Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. I'm gonna open the meeting at 06:00, and we'll say the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. So I'll take the role. So k. Joanne Overfield is here. Carly Guillory? Here. And Tom Green?

Here.

Lauren Roganbach? Here. Jan Furi? Here. And Carly Lemar? Here. Okay. And Layla Church is excused. So we're good. So I assume that everyone has taken a look at the consent agenda. And unless there anything that anyone wants to add or subtract, we will go ahead. I'll ask for a motion to pass the consent agenda.

Commissioner Fury moves to pass the consent agenda.

May I have a second?

Second. I can second that, commissioner Linhua.

Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Alright. Are there any citizens online? There's none here in person, or there is there anyone online that wants to comment tonight? If so, raise use your hand raising on the

Seeing no hands at this time, chair.

Okay. So seeing no hands, we will go on to our first discussion item, which is the comprehensive plan amendments, and who's up for that? Jeremy?

Alright. Thank you, chair. Good evening, commissioners, and happy New Year to everybody. You. Just wanna start tonight by, just touching on our annual comprehensive plan amendment process.

I'd like to get that going early in the year. We will note that we have actually received two applicant requests this year. One is for the West Valley Highway comprehensive plan map amendment and rezone, which was basically a continuation of the effort that the city started in 2025, but Mhmm. Was pulled off of the docket based on prior conversations. The second is for a single parcel comprehensive plan map amendment rezone request down in the Southeast corner of the city down near the intersection of Sumner Heights Drive and Edgewood Drive.

Beyond that, staff has four additional requests that we'd like to have added to the preliminary docket, which, are all relating to well, most of them are relating to, statutory regulation changes that we have to address sometime between 2027 and 2028. So we're looking at an opportunity to try to get in front of some of this stuff. And the last is regarding the process that we go through for comprehensive plan and development regulations. And I'll have Josh speak to that a little bit more. But just a high level summary is there are some pieces in our process that haven't been touched in a long time and might be worth revisiting to see if we really want to have all the steps we have in there because we don't have to have all the steps we have in there statutorily.

Is that a fair summary?

Yes. That's exactly right. Just kind

of review the process and make sure we're doing it the best that we can.

Anything that makes things more efficient and eliminates unnecessary things is always a good thing. So okay.

So with that, I'm just looking to see if the planning commissioners have any thoughts or feedback, anything that isn't here that they'd like to see considered for the preliminary docket, and then staff will prepare that docket and bring it forward at, next month's meeting. And I believe that would be with a public hearing as well.

And does anyone see anything or anyone wanna add anything? Staff requests seem reasonable. The applicants just out of curiosity, the comp the comprehensive plan amendment for the one near Sumner Heights, What do we have that fully I mean, that been fully laid out, what they're asking for

near Sumner?

Yeah. Full disclosure, it's it's a site that staff has been in communication with the property owner for several months talking about what their long term goals are for the property. We kind of laid out here's your choose your own adventure, and they chose this potential pathway forward.

Okay.

It still has to go through the public process. Okay. But they are seeking rezone to, I believe, industrial to be consistent with abutting properties to the south and west of it.

K. Alright. Well, seeing no seeing that no commissioner has any comments, we'll go on to the next step.

Alright.

So moving on to special events code. This is an item that was introduced at last month's meeting. I hope the commissioners had an opportunity to review the materials that were provided. Staff did go through the proposed ordinance and make some markup changes to it to try to incorporate some provisions that are in the example codes that felt were appropriate for clarification purposes and also included a copy of the existing temporary use permit section of code and what staff proposes to strike out from that. So, with that, happy to pull that up for discussion, answer any questions commissioners may have, and pending any feedback.

We we believe this could be ready for a public hearing at next month's meeting as well.

So the the the fee that is for people holding garage sales in their own neighborhood. I'm assuming that most people really don't know that they that they're supposed to get a permit to do that. Is that it said there was a a lesser fee for garage sales in the neighborhood.

