►
From YouTube: Bothell Planning Commission Meeting - October 5, 2022
Description
0:03:15 - Public Comment
0:05:00 - Approval of Minutes
0:05:45 - New Business
0:05:55 - Public hearing: Middle Housing Code Amendments (continued)
3:12:45 - Unfinished Business
3:13:50 - Reports from Staff
3:14:25 - Reports from Members
3:14:30 - Items to Report to Council
A
Welcome
everyone
tonight
is
October
5th,
2022
and
I
call
the
city
of
Bothell
Planning
Commission
meeting
to
order.
The
main
purposes
of
tonight's
meeting
is
a
public
hearing
on
middle
housing
code
amendments
tonight's
meeting
is
hybrid,
the
city
is
providing
the
option
to
attend
either
in
person
or
remotely
via
Zoom
for
those
on
Zoom.
The
chat
and
question
functions
are
not
enabled
so
that
we're
compliant
with
the
open
public
meetings.
Act
we'll
have
space
tonight
for
public
comment
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
for
comments
on
issues
not
related
to
tonight's
agenda.
A
Please
limit
those
comments
to
just
three
minutes.
Public
comment
and
hearing
testimony
will
be
allowed
both
in
person
and
Via
Zoom
commenters
were
asked
to
submit
an
online
form
by
3
pm.
Today,
emails
were
encouraged
as
well.
Attendees
may
also
make
comments
that
have
and
have
been
asked
to
indicate
their
desire
to
comment
on
the
sign-in
sheets,
the
Imagine,
Bothell
notice,
City's
website
and
tonight's
agenda.
All
provided
information
to
the
public
for
providing
comments.
A
There's
a
call-in
number
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-in
callers
staff
will
make
every
effort
to
specify
which
materials
they're
referencing
during
presentations.
So
everyone
can
follow
along
at
this
time
we're
going
to
take
a
moment
to
acknowledge
the
attendance
of
the
commissioners
chair,
Kiernan.
A
B
C
A
A
Lastly,
before
we
begin
I'm
going
to
reiterate
some
meeting
guidelines
for
all
meeting
attendees,
please
speak
clearly
and
pause,
frequently
state
your
name
before
speaking,
mute
your
microphone
when
not
speaking
and
if
you're
also
streaming
the
live.
Video
feed.
Please
turn
off
the
sound
as
there
is
a
delay
for
Commissioners
at
specific
breaks
in
the
presentation
I'm
going
to
be
calling
on
members
who
wish
to
speak
or
ask
a
question.
I
promise
I
will
start
looking
at
the
zoom
screen
as
well.
A
Sorry,
so
this
bear
with
me
if
you
want
to
speak,
raise
your
hand
or
indicate
it
with
your
microphone
I'm
going
to
call
it
as
I
see
it.
This
will
help
avoid
the
problem
of
two
people
speaking
at
the
same
time,
try
to
identify
yourself
before
you
speak.
Please
mute
your
microphones
when,
not
speaking,
all
right,
moving
along
item
two
on
the
agenda
is
public
comment.
The
first
item
on
tonight's
agenda
is
public
comment.
A
The
city
has
accepted
visitor
comment
and
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
today
were
forwarded
to
all
Commissioners
and
are
part
of
the
record.
This
time
is
for
items
that
are
not
on
tonight's
agenda.
E
E
D
D
When
we
get
to
that
point,
though,
I
will
give
you
a
chance
to
speak
and
also
we're
joined
by
Mac,
Carter
and
I,
assume
Mr
Carter
that
you're
looking
to
comment
on
the
the
agenda
item
on
the
middle
housing
yeah.
That
would
be
correct.
Okay,
we'll
promote
you
to
a
panelist
when
we
get
to
that
point.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
D
Thank
you.
So
this
has
continued
from
June
20th,
at
which
time
we
had
suggested
putting
this
on
hold.
While
we
got
into
our
new
middle
housing
implementation
Grant
with
Commerce,
but
the
commission
made
it
clear
that
they
would
like
to
move
forward
and
make
a
recommendation
at
the
earliest
Point
possible.
So
we
we
have
done
our
best
to
bring
you
a
packet
that
that
you
can
go
ahead
and
move
forward
if
you're
comfortable
with
that
tonight,
it
came
together
at
the
last
minute
and
I
apologize.
D
I
I
was
the
last
one
to
touch
it,
so
there
are
some
some
glitches
in
in
the
packet,
particularly
in
the
note
boxes
that
I
I
didn't
fully
finish
editing.
So
I
just
wanted
to
take
responsibility
for
that
before
passing
it
off
to
our
our
consultant,
Sarah
breakstone,
with
otag,
to
go
through
a
presentation
highlighting
some
of
the
questions
that
we'd
like
you
to
to
address
and
and
then
we
can
get
into
it
in
more
detail
on
a
page
by
Page
review.
D
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
that
since
July
we've
been
busy,
we've
had
at
least
a
couple
more
meetings
with
utility
district
managers
about
and
as
well
as
our
own
Building
Department
fire
departments
about
some
of
the
issues
with
implementing
metal,
housing
and
and
things
like
metering,
metal,
housing
and
and
billing
issues
and
all
nothing's
come
up
in
those
discussions
that
have
that
would
change
the
the
zoning
code.
Amendments
that
were
were
discussing
with
you.
But
but
we.
H
D
Have
been
those
those
meetings
are
ongoing
and
will
be
supported
by
the
the
middle
middle
housing
implementation.
Grant
we've
also
managed
between
July
and
now
to
have
the
legal
review
done.
So
the
document
that
you've
got
before
you
now
does
incorporate
a
number
of
changes
clarifications
made
by
our
our
Deputy
City
attorney,
so
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
Sarah
breakstone
to
run
through
her
presentation.
Thank
you.
J
I
I
J
Some
items
are
new
since
the
last
time
and
some
are
just
kind
of
reminders
and
then
Dave
is
going
to
give
an
update
on
the
new
middle
housing
implementation
Grant
and
talk
about
next
steps
so
jumping
right
into
it.
I
I
also
have
and
can
share
the
code
amendments
themselves.
I
I
assume
you
all
have
copy
of
that.
It
was
in
your
packet
and
I'll
try
to
reference
the
page
numbers
as
we
go
along.
So
you
know
which
part
I'm
talking
about
at
the
very
beginning
are
some
definitions.
J
A
lot
of
these
have
been
in
here
for
a
while,
but
we
did
add
a
new
definition
for
single
family
attached
healing
types,
essentially
like
a
townhouse
or
a
row
house,
except
that
each
unit,
although
they
are
attached
to
each
other
each
unit,
is
on
its
own
individual
lot,
and
that
was
a
distinction
that
the
Planning
Group
there
felt
we
needed
to
make
in
the
definition.
So
that's
in
there
now
we
also
added
a
definition
for
Middle
housing,
which
basically
incorporates
all
of
these
housing
types.
J
Duplexes
triplexes
fourplexes
Cottages
Etc
to
make
it
easier
to
reference
middle
housing
and
other
places
in
the
code
instead
of
having
to
list
all
of
the
housing
types
comprised
within
that
definition.
And
then
we
made
some
clarifying
adjustments
to
some
of
the
definitions
that
were
already
in
there.
A
D
I
will
note
that
in
the
the
code
Amendment
memo
there
were
a
number
of
questions
related
to
the
definitions,
but
those
are
really
mostly
internal
questions.
So
not
questions
that
the
the
questions
that
we
really
want,
the
Planning
Commission
to
address
or
about
either
new
items
or
revised
items
we're
going
to
identify
in
the
presentation.
J
So
there
is
some
new
language.
This
is
in
the
section
of
code
that
talks
about
permitted
uses,
and
this
is
where
we
added
middle
housing
types
as
permitted
uses
in
all
of
the
singer:
single
family
residential
zones.
I
think
this
language
starts
on
page
17
of
your
packet.
If
you're
trying
to
follow
along
I,
don't
think
there's
anything
new
there
since
the
last
time,
except
we
did
add
some
language
that
I
believe
was
drafted
by
the
City
attorney
for
Bothell,
that
prevents
homeowners
associations
from
drafting
new
covenants
to
restrict
middle
housing
types.
J
C
J
So
I
think
also
on
page
17,
there's
some
language
about
affordable
housing,
but
I
think
the
bulk
of
the
language
that
we're
really
talking
about
here
is
on
page
23.,
and
this
has
to
do
with
the
affordable
housing
requirements
which
now
applies.
According
to
these
revisions,
affordable
housing
is
required
for
all
new
subdivisions
of
10,
Lots
or
more
and
I
think
there's
a
question.
There
I
think
it's
referenced
on
page
23
of
your
packet.
J
J
Okay
and
let
me
let
me
know
if
that
if
I
need
to
reword
the
question
in
in
a
way
that
makes
better
sense
but
I
think
it's
kind
of
a
two-part
question.
Should
middle
housing
bonuses
be
available
for
short,
Flats
short
flats?
Are
land
divisions
of
less
than
10
Lots
and
if
they
can
use
the
middle
housing
bonus
and
they
get
more
than
10
units,
should
they
be
required
to
provide
affordable
housing.
D
And
I'll
collaborate
on
that
a
little
bit,
we
we've
been
focused
on
new
subdivisions
of
10
or
more
in
terms
of
the
bonus
and
then
allowing
middle
housing
on
other
single-family
Lots
in
existing
developed
areas.
We
haven't
really
discussed
short
plots,
so
the
question
came
up.
Could
somebody
do
a
nine
lot
short
plot
with
a
fourplex
on
every
lot
and
36
units?
D
The.
The
question
is:
should
that
apply
to
short
plots,
and
should
it
be
applied
to
the
number
of
lots,
so
you
could
still
do
a
nine
lot
short
plaques,
the
short
plat
and
with
the
40
bonus
and
do
12
to
13
units
with
middle
housing,
but
should
the
should
the
threshold
for
the
affordability
requirement
be
based
on
the
number
of
units
or
on
the
number
of
lots
so.
