Loading...
2024-11-21 Architectural Design Board PacketAgenda Edmonds Architectural Design Board SPECIAL MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 21, 2024, 6:00 PM MEETING INFORMATION This is a Hybrid special meeting. Attendees may appear in person at 121 5th Avenue N, 3rd Floor, Brackett Room or on-line via the zoom link provided. Join Zoom Meeting at: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom. us/j/88959586932?pwd=Rzd P W U IwM09PZ1k1 M H N 2eW M 1YXphZz09 Meeting ID: 889 5958 6932 Password: 591531 Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-205-0468 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. 9103 : Previous Meeting Minutes 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. 9117 : Development Code Update Project Overview 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. CHAIR COMMENTS 9. MEMBER COMMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda November 21, 2024 Page 1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/21/2024 Previous Meeting Minutes Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve minutes from the October 24 meeting (attached). Narrative These summary minutes were produced by a new consulting transcriber. Please review them carefully and provide any feedback. Attachments: October 24 draft Packet Pg. 2 CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting October 24, 2024 Chair Bayer called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:03 p.m., in the Brackett Room at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alex Hutchinson Tristan Sewell, Planner Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair Steve Schmitz Brad Shipley, Senior Planner r Maurine Jeude Mike Clugston, Planning Manager Corbitt Loch Shane Hope, Interim Director, Planning & Todd Stine (online) Development Department d 4) APPROVAL OF AGENDA o m L The agenda was approved as presented. a AUDIENCE COMMENTS: None. M 9 W we) WLyJ i 1_0IIJ�y VICE CHAIR BROOKS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2024 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER JEUDE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS A. BLD2024-0979 Edmonds Swedish Signage Design Review Planner Tristan Sewell presented Edmonds Swedish Signage Design Review. This permit application was for a sign package to redo the signage at the Langer Building at the Swedish Edmonds Campus. It's a sign package of four new signs, one building ID, and three monument signs around the perimeter, one at basically each street entrance or curb cut, so there's one at the corner of Highway 99 and 216th. The modification of the request is just the number of signs. Under code, there would be permitted one per street, so one on 216th, one on Highway 99, or one at the corner, not both. They're asking for both. Everything else about it is compliant and fits within the design criteria applicable to the CG zone. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting October 24, 2024 Pagel of 8 Packet Pg. 3 ADB reviews any sign application that requests modification to the standards of Chapter 20.60 ECDC. They can only approve requests that arrive from one of these two situations. It's a unique site with unique needs and a configuration in the context of a larger campus. It's in Highway 99 medical activity center. This is where the urgent care clinic is housed, along with some other various services. The expressed concern from the applicant in the request was regarding legibility and navigation on site by patients and visitors requiring urgent care and emergency care, and being able to accurately navigate the site in those kinds of need. That is the reason for the request for three signs rather than the normally allowed two signs. ADB may only approve the request if it meets both of these criteria. The design of the signage itself is compatible with the materials, colors, design, and proportions of development throughout the site and in the vicinity, and that the modification is not more than 50 percent of what would normally be allowed. The one proposed is on the corner, indicating the direction of the various facilities needed. The building ID is on the east face of the building. That one's separate and not contained within the request. There is a pair of monument signs, one on 216th and one on Highway 99. Chair Bayer asked if it will say Langer Building, which was confirmed by Mr. Sewell. U) M This modification is limited to 50 percent. Regarding compliance, it was discussed about the larger campus context and S the navigability concerns and needs for urgent or emergent scenarios. The proposed signage is consistent with their larger branding and on -site design schedule. This is an update to bring it in alignment with that. So based on the S analysis of the code, the conclusions, and the attachments provided in the staff report, staff recommends that ADB 4) approve the modifications proposed by the applicant because they're compatible materials, designs, and they comply 2 with that 50 percent maximum. c Board Member Loch asked regarding the calculation of the sign area if the calculation included the entire sign structure L a versus just the area where there's text. Mr. Sewell stated it was just the area where there's text per code. These qualify as w monument signs, a type of freestanding sign. The sign area