Yes. That would be for the, like, a neighborhood garage sale.

So if there was a a large Larger. Not an individual.

Individual ones are exempt.

Yeah. Okay. I okay. I missed I misinterpreted that. Right.

They're, like, less than 30 people. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's good. Alright. I don't know. It seem it seems like what you put in place seemed reasonable. Did anyone have any questions or comments?

I did. I was just kind of curious. I was interested in the fees that you guys are potentially suggesting for the special events. Will it be, like, on a scale for profit, nonprofit type scenario? Will and I know that there was some wording in there about if it's a partial like, a a city event or a city sponsored event.

And I think the word sponsored is being used in a couple different ways that is was kinda con confusing me. In the event world, it could get confusing when you're a sponsor, you're helping support, but the actual event creator person, like, person who's actually running the event would not be called a sponsor. So there could be some confusion in the wording for bigger events. You know, Edgewood pick Edgewood Summerfest, for example, you know, I would imagine that all our sponsors would be our sponsors that are actually helping contribute money to the event. Just thought of maybe considering another word for that even though I know probably, like, it's used commonly.

I that was just a little confusing, but also was curious about what would qualify or what would be considered, like, cities cosponsor. If it's, like, cities involved, cities actually paying for part of it, cities property, that's I was just curious if there was any more verbiage on that that we can kind of explain and clarify because I'm sure that'll raise a lot of questions.

So couple of things to parse out there. I wanna be as clear as I can. If it's a city or or government cosponsored event, there's separate code language under title 12 that handles that, and those events would not be subject to a special event permit.

Okay.

And if it's not subject to a special event permit, it's not subject to any special event fees.

Okay.

But not but, but I want to be clear as well that for the purposes of the Planning Commission, want to stay focused on the regulation and the process and procedures, but the fees would be discussed and determined by counsel.

Okay. Yeah. That's fully understandable. I think I was just curious if there was like, in terms of, like, things we're planning. I was just wondering if that was something that would be potentially discussed is, like, a scale, like, of different types of fees for different types of events.

You know? Typically, I've seen where it's you know, if you're expecting this many people or if it's this many vendors, then you would have a a higher fee. It kind of scales to the size of the event. So making sure that we're being fair for the different, like, small businesses or large businesses. If we're just doing a couple artists who wanna put an art gallery together, shouldn't be paying the same thing as what a huge event would be charging or being fee charged is my guess.

Right.

Just some thoughts about that. And then some of the wording was just about the sponsor term was a little confusing because, again, I always think of people who are contributing to the event, not actually planning the event.

Yeah. As as the draft code is constructed right now, it really focuses on cost recovery for actual time, materials, etcetera. And that's gonna be completely dependent on what kind of an event you're putting together and what kind of city based resources are necessary to support that event. But as far as the application fee, when you submit the request and staff review of the request, we're we're anticipating something very nominal. Like Yeah.

Some cities, I think the examples I was looking at were in the 50 to $100 range for those applications. So Okay. I just wanna be clear. We're we're not trying to do anything different than that. We recognize there's a community benefit to having special events and so we wanna keep that staff's recommendation to council is going to be keeping that bar relatively low

Mhmm.

For those application fees. It's it's the the fees for city services and the cleanup deposit. The stuff that's on the screen right now is is more up for conversation kind of on a case by case basis.

Okay. Okay. And then as again, about the sponsor thing, I guess, I you said the word applicant, and that kinda just was like that sounds like more like the word you would use for the applicant who's, you know, applying to have this special event versus them being referred to as a sponsor. That was the only thing I was kind of kind of

Correct. Yeah. We would not be expecting individual vendors attending an event to even worry about this. This is about the event organizer, and and they're the ones responsible for making the application with the request to the city and all that.

Yeah. I was just being I was nitpicking a little bit.

That's all. Okay. So, Lauren, you had your hand up. Wanna go ahead?

Yes. I

had a couple different comments or questions. One being actually right where we are right now, page six of 11, the last paragraph. It's a typo, especially events.