D
And
I
will
I'll
interject
Mike
Stanger
from
Arch
wasn't
able
to
join
us,
but
he
did
weigh
in
once
again.
He
he
would
prefer
to
keep
the
five
lot
threshold
and
and
the
the
code
is
drafted.
We
did
include
both
five
and
ten,
but
last
time
around
I
think
we
got
pretty
clear
direction
that
that
you
wanted
to
raise
it
to
10..
F
Thank
you,
I
tend
to
think
that
keeping
units
is
actually
going
to
yield
more
affordable
housing
and
I
I
for
one
know
that
that
can
be
a
deterrent
for
some
developers,
but
I
just
think.
It's
also
a
matter
of
Simplicity
in
the
code
we're
my
my
experience
with
missing
metal
is
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
projects
that
don't
use
lot.
Divisions
like
we
would
see
with
a
fee,
simple
projects,
townhouses
and
cottage
cottages
and
so
forth.
F
We'll
probably
see
a
Triplex
here
and
there
fourplex
some
things
that
don't
require
any
law
divisions
at
all.
So
if
it's
units
I
think
we're
going
to
end
up
with
more
affordable
housing
in
the
end,
so
that
would
be
my
thought
and
and
a
unit
is
just
kind
of
easy
to
keep
track
of,
and
I
mean.
If
we
want
to
incentivize
units
and
less
lot
splits,
then
you
know
you
would
probably
make
it
lots
instead,
but
to
sort
of
incentivize
or
disincentivize
behavior,
but
I.
J
D
And
if
I
could
just
add
one
more
so
that
the
thinking
was
is
that
if
the
affordability
requirement
did
kick
in
any
time,
you
went
over
10
units,
a
nine
lot
short
plat?
Might
there
might
be
a
disincentive
for
them
to
even
do
a
single
middle
housing
unit,
so
that
was
that
was
the
thinking
behind
keep
having
the
threshold
be
the
number
of
lots
rather
than
them.
D
G
Hi
Sarah
I
do
have
a
question.
That's
a
bit
tangential
out
here
when
we're
trying
to
figure
out
how
these
units
are
aggregated
for
applying
the
affordable
housing
requirements
still
think.
We
might
want
more
definition
on
what
counts
as
an
adjacent
unit
by
the
same
developer,
because
that
might
also
impact
the
short
plats
I.
Think
you
don't
want
to
get
into
a
situation
where
the
development
is
basically
one
big
development,
but
the
developers
trying
to
say
oh
no
they're,
two
different
ones,
because
they're
not
right
next
to
each
other
and
there's
a
shell
company.
A
I
guess
I'll
weigh
in
briefly
understanding
that
this
is
not
necessarily
deliberations,
but
we're
just
talking
about
clarifying
sort
of
the
heart
of
these
code.
Amendments
and
I
would
suggest
that
the
elements
of
the
comprehensive
plan
that
encourage
abundant
housing
and
diversity
of
housing
forms
for
people
would
guide
us
in
our
decision
on
clarifying
this
because
we
would
be
looking
for
we'd
be
not
looking
to
disincentivize
middle
housing
forms
at
the
cost
of
creating
affordable
housing.
A
A
subdivision
is
able
to
achieve
through
middle
housing,
forms
10
or
more
units.
They
would
not
be
subject
to
the
affordability
requirements,
because
if
they
were,
it
would
disincentivize
the
production
of
those
alternative
housing
forms
but
interested
to
hear
what
other
people's
opinions
and
thoughts
are
on
that.
Commissioner,
westerbeck.
F
The
idea
being
just
to
clarify
not
this
disincentivizing
them
and
therefore
we'd
rather
have
the
the
three
or
four
or
five
extra
homes
over
having
fewer
and
one
or
two
affordable
kind
of
housing
abundance
approach,
even
if
it
each
one
is
market
rate.
That's
sort
of
the
idea
behind
it
am
I,
not
understanding
that
properly.
A
J
On
I
guess,
I've
got
a
question
maybe
for
for
you
Dave
about
I,
guess
it's
a
process
question.
If,
if
the
the
plan
for
this
hearing
is
to
move
a
recommendation
forward
to
city
council,
which
is
my
understanding
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
tonight,
do
we
need
specific
guidance
to
make
amendments
in
this
Draft
before
it
goes
to
city
council?
Does
that
need
to
be
part
of?
What
is?
Does
that
need
to
be
part
of
the
motion.
D
Ideally,
yes,
we
would
make
amendments
to
the
the
code.
That
is
an
attachment
of
the
findings
and
that
would
go
forward
to
council.
That
doesn't
mean
that
you
know
that
Council
can't
make
changes
to
that
or
or
that
staff
might
not
even
make
some
suggestions
for
Council
to
to
make
some
tweaks
to
the
Planning
Commission
recommendations,
as
we
do
more
do
more
analysis,
but
but
yeah
we're
the.
If
the
commission
wants
to
make
a
recommendation
tonight,
it
would
be.
D
It
would
include
the
code
amendments
so
and
we
will,
when
we
go
back
to
the
the
actual
code
language,
we
can
kind
of
get
to
a
final
decision.
I
realized.
We
sprung
this
on
you
and
it
was
one
that
kind
of
we
sprung
on
ourselves.
But
the
idea
here
is
that
if
we
allow
short
pla
get
short
plates
the
bonus
and
keep
the
Threshold
at
10
units
and
not
10
Lots
I
think
there
will
be
a
disincentive
for
a
nine
yard.
Lot
short
plat
to
include
middle
housing.
D
J
There
this
is
not
necessarily
new
language.
This
is
language
that
starts
on
page
21,
and
this
has
to
do
with
lot
size.
Averaging
last
time
you
saw
this
draft
I
believe
this
language
was
in
here,
as
sort
of
like
an
option
and
feedback
from
staff
is
that
this
is.
This
is
the
direction
that
that
we
want
to
take
so
we're
replacing
some
existing
language
that
tried
to
get
it
lot,
size
averaging
for
a
couple
of
zones
and
we're
just
allowing
lot
size
averaging
for
all
the
Resident
single
family
residential
zones.
J
J
J
J
J
These
this
language
starts
I
believe
on
page
22.,
and
we
do
have
some
questions
in
here.
There
is
currently
a
bonus
or
an
increase
for
building
coverage
and
hard
surface
coverage.
Those
coverage
maximums
can
be
increased
by
10
and
right
now
the
language
applies
both
to
as
an
incentive.
If
somebody
wants
to
take
an
existing
single
family
home,
retain
it
and
convert
it
or
expand
it
or
add
to
it
to
to
build
to
develop
a
middle
housing
type.
It
also
currently
applies
to
new
metal
housing
types,
so
duplex,
Triplex
fourplex.
J
So
that
is
that's
one
question
there's
also
some
language
in
there
about
providing
front
and
rear
setback
flexibility
so
that,
if
you're
doing
a
middle
housing
type,
you
can
reduce
your
setbacks
by
five
to
ten
feet
and
when
you
see
numbers
in
Brackets,
like
they're
represented
in
this
in
the
code
amendments
in
this
packet,
that
means
there's
a
choice
there
you
know.
Is
it
a
five
foot
reduction?
Is
it
a
10
foot
reduction?
J
So
those
those
standards
are
in
there
and
then
there's
a
couple
of
options
for
additional
parameters
that
we
could
put
on
that
that
we've
talked
about
with
staff.
One
is
that
if
you
reduce
a
front
setback,
for
example,
you
need
to
have
a
reciprocal
increase
of
your
rear
setback
or
if
you
reduce
the
rear
setback,
you
have
to
have
a
reciprocal
increase
in
your
front
setback.
J
Another
option
is
that
reduced
setbacks
can
be
allowed,
but
they
need
to
be
linked
to
tree
preservation.
So
if
you're
trying
to
preserve
a
tree,
that's
on
the
site,
then
then
you
can
use
these
reduced
setbacks
or
if
you
are
trying
to
preserve
some
sort
of
other
natural
amenity,
then
you
can
use
these
reduced
setbacks.
So
I
think
the
question
there
is:
do
we
want
the
setback
flexibility
tied
to
one
of
these
one
of
these
options?
Should
they
just
be
allowed
outright?
J
Should
it
be
both
options?
Should
it
be
one
or
the
other,
so
I
think
there's
some.
You
know
some
some
Nuance
that
needs
to
be
worked
out
there
and
then
I'd
mentioned
the
density
bonus
that
hasn't
hasn't
changed
since
I.
Think
several
drafts
ago,
so
that's
still
there.
So
if
you
do
middle
housing,
you
can
have
up
to
a
40
density
bonus
if
you
are
near
a
Regional,
Trail
or
Transit
and
up
to
20
20.
If
you
are
not
foreign
thoughts
or
discussions
there
or
Dave
anything
that
you
wanted
to
add.
D
So
in
both
cases
these
are
attempts
to
address
those
concerns
and
and
also
with
the
condition
for
preserving
trees
or
creating
new
landscape
or
rain.
Garden
features
that
sort
of
natural
amenities
to
address
the
concern
that
this
will
lead
to
reduction
in
tree
canopy,
so
so
just
to
keep
it
focused.
If
you
could
weigh
in
on
the
the
hard
surface
making
that
conditional,
as
we
did
with
the
corner
lot,
duplexes
first
and
then
get
into
setbacks.
Thank.
F
Westerbeck,
commissioner
westerpick
here
I,
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
conditional.
We
really,
in
my
opinion,
need
to
me
to
be
using
our
land
much
more
efficiently.
10
is
pretty
minor,
and
so,
if
it,
if
it
means
it's
the
difference
between
getting
an
extra
unit
or
or
basically
making
a
missing
middle
Project
work,
you
know
say
it's
a
3,
000
Square
footprint,
that's
a
pretty
good
size
building.
