Planning Commission

11/9/2023 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Mike O’Brien, Chair; Abby Bleything, Vice-Chair; Sarah van Ryckevorsel; Brendan Sage; Connor Daley City Staff Present: Eric Vorwald Guests Present: Kristine Lott, Mayor; Chandra Sunar; Bisnu Pradhan; Mustafa; Jamila; Felipe Hoyos; Sherpa Padam; Heidar; others not signed in Guests Online: Bryn Oakleaf, City Councilor; Colin Larson; Evan Gould; Ryan Smith; Quaron Pinkney; Michael Arnold; Jacob Budin Call to Order by: Mike O’Brien Meeting Start Time: 6:30 PM Minutes Recorded by: Eric Vorwald II. Changes to the Agenda None III. Public Comment None IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes Decision: 3 – 0 Motion by: Sarah Second: Connor Sarah made a motion that was seconded by Connor to approve the October 26th meeting minutes as presented. All were in favor. V. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Unified Land Use and Development Regulations (ULUDR) Section 4.4 et. al. Related to Local Resource Protection Decision: 4 – 0 Motion by: Sarah Second: Abby At 6:37 PM a public hearing was opened to take comments on the proposed amendments to related to local resource protection. Eric provided an overview of the draft amendments and highlighted several changes that were added since the Planning Commission reviewed the information. Specifically, he noted that new language was added under subsections J and I  Second: Abby At 6:37 PM a public hearing was opened to take comments on the proposed amendments to related to local resource protection. Eric provided an overview of the draft amendments and highlighted several changes that were added since the Planning Commission reviewed the information. Specifically, he noted that new language was added under subsections J and I related to listing and delisting of properties. The language that was added clarifies that any costs associated with these processes would be borne by the applicant or property owner as applicable. Another change that he identified was the definition for “Certificate of Conformity” should have been the definition for “Contributing Element.” He stated that the last set of amendments that were forwarded to the City Council already included the definition for Certificate of Conformity, which was already approved and therefore did not need to be included again. Eric provided the definition for Contributing Element for the Planning Commission to review. Following this overview, Mike asked for any comments or questions from the Planning Commission. No comments were offered. Mike then asked for comments or questions from the members of the public that were in attendance. A question was asked regarding what was currently included in Section 4.4. Eric provided clarity on what is currently included in Section 4.4 versus what will be added. Other comments offered related to the possibility that these regulations would prohibit improvements to existing structures. This was addressed adding that any interior improvements would not be subject to these regulations and information on what types of changes would be reviewed under these regulations, including who would be responsible for review of the proposed changes. The Planning Commission also discussed what properties would be included in the local registry for the initial listing. It was clarified that only properties currently on a state or national registry or district would be included as the local register. Any changes to the local register would require listing or delisting through the process outlined in the draft regulations. Next, comments from those persons online were entertained. There were questions related to the map identifying properties. This included clarification on what properties were in fact included in this current listing. Eric provided information indicating that the properties included in the local register are already currently included in a state or national register, therefore no additional properties are being considered at this time. He also clarified what actions would lead to the additional review. If the covered action is not proposed, then no action under Section 4.4 would be required. With no other comments from the public, the hearing was closed at 6:56 PM. With the hearing closed, Mike asked for a motion on the proposed amendments. Sarah made a motion that was seconded by Abby to forward the proposed amendments to the City Council as amended including the added language under listing and delisting; and the change to include the definition for “Contributing Element.” With no additional discussion, all were in favor. VI. Continue Discussion on ULUDR Amendments Related to Statutory Changes Eric introduced the discussion and noted that the proposed amendments related to statutory changes included in Act 47. Eric highlighted changes in Articles II and V, as these two sections included the majority of the changes needed to address Act 47. Eric started the discussion by reviewing changes since the last meeting. He then began reviewing the land use table and changes that were being proposed. The first change that was reviewed was related to accessory dwelling units (ADU). Eric identified the change in the use table to list ADUs as both permitted and conditional. He explained that the distinction would be a permitted ADU would meet the statutory definition and a conditional ADU would be any other circumstance. He clarified that the conditional use review was basically the same as the detached cottage therefore this would not deviate from the existing process, just the definition. Several questions were asked regarding this change for clarification, including the conditional use process. Based on this discussion, the Planning Commissioners discussed if there was a need to have one process conditional versus by right  The first change that was reviewed was related to accessory dwelling units (ADU). Eric identified the change in the use table to list ADUs as both permitted and conditional. He explained that the distinction would be a permitted ADU would meet the statutory definition and a conditional ADU would be any other circumstance. He clarified that the conditional use review was basically the same as the detached cottage therefore this would not deviate from the existing process, just the definition. Several questions were asked regarding this change for clarification, including the conditional use process. Based on this discussion, the Planning Commissioners discussed if there was a need to have one process conditional versus by right for ADUs on properties that were owner versus non-owner occupied. As the discussion ensued on this topic, the Planning Commissioners discussed short-term rentals and the efforts that the City was pursuing related to short-term rental regulations. It was noted that this information was going to be included in the municipal code and not the ULUDR. With that, Mike asked if there were any comments from the public. At this point, the discussion shifted from the specific changes proposed in the draft that was being reviewed and transitioned to a more general discussion on housing in the City. Eric indicated that similar comments were provided at the City Council meeting related to housing and indicated that the Mayor was planning to provide an update on this discussion under “City Updates.” Mike invited members of the public to speak about their concerns related to housing in the City. The members of the public that were in attendance in person and online asked questions and provided comments related to multiple aspects of housing. This including quality of housing, types of housing, and specific needs in the community for housing options including the size of dwellings (number of bedrooms) and affordable housing options. This discussion continued for the remainder of the meeting. The Planning Commission did identify that incentives were established to support affordable housing and housing with three or more bedrooms, however the passage of Act 47 preempted many of the incentives. Mayor Lott also provided information regarding efforts to address housing concerns through multiple departments and mechanisms including updates to the municipal code. It was suggested that a joint meeting between the Housing Commission and the Planning Commission should occur to better identify the specific needs. Sarah requested that, if possible, the conversation include specific information on the number of three plus bedroom units or affordable units that are needed to address the concerns that have been raised. It was noted that a joint meeting is something that is being planned based on schedules for both Commissions. This could also include more routine updates from the Housing Initiative Director to ensure the Planning Commission’s work is aligned with the Housing Commission and the City Council. VII. City Updates Mayor Lott provided updates related to City Council activities including the adoption of the land use amendments related to parking, public comments related to housing concerns in the City, and City Council providing policy direction related to housing including incentives to maximize these options to achieve the desired housing mix in the City. Eric reiterated the work being done on short-term rental regulations. VIII. Other Business Eric indicated that this was the only meeting in November and that the next meeting would be on December 14 th . IX. Adjourn Motion by: Brendan Second: Abby Meeting End Time: 8:34 PM Motion by: Brendan Second: Abby Meeting End Time: 8:34 PM