That

one's small. And then I was kinda wondering. It kept coming up. The first and or fourteenth amendment is exempt from and it just that kept coming up. And I was wondering if maybe that could be just put in its own little category, and so then you don't have to continuously say that ex this is exempt or the thing just kind of its own category within the document. I don't know if there is a reason why it wasn't, but that was kinda my thought. It might be a little bit clearer because I just I felt like I kept reading it, and I was like, oh, okay. Well, if they're exempt, why are they still being mentioned in each part?

Oh, yeah. Okay.

Alright. That's great call out.

Yeah.

You know, this is, you know, the first I'll call it plain language review.

Yeah.

It's it's come from the insurance authority and the legal team. So how can we take that and try to simplify that? So good feedback.

Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, Tom. Oh, sorry, Lauren.

Go ahead.

I just had one other thing. I looked I was kinda looking at the Sumner events because I feel like Sumner's kinda small like us. And so and they had in theirs, they had some references with, like, links to guide people towards getting additional licenses. So for example, they had, like they talked about, like, alcohol license in there. I think we did talk about in ours, it talks about the liability insurance, but it had, like, a linked liability insurance or a reference very specifically to where to go. And then it talked about needing a safety plan, which I didn't I don't think I saw anywhere in ours. So I thought that would be something that maybe could be added, like, especially if it's a larger event or something, a little safety plan.

When you're referring to Sumners, are you referring to their code or you're referring to their, application and handout materials?

Their handout materials, which I know is different. But I kinda thought when it referred to that, I was like, well, I didn't even see that in the code. So maybe that is something that isn't normally in a code, but I thought it would be.

Yeah. When it's it's more of a policy item, which then gets to be cumbersome if it's part of the code versus it becomes part of the application material. So we'll certainly take from from those cities that we're looking at their codes and and try to pull together good materials for the application packages. So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Thanks, Lauren. Tom?

Hey. Yeah. Everything looks pretty standard for all the different events that I've done over the years and stuff. I mean, it feels very just solidified on a on a lot of fronts. One thing I was wondering because it's come up in the past is, like, say, the Edgewood Picnic, we had a band. I know we were pushing around 90 decibel, near the property line because bands are notoriously loud. Have we looked at adding exception into the, noise ordinance that says except as permitted by the city. Because otherwise, some of these events, rodeo, circus, Edgewood picnic, they're gonna be too loud, and I'd hate to see we we run into a problem with that.

Yeah. Good point.

Yeah. Thank you, Tom. I recall one of the example cities actually put a specific exception in here, and we do have number seven on the screen right now. So I I believe we're covered under those instances as long as we're calling it out in the approval for the special event that the event itself would not have to demonstrate compliance with the noise ordinance.

But it see, the way I'm reading that is further conditions that may be applied to the special events. It doesn't but it doesn't say it doesn't say that we exempt them from it. That that's where I was reading that. Maybe I read it wrong.

No. I I'm tracking you. So, rather than the term restrictions, you know, we we can we can work with the language that would then clarify what what their what compliance would mean for that special event.

Okay. And I'm I'm see where you said that the thing might be a

little too far, but yeah.

Yeah. There I'm sure there's a few other things too, but that was the first one I thought of because, you know, being at the picnic, the bands were great. I didn't think they were overwhelmingly loud, but it doesn't take much to get to 90 decibel. And if you hit a house, I think our maximum is 85 at their property line. And that's only for one hour.

Or no. Sorry. Not 85. 65, I believe.

Alright. Thank you.

No problem.

Okay. Carly. Sarah, my comments related to the purpose section, the purpose and intent statement. It specifically says that the intent is to allow community based organizations to sponsor these events. And I have a bit of concern that the term community based organizations may be restrictive inadvertently or unless that's the intent. But I suggest revisiting that language to because it Make it more broad. Yeah. It makes me think if I wanted to sponsor an event. I'm not a community based organization, so maybe that wouldn't allow me to do it.

