thinking
that
might
be
a
good
thing
to
discuss
with
our
Deputy
City
attorney,
in
terms
of
when
we're
taking
impairment,
applications
for
similar
projects
where
there's
a
tenant
owner
situation,
how
that
works
and
what
we
may
or
may
not
need
to
codify
versus.
What's
a
part
of
the
permit
requirements,
so
something
we
can,
we
can
think
about
for
sure.
E
F
Ones
are
really
hoping
to
get
something
codified
so
that
they
can
just
keep
doing
what
they're
doing
primarily
and
then
in
terms
of
potential
future.
Tenants,
like
I,
said
we
haven't
heard
any
from
anyone
else,
and
this
was
a
project
that
was
mainly
just
trying
to
get
some
code
so
that
the
temporary
ordinance
could
go
away.
But
we
haven't
had
an
opportunity
to
do
Outreach
to
businesses.
So.
E
The
the
challenge
that
I
S
the
challenge
in
terms
of
putting
forward
emotion
regarding
this
is
I
personally,
don't
think
I
have
I
know
enough
to
judge
whether
a
third
forty
percent,
fifty
percent,
a
hundred
percent,
makes
any
sense
so
I
think
I
would
need
to
know
more
about
that
in
order
to
put
forward
emotion,
I
would
refer.
You
know
defer
to
my
colleagues
if
they
feel
that
they
have
a
better
idea
of
how
to
gauge
that,
and
so
without
information,
benchmarking
information
from
the
folks
who
might
actually
use
this.
E
A
D
Know
I've
been
talking
a
lot
I'm
sorry,
opinions
on
this
I
guess
just
an
idea.
The
one-third
is
great
I
think
is
a
place
to
start.
Maybe
we
could
say
as
a
you
know,
because
code
of
course
can
be
tweaked
over
time.
One-Third
is
acceptable,
you
know
as
a
right
or
how
we
would
say
that
and
up
to
one
half
with
develop
a
director
permission
or
whatever
we
call
it
discretion
discretion.
D
F
C
I
was
also
going
to
add
that
Genie
Ash,
our
economic
development
manager,
has
offered
to
reach
out
to
some
of
the
larger
property
owners
that
she
knows
to
see
if
they
think
their
tenants
would
be
interested
in
the
program,
and
so
we
can
have.
We
can
ask
her
if
she's
done
that
yet
and
get
that
information
from
her
before
there's
before
the
next
time.
We
talk
to
you
all
about
this.
A
G
Do
I
just
want
to
lend
my
voice
to
that
as
well,
seeing
some
sort
of
written
protection,
even
if
it's
assumed
just
for
some
of
the
messaging
around
that
the
other
thing
is
probably
not
really
so
much
as
zoning
as
it
is
a
operations
or
management
of
it.
And
so
this
might
be
out
of
hand.
But
for
the
storm
water
purposes.
G
Outdoor
dining
spaces
might
not
be
seen
as
non-pollution
generating
surfaces
because
of
food
waste
and
debris
possibly
being
washed
into
storm
water
systems,
and
so
I
would
I
wonder.
I,
don't
think
that
this
breaks
anything
or
that
things
have
been
going
wrong,
but
I'm
wondering
about
if
there's
been
any
Source
control
issues
with
outdoor
dining
and
if
surface
water
has
any
considerations.
G
F
Yeah
and
that's
something
we
can
definitely
check
with
our
stormwater
division
on
and
see
if
they've
had
any
issues
or
they
could
potentially
even
go
out
there
and
maybe
speak
with
some
of
the
property
owners
about
their
cleaning
standards
and
if
they're,
you
know,
hosing
it
down
or
if
they're
having
issues
with
that.
So
that's
something
we
can
definitely
follow
up
with.
A
And
it
seems
to
me
that
commissioner
kurd's
concern
would
go
to
a
maintenance
issue
and
possibly
involve
health
department,
and
those
food
establishments
are
inspected
on
some
basis.