is just the area taken up by copy. a Board Member Loch questioned the allowable size of the sign, and Mr. Sewell confirmed that they are well within their design maximums, and that everything is to spec. Board Member Loch also stated the two smaller monument signs have plaques for additional signage, so would the applicant have to come in for a permit to put additional text in those lower lines? Planner Sewell stated sign modifications to change the copy on the sign doesn't require a permit. Board Member Stine asked if that would include the blanks in his area calculation. Mr. Sewell confirmed it did. Vice Chair Brooks commented that they had a recent family visit to the emergency room, and so additional signs would've been helpful, and this was just two weeks ago. Chair Bayer confirmed having a similar situation and asked about the Langer Building. Lisa Edwards, Public Hospital District No. 2, was present, and stated that the Langer Building is currently known as the Kruger Clinic. Public Hospital District No. 2 own the whole campus. They own the hospital, and they lease it to Swedish. So they are renaming the Kruger clinic after Frederick P. Langer, a long-time commissioner, who passed away in 2022 after battling cancer. Chair Bayer asked if it was where the Kruger Clinic is currently housed. Ms. Edwards confirmed. Ms. Edwards stated there would be a naming ceremony next year. Board Member Stine reiterated that additional signs would have been appreciated for a recent visit that he had to urgent care. Regarding the proposed signs, he asked if they really wanted traffic going to the hospital going through the parking lot, as opposed to going up to 216th. Ms. Edwards stated that their goal with this sign package is to emphasize urgent care. Emergency department is oversubscribed, and it's an average of five to seven hours per visit. They are looking to emphasize urgent care access because it's underutilized. Board Member Stine stated that it seems like the more direct access to the hospital would be to use 216th rather than going through the parking lot. Ms. Edwards stated it would, but Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting October 24, 2024 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 4 they find that people come from all different directions, especially when they're upset and trying to get to care, so the intent was to ensure if someone accidentally came through this way, they could still get to the hospital. BOARD MEMBER JEUDE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED AND TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL. VICE CHAIR BROOKS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS, AND THE MOTION PASSED. B. Streamline Design Review and Middle Housing Next new business was the Design Review and Middle Housing presented by Senior Planner Brad Shipley. Under HB 1293, there are to be clear and objective design standards and changes to how any public meetings are held for design review. Streamline design review: any design guidelines have to be clear and objective. They have to have at least one ascertainable criterion by which an applicant can determine whether a given design is going to meet the criteria. Regarding middle housing types, they can't use design standards to make certain housing types unfeasible. You can't reduce it to a point where they can't get built. c HB 1293 came about as a response from the builder community, who believed the process to get approval was too long and too subjective. So be clear and objective. Mr. Shipley gave the example of building entry location. Commercial E building entries should be easily recognized oriented to the pedestrian's streetscape by being located at the sidewalk. 4) 2 Board Member Loch asked what are the characteristics of a commercial building? It's easily recognizable, but that's a c very subjective statement. So that part is not clear and objective. Board Member Stine agreed with that statement. The > first part is subjective, the last part is objective. Mr. Shipley stated the use of the phrase "should be" should be replaced, a perhaps with "shall." Mr. Shipley also gave the example of weather protection. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks or walkways. Chair Bayer stated the only thing she sees subjective would be what would apply to a covered walkway. Vice Chair Brooks added or the distance, also. Board Member Stine stated that it doesn't necessarily talk about the entire street frontage or the extent of the coverage that's required, but other than that, it seems fairly objective. Mr. Shipley stated that they could probably get a little more specific about how much coverage would be there. But generally speaking, it could be uniformly applied and most people reading this are going to understand what it means. Mr. Shipley then gave the example of building facade. Provide a human -scale streetscape, breaking up long facades into defined forms that continue a pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces. Commercial and mixed -use areas. Avoid blank, monotonous, and imposing building facades using design elements that add detail and emphasize the different levels of building. Chair Bayer stated that this came in handy on two projects, but felt that it was very convoluted. Board Member Stine also believed it to be very