F
F
They
were
one
of
the
first
or
the
first
city
in
the
United
States
to
do
to
I'll
start
allowing
triplexes
on
all
single-family
zones,
one
of
the
things
holding
back
their
housing
production
and
people
using
those
new
codes.
Is
they
didn't
change,
setbacks,
Heights
block
coverage
and
stuff?
It
was
kept
exactly
the
same
as
single
family
houses
and
while
the
spirit
of
missing
middle
is
residential,
friendly,
they're,
often
a
little
a
little
bit
bigger,
but
often
not
much
that
someone
one
would
notice
so
I'm
for
allowing
it
in
all
situations.
D
J
J
A
Measure
increases
in
impervious
surface
coverage,
hard
surfaces
like
roofs,
driveways
and
sidewalks
have
to
be
offset
by
increasingly
larger
infiltration
systems,
rain,
Gardens
or
other
management
techniques
that
take
up
a
lot
of
footprint
for
a
larger
spaces.
So
it
makes
sense
to
me
as
a
stormwater
professional,
that
you
know,
the
increase
in
impervious
coverage
of
10
is
marginal.
A
L
I'm
in
favor
of
both
as
well
I
want
to
acquire
that
this
was
the
same
percent
limitation
and
I
wanted
to
make
sure.
I
I
saw
that
in
there,
because
you
know
you
know
300
500,
whatever
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
was
some
kind
of
limitation
on
it.
So
it
started
to
make
sense
to
me
and
I
think
the
flexibility
will
be
a
benefit
so
I'm
in
favor
as
well.
B
J
D
And
there's
two
setback
issues.
Should
we
allow
a
reduction
setback
with
a
commensurate
increase
on
the
other
side,
so
basically
moving
the?
Should
it
be
conditioned
on
on
keeping
the
same
footprint
number
one
and
number
two
should
it
be
conditioned
on
either
preserving
or
creating
preserving
trees
or
creating
some
new
natural
amenity.
L
L
M
C
J
D
So
we
did
discuss
other
options
to
treat
preservation
and
we
did
add
some
language
to
allow
it
for
a
situation
where
somebody
created
a
so.
If
you
have
a
lot
that
doesn't
have
any
existing
trees
to
preserve,
could
you
create
a
Grove
of
a
certain
type
and
dimension,
and
and
also
take
advantage
of
this
flexibility?
So
so
we
did
put
that
in
there.
D
G
C
B
Thank
you
like
many
other
Commissioners
I'm
interested
in
you
know
preserving
tree
and
other
natural
amenities.
What
really
drew
me
is
I
really
like
the
language
in
this,
that
there
we're
allowing
not
only
to
preserve
significant
trees
or
natural
and
amenities,
but
to
create
them
and
I.
Think
in
that
way,
we
can
allow
and
incentivize
developers
who
really
need,
maybe
a
certain
setback
in
order
for
their
building
to
work
to
then
get
creative
about
what
natural
amenities
can
they
add
so
that
they
qualify
for
these
kinds
of
benefits.
F
F
Blanket
because
he's
like
you
said
if
it's
20
feet,
which
we
often
have
because
of
driveway
aprons
or
front
setbacks
in
the
code
right
now,
I
know
it's
different
in
the
downtown
sub-area
code
that
we
just
save
five
feet
and
again
it's
going
to
likely
be
landscaped
or
something
like
that.
That's
also
going
to
mean
it's
not
going
to
be
a
driveway
which
that
means
a
curb
cut.
F
So
it's
going
to
incentivize
again
a
more
like
a
front
porch
front
stoop
sort
of
development
instead
of
a
driveway
apron
or
something
so
we
might
actually
get
better
development
more
more
friendly,
neighborhood
development
with
that
as
well,
the
kind
that
people
generally
like
in
you
know,
studies
of
what
people
prefer
in
their
neighborhood.
So
you
know
new
urbanism
kind
of
so
I
just
want
to
put
that
out
there.
F
D
The
code
does
include
different
types
of
landscaping,
so
we
said
a
specific
site
and
and
gave
gave
the
commission
some
a
range
of
dimensions
of
that
so
and
and
I
would
say
that
the
I
think
they
go
hand
in
hand,
the
the
reciprocal
and
the
preserving
trees,
because,
basically,
if
you're
going
to
be
preserving
it
needing
to
adjust
setbacks
to
preserve
a
tree
that
what
this
would
do
is
allow
you
to
to
push
it
towards
the
other
side
of
the
lot
either
front
or
back
since
side.
Setbacks
are
already
at
fairly
small.
J
J
D
D
I
think
we
can
is
there.
Oh
sorry,
I'm
realizing
that
we
have
a
couple
of
attendees
that
wanted
to
or
three
attendees
that
wanted
to
speak,
and
so
maybe
if
we
can
kind
of
have
this
high
level
discussion
or
a
little
higher
level
and
then
we'll
get
into
the
details.
When
we
we
go
through
the
code
Page
by
page,
then
we
can
kind
of
finish
the
presentation
and
the
initial
discussion
and
then
open
it
up
for
public
comment
agreed.
Thank
you.
J
J
We
added
language
starting
on
page
24.
Most
of
the
language
is
focused
around
for
both
Cottage
and
Courtyard
housing.
Most
of
the
language
is
focused
around
open
space
and
kind
of
where
and
how
open
space
is
provided
on
the
site
and
how
the
building
inner
building
or
buildings
interact
with
the
open
space
and
then
there's
also
for
both
some
Provisions
around
parking
and
where
parking
can
be
located
again,
really
specific
sort
of
types
of
site
layouts.
J
Most
of
the
brackets
have
to
do
with
the
amount
of
open
space
being
required
dimensions
of
the
open
space
and
in
the
case
of
cottages,
how
much
of
the
Cottages
have
to
abut
that
shared
open
space?
So
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
yeah.
Maybe
we
don't
want
to
get
into
that
level
level
of
detail,
Now,
Dave,
I!
Guess
we
could
we
could
look
for
specific
numbers
or
what
we
could
ask
is
you
know
kind
of
in
Within,
These
ranges:
where
do
we
want
it?
Where
do
we
want
to
lead?
J
D
J
Having
to
do
with
accessory
dwelling
units,
those
start
on
page
26.,
some
of
these
are
not
new.
They.
They
were
part
of
the
last
packet,
the
last
couple
of
packets.
We
did
make
some
changes
based
on
some
feedback
right
now,
where
the
language
is
up
to
two
adus
are
allowed
per
single
family
detached
lot.
J
J
I.
Think
the
question
here
is:
do
we
want
to
also
allow
avus
for
multi-family
units
other
than
town
homes
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
here
Dave,
but
did
we
already
sort
of
address
or
answer
the
question
about
whether
or
not
Adu
should
be
allowed
for
Town
Homes?
Is
that
why
you
I?
Don't
I'm,
not
remembering
the
specifics
around
that
conversation.
D
M
D
J
D
Will
note
that
one
of
the
comments
we
got
was
a
comment
that
it
should
be
a
half
mile
walking
radius
because
some
of
those
radii
go
beyond
rivers
or
freeways
and
and
we've
discussed
that
and
agreed
to
that.
But
I
did
miss
it
in
one
place.
So
I've
inserted
the
walking
distance
in
both
places
where,
where
that's
referenced
and
and
the
waiver
is
is,
would
be
new.
E
G
Hi
Sarah
Gustafson
here
and
I
noticed
that
commissioner
Robson
might
also
have
a
question.
I,
don't
see
the
code
subsection
that
refers
to
on-street
parking
right
now,
I
see
on
page
26
number,
four,
only
that
it
to
waive
the
parking
requirement.
You
need
to
be
close
to
Transit
and
I
am
fine
with
that
and
not
including
the
extra
condition,
but
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we're
on
the
same
page,
before
moving
forward.
J
That
language
is
not
in
there
because
that's
where
that's
where
it
would
be
so
I
think
that
either
is
that
that
must
be
an
oversight,
because
I
I
mean
we
had
the
conversation.
I
know
that
we
intended
to
add
that
Dave
was
there
am
I
forgetting
something
was
there
a
reason
why
we
didn't,
or
did
we
just
forget.
D
G
Is
Sarah
Gustafson
here
I
think
we
should
revisit
the
parking
requirement
when
we
get
to
the
code
section,
because
there's
been
some
discussion
among
the
commission
that
we
should
waive
it.
Even
if
the
Adu,
the
new
Adu,
is
farther
than
a
half
mile
away
from
transit.
I,
don't
know
how
I
feel
about
that.
But
I
would
like
to
have
a
debate
where
we
come
to
some
conclusion.
A
D
J
Sure
I
think
there's
just
a
couple.
Oh,
this
is
the
last
one.
Actually,
this
is
not
new,
but
I
just
wanted
to
put
it
up
there,
because
I
don't
know
that
we
talked
about
it
and
I
just
wanted
to
remind
people
that
we
did
Implement
new
minimum
parking
requirements
for
all
of
the
new
metal
housing
types,
and
this
is
where
they
currently
stand.
J
E
C
D
How
we
can
educate
the
public
more
about
it
to
do
some
analysis
on
with
a
racial
Equity
lens,
particularly
around
potential
displacement
and
anti-displacement
strategies
that
that
might
that
we
might
want
to
consider
so
that
will
all
be
moving
forward,
and
this
is
something
that's
kind
of
been
missing.
When
we've
made
accessory
housing
amendments
in
the
past,
we've
we've
made
the
Amendments
and
then
just
waited
for
the
applicants
to
come
to
us
and-
and
we
realized
that
that
there's
more
work
needed
to
to
to
facilitate
these
new
housing
types.
D
So
with
that
I
think
the
next
slide
is
the
recommended
action.
But
before
we
get
that
I
guess,
the
first
thing
should
have
been
a
bullet
for
public
testimony
and
I
appreciate
Mr
Carter,
you
your
patience
and
since
you
did
put
your
hand
up,
if
you
can
unmute
yeah,
if
we
could
your
testimony
three
minutes.