So
I
wonder
whether
there
are
any
differences
in
how
they
look
at
those
sorts
of
outs,
outdoor
dining
spaces,
as
opposed
to
indoor.
D
Again
from
the
the
permit,
the
permit
files,
I'm
sure,
deputy
director,
Winchell
and
planner
man
know
this,
but
the
code
usually
requires
that
the
accessible
spaces
be
as
close
as
possible
as
close
as
practical,
or
something
like
that,
so
it's
almost
assured
we're
going
to
see
some
accessible
spaces
applied
to
this
to
the
covered.
I
guess
you
would
say
one
of
these
days
we're
going
to
see
this
I
think
because
of
the
requirement
for
them
to
be
close.
Like
you
said,.
A
F
Yeah-
and
that
is
how
we
permit
like
if,
when
we
have
like
a
food
truck
that
wants
to
come
into
a
parking
space,
we
already
have
an
Avenue
for
permitting
those
in
the
public
right-of-way,
as
well
as
in
the
private
areas
as
well
like.
If
you
have
a
I,
think
that's
what
we
did
not
on
EFG,
because
that's
City
owned.
But
if
you
have,
you
know,
gravel
covered
area
on
your
parcel
and
you
want
to
allow
someone
to
have
a
food
truck
there.
You
would
come
in
for
one
of
those
permits.
F
C
So
a
few
things
last
week
we
interviewed
consultants
for
the
historic
preservation
role
at
the
city.
We
had
three
great
interviews:
we're
moving
forward
with
a
contract,
and
so
once
we
are
in
Contracting
we'll
let
you
know
who
the
firm
is
and
are
working
on
figuring
out
how
that
process
will
work,
but
they'll
be
picking
up
the
historic
preservation
element
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
telling
bothell's
full
story
and
then
our
permitting
process
and
landmark
preservation
board.
So
we're
really
excited
about
that.
Last
night
city
council
approved
the
comprehensive
plan
contract
with
Burke.
C
So
that's
really
exciting.
We
had
a
small
contract
to
get
things
started,
but
by
no
means
was
going
to
get
us
to
the
finish
line.
So
now
we
have
a
contract
that
should
get
us
to
the
finish
line
or
really
close
to
the
Finish
Line
things
always
happen
and
there's
always
a
contract
Amendment
or
two
so,
but
we
are
going
to
get
there
with
this
next
contract
staff
is
going
to
be
providing
city
council
with
an
update
to
the
middle
housing
schedule,
as
they
requested
and
a
contract
with
otac
to
complete
that
work.
C
So
that
is
coming
forward
on
March
7th
there's
a
middle
housing
walking
tour
plan
for
March
18th,
which
is
a
Saturday
from
10
to
12..
We
are
also
working
on
Sarah.
Frost
is
working
on
getting
our
engagement
portal
put
together,
so
that'll
be
really
important
for
the
comprehensive
plan
and
then
hopefully
for
some
of
our
middle
housing
engagement,
we're
doing
between
now
and
Council
review.
C
Last
night
we
also
presented
the
planning
docket
to
city
council
they're,
going
to
be
making
a
decision
on
that.
We
believe
on
March,
7th
and
then
finally,
there's
lots
of
legislation
going
on
at
the
State,
the
probably
most
the
biggest
one
of
interest
to
you
all
would
be
HB
110,
which
110
110
11
10..
Thank
you
way.
Better
I
was
trying
to
think
of
how
to
say
that
number
11
10
would
allow
or
actually
require
cities
to
allow
middle
housing.
C
C
So
it's
not
quite
as
to
the
level
of
what
was
recommended
out
of
Planning
Commission,
but
that
is
something
that's
coming
and
so
we've
been
following
it
closely
to
see
how
that
impacts
what's
proposed,
and
so,
if
it
does
end
up
changing
anything,
that's
been
proposed
by
Planning
Commission.
We,
you
may
see
us
again
with
that
if
we
need
to
make
tweaks
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
state
regulations.