subjective. Board Member Loch stated that it is well-intentioned, but it doesn't provide enough clarity for the applicant. Mr. Shipley believed that it is mainly objective in that it's talking about specific design criteria for building facades. But it's kind of hard to do sometimes without some subjective interpretations such as human scale and what measurable elements there are. All of those things really aren't defined here, so would still want to revise this. Board Member Jeude asked about the word avoid. Mr. Shipley stated there are several ways to clean this one up. Board Member Loch suggested striking the word imposing. Mr. Shipley discussed these are going to be the types of things that will need to be dialed in as they start looking at design criteria moving forward. Chair Bayer stated that they had actually done this exercise one time before. They did go through and wordsmith some of this. Mr. Shipley believed that would be a good starting point and as he starts to get into some of these changes, he Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting October 24, 2024 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 5 will go through what was previously done and see what he could incorporate and bring it back to make sure they get it right. And then also help identify what might be missing as we go through. Chair Bayer stated that Board Member Stine's participation would be great. Mr. Shipley also brought up another example. A building should appear as an assemblage of smaller forms, not one large mass. The word should again starts to get into subjectivity. So for the objective, all buildings shall articulate individual units or clusters of units to appear as smaller forms through varied footprints, heights, setbacks, roof forms, materials, and/or colors. There's still a lot to play with there, and a lot to determine whether they're meeting that criteria, but it really points to some specific things. That's a pretty clear measurement when you're looking at two different things to tell which one is smaller form. He was hoping that maybe this would kind of restimulate some of the conversation about where they want to go and what they're considering as they're looking at the role of ADB, what they would find valuable for your time in terms of being there and donating their time. The other point of HB 1293 is that it can't be more than one public meeting, which gets rid of the iterative process. This is really the extent of most of the changes that would take place. So this process here is kind of where our existing process is. So in the first row, there are different types of design review, some projects are just exempt. Those include w single families ADUs duplexes, those are all currently exempt. When you o into triplexes and fo lexes g � P Y p Y g� , � nonresidential uses, residential use of five or more, these are mostly SEPA triggers. Then you get different types of S design review, such as middle housing types. There are some that can be five -plus units. Mr. Shipley wasn't sure if they would allow those, but if allowed, they would be exempt unless it was decided to have design review for all of these, S including single-family homes. 4) 2 So when the development code is developed for these, they're going to be talking about the development code a little bit c differently. Now you go into the zone, and you look up the zone, and it tells you everything that you could do on that > single-family lot. It's setbacks, height, and things such as that. But when you start talking about different design or a different building types that are allowed, if you want to make sure that they're all encouraged in some sort of way, or you w maybe want to encourage a certain type a little more than the other, then you have flexibility within the building code. a Chair Bayer asked about the timing of that. Mr. Shipley stated that they have a clear deadline, which is to have all adopted by July 1, 2025, otherwise they would have to go by the model code. They will have to do a phased approach to tackle the whole thing if they really want to have a development code that takes them into the next 70 years. They want to pull all the pieces into one cohesive, unified code. Board Member Stine stated that with only one meeting with the board, it seems like there's more onus on the city staff, so he's curious with that one meeting, what would be most helpful to city staff so we do get the Edmonds that we desire? Chair Bayer asked if was referring to the public hearing, which Board Member Stine affirmed. He asked when is the timing of that in the review process and what would be most beneficial to the city staff because it seemed like the city staff has a bigger burden to carry with only one pubic meeting. Mr. Shipley stated that he thinks that there's a lot of value that could be offered from the public, comments, and just diverse ways of looking at things. However, he's also seen where things become too political, or it becomes something that is too subjective and leaves open to too much interpretation. Mr. Shipley stated that from a time standpoint, the most streamlined process is administrative review. But that removes ADB from that process which he finds valuable for certain types of project. The larger projects he thinks it's helpful to have that feedback and a chance for the public to actually come in and people to hear the voices. Board Member Loch stated that he thinks that deciding the process before they have the design guidelines is backwards. The quality of the design guidelines will help inform the decision of who should decide what and when and public input. So he would be hesitant to answer the question now. Chair Bayer stated that she would be hesitant to eliminate ADB's involvement, and she added that they need dedicated, committed professionals that can step in and participate. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting October 24, 2024 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 6 Board Member Loch would like to make sure that they consider where the design guidelines apply. He feels they are living with legacy rules that were originally designed protect the downtown area. He thinks it would be odd to say this emphasis on design isn't relevant elsewhere in the city, especially because the buildings are bigger, so he'd like to look at that, as well. Mr. Shipley agreed that they have a lot of legacy items that exist within the comprehensive plan, and it only gets changed once every 10 years. So far, they are on maybe the third iteration of the comp plan, but that's almost 30 years ago. The development code really hasn't changed that much. But it's gotten more difficult because it's been patchwork, and it hasn't been taken collectively and looked at and created a new framework for how it could be done. All the same things could be accomplished but put it in a framework that actually makes sense. He discussed the history of the downtown waterfront, Vision 2020, and activity centers. Now, they're talking about neighborhood centers and hubs and other things in this comp plan. There is a change to do maybe overlays within the zoning code for specific areas or specific guidelines. Chair Bayer asked if he is looking for the board's input on this. Mr. Shipley stated the only decision that they've discussed is perhaps not having a single phase at all, but it doesn't have to be a single phase. It could be administrative review or some other process, so that's a decision to make whether you want a single phase or not. And then the ones that are exempt, he's pretty confident that no one's going to want to do design review on single family homes, so we're not going to apply it to middle housing. Chair Bayer stated she asked because there have been a discussion about having a design review of the commercial zone. a� E Mr. Shipley stated when this subarea plan was development, they moved nonresidential uses or any residential use that 4) had five or more units to administrative design review. They did make changes to how the administrative design review 2 goes and he thinks if its over 55 feet, it would require a notice to the neighborhood and a pre -development meeting that c the developer hosts. And then it'd still be a staff administrative design review through that process, and then everything else is a Type 1 administrative design review. L a Board Member Jeude was curious about the single phase. After applicants have brought their designs to ADB, and ADB has things they'd like to see, and then that's the end of it. Then they can decide to do it, or they can decide not to do it. Mr. Shipley stated they could also appeal the process. Planning Manager Clugston stated that if ADB remains the decision maker then they'd issue a decision. They'd say it's approved with these conditions that you have to meet or it's denied and then you have to start again. But that assumes that ADB wants to continue to be the decision maker on the bulk of these design review projects like it has been in the past. But they've also talked about trying to get the board involved earlier in the process because later in the process you go, the more checklist it is. Or maybe staff does the bulk of design reviews if they have clear and objective standards that can be applied with the checklist. But if somebody wants to be innovative and try something different, they can go to the ADB for an exception and ask for some sort of design waiver. Chair Bayer believes it is hard unless they can see what these clear and objective excellent design standards are. Mr. Shipley stated they would be drafting all the design standards before they adopt any new process, so they would have time to discuss what those design standards look like before any decisions are made, as long as they are able to meet their deadline. Vice Chair Brooks asked for the different types to be explained. Mr. Shipley stated that Type 1 is just administrative design review, doesn't require notice. Type 2A is staff design review, but it does have notice. Type 3A is ADB public notice. Chair Bayer discussed how this has been an unusual and difficult year for the ADB. Vice Chair Brooks concurred that it hasn't felt like much has happened in the three years she has been on the board. Chair Bayer concurred that the board could be a lot more high functioning. Board Member Loch agreed that that when it was, they actually achieved some pretty good things in their projects. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting October 24, 2024 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 7 Director Shane Hope then joined the conversation and confirmed that Mike Clugston is now the planning manager. Board Member Loch asked that since July'25 is not very far away, that they have a month -by -month schedule work plan and that it would include the decision points that need to be made as its decided which paths to take to get to the finish line, whether it's the location, the process, the standards, what are built-in standards into the development code. Ms. Hope states they've had to have a very aggressive schedule to get through the comprehensive plan update, still expecting to get it done before the end of the year and that required a very tight calendar. So they will work up something similar for the code updates. Planner Shipley stated that he's been pulling together a lot of the pieces that will be needed, and he expects in the next week or so that they're going to at least have the draft of a plan for them to look at about when those dates and decision points will be. Chair Bayer advised Ms. Hope that the idea was brought up about just trying to connect a little more with the planning board. In the past, they've had joint meetings on special topics that related to the ADB. They talked about trying to hold something in January, so they weren't just working in a vacuum. It would be the planning board and even city council. Does she see a benefit in that or would that just complicate things? Ms. Hope stated that she could see that could be useful, as long as it's figured out in advance what are the touch points and the topics. Board Member Loch wanted to know what others think about this board and its role and its future. Board Member Stine stated he was looking at the Title 16 and Title 22 community development code and there's design standards that are already embedded in there. He'd like to better understand how the design standards that are in the code relate to the design guidelines that are part of the comprehensive plan because it looks like there's some overlap or maybe even contradictions possibly. Ms. Hope stated that comprehensive plan isn't really where design standards should live. People use the term standards and guidelines sometimes to mean something different and sometimes to mean the same thing. Most often people think of standards as being explicit things, not guidance, like, encourage something. Think of standards as being the rules, but some jurisdictions use it either way. But in the comprehensive plan, it's not generally the place for things to guide day by day development projects. The comp plan normally should be for kind of general policy direction and then the codes and standards and so on are set up. The comp draft plan now says that until new regulations are adopted, those ones would stay in effect that are in the comp plan. But then going forward, they'll have things that are in the code like they should be and that's easier for applicants as well as for people that are reviewing it. Mr. Shipley asked how comfortable everybody felt with middle housing. He could talk about maybe some of the thoughts that they could consider and different points that are going to be important in terms of design characteristics. Chair Bayer asked him to explain about middle housing. Mr. Shipley stated that prior to 1940, most communities were built with a full range of housing types prior to zoning codes. Now, when zoning came about, it did away with all of those, and there were single family, and mid -rise or larger apartments. Sometimes, you'll have townhomes or a few others, but really those have made up such a small amount of the overall housing options that are provided that it then became to be termed missing, that it had disappeared, and it was all by design to some extent that they were made illegal to build. Even today, up until those changes have to be made, 75 percent of Edmonds is zoned for one building type. So when you hear missing middle, middle housing is just same thing, all of this. Through HB 1110, all of these building types are defined and have to be accommodate, except for live/work. Live/work is the only one that's not included, though it could be included, but is not a requirement. So there's a range of different homes here. Tier 2 cities are required to accommodate up to four units on all residentially zoned parcels. As far as the bill is written, if you're within a quarter mile of what they call a major transit stop, you have to allow four by right. And if you're further away than that, you allow two by right and then four as an incentive for providing one unit of affordable housing. That has to be affordable to a household making 60 percent of area median income if it's for rent or 80 percent of the area median income if it is for sale. But the affordable piece actually makes it so it probably won't be developed with that building type. Because it's too cumbersome, not only for the person who Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting October 24, 2024 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 8 owns it, has to comply every year for the next 50 years, but for the city to actually process and continue to process individual homeowners and managing individual homeowners that change over time on compliance every single year of turning in income documentation and rental documentation. Now, you could have nothing but single families and duplexes and ADUs, and