Yeah. That's a good point.

Just a clarification follow-up. Do you do you have any suggested language, or or would you suggest just striking community based organizations to sponsor? And and then it just would read, the intent of this chapter is to allow special events on public thoroughfares and in parks?

Yeah. Teams are reasonable. Yeah. Yeah. That sounds good. Good. K. Good questions, y'all. Alright. So no one has any further discussion on it. What where do we move from here?

So next steps, staff would take this, perform some more cleanup based on the feedback we've received, and get everything noticed and ready for a public hearing at the commission's February meeting.

Okay. Sounds good. Yeah. I mean, some good work. I I obviously, you probably, you know, have looked at other communities and put things together to to help with ours.

I mean, this has just been something that's been

Been hanging out with

for a long time. City city staff has wanted to find something that's better navigable than the temporary use code to Yeah. To allow for these events. And so we're looking forward to it.

Great. Great. Okay. So onto the fencing. And that's you, Josh?

Yes. Thank you, chair. Well, back in 2023, we had a property owner reach out regarding interest on security fencing due to theft. Our code is kind of opaque on that issue opaque on that issue and as as laid out on the staff report. And then on September 2024, we've initially brought it again to or introduced it to planning commission.

And is but after that meeting, there hadn't been any follow ups that didn't become a pressure item or item that we're pushing through. We're doing comp plan and other development regulations. Now that we have some time, we figured we would bring this back. However, we have also just noticed or not noticed, but reached out back to the property owner, and there is no pressing need for the security fencing. But we still want to address it and start looking at other fencing. In the process of reintroducing this, we also realized that the state passed new laws regarding

Yeah.

Security fencing. So that don't align with our current one, so we figured it'd be a perfect time to go ahead and bring those in alignment. And so that's our introduction. Staff doesn't have any red lines quite yet. We're gonna be, looking at Tacoma, Southern, and Auburn for some red lines. We're gonna compare that to the state regulations. The question to planning commission tonight is if you have any specific regulations or guidance that staff should consider when we as it relates to electrical security fencing as we're going through our red line.

Well, I I know that Tacoma faced some issue with some property owners wanting to put electrical fencing in, and I don't remember. Did they I I think they allowed it. Right?

Yes. In certain

And, of course, the state now is promoting it or is allowing it

based on Require cities have to allow it under certain circumstances unless there's other codes in place.

Right. The companies that that do it these days seem to have it pretty well under control. I mean, I anyone who grew up in a farm area knows that. Kids are always running around, you know, telling them, you know, their friends to, well, touch the fence or, you know, or or do stuff. And I don't think anyone died in Edgewood that I can that that I remember.

But but, anyway, those that area certainly makes a lot of sense in in today's world. You know, height for some businesses and the the additional height with the fan electric fencing, I I fully understand because people have gotten very aggressive in how they, you know, go ahead, you know, take stuff away from people.

And then wouldn't it just include electrified fences? A lot of Yeah. Ones are not, like, alarm based

Right.

Systems, but they all fall under electric, The other the

the amplifier. Yes. Yeah.

So this will help verify those as well. Yeah. That's part of it. Yeah.

So those would work kind of like your alarm system that you have in your house. If you want to have it go into to the police station, it would your company would automatically notify the Edgewood Police It could that. Signed up for that.

Correct. It could be that, or it could also be on-site noise

Yeah. What right. Impact.

So it'll be just part of a when we're going to the regulation, we're gonna review all that.

Yeah. Well, it seems reasonable to upgrade and especially since the state has put some things forward. Does anyone have any comments about the fencing? Anything that

Commissioner Fury, first, the state regulations look pretty good. We could easily follow those and be fine. My only question is not knowing enough these fences aren't the site. If you run into them, you don't get electrified, do you? It just sets off

a security alarm. Is that correct?

It depends. I've had run ins with the fencing, and they do electric you a little bit, a little shock.

Oh, yeah.