H
Okay,
so,
basically
real
quick
of
going
over
the
notes
and
things
that
you
guys
have
mentioned
I
would
appreciate,
going
and
seeing
you
incentivize
the
natural
trees
and
Landscapes
as
far
as
the
buffer
zones,
I've
got
a
big
Cedar
on
my
property.
I.
Think
it's
a
wonderful
tree
and
it
takes
up
a
whole
lot
of
water.
H
The
other
thing
that
I'm
concerned
about
on
the
proposal
is,
is
that
if
you
go
to
the
Portland
proposal
on
how
they
do
adus,
they
describe
it
as
by
footprint
of
the
area
of
the
structure,
that's
built
not
by
the
total
square
footage
of
the
unit,
your
limitation
at
a
thousand
square
foot
I
think
is
too
limiting.
If
you
go
to
like
Architects
Northwest
and
just
look
up
88
Adu,
they
actually
have
a
1200
square
foot
model
there.
That
would
actually
fit
very
nicely
on
a
lot
of
properties,
but
a
1200
square
foot.
H
It's
too
large
for
the
Bothell
plant,
which
is
kind
of
bad
when
you
consider
that
that's
just
a
Woodenville
property,
just
a
few
miles
down
the
road
going
into
doing
the
business
for
designs.
The
other
thing
I
go
and
I
see
is
that
you
have
a
limit
on
your
Adu,
that's
about
500
or
150
square
foot,
which
I
think
is
really
ridiculously
small.
That's
my
shed
and
I
would
go
and
I'd
hate
to
go
and
put
anyone
in
that
I
would
prefer
to
go
and
see
an
Adu.
H
H
We
maximize
the
amount
of
occupancy
that
can
be
put
into
the
area
and
instead
of
going
and
putting
in
Long
flat
housing
that
takes
up
land,
we
can
go
vertical,
make
use
of
the
35
foot
ceiling
and
you
know
make
a
better
downtown
and
residential
area.
That's
basically
it
hopefully
I
made
it
within
three
minutes.
J
D
The
150
and
400
limits,
I,
don't
believe,
are
there
so.
Basically,
the
current
limit
on
adus
is
800
square
feet,
we're
increasing
that
to
a
thousand
square
feet
and
we're
also
well
we're
keeping
a
provision
that
allows
say
if
you
have
a
house
with
a
1200
square
foot
footprint
and
a
daylight
basement,
you
can
get
in
and
accept
apply
for
an
exception
to
allow
converting
the
full
basement
area
to
an
Adu.
D
The
idea
behind
limiting
the
area
is
to
to
keep
them
relatively
smaller
and
relatively
more
affordable,
we're
applying
the
same
1000
square
foot
limit
for
cottages,
and
now
that
we
are
allowing
middle
housing.
If
you
want
to
do
a
larger
unit,
larger
than
thousand
square
foot,
you
can
do
it
as
a
as
a
duplex
or
or
a
middle
housing
type.
There
are
no
size
limits
on
the
middle
housing
types
other
than
adus
and
cottages.
H
H
H
D
M
Yes,
I
have
three
comments
which
I
sent
to
you
earlier
today
as
an
email,
so
I
hope
you
have
all
gotten
them.
So
I
will
just
summarize
these
quickly.
The
first
one
relates
to
the
distance
from
transit
and
Regional
Trail
access,
I'm
delighted
to
hear
that
you
left
out
by
accident
the
walking
provision,
but
I
would
still
like
to
see
this
reduced
to
one
quarter
mile
from
transit
or
Regional
Trail,
and
the
reason
for
this
is
that
it
is
very.
M
This
does
not
get
you
to
your
destination
You're
simply
to
the
Regional
Trail
itself,
and
that
I
feel
that
a
quarter
mile,
recognizing
the
difficulty
of
getting
to
that
Regional
Trail
with
few
Bridges
and
major
highways,
is
a
reasonable
amount,
and
that
also
is
because
these
area,
this
Trail,
is
not
illuminated
after
dark
and
once
we
get
into
the
dark
season,
you've
got
it's
not
a
safe
place
to
be
so
one
quarter
mile.
Thank
you
for
the
walking.
M
The
second
thing
has
not
been
discussed
since
an
early
early
comment
by
the
consultant
about
easy
access
on
one
floor
and
I
believe
this
was
in
a
a
place
in
Oregon
and
I
would
very
much
like
to
see
this
provision
added
to
the
to
the
code
Amendment,
and
there
were
a
number
of
planning
Commissioners
who
found
this.
Also
very
favorable.
So
I
suggest
that
it
would
be
a
positive
to
make
it
for
ability
of
people
of
all
abilities,
particularly
elderly
people,
to
to
use
these
facilities
to
use
the
middle
housing
facilities.
M
And,
finally,
this
impervious
coverage
where
you've
had
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
10
percent,
the
20
percent
and
the
40
improve
your
surface
coverage.
Improve
increases
I.
Ask
that
that
be
not
allowed
within
the
shoreline
management
area,
which
is
the
200
feet
from
the
ordinary
high
water
mark
from
the
Sammamish
River
and
from
North
Creek
that
are
all
covered
under
the
shoreline
master
program.
A
D
N
Hi,
my
name
is
just
Buford.
I
was
here
last
week,
a
topic
of
about
11
of
the
60
Minutes
was
my
lot.
Sort
of
the
main
thing
I
saw
effectively
is
still
always
going
to
be
about
parking
in
the
end,
it
really
is
I
gave
I
think
pretty
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that
that
not
all
places
are
equal
if
you're
living
on
both
away.
You
know
where
the
BCU
is
in
in
in
Amaro
like
I.
N
Get
it
right
like
there's,
definitely
limited
street
parking
there,
but
we
have
really
really
large
rights
of
way,
at
least
on
West
Hill
and
there's
just
they're
just
empty
all
the
time.
I
understand
what
it's
like
to
be
in
downtown
Seattle
I,
sometimes
have
to
go
to
a
friend's
house.
That's
in
Ballard,
I
I
know
what
he
I
know
what
this
Mr
Carter
meant
when
he
meant
that
the
streets
are
crowded,
but
we
also
have
to
remember
that
it's
not
going
to
be
all
multi-family
zones
really
tightly
packed
or
whatever.
N
If
you
know
where
the
white
Farm
is
the
white
fenced
Farm
is
so
that's
why
I
in
the
last
meeting
commissioner
gupperson
mentioned,
you
know
if
you
have
some
way
of
maybe
defining
or
even
not,
defining
adequate
street
parking.
Maybe
you
can
waive
it
for
a
wave.
The
parking
for
for
adus,
it's
just
I,
I,
think
context.
Matters
and,
and
going
to
the
least
sort
of
common
denominator
can
limit
options.
N
Where,
honestly,
we
have
so
much,
you
know
try
to
give
a
quick
story
when
at
first
I
believed
when
my
computer
is
a
lot
of
free
memory.
I
thought
that
was
a
great
thing.
I
thought
I
had
a
lot
of
room
to
do
more
work,
but
then
I
went
to
Microsoft
and
I
talked
to
a
person
who
put
in
a
feature
who
had
intentionally
fills
that
memory
and
I'm
like
what
are
you
doing
now?
This
computers
have
no
free
memory
and
he's
like
he
told
me
something
that
changed.
N
My
mindset
on
this
he
said
unused
memory
is
wasted
memory,
it's
like
having
a
big
drafting
table
and
then
having
a
filing
cabinet
over
there
and
saying.
Oh
I
should
leave
a
lot
of
room
in
my
drafting
table
because
you
know
it's
good
to
have
a
lot
of
room
and
then
having
to
walk
over
the
filing
cabinet
and
get
it
it's
just.
It's
wasted
space,
and
in
this
case
we
have
at
least
in
West
Hill
a
lot
of
room
to
park.
N
It's
just
it
it's
just
not
the
same
as
both
away
and
and
stuff
so
I
get
where
he's
coming
from.
But
where
I
live
yeah,
it's
not
a
problem
and
these
parking
these
parking
restrictions
might
limit
my
ability
to
convert
my
garage,
even
though,
like
literally
nobody
parks
there
overnight,
I'm
gonna
try
to
get
through
a
few
of
the
things
that
were
talked
about
really
quickly:
storm
water.
N
When
I
built
my
garage
I
had
to
do
you
know
quite
a
bit:
I
had
to
do
a
storm
water
plan
which
was
effectively
a
nice
dry
well
and,
and
that
was
signed
off
on
I.
Don't
think
10
would
have
changed
anything
for
my
storm
water
management
plan.
We
have
these
big
schedule,
40
pipes
or
whatever
you
know,
yeah
I
I.
Think
10,
like
commissioner
westervix
said,
was,
was
reasonably
marginal.
N
Let's
see,
I
think
it's
corn
log
duplexes
I've
been
downgraded
a
little
bit
with
these
proposed
code
amendments
and
and
it's
a
little
bit
I
find
a
single
family
attached
definition
to
be
a
little
bit
strange,
I'm,
not
really
sure
what
it
means
like
I
have
a
duplex.
That's
a
very
traditional,
side-by-side
duplex
in
in
Monroe
and
I
gotta,
wonder!
Is
that
a
single
family
attached
or
is
it
a
duplex
like
I,
don't
know
yeah,
so
we
removed
the
option
of
adus
being
possibly
a
duplex.
N
N
Just
wasn't
clear
why
we
did
okay,
you
can
have
one
attached
one
attached,
I'm,
not
sure
why
the
distinction
is
there,
I
have
a
configuration
in
my
home
where
there's
a
400
square
foot
room
that
could
easily
be
a
very
nice
studio
and
I
have
the
garage
that's
20,
20
by
24
by
30
and
a
10
by
10
bedroom,
so
800
square
feet.
I
could
do
a
two
bedroom
unit
there,
so
I
could
have
turned
it
into
two
adus,
but
because
they're
both
attached
I
can't
do
it.
I,
probably
won't
but
I'm.