that could be the future. Or they could include such things as the cottage port or courtyard buildings. Chair Bayer asked what constituted family housing. The Citizen Housing Commission had recommendations they brought the city council and the multifamily design standards were adopted. She wondered if multifamily term was still being used or if it's now being referred to as middle housing. Mr. Shipley stated his belief that they're going to start talking more about building types versus single family and multifamily. Mr. Shipley discussed how the scale of single family homes has evolved over the years, from 1,400 square feet in the '70s to now probably 2,800 square feet. Chair Bayer asked if the live/work arrangement could be written into the code that it not be allowed. Mr. Shipley stated that live/work is not one of the ones of middle housing that has to be included. It's not as important as it used to be because a lot of people live and work from home these days. Typically, the footprint is going to be about 40 to 60 feet in width on an average lot, kind of 75 foot lot frontage to the w street. Off-street parking space is often shared and often in these kind of developments, you have smaller family types, S so it doesn't necessarily require the full amount of parking that has always been allocated towards or required for single family homes that are typically much larger, old larger families. But its important to consider how parking is provided. But whatever they adopt for multifamily, they'll also have to adopt for single family, so that's where a lot of this nuance 4) is going to come into play. Open spaces is typically always shared. That could be provided in many different ways. 2 Stoops, galleys, different ways of the building facing the street and addressing the street, and those could be included. c There's potential for tailoring the development codes in this kind of way if it's desired. > L a Board Member Stine referred to the Washington Department of Commerce website, and they've got a whole page about w middle housing as well as tool kits for developing objective standards. So seems like some of this work may already be a out there. Mr. Shipley stated that they're trying to do a lot of the research and heavy lifting because they know that most city staffs didn't have the staff to do that work or the budgets. N Board Member Loch discussed garden -style apartments. Mr. Shipley stated that it doesn't sound like a middle housing L 4) 0 type, so he didn't believe it to be a top priority, but that can be discussed, especially as they're looking at developing new p zoning districts. Chair Bayer reiterated that until the design standards are figured out, it's hard to talk about the process. She asked if Mr. a� Shipley could email them what is discussed for those who would like to wordsmith it. She also asked if they foresaw a project coming their way in the November meeting. Mr. Clugston wanted to touch on the draft comprehensive element a for design view. After all was said and done, the existing language in the current comp plan 2020 version is being carried forward in the new comp plan. So we'll get to edit that in the future, but at least it didn't vanish entirely as had been proposed at one point. So they'll work on that in the future for sure. So right now for upcoming meetings, the November meeting is on Thanksgiving and the December meeting is on day after Christmas, so those meetings are going to be canceled. A special meeting is already scheduled for December 9th to make up for those. And they should have at least one, possibly two projects to review at that meeting. He stated that given the condensed timeline, he imagines that they'll be having some additional special meetings. The planning board has had a meeting every week this month. He hopes it doesn't get to that extent. So as they develop the work plan, he and Brad will flesh out over the next couple of weeks. At that point, they'll see when and where they may need additional meetings and will get as much warning as possible and get those scheduled. An additional special meeting could be possible, maybe another time in November. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting October 24, 2024 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 9 PUBLIC HEARING: None. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting October 24, 2024 Pages of 8 Packet Pg. 10 d r c a� c d 4) 2 w M 0 m L a w c� L N L Q 0 O E Q Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/21/2024 Development Code Update Project Overview Staff Lead: Brad Shipley Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Brad Shipley Background/History The 2024 update of the Comprehensive Plan will require several changes to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to implement. Fully -planning cities must adopt many of the requirements, particularly those related to land use and design review, beginning six months after the periodic comprehensive plan update, being July 1, 2025. Additional updates related to critical areas are required to be adopted by the end of 2025. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Planning staff will present an introduction to the development code update process, outline key objectives, and discuss design thinking for quality urban areas. Packet Pg. 11