Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to the October 8th, 2024 Development Review Commission hearing.

I'm Andy Johnson.

The Development Review Commission is created to hold public meetings and hearings to provide analysis and recommendations to the City Council regarding general land use policies and applications where the Commission has recommendatory power and to render final decisions on specified applications where the commission has final decision-making power, including but not limited to all aspects of proposed and future development.

The development review commission recognizes that the creation of a desirable environment throughout the city for residents, businesses, and industry is a prime requisite for the interdependence of land values, aesthetics, and good site planning by promoting harmonious, safe, attractive, and compatible development that is therefore considered to be in the best interest of public health, safety, and general well, general welfare.

Any person aggrieved by a final decision of the development review commission may file an appeal to the city council within 14 calendar days after the development review commission has rendered its decision.

Development review commission recommendations to city council are not final decisions.

Tonight with us on the commission.

On my right, we have Commissioner Robert Miller, Commissioner Larry Tom, Vice Chair Michelle Schwartz, and to my left, Commissioner Joe Forte, Commissioner Linda Spears, Commissioner Barbara Lloyd.

With us tonight from staff, we have Jeff Tamolevich, Brian Levake, Michelle Dalkey, Diana Kaminsky, Chris Jasper, Lucas Jensen, Joanna Barry, and Jason Wolfe.

Anyone wishing to speak tonight on one of the cases will need to fill out one of these forms and bring it up to Joanna Barry.

And you'll give him three minutes to speak.

And now we can move on to our regular agenda.

We did not have any meeting minutes to consider.

Tonight.

Was there anyone wishing here tonight wishing to speak on item 4A?

Okay, we'll keep that as consent agenda one.

And then on the second consent agenda, we have item 4B, Hanson Family Residents.

Anyone wishing to speak on that?

Okay, and then item 4C, Canopy Temp B.

Anyone wishing to speak on that item?

Okay.

4B and 4C will be on our second consent agenda.

And then we will be hearing item number 6A, which is a code text amendment.

Okay, so let's move on to our consent agendas.

Um, consent agenda one, can um including item number four A.

Can I get a motion for that item?

Commissioner Spears.

Oh, Commissioner I'm sorry.

Commissioner Miller.

Uh move to approve uh consent agenda one.

Okay, and there's is there a second?

Second.

And seconded by Commissioner Spears.

All those in favor, please raise your hand.

And that passes with six in favor and one abstaining.

Um and then now consent agenda consent to agenda two.

Is there a motion for that item?

Commissioner Forte.

Motion to approve the uh motion to approve the consent agenda two.

Okay, there's a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Spears.

Okay, all those in favor, please raise your hand.

All right, and that passes unanimously.

So now we will move on to item number six A, Ms.

Kaminsky.

Good evening, Chair, Commission Diana Kaminsky, Principal Planner with Community Development Planning Division.

Some of these slides will be familiar from the last time we were here for study session.

Um, just as a reminder for those that might be watching online that this is coming from our sustainable growth and development objective for a performance measure to measure both tree canopy and engineered shade.

So this is part of a larger effort to meet a target by 2040.

We did make some modifications since our last presentation to you.

Um, one was the removal of reference to materials.

So we've left the materiality as part of the review process so that tensile strength canopies could be considered as long as they're meeting building code.

We also wanted to clarify that engineered shade isn't just about detached structures, they can also be attached.

Um, in a typical attached scenario, they're following the setbacks of the zoning.

So that the setbacks that we were talking about was specific to the idea of a detached structure because the code previously did not allow that.

We did move forward with the recommendation for a use permit for these, and that is partially because of our general plan implementation and encouraging neighborhood participation outreach, public involvement, looking at what's in the neighborhood for the character of the neighborhood and the condition of the area.

So these are the goals and objectives within the general plan that support the idea of engineered shade and also support sustainability and the neighborhood involvement and notification process that is part of a use permit.