N
Just
saying
I
just
didn't
know
where
the
distinction
came
from
for
parking.
I,
don't
have
a
dog
in
this
fight,
but
multi-family
kind
of
gets
screwed
over
they're
still
on
the
two
plus
versus
the
the
OnePlus
OnePlus
extra.
So
the
multi-family
and
I
don't
care
as
much
but
I'm
just
saying,
they're
still
getting
the
old
rules
and
I'm
just
making
sure
I
covered
everything
that
yeah
the
reciprocal
setbacks.
Well,
one
I
I
really
wish
that
the
the
side
by
the
side
side
backs
were
just
set
to
five
that
didn't
happen.
N
N
On
the
other
side,
it's
just
weird
I
I,
just
don't
get
it,
and
as
far
as
reciprocality
I
can
understand
that
you
just
want
to
move
the
building
around,
but
I
also
felt
that
some
of
these
multi-family
buildings,
like
duplex
Triplex,
whatever
do-
have
a
slightly
bigger
footprint,
and
it
would
have
been
nice
to
have
more
buildable
land.
Thank
you
for
three
minutes.
Thank.
D
Would
you
like
to
go
to
the
the
actual
code,
language
and
and
just
work
through
the
Page
by
page
I,
think
that's
reasonable,
yeah?
Let's
do
that
and
I
think
it's
good
to
go
ahead
and
start
with
that.
While
we
have
Sarah
breakstone
with
us
until
eight
and
and
then
we
can
deal
with
the
findings
at
the
end.
A
J
M
J
J
C
A
They're
at
the
top
of
page
22.,
so
we're
discussing
right
now
these
three
questions:
how
far
should
setbacks
be
allowed
to
be
reduced?
Two
should
reductions
be
conditioned
on,
preserving
and
or
creating
natural
amenities
and
three
is
their
support
for
the
natural
amenity
description
in
number
three
below.
G
Sarah
gustafs
in
here
I
think
we
came
to
a
consensus.
The
hard
part
is
Translating
that
into
legal
wording.
So
my
question
for
Sarah
breaks,
then
is:
do
you
want
us
to
Wordsmith
it
between
us
or
do
you
want
to
put
the
words
out
there
and
then
we
can
say.
Yes,
that's
what
we
were
thinking
or
no
that's
a
little
bit
off
what
would
be
the
best
way
to
proceed.
J
I
think
you
can
just
tell
us
what
you
you
know,
what
what
the
intent
that
you're
looking
for
is
here
and
we
can
worry
about
the
language
and
translate
that
into
into
the
code
language
and
I
I'm,
not
yeah,
I
guess
I'm,
not
sure
that
I
heard
a
consensus.
What
when
we
talked
about
it,
the
first
time
I
don't
know
if
we
need
additional
conversation,
but
but
yeah
you
can
just
you
can
just
tell
us
what
what
you
want
us
to
do
and
we'll
worry
about
the
specific
language.
L
J
What
the
consensus
was
to
go
ahead
and
allow
those,
because
we
want
to
provide
that
flexibility.
So
that's
one
piece
and
then
for
the
setbacks.
We
want
to
allow
the
flexibility
with
the
reciprocal
setback,
adjustments
unless
they're
preserving
a
tree,
in
which
case
they
can
have
setback
adjustments,
and
they
don't
need
to
be
reciprocal.
So
those
those
two
things
is
what
we're
moving
forward.
Observing.
G
A
B
I
just
remembered
that
commissioner
westerbeck
mentioned
that
it
should
be
a
minimum
of
five
feet
so
as
opposed
to
having
the
increase
setback,
be
adjusted
either
five
feet
or
ten
feet
in
one
direction.
We
just
say
it
can
be
adjusted
with
a
minimum
of
five
feet
of
Frontage
and
then
maybe
we
could
do
the
same
in
the
back,
with
a
minimum
of
whatever
allowing
them
to
adjust
as
necessary
as
to
take
whatever
space
they
needed.
B
A
F
You
I
want
to
concur
with
commissioner
Robson
that
that
you,
you
had
my
my
thoughts
right
five
foot
minimum
at
the
front.
I
would
imagine
I
know
that
the
exam,
for
example
in
our
downtown
sub-area
code,
the
the
downtown
transition,
has
five
feet
on
front
sides
and
back,
and
that
seems
to
work
pretty
well.
I
think
that
zone
personally
should
be
zero
lot
line.
F
But
that
is
not
a
discussion
for
tonight
at
all,
because
it's
downtown
here,
though,
it
seems
appropriate
and
I
I
I'm,
going
from
memory,
I
I
thought
we
at
some
point
discussed
a
reduction
down
to
a
possible
three
foot
setback
on
the
sides
which
the
IRC
and
IBC
allow
for
for
fire.
If
you
do
a
one
hour,
rated
wall,
which
wouldn't
be
an
unusual
thing
for
a
for
a
more
dense
housing
type
did
I.
F
D
C
F
I
just
couldn't
remember:
I
I
brought
it
up
because
I
know
someone
else
mentioned
it
in
in
one
of
the
the
resident
feedback,
letters
that
we
received
and
I
thought.
Oh
I
do
remember
talking
about
that,
so
she
might
have
been
looking
at
an
older
draft
or
something
and
I've
there's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
text
and
I
do
read
the
packet
but
I'd
forgotten.
If
we
like,
you
said
if
we'd
resolved,
that
that
might
be
a
suggestion,
I
would
look
at
I.
F
Don't
need
to
throw
a
monkey
wrench
in
it
tonight,
but
I
I
wanted
to
bring
that
up.
Since
I
thought
we
had
discussed
it.
One
point
yeah
five,
five
foot
on
the
on
the
front
and
then
yeah
I
like
I,
like
the
idea
of
missing
metal,
allowing
five
feet
on
all
sides
as
an
absolute
minimum
or
even
three
on
the
sides,
but
because,
as
a
commissioner
kurd
said,
we're
going
to
run
up
against.
Well,
of
course,
those
might
be
in
somewhat
in
Conflict.
F
Well,
I,
don't
know
they
shouldn't
be,
but
they'll
be
offset
by
lot
coverage
and
in
previous
surface
coverage.
Structural
coverage
issues
as
well
as
storm
water,
lad.
I
think
the
city
still
requires
low
impact
development
to
be
looked
at
first
for
storm
water,
so
naturally
one
of
those
things
is
going
to
govern.
A
F
C
F
J
F
It
just
allows
you
to
move
to
move
the
building
around
more.
You
got
more
more
latitude,
so
you
know,
maybe
they
do
need
to
put
parking
in
the
back
or
something
like
that.
They
say.
Well,
we
want
to
push
it
to
the
front,
we're
going
to
have
a
nice
porch
or
something
like
that
and-
and
that
also
allows,
for
example,
parking
to
be
a
little
a
little
closer,
if
necessary,
so
sometimes
parking
at
me
in
the
setback,
depending
on
the
code.
J
A
F
D
D
J
J
F
Going
then
well
I
will
make
one
comment:
I've.
No,
you
know
in
permitting
a
lot
of
projects
as
an
architect
of
the
years.
A
lot
of
cities
are
employing
aerial,
photography
and
satellites
GIS,
and
they
they
can
tell
when
you've
added
things
to
your
yard
and
sheds
and
additions.
I
had
a
client
who
came
to
me
and
they
had
unpermitted
things
and
the
the
city
as
soon
as
someone
went
in
excuse
me
when
I
went
in
with
some
information,
they
said:
oh
this
stuff's
new.
F
L
D
We
have
this
the
same
issue
with
the
trees
that
are
preserved
throughout
trees,
preservation,
ordinance
they're,
often
on
the
on
the
rear
sides
of
lots.
So
I
would
just
say
that
that
the
concern
was
losing
tree
canopy,
so
I
think
adding
canopy
on
the
back
side
is
still
a
public
benefit
as
well
as
and
and
it
also
provides
additional
buffer
to
the
adjacent
property.
So,
okay.
J
A
All
right
so
we're
on
page
23
at
the
packet.
These
two
questions
are:
should
the
density
bonus
apply
to
both
short
plots
and
full
subdivisions,
as
shown
and
number
12
below,
and
the
second
portion
of
that
is
should
short
plots
that
achieve
10
or
more
primary
dwelling
units
through
the
density
bonus
be
required
to
provide
an
affordable
unit
per
12.07,
as
shown
in
E
below,
or
would
that
be
a
disincentive
to
creating
that
metal
housing
in
larger
short
plats.
G
Sarah
Gustafson
here
I
think
we
decided
to
exempt
short
plots
from
this
code
section.
Let's
make
sure
that
that's
the
consensus
in
that
case,
if
that
were
the
case,
would
we
just
cross
subsection
e
out
and
I
would
still
recommend
that
if
the
same
developer
is
doing
two
or
more
short
plots,
then
we
might
want
to
impose
those
restrictions
and
threshold
anyway.
G
J
G
L
D
J
F
Thank
you,
commissioner,
kurd
and
and
I.
You
know.
I
know
I
suggested
units
earlier,
and
then
there
was
some
discussion
a
little
while
ago
about
the
benefits
of
lots
versus
units
and
I
honestly
got
a
little
lost
in
that.
So
I
don't
want
to.
You
know,
suggest
that
there
needs
to
be
units
if
other
Commissioners
found
the
compelling
the
idea
of
units
more
compelling
or
excuse
me
separate
lots
more,
compelling,
I,
know
senior
planner
Boyd
made
a
good
point
about
that.
F
Like
I,
said,
I
started
going
in
circles
in
my
head
and
didn't
completely
follow
it
just
embarrassing,
because
I
read
code
for
living,
but
it
was
a
little
confusing
to
me
and
the
the
benefits
or
I
could
see
the
benefits
of
units
but
the
the
drawbacks.
So
if
anybody
had
strong
feelings
about
that,
I'm
willing
to
keep
it,
keep
it
open
mind.