But not all of them. Right.

I see. Yeah.

Okay. Well, yeah, I just think that we should move on

and do what the state's recommending and together the plan that's, you know, with guideline

Mhmm.

And look at maybe Tacomas and Summers to see if we can combine us, but I'm bored.

Yeah. The state did put together a working group and the Amarok Electric Company that provided in the brochure was one of those companies that provided feedback into it. So there is, I think, believe, two or three that did. So it it would likely be the way we go, but there might be some design standards that we still wanna apply about fencing locations behind maybe behind a fence instead, but there's still that screening. So we're gonna look into that a little bit.

Yeah. We wanna wanna talk about the visual impacts. We wanna talk about reasonably safe distance from where we would expect the public to be. You know, you don't want to have electric wire, like, right up against the right of way line. That that could be a concern. So just things that we wanna make sure we're talking through with you guys in in more depth and and getting some good feedback on.

Lauren, you have a comment? Go ahead.

Yeah. I had a couple questions, and they might be dumb questions. I'm sorry if they are. It's okay.

Are we

excluding, like, farm electric fences from this?

Is that

No. We're gonna be reviewing that as part of it just to see how it how it fits overall. It'll be probably very similar where we depending on the location and what's separating that fence, electric electrical part of the fence from the right of way, for example. So it wouldn't be probably a full exemption or probably there's some clarification on it.

We don't have anything in our code right now for electric fences.

We have something up.

Something simple in there?

You scroll up just a little bit.

Because I know there are some I mean, I I know there

We have artificially constructed barriers and kind of the term we utilize in our current code. And so there's some question about what that actually means.

Yeah. Because I know there's some farms I mean, small farms around that have them for their horses and their cows. Anyway I have Go ahead.

Oh, Laurie,

did we answer your question?

You answered that question. And then I have, like, two more. One was

Okay. Go.

The height. It was talking about height, and I wasn't sure. And I tried to figure it out through reading it, and I couldn't figure it out. Maybe I just missed it. But the height differences and whether that's, like, if it's on a different elevation because the fence might be behind a regular fence and stuff like it's on a hill because we have a lot of hills, how how that's determined which side of the fence the hill is on that has to be, you know, six feet or, like, the height if that it was that in there and I just missed it?

So we will be looking at fence height as part of this. Oh, okay. In the I don't know if the state regulations actually provide any specific requirements on that. Our code has fence location requirements of front yards, four feet. In the front yard setback, if you're out there, you can go up to eight feet without a building or or needing a building permit. Six feet without a building permit, eight feet would. Yep. Typically, we the the height of the fence, though, is measured with the fence at that location. So there's a fence behind it that would have its separate height based on where that is located. So it's on a hill.

It'd be based on where that base of that where it hits the ground up. Well, that's how it's typically done, but I I would need to get through the actual regulations and figure out more about the API requirement.

And and like Josh said, we certainly part of the conversation we want to have with you guys as far as Yeah. Considerations for these things. If we're requiring that these security devices are set back a certain distance from the fence, but yet they want the heights to be you know, the elevation of the top to be the same. I'll I'll be clear there. But topography plays a big role, and I know of at least a couple of other inquiries we've had in the city where, you know, we've got this height restriction, but the the ground is a lot lower on the property line than the road.

And so but they're only able to put in a a four foot fence. You can't even see it because below the road elevation. So what good is that doing that individual versus, you know, allowing for something that would be actually four feet above the road or something along those lines? So, yeah, love the love the thought.

Lauren, you have another question?

My my last one is kind of what you were talking about earlier, but I just wanted to clarify the difference between a burglar alarm system and an electric security system that is more of a one that it doesn't zap people, but it alerts stories.

I unfortunately, I'm not there yet. I'd I'd be able to really help you define that yet. At next month's meeting, I'll have a more in-depth knowledge of this these requirements.

Okay. Thanks. That's it.

Thanks, Lauren. Tom?

