Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey. We're opening the meeting at 06:00, and we'll stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Allegiance to the flag. United States Of America. Every object from which it stands. One nation. Another God. Indivisible. The liberty and justice will. Okay.

Alright. So I'm assuming everyone's had a chance to look through our minutes in the consent agenda. So I'm gonna call for a motion.

Commissioner Fury moves to Chair,

point of order. Need a roll call before we get started.

Ahead of myself tonight. Okay. Roll call is commissioner Guillory? Here. Overfield's here. Tom Green?

Here.

Jan Fury? Here. Leila Church? Here. Carly Lemoir?

Excused absence.

Okay. Alright. The roll is complete. But now I will call for a motion to approve the consent agenda, please.

I so move to approve the consent agenda. Jan Fury.

Jan Fury. Okay. May I have a second? Second.

Commissioner Guillory.

Thank you. The all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. So that is it's an agenda approved. Okay. So we have a a citizen's comment period. If so, if anyone wishes to speak.

Again, this is a just to clarify, this is for items that are not on the agenda at the moment. We do have two public hearings scheduled this evening, and you'll have the opportunity to speak on those items in a moment.

Okay. So if there's anyone out there on Internet that wants to raise their hand? Okay. Seeing none, we're going to move on to the public hearing. And the first public hearing is on the comprehensive amendment comprehensive plan amendment. And, Jeremy, are you gonna I'm gonna open at 06:02. Josh or Jeremy? Josh.

Thank you, chair. Yes. Let me get together a PowerPoint. Yep. Tonight, we're having the 2,026.

The purpose of this meeting is to set the preliminary docket and provide recommendations to city council for the final docket. The docket setting process is initiated by the director's recommendation through the planning commission. We have a public hearing with the planning commission, where we have a public comment period for the preliminary docket. And following the public hearing, planning commission provides recommend discusses the preliminary docket and then takes final action and recommendation of the city council. Then the city council reviews the preliminary recommended preliminary docket and discusses and makes a final adoption via resolution for the final docket.

This is kind of the 2026 comprehensive plan timeline, and we received a request from January 2025 to December 2025, and then the director for providing those recommendations to planning commission for review in February. City council will review them in February and March. And then between essentially March, but April through November, we'll be reviewing it but a final date in December for final action on the docket. That stuff city council must take action by the end of the year. We could get it done earlier, but this is the the initial timeline, and and will likely move faster than what is shown here.

Important note, placement on the final docket does not guarantee approval of any of the items. It merely means that the proposal will undergo further analysis by city staff and the planning commission. The final recommendation from the planning commission will be considered by city council. Only proposals placed on the final docket will be considered for adoption. For the 2026 docket, we received two applicant requests, the West Valley Highway East comprehensive plan map amendment and rezone and the Schrober comprehensive plan map amendment and rezone.

The first one, the twenty five zero one comp plan is the West Valley rezone and the comprehensive plan amendment. The proposal is to change the future land use map and current zoning map designations within the West Valley Highway overlay area from residential, commercial, to industrial. The goal is to be in consistent, is to be consistent with the West Valley, highway land use study done by SG Alliance back in 2025. Overall, we had, I believe, either, six or seven, property owners add on to one application to do this, in the West Valley overlay study area. So as part of this, we won't we'll be looking at these properties, but likely the whole overlay area again, part of it.

The need to earn standard appropriateness. Since 2015, several property owners have inquired about nonresidential uses in the area and stemming from neighborhoods, cities, industrial and commercial zoning is adjacent to this area, so City Of Seminary and Pacific Lobby Industrial located over there. So there's a lot of industrial and traffic noise and air quality impacts into the neighborhood. And this is consistent with the 2024 comprehensive land use goal because it was identified as a special land use study area for future analysis as a possible redesignation of land into other use. Staff availability.

Like, for the comp plan amendments, there'll be probably staff working through the reviewing of the document and then utilization of the West Valley study overlay study that was done last year by SGE SGJ Alliance. The anticipated cost is approximately 8,715, which was applicant paid. The next one, twenty five zero two complaint amendment is the change to the future land use map and current zoning map designation of two parcels. I won't read them when they're on on the screen here. Ending in 411 and 4144 to from residential to industrial.

The goal is to update the comprehensive plan and future land use map and current zoning map accordingly. This is gonna be on the Southeast corner of the city off of Sumner Heights Drive East. There are two industrial properties already down to the south of it and residential to the north of it. City Of Sumner and Pierce County properties, the city of Dantics. The property's assets from Sumner Heights Drive East, which is a low volume local roadway.