G
Sarah
Gustafson
here
I
still
am
on
the
same
topic
of
the
same
developer.
My
thought
is,
if
you
have
one
developer,
who
might
be
building
in
two
or
three
different
short
plots
that
are
not
adjacent
and
are
scattered
over
the
city,
they're
still
mobilizing
and
they're
still
earning
a
lot
of
Revenue
I
would
suggest
that
they
should
still
be
subject
to
the
affordable
housing
requirements.
Even
if
it's
not
adjacent.
F
Thank
you
for
answering,
participating,
I
want,
and
if
that
was
the
case,
what
would
it
maybe
be
that
there
would
have
to
be
a
time
period
between
projects
Maybe
like
six
months
minimum,
or
something
like
that?
If
that
were
to,
if
it
seems
like
you
know,
we
start
to
get
a
little
detailed,
not
that
it's
not
a.
You
know
viable
idea.
I
just
want
to
flesh
it
out
a
little
bit.
O
I'm
going
to
chime
in
over
from
the
corner
on
that
and
just
put
out
there
from
staff's
perspective
that
might
be
very
difficult
to
enforce,
and
we'd
probably
want
to
talk
with
our
our
our
City
attorney
before
adding
it
to
the
code.
There
may
be
some
complications
there,
although
it
is
definitely
something
where
it's
like
would
be
really
nice
to
do,
because
I
get
where
you're
going
with
it
that
they
are
creating
several
units.
They
just
don't
happen
to
be
part
of
one
contained
review
product.
O
D
D
Before
we
take
it
to
council,
so
if
but
I
I
think
it
would
would
be
problematic
to
apply
requirements
to
disparate
projects
in
different
locations
around
the
city
and
and
location
and
developments.
That
would
probably
be
happening
at
different
times
as
well.
So,
but
we
we
can
run
it
run
it
up.
The
flagpole
yeah.
G
D
J
D
I
think,
to
the
degree
we
can
get
some
specific
Direction
that'd
be
good,
or
you
know
if
you
and
I'd
also
like
to
say
that
there's
a
question
in
the
textbook
above
about
whether
we
need
all
of
the
conditions
so
say.
For
example,
2
B
through
D
are
ones
that
may
be
hard
to
achieve
on
long
narrow,
Lots,
which
we
have
a
lot
of
in
Bothell.
D
D
F
Me
once
again,
you
know
I'm
going
to
be
a
six
foot
person
because
again
as
long
as
it's
a
one-hour
rate,
while
it
meets
the
building
code,
which
I
think
is
perfectly
sufficient
for
governing
this,
and
and
it's
it's
a
college
development,
so
a
little
more
snug
setbacks
and
and
passageways,
and
things
like
that
can
create
good
planning
and
good
intimacy
of
well-designed
some
of
the
most.
You
know
delightful
places.
We
all
travel
to
have
narrow
passages
between
buildings
and
we
find
it.
You
know
wonderful,
so
I'm,
fine
with
that.
C
D
E
F
Yeah,
because
I'm,
when
I
did
my
project
D
in
the
DN
Zone,
it
was
100,
I
believe
but
hope,
I'm,
remembering
that
correctly,
I'm,
okay
with
150.
I
mean
more,
is
nicer
and
I.
Think
if
there's
space
on
site
a
lot
of
Builders
developers
are
going
to
probably
make
make
them
larger
because
it's
an
amenity
and
they
want
to
get
you
know
top
rent
or
top
dollar.
But
by
saying
it
can
be
as
little
as
150
say:
that's
10
by
15.,
that's
pretty
reasonable.
F
It's
a
nice
place
to
to
Garden
or
to
hang
out
with
your
friends
so
and
if
it
makes,
if
it
gives
us
an
extra
housing
unit
or
two
and
people
are
you
know,
Cottage
communities
are
really
really
really
popular.
They
they
when
they
go
on
the
market,
they
sell
quickly
and
they
resell
quickly.
So
I,
don't
think
anybody's
gonna.
Unless
it's
really
really
poorly
designed.
You're
gonna
find
that
to
be
a
sticking
point
if
they
were
to
want
to
live
in
that
community.
D
F
A
So
one
of
the
things
that
I
noticed
in
my
Portland
trip
was
that
some
of
these
Cottage
courts
had
shared
open
space
amenities,
so
it
wasn't
necessarily
just
Landscaping.
It
could
have
been
a
bike.
Storage,
locker
or
one
had
a
sauna
outdoor
sauna,
and
so
I
would
tend
to
concur
that
you
know
150
feet
per
square
feet
per
Cottage
can
combine
pretty
quickly
once
we're
getting
into
the
you
know,
multiple
Cottages,
because
if
it's
only
two
Cottages,
that's
not
a
Cottage
Court,
that's
a
dude!
A
A
F
You
know
you
know
what
I'm
going
to
say:
I
think
15
is
fine,
20
is
better,
but
not
putting
a
constraint
lower
than
15
is
fine
with
me
or
higher
than
15.
That's
fine
with
me.
It
might
be
a
smaller
Cottage
Court
that
would
employ
that
the
bigger
more
generous
ones,
I
would
hope
would
be
a
little
larger
because
20s,
if
you
got
a
decent
sized
site,
20
is
not
much
bigger
and
again
they're
gonna
probably
have
a
little
better
Financial
return,
but
15.
A
You
know,
project
I
think
that
this
sort
of
minimum
Dimension
is
very
Project
Specific,
so
on
long
and
narrow,
Lots
15
feet
might
even
be
restrictive.
If
it's
a
shared,
you
know
open
space,
Bike
Locker,
that
is
you
know
very
long
and
narrow
might
not
need
to
be
15
feet,
but
I
do
understand
the
importance
of
having
a
minimum
here,
just
so
that
it's
not
exploited.
B
Eight
Tails
nicely
into
what
you
were
saying:
are
we
always
sure
that
shared
Open
Spaces
are
going
to
be
rectangles
I?
What?
If,
if
we're
talking
in
any
Dimension?
Well,
what,
if
I
don't
know,
there's
a
Nook
in
one
corner
or
something's
Moon
shaped
I,
don't
want
I,
don't
think
we
can
rule
that
out.
Then
you
can
be
like
well
there's
this
Dimension
over
here
and
well,
you
know.
Generally,
you
know
we
can
be
like.
D
I
guess
I
would
say
that
the
so
if
you
had
a
10
unit,
Cottage
development
with
150
square
that'd
be
1500
square
feet.
In
theory,
that
could
be
a
15
by
100
foot
Passage
through
between
and
I.
Think
15
is
probably
a
pretty
minimal
minimum
Dimension
and
still
allows
a
very
fair
amount
of
flexibility
in
different
kinds
of
spaces
that
could
be
created
and
I
did
have
a
chance
to
check
the
downtown.
D
C
I
A
L
B
B
The
way
it's
written
here
with
that
any
space
would
be
a
minimum
of
15
feet
wide
I'm
in
any
Dimension
anywhere.
Even
if
you
split
it
up,
it
would
still
need
to
be
15
feet
by
15
feet
and
then
I'm
I,
don't
know
the
strict
definition.
If
you
could
then
split
it
to
several
open
spaces
around,
but
I,
don't
think
that's
generally
how
it
works.
I
think
all
the
Cottages
need
to
face
one
open
space
I'm,
not
sure,
though,
if
they
can
split
up
the
open
space
or
how
that
works.
D
I
was
checking
that
downtown.
We
have
a
similar
dimensional
requirement
there
that
I'm
not
finding
but
I,
believe
it's
20
feet
in
in
the
downtown
code.
Yeah
minimum
width
of
public
space
will
be
20
feet,
which
is
proof
workable.
Some
developers
have
tried
to
push
that
and
and
where,
where
they're
allowed
to
do
smaller
spaces,
we
allow
it
to
go
down
to
15
minimum
15.,
so
I
think
that's
a
defensible
standard.
A
We
have
decided
the
minimum
of
15
feet
and
whether
that's
a
circle
with
the
radius
of
15
feet
or
whatever
I
think
that's
a
little.
It
should
be
intuitive
and
I
hesitate
knowing
that
loophole.
This
is
possibly
like
creating
a
potential
for
a
loophole,
but
trusting
that
the
discretion
of
the
community
development
director
will
be
to
know
that
it
should
be
usable
space.
F
I
will
I'll
give
a
little
plug
for
senior
planner
Boyd
and
his
crew
back
when
I
was
working
on
a
project
and
they
were
flexible
with
me
and
they
were
working
with
with
the
spirit,
not
always
the
exact
number
and-
and
you
know,
create
created
something
I
think
that
worked
just
fine.
So
anyway,
the
community
development
director
does
get
to
have
some
flexibility.
L
F
Unless
someone
else
was
there,
we're
gonna
go:
go
ahead:
I'm,
okay,
once
again,
with
the
minimum
I
studied
Cottages
quite
a
bit
as
I
know.
Others
have
and
visited
several
projects
by
the
cottage
company.
Quite
a
few
I
was
at
some
recently
and
I
was
talking
to
some
of
the
owners
and
there's
a
variety
at
like
Danielson
Grove
and
Kirkland.
There's
one
they're
like
a
mile
from
each
other
one's
Kirkland,
one
written's
Redmond,
it's
Conover
Commons
and
Danielson
Grove,
they're,
they're,
well
known
and
Ross
Chapin's
book
and
everything.
F
But
some
people
really
want
to
be
on
the
Green
and
then
some
are
kind
of
down
a
pathway
and
there
were
owners
who
preferred
to
be
a
little
more
sequestered
back
in
the
forest
and
didn't
really
necessarily
want
to
be
on
the
Green,
and
there
were
others
who
really
want
the
community
of
being
on
the
green.
So
it's
interesting
to
hear
there
was
a
little
something
for
each
of
them,
so
I.
F
A
A
A
A
Compensate
yeah,
that's
it
would
letter.
C
would
start
with
all
Cottages
shall
be
within
60
feet.