Yeah. Jeremy actually answered one of the questions. I because I believe that one of the people along the highway that has a fence issue, their property sits in a way that if they wreck the right size fence, it's really not an adequate fence.

Yeah.

But but the other one was correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all these ones that are the electrical ones and I know they're a they're a high voltage, but they're they're actually safe. They just hurt a lot. I believe they're always behind another safety fence.

Aren't is that is that correct?

It's not all way or the lot of cities have gone that route of requiring them. So it's a very common practice now. However, without it, people could. And so we would be looking at at behind the other established fence.

Yeah. That's the one I would promote. That would keep all the accidentals away. It's really the people that wanna really try to get in are gonna learn what the fence can do.

Okay. Anyone else? Any other? Okay. Some good

Just just have one more thought kind of along the fence height compensation too, not relating to the security devices, but just fence heights in general. You know, we've we've got the four foot height restriction in most front yards with the exception of principal arterials. Now that would mean if you're on Meridian or Jovita, you could have a six foot high fence. As we have probably all heard off and on over the years, traffic is one of people's highest concerns. And when we got people flying through the city during the commute hours, it gets it becomes a nuisance.

So there's been some interest expressed from those who are on not just principal arterials, but our minor arterials and our collectors about allowing for higher fence heights in their front yards. So I'd wanna keep that as part of the conversation as well.

I can understand that because we have more traffic in general through through Edgewood, you know, a lot of the streets that we didn't have a lot before. So okay. So onward with that, and we'll look forward to seeing what you have. So anything else the staff would like to bring up?

Yes. We just wanna make the board aware that next month, we'll be working together on the work plan, the planning commission work plan

Okay.

For the joint meeting with city council. It'll likely be a lot of the stuff on the comprehensive plan update amendment cycle and maybe a couple other items that we are looking into potentially doing, maybe some design review review.

Okay.

Secondly, we've also applied for the our commerce reopen climate grant funding

Okay.

In December or January 6 that we applied for. Hopefully, to finish out our whole process that we had started. Mhmm. We will know in the February if if that's accepted. I I submitted it within two minutes of it opening, so hopefully

Okay.

We're the first ones in.

First ones in.

If that's the case, then we'll be doing a lot of, also, climate work potentially in the coming months and needing a planning commission to help on that.

Jeremy, any Yeah. I just have a a couple of quick touch points. I was reminded last month about the American Planning Association website. As as you are all planning commissioners, especially those of you who are newer may not be aware of this resource, but, I believe you are able to create a free account on on this site and sign up for newsletters if you're interested in getting the latest information out there. If you've got any questions, details on the website, please feel free to reach out to to Josh because he's familiar with the APA website.

Do I need to get that? I think I I get notices from them.

At one time we had provided, like, group membership for the the boards, but we haven't renewed that. But that doesn't mean you don't have access to to resources on Right.

So Right.

Would encourage you to to check it out. Email that newsletter.

I think I think we're getting some email.

I will note that those who joined the planning commission within the last year or so probably are not. Oh, okay. I just wanna point that out. And then

So they can sign up for it.

Yes. Exactly. And then secondly, just kind of a New Year reminder, not that anybody's in trouble on this point, but Yeah. Please notify staff if you're not gonna be able to attend a meeting. If you don't, then you're gonna be marked absent and

You don't like to see too many absence.

I mean, by the letter of the rule, if you are absent three meetings in a row, you could be removed from the commission. We don't wanna see that happen. So again, nobody's in danger of that but I

For clarity, you're referring to like not on Zoom and not in person, correct?

Correct.

Correct. Not want make sure we're clarifying.

If you're not attending the meeting either in person or virtually then and and you don't let staff know that you are not able to attend, then you will not have an excused absence. It would be just marked as absent, and three of those is grounds for dismissal potentially.

And I just do not wanna have to dismiss anyone. Okay. I guess, we're starting off the New Year with a small meeting, and that never hurts because I know we're gonna get lots of long ones later. So I'll adjourn at 06:38.