The only residential zone properties there are no, residential zone properties South of Sumner Heights Drive East, and it would be consistent with a 2024 comprehensive plan, land use goal one b. It's really hard to see here, but the two properties were identified also on the special land use study overlay and for possible redesign redesignation of land uses, potentially industrial or other commercial uses. For this item, staff will be primarily working on this, and anticipate cost is 8,715, which is applicant pay. So the planning director recommends that the planning commission consider the 2026 comprehensive plan amendments Let me dock in its entirety. So the two items presented above in their recommendation to city council.

And that's it for my presentation.

Okay. So if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on on this proposal, just approach the microphone and state your name and address, please.

So my name is doctor Paul Juice for Double Dip LLC. I own the property and affected rezone request at 12620 Jovita Boulevard East, which is a corner of Jovita and West Valley. As you recall, this whole area was approved last year and went to your city council. But the usual suspects objected, that is the Department of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and the Puyallup tribe. Of course, I strongly support the proposed rezone, the corridors in area that is not suitable for residential or retail, as it is squeezed between the steep hillside on the West and West Valley at one sixty seven highways on the East.

If your commission city council approved this application, keep in mind that all environmental protections will be applied during project permitting. Please vote your approval approval for this measure. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Gurvendra Kera. I'm from 1618 West Valley Highway East. I'd like to agree with doctor Paul here. That place that whole area is not suitable. Sorry. A little bit nervous. That place is not suitable for residential. We we just built a house there. It's extremely loud.

I made these comments last time I was here. A lot of noise pollution there. It's it's I would I would say, like, it's more suitable for commercial, industrial purposes. It's not a safe area. We've heard gunshots there. We've had people litter tons of times right in their driveway. It's paved. There's a gate. There's a house. Then what's really yeah.

Please, if you guys can turn to commercial, it's more of a suitable place where you go there nine to five, you you have assets there and and then there. That would be a better use for that land.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Is there anyone online? Raise your hand, please.

We do have, two, few users online.

Okay.

I will give permission to speak to Jora S. First, do you wanna unmute yourself? Introduce yourself?

Yeah. Hi. My name is Jora Singh. I am a property owner in the West Valley Highway East rezone area, and I'm speaking in support of the comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments to designate this corridor for industrial as a nonproject policy level action. I wanna start by acknowledging staff and the agencies who provided comments.

We take those comments seriously. But I want to be very clear. We're not asking you to approve a construction project, a site plan, or any specific development. This is a corridor planning decision, and any future project would still have to comply with critical area rules, storm water requirements, transportation standards, and all permitting and agency conditions. The central point is simple.

This corridor functions as one continuous regional corridor across city boundaries, such as, like, Auburn, Pacific, Sumner. They all plan and zone their segments of the same corridor primarily for industrial uses. Edgewood is the gap. The topography and the critical area constraints do not change at the city limits. The corridor's function, access patterns, and adjacency to industrial activity are continuous.

Keeping a residential designation in the middle of a regional industrial corridor does not create long term compatibility. It often increases conflict, truck routing friction, noise complaints, and pressure for exceptions because the land use map doesn't match how the corridor actually operates. A corridor based designation is more consistent, more predictable, and more defensible. On the environmental concerns, zoning does not remove environmental protections. Critical area protection still apply, and storm water compliance still applies.

The right time for detailed site specific analysis is when an actual project is proposed with real engineering and studies. Tonight's decision is whether this corridor is appropriate in principle while keeping those protections fully in place. If the commission is willing, I respectfully ask that your recommendation include clear findings that this is a nonproject policy action, environmental protections remain fully applicable. Transportation, utilities, stormwater, and safety issues are addressed through future project level review and permitting, and the change supports regional corridor consistency and reduces long term land use conflict. Thank you for your time and for building a careful record.

I respectfully ask you to recommend approval.

Okay. Thank you for your comments. So there's a second person online.

We we have a couple more hands raised. Okay. Next, we will apologies. We have someone just labeled Zoom user. I'm gonna give permission to talk now. You would take yourself off mute and introduce yourself, please.

And could I remind you to please give the where you live, your address where you live, please? Thank you. Go ahead.

Oh, I see that they have dropped off. Okay. So we're gonna move on to Heather. You would unmute yourself and introduce yourself, please. Heather, the floor is yours.

Sorry, Heather. We see that you are not on mute, but we cannot hear you. Still unable to hear you. I'll say if anybody else online, if you have any comments that you'd like to submit, certainly, they'll take that electronically if you wanna email the city.comdev,comdev,@cityofedward.org. We have one more hand being raised, chair.

KB,

you wanna take yourself off of mute?

Can you hear me?

We can hear

Hi. Hi. My name is Johnny Evans. I own property in the Rezone area. I just wanna say that I support the proposal because this corridor already functions as a transportation and freight oriented spine, and land use planning should match that function.