Walking
distance
measured
from
the
nearest
entrance
of
the
cottage
along
the
substrate
is
safe,
walking
route
to
the
nearest
point
of
the
shared
open
space,
and
this
would
make
sure
that
the
shared
open
space
is
accessible,
but
that
there
can
be
diversity
in
location
of
this.
The
homes
to
the
open
space.
L
I
think
my
only
comment
is:
are
we?
How
are
we
going
to
Define
say
for
or
you
would
need
it
up
to
developer
or
how
safe
in
terms
of
you
know
no
criminally
safe
or
safe
from
obstructions
or
just
a
safe,
clear,
walking
path?
What
are
we
gonna
I
think
we
should
take
things
out
because
I
feel
like
safe
can
be
open
to
Too.
Much
interpretation
I
think
everybody
knows
what
they.
B
B
D
A
D
D
F
I'll
chime
in
oddly
enough
I'm
not
going
to
take
a
hard
line
on
this
one
within,
say
six
feet
because
there's
a
like
in
the
like
Congress
and
new
urbanism
folks
and
stuff
they'll
often
say
you
got
to
have
a
minimum
of
like
eight
feet
for
the
front.
Porch
they're
they're
big
on
that
so
they've
drilled,
that
into
me
I,
don't
think
six
would
be
the
end
of
the
world.
So
again,
I
don't
feel
like
I
really
have
a
dog
in
this
bike,
but
a
lot
of
people
feel
like
a
private
spaceship.
F
A
B
Along
that
token,
though,
do
we
really
want
to
cancel
how
if
they
can't
pencil
that
out,
do
we
want
to
be
lit
like
have
them
remove
a
whole
Cottage,
because
they
can't
I
mean
you
bought
your
place,
though,
even
though
you
have
less
than
eight
feet,
aren't
you
glad
you
have
that
place?
I
mean
we're
saying
a
minimum
of
six
feet.
They
could
give
more,
and
you
know
it
sounds
like
the
standard
is
very
often
eight
feet,
but
if
they
can
add
an
extra
Cottage,
they
just
can
only
provide
six
feet.
B
A
That's
a
good
point:
I
would
also
say
that
private
open
space
could
be
a
roof
deck
right
or
there
could
be
some
creative
ways
around
that
too.
So
I'm
really
actually
excited
most
excited
in
all
these
amendments.
For
the
cottage,
because
I
know
that
this
is
going
to
stimulate
a
lot
of
creativity
and
I
I'm
here
for
it
that
said
yes,
I,
I,
guess
I,
don't
really
have
a
huge.
L
D
Noted
changing
the
numbering
and
that
that
takes
us
on
to
Courtyard
housing,
the
other
kind
of
special
housing
types.
The
reason
we
have
we're
focusing
on
the
courtyard
and
Cottages
because
they
don't
really
fit
on
a
single
family
lot,
so
they've
got
a
little
bit
different
and
they
they
have
the
shared
open
space
requirements.
So.
D
A
F
Commissioner,
kurd
yeah,
I
I
would
agree
we
could
we
could
do
the
same
I'm
when
I
think
about
these
I
think
about
them,
sort
of
holistically
or
globally
kind
of
you
know
human
dimensions
and
stuff
like
that.
So
if
we,
if
we
copied
most
of
the
same,
if
not
all
the
same
from
the
courtyard
of
cottage
housing
I'd
be,
might
be
fine.
D
F
I
know
I'm
talking
a
lot.
I
would
just
point
out
as
a
point
of
clarification
for
the
others
and
Dave
knows
as
well.
We
require
60
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
in
the
sub-area
code
for
the
downtown
area,
just
as
a
point
of
reference
so
and
we
can
set
it
up.
You
know
more
urban
urban
place
so
and
I'm
okay
with
60
there
as
well.
A
D
And
then
it's
not
a
very
well,
it's
not
a
variable,
but
I.
Think
in
in
your
code,
at
the
section
subsection
six
d,
the
screening
of
off
street
parking
has
some
x's,
some
placeholders
and
I'm,
proposing
what
we
use
in
other
codes
for
parking
screening,
which
is
a
Type
3
Landscaping.
That
is
at
least
five
feet
wide.
D
I'm
gonna
have
to
look
it
up.
Thank
you.
Don't
have
that
memorized,
but
it
shouldn't
take
too
long.
It's.
It
is
heavy
on
deciduous
trees
for
to
provide
shading
for
for
parking
areas.
Type
3
is
intended
to
provide
a
visual
relief
between
incompatibility
pleases
and
against
building
facades.
A
mixed.
It's
a
mixture
of
deciduous
and
coniferous
with
the
maximum
75
deciduous
space
25
feet
on
Center.
C
D
D
Based
on
the
discussion
we've
had
with
about
middle
housing.
Those
restrictions
seemed
they.
They
went
beyond
what
we're
we
haven't
proposed.
Any
such
restrictions
for
Middle
housing,
so
we're
proposing
striking
those
from
the
accessory
housing
code
and
the
I
guess.
The
more
substantive
question
there
is:
should
the
the
way
we've
drafted
the
code,
we
would
allow
middle
housing
accessory
units
with
any
primary
unit
and
we've
defined
middle
housing
units
as
primary
units,
but
only
one
for
situations
where
it's
not
a
detached
single-family
house.
F
Westerbeck
can
I
ask
you
a
clarifying
question,
I
I
like
this,
and
because
it
sounds
like
you
said
you
had
some
residents,
who'd
asked
about
it
in
the
past,
so
a
lot
of
Townhouses
don't
have
much
extra
space.
So
this
these
must
be
lots,
maybe
they're
older
townhouses
or
newer
ones
that
have
more
space.
So
ostensibly
they
have
the
the
space
to
meet
the
setback
requirements
and-
and
is
it
you
know,
townhouse-
takes
up
a
lot
of
its
space.
F
F
F
D
D
F
D
F
Clarification
do
we
cover
the
question
that
commissioner
Gustafson
had
about
the
waived
language?
What
was
missing
from
four?
Was
it
item
accessory
dwelling
units
item?
Four?
Didn't
you
say
they
had
the
waiver?
The
line
was
entirely
missing.
Did
we
get
that
in
the
record
somehow,
because
I
think
we're
going
to
come
back
to
it.
B
F
D
F
F
D
F
One
one
thing
that
relates
to
that
one
great
thing
about
being
in
Seattle
probably
frustrates
a
lot
of
people,
some
of
those
tight
streets,
yeah
they've,
slowed
people
down
and
there's
less
less
opportunities
for
traffic
violence
getting
hit.
But
when
you're
on
a
bike
or
walking
when
cars
have
to
be
really
careful,
that's
something
they
actually
employ
in,
like
on
the
Netherlands
and
places
like
that,
where
you
have
to
be
on
guard
and
it
slows
you
down
so
I,
don't
think
having
extra
cars
on
the
street
is
such
a
bad
thing.
L
Problem
I
I
think
I
probably
have
been
a
proponent
of
not
waving
for
street
parking
and
I.
Won't
I
won't
go
there
again,
but
I
just
want
us
to
think
about
the
fact
that
we're
talking
about
bike
lanes
and
things
on
the
streets
as
well
and
some
of
those
changes.
My
Main
Street,
the
narrower
Elementary.
Those
things
are
going
to
be
taken
into
consideration
when
we're
talking
about
where
we're
wasting
the
parking
requirement,
it's
been
street
parking
and
does
that
change?
L
B
D
Some
jurisdictions
require
a
study
and
and
actually
look
at
parking
utilization
within
an
area.
The
others
basically
just
say.
If,
if
there
is
street
parking
within
a
certain
radius,
say
200
feet
or
200
feet
of
the
lot,
then
there's
an
assumption
that
that
there
will
be
available
parking
one
reason
to
to
condition
it
would
be
a
former
commissioner
Dodd
mentioned
that
she
her
house
is
an
area
that
has
no
street
parking
so
to
question
whether
whether
we
could
eliminate
it
in
all
cases,
so.
B
B
So
I
I
like
the
idea
of
having
the
developer
when,
when
we
say
available
on
street
parking,
some
sort
of
proof
not
hard
proof,
but
some
sort
of
evidence
to
give
them
discretion
depending
on
the
area
I
mean.
If
we're
talking
about
someone
who
lives
near
a
school-
and
we
have
you
know,
really
crowded
parking
all
the
way
down
the
street
when
school
gets
out.
That's
just
a
death
trap,
so
so
yeah
that
kind
of
thing
so
I
think
we
do
need
to
be
aware
of
that.
A
G
F
A
A
This
would
be
something
that
might
we
might
need
to
be
more
flexible
on
or
maybe
more
restrictive
on
later
and
I.
Don't
think
we
can
really
make
a
recommendation
or
a
legislation
this
early
out
on
something
that
can
have
a
lot
of
potential
there's
a
lot
of
there
are
so
many
things
that
could
happen
so
I
think
we
need
to
wait
before
opening
it
up.
F
K
I
I
guess
one
of
the
challenges
I
see
with
available
on
street
parking
is
keeping
track
of
it
and
by
which
I
mean
okay,
I,
develop
and
I,
say:
okay,
I'm,
claiming
that
that
space
is
available
for
my
development.
Somebody,
a
couple
of
blots
down
also
develops.
Are
we
keeping
track
of
the
number
of
available
spaces
which
are
allocated
to
development
and
at
what
point
are
there
no
more
spaces
available,
so
I'm
not
opposed
to
it?
I
just
think
we
need
to
think
about
implementation.
D
A
A
A
A
F
I
I
have
seen
codes
to
reference
Matt
Carter's
comments
earlier
that
allow
1200
square
feet.
I,
don't
think!
That's
you
know
excessive,
so
I
I
would
be
I'd,
be
okay,
with
with
going
a
little
larger,
so
I
will
put
that
out
there.
It's
kind
of
like
the
the
the
ten
percent
bonus
we
talked
about
earlier
200
square
feet.