You guys are putting in a giant truck stop across the street from my house, and I you know, it it's already an industrial area. So I just wanna say that I support it. Traffic and access are important, but these details are best handled when there's actual project with real trip numbers and engineering. Low concurrency permitting and conditions. Tonight is the policy question. Is this quarter appropriate for industrial use in principle consistent with how the region is already planned? I believe it is, and I ask you to recommend approval. That's all I got.

Okay. Thank you.

You're very welcome.

Is there anyone else?

Seeing no further hands at this time.

Okay. We appreciate everyone's comments this evening. And I seeing there's no one else to comment, I'm gonna close this public hearing at 06:19. Okay. So we now go on to our second public hearing this evening. And this is on the events code, so I'm gonna open that public hearing at 06:19. And Jeremy?

Thank you, chair. Tonight, we're here to take public comment and any input on the proposed special event code. As discussed last month, staff sees the need for a clear process and procedure for handling special events. What's been provided in tonight's packet has a few minor changes to what was presented last month. We recognize there's still good reason to have temporary use permits as it relates to events on non city owned properties and outside of city right of way.

So, made some clarifying edits and and tweaks to that effect. Also received our legal counsel's input on on the document. But, other than that, we're just looking forward to taking this forward through the process, see see if we have any public input this evening, and staff is ready to discuss it further following public input later on tonight.

Okay. Is there anyone that wishes to comment on this code for the public special events? Anyone out there in that wants to raise their hand online?

Seeing no hands at this time.

Okay. So seeing as there's no one wishing to comment on this tonight, I'm going to close this public hearing at 06:21. Okay. So we've heard from people regarding this comprehensive plan amendment, and I think that we've all reviewed reviewed the information that's been given to us regarding staff draft. And so I open it to anyone else on the planning commission who might have a comment regarding this area, which we have discussed in the past.

Josh?

Yes. As you mentioned, there was a public hearing that was held, and we received a number of comments from the area. And we had looked at it, the whole area last year. But based on last minute comments from ecology, the tribe, Fish and Wildlife, we didn't have time to respond to that. We asked that they would be put off on hold until we had a chance to review those comments.

As such, the property owners cited that they would they still wanna pursue this faster, so they we have five, and it's not a very looking at it again. As I mentioned, there's about six or seven property owners that did a joint application. We'll be looking at directly those properties, but we also do look at the area and see what would be appropriate. There could be additional property rezoned as as part of this overall amendment process. And the also in the packet is the draft recommendation to city council.

So what were the concerns of fish and wildlife in the tribe? Is there a stream is there a creek that runs through there? Or

There is a a variety of streams and wetlands that run off from the hillside, and there were concerns about that if it was plain if it was just a blanket industrial rezone. Primarily, it seemed like the concerns were industrial big industrial warehouse based, but we weren't able to really discuss those with those commenters to understand their their views fully at that time.

Okay. So anyone that's going to put anything there is going to have to mitigate critical areas in the wetlands anyway, or and provide maybe filtration if there's runoff that is gonna occur. And I assume that across the valley has the same has the same issues on the Sumner side with actually, I I know that they have, and they've been able to mitigate it. So having looked at this area and having been down there to look at the area and what's happening all around it, it it just is as we've discussed before as a planning commission, it doesn't make sense to have it zoned residential. So I open it up to my fellow commissioners to make a comment if anyone has a comment that that they see that is worthy of being residential.

I'm not gonna say it's I think it should be industrial. That's pretty clear from what we know now and how we've been looking at it. The only question I have is on the Sumner property because I wasn't really familiar with that last time. The one that that comes into Sumner Heights meets Edgewood kind of at the bottom of the hill before you hit the railroad track. Isn't that correct?

Yes. That's correct.

So is the property that is under consideration for application the one that's abuts to I think there's a commercial business there called Evergreen Precast. Is that the

Yes. It abuts that. Yeah.

So my only question is it's kind of a it is a strange hillside area. Is it being proposed as an addition to the precast, or can you even bring that up?

So we don't there hasn't been any applications like that. There is a property owner that's looking to do more of an industrial use on that property, but it'd be limited to the same things as commissioner Overbill mentioned, all the steep slopes, streams, wetlands, it'd have to meet all those same guidelines. But yeah.

Yeah. Because that was my only concern is it would have to do meet those climate requirements in the property. But other than that, as, you know, I see that this property, this area does need to be transformed or what it really is and what is, you know, the better use of the properties in this area. So I suppose

Is there anyone else who wants to comment?

Commissioner Green has the same reason.

K. Great. Tom, go ahead.

Yeah. I'm I'm actually, I'm surprised that all the people spoke were all in favor. I know we had a couple of post last time residential, but, I I feel this is probably the best action for this area property because as we know, developers have to jump a lot of hurdles, and they have a lot of oversight. So, I think it'll actually, the lands will be probably in their best condition if they're taken care of by an industrial developer out there.

K. K. Thanks, Tom. Carly, have anything to to add? Okay. Well, if if nobody else has anything to add, I I think that this is from past discussions and what's going on, and we had, you know, some of these concerns. And when we did the industrial for down in Puyallup along the area near the car dealerships that we we had similar discussions. I mean, everything was going into industrial there. There was residential behind it. But, anyway, this makes sense to everybody on on the planning commission.

So I'm gonna ask then that we have a vote to send this on to the the city council. And so this motion so may I have a motion to send this on to city council?

So moved, commissioner Guillory.

And may I have a second, please?

I second, commissioner Guillory. Okay.

So all in favor of passing this on to the to the city council, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. So that that passes.

And And I'm hoping that we can move move this along in a with the city council and that it doesn't take till December to get this done, hopefully. Okay. Yeah. So we're under the events? Yep.

Yes. I

think The events draft?

Yes. So provided in the packet is a red line for the fences, bulkheads, retaining walls, and electric fences. As mentioned last month Oh, sorry.

Sorry. I I I was out of We're we're talking about the fences now. Right?

Oh, yes.

Yeah. Okay. Yep. Sorry.

That property owner from West Valley had reached out regarding an electrical fence code and how the city would allow for something like that. And it currently doesn't. It's very vague. So we were originally in 2024 gonna bring it, but then it was put on hold for other items. So now we're revisiting it.

And at the time of last month, we realized also that state passed a new law regarding electrical fencing, and so we were incorporating all that. So in the packet is a draft red lines. We decided to review a lot more than just electrical fencing. It was all part of the same code section. And so I have a variety of questions to ask for guidance from the commissioners.

The first one, there's about fence definition. We currently don't have a fence definition in our code, so we provide two options. Unfortunately, I mixed those two options up in the staff report. The main difference between option two is that it or option two would consider vegetative hedges hedges, while option one would not. They're reversed here. Apologize for that. So currently, our code doesn't have any definition. We're looking to provide more clarity on the item. Some cities do include hedges as a fencing under definitions. Staff would probably prefer not to because it becomes a lot more code enforcement, and we're dealing with more vegetation in this case.

However, we since it's it's kind of split between other jurisdictions, if it's included or not, we felt like getting some guidance from the planning commission was reasonable.

Okay. I I understand what you're saying about the code enforcement. I didn't happen to think about that because keeping hedges oftentimes within a certain height is not at the property owner's top of their list many times because I I I see it along areas where where I live, and and it makes it hard for for sight lines or at stop signs. So based on that thought, I would I would go for not allowing that. Is there anyone else who wants to speak up about that?

So do I get the impression that everyone is more in favor of the code the fence as being something that's more tangible, like wood or metal. Is that unless somebody has something else to say. Nobody nobody okay. So I think that the option without vegetation is is the preferred option.

And, obviously, once we revise and come back next month, you'll see a little bit more comments then. We can address it then. Second one, residential and mixed residential maximum fence height. The municipal code allows for a maximum fan height of four feet within the front yard sex setback except for lots fronting arterials, which may reach up to six feet. The proposed amendments would allow front fronts or lots fronting Collector Streets to also have a maximum of six feet.

I mentioned this last month that we had some residents inquiring about that along Collector Street. So question is, does the Planning Commission have any comments or additional suggestions regarding the proposed chain? I any even other streets that you would be willing to also look at, like local roads or

So we're talking about reducing it to six feet.

Increasing it from four to six.

From four to six.

Within the front yard set.

Yeah. It seems reasonable for some areas to have a higher a higher fence line. Carly, you have any thoughts?

If it just to be, I guess, maybe more clear. So our our arterials are Meridian 24th.

Yeah. Arterials principal arterials, MRIdian, Jovita, eighth minor arterials, eighth, twenty fourth, hundred and twenty second. And our collectors would include thirty second, thirty sixth, sixteenth, hundred And 14th, forty eighth, Priscilla. So pretty much all the roads that have centerline striping, that's that's kinda your indicator of what's more than a local road.

Yeah. Well, there have been an increase in traffic patterns, so I can understand where people would want a little more protection just in general. More people, more a little bit, you know, higher fence line. It it seems reasonable. Does anyone Seems reasonable to me.

Yeah. Commissioner Green has his hand raised as well.

Okay. Tom, you wanna say something?

Yeah. Because I I know a lot