F
You
know
most
most
people
looking
at
a
1200
square
foot,
project
six,
say
600
square
feet
and
on
two
stories,
or
something
like
that,
probably
not
going
to
feel
massively
different
to
a
neighbor
than
1
000
square
feet,
but
it
means
a
whole
extra
bedroom
and
closet
and
a
bathroom
or
something
so
I'm.
Okay,
with
that.
A
F
My
understanding
and
that
could
be
you
know,
800
with
a
400
square,
foot,
loft
or
600
600,
or
something
like
that
and
I
know.
Matt
Carter
mentioned
that
just
a
much
larger
footprint,
but
then
we
do
get
to
like
a
1200
square
footprint
is
that's
that's
bigger
than
our
first
home,
which
was
a
rambler.
So
we
started
to
get
to
you
know
house
sizes,
then,
and
kind
of
the
spirit
of
an
Adu
anymore.
D
B
I
think
that
1
200
square
feet
of
floor
area
is
is
fine,
especially
if
a
developer
has
that
as
a
sort
of
an
there's.
An
is
a
design
plan.
Kind
of
ready
to
go
I
mean
that's
a
local
developer.
That
was
my
understanding
from
the
public
comment
that
you
know
we.
We
could
utilize
that
if
that's
some,
a
building
standard
that
1
200
square
feet
is,
is
easier
for
people
to
implement.
F
My
dad
something
it's
an
accessory
dilling
unit
shall
not
see
exceed,
let's
say,
1200
square
feet,
Floria
or
an
80
of
the
primary
dwellings
floor
area.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
would
need
to
bump
up
to
85
or
something
but
or
whichever
is
smaller
or
we
leave
it
at
80,
and
we
say
whichever
is
bigger
but
as
senior
planner
Boyd
pointed
out.
If
these
code
Provisions
all
passed,
then
people
have
a
lot
more.
It
used
to
be
all
you
could
do
as
an
Adu.
So
you
were
really
hamstrung
by
these.
F
If
you
had
a
single
family,
home
and
you're
gonna
add
something
so
now
you
could
say
well,
I'm
just
going
to
go
a
little
bigger
and
it's
going
to
be
a
a
second
unit
and
it's
going
to
be
a
duplex
or
something
like
that.
So
maybe
that's
not
as
important,
but
all
right
do
we
want
to
save
you
know:
Well
we'd
rather
be
smaller
or
it's
okay.
You
can
Max
it
out
to
the
the
1200.
F
If,
if
you're,
if
you're
looking
at
a
small
home
and
80
percent
is,
is
it's
80
of
a
750
square
foot?
You
know
World
War
II
box,
whatever
we
call
those
the
old
old
standard
single
family
house
from
the
old
days,
then
you're
you're
limited
to
500
square
feet
or
something
where
you
might
have
wanted
to
do.
A
thousand
or
twelve
hundred
so
I
just
want
to
throw
that
out
there
I'd
probably
add
you
know,
allow
them
to
do
the
maximum.
F
B
Do
think
I
remember
somebody
coming
and
giving
us
a
public
comment
about
having
a
very
small
house
and
wanting
to
build
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
that
would
be
bigger
than
their
older
home,
and
in
that
case
it
wouldn't
be
a
duplex.
It
would
be
they
would
either
it
would
be
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
bigger
than
their
house,
and
so
in
that
case,
the
maximum
you
know
saying
whichever
one
is
bigger
makes
sense,
but
so.
F
D
D
A
A
D
D
My
feeling
is
there
that
the
shoreline
management
regulations
would
Prevail
in
any
case
so
and
and
so
the
the
no
net
loss
rules
would
apply
still
and
and
and
would
control
so
so
that
in
itself
might
limit
the
opportunities
for
adu's
or
even
middle
housing.
Within
the
shoreline
jurisdiction,
but
I
would
I
think
it
would
be
a
step
too
far
to
outlaw
them
entirely
within
the
shoreline
jurisdiction
to
take
that
option
away
from
from
those
properties.
A
A
A
D
And
one
of
the
commenters
did
reference
our
our
multi-family
and
single
family,
well,
multi-family
and
and
the
commission
is
as
referenced
our
single
family
standards.
But
again,
we've
already
made
the
the
recommendation
that
that
we
do
a
city-wide
study
and
so
I
would
like
to
stay
focused
on
the
middle
housing
requirements
here
and
the
proposal
for
one
per
unit
for
adu's
cottages
and
Courtyards,
with
with
the
exceptions
that
we
just
talked
about
and
then
three
for
duplexes,
four
for
triplexes
and
five
for
four
plexes.
F
You
know
I've
got
to
comment
on
parking
I
had
this
marked
up
in
previous
packets
as
well
and
I.
Think
we
got
to
it
but
I
to
me.
There's
an
inconsistency
if
we
require
only
one
for
a
cottage
and
Courtyard
and
then
it's
one
extra
for
duplex
one
extra
for
try
and
four
I
would
basically
say
one
per
unit
minimum
and
leave
it
at
that.
That
would
be
my
suggestion.
F
F
So
that
would
be
my
thought
on
that,
and
then
we've
got
multi-family
single
family
attached
two
per
dwelling
unit,
one
plus
one
guess
for
every
five
multi-family.
Since
there
are
more
more
dwellings
together,
I
guess
it
starts
to
get
a
little
overlapping
with
fourplexes,
but
I
would
probably
still
say
you
know:
I'd
almost
simplify
the
whole
thing
and
just
say
one
per
unit
minimum
and
then,
if
they
want
to
do
more
sure,
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
do
a
maximum
but
like
be
streamlined.
A
little
bit.
D
D
D
D
And
then,
at
the
very
end,
is
the
the
reference
to
the
not
allowing
new,
CCR
and
ours
to
to
prohibit
metal
housing
and
there's
some
discussion
about
whether
the
the
language
should
reside
in
1206
or
whether
it
should
reside
in
in
50
somewhere
in
title
15,
but
and
be
cross-referenced
from
the
other
one.
But
the
the
effect
is
the
same.
So
I
think
that's
a
tweak
that
we
can
make
as
we
take
it
to
the
council.
C
A
I
for
one
appreciate
you
going
into
that
and
clearing
it
with
legal
and
everything.
That's
a
really
important
part
of
all
of
these
regulations
are
to
make
sure
that
no
one
part
of
the
city
is
is
experiencing
change
at
the
expense
of
the
other
parts
of
the
city,
and
so
it's
really
important
that
we
make
sure
that
there
aren't
enclaves
of
our
city
that
restrict
different
types
of
housing
for
different
types
of
people.
So.
D
A
A
D
A
A
I
would
like
to
take
some
time
to
make
sure
that
Commissioners
are
comfortable
with
these
deliberations
and
specific
findings,
because
this
is
what's
going
to
be
passed
on
to
council
and
made
as
part
of
the
record
summing
up
all
of
the
work
that
we
have
done
on
this
so
want
to
make
sure
that
these
are
representative
I,
don't
know
if
we
need
to
read
through
them
verbally,
but
I
would
like
to
take
some
time
to
that.
Commissioners
can
read
through
and
make
sure
that
these
are
representative.
A
D
G
G
A
C
D
I've
already
added
the
new
exhibits
14
through
17.
I
I
failed
to
enter
them
into
the
record,
so
exhibit
14
was
a
letter
from
Cami
gray
of
the
Snohomish
County
Camino
Association
of
Realtors
in
support
of
The
Proposal
exhibit
15
was
an
email
from
Amanda
Gurley
expressing
some
opposition
to
the
proposal,
as
was
exhibit
16
from
artist
schmage
and
exhibit
17
was
an
email
from
Anne
agard,
who
also
testified
tonight
with
some
suggestions
for
changes
and
then
I've
added
the
three
speakers
at
tonight's
hearing.
G
G
I
don't
know
I,
don't
quite
know
how
to
do
that,
but
I
really
do
feel
like.
There
are
a
lot
of
really
valid
concerns
from
our
foreign
residents,
who
are
worried
about
losing
our
trees
and
even
some
council
members
who
are
worried
about
losing
our
trees,
and
maybe
we
could
help
allay
those
concerns
and
also
put
some
priority
to
the
tree.
Canopy.
C
A
Yeah
is
that
sort
of
along
the
lines
of
something
that
you,
okay,
that
is
a
quick
workshopping
for
this
late
hour,
but
reported
yes,
that's
also
important
too.
So
if
we
could
add
something
along
those
lines,
that
would
be
appreciated,
at
least
by
two
Commissioners.
Is
that
generally
consistent?
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
I'm,
not
speaking
for
just
myself,.
A
C
A
B
C
C
D
D
K
I
I
just
wanted
to
thank
senior
planner
Boyd
for
his
work
on
this
item.
It's
been
in
progress
for
a
long
time.
He's
listened
to
feedback
from
the
commission
very
well,
I
think
the
the
bindings
and
deliberations
he
presented
represented
this
discussion.
We
had
so
I
want
to
express
appreciation
for
that.
So
thank
you.
Senior
planner,
Boyd.
A
F
D
D
D
A
I
would
concur
and
hearing
a
lot
of
positive
feedback
on
that
here
tonight
and
encouragement
that
we
have
representation
who
has
delved
into
the
details.
Planning
Commission
I
think
that's
really
important
and
just
speaks
to
the
role
of
you
know
getting
into
the
code
and
making
sure
that
it's
working
for
the
people
of
Bothell
any
reports
from
staff.
O
Came
out
of
the
corner
for
reports
from
staff
just
wanted
to,
let
you
all
know
that
we
are
working
with
the
city,
clerk's
office
and
the
city
manager's
office
on
next
steps
for
a
new
planning.
Commissioner,
we
might
be
asking
you
also
questions
too
on
your
preference
of
moving
forward
and
so
just
wanted
to.
Let
you
know
we.
We
are
having
those
talks,
but
in
the
last
day,
haven't
had
those
talks
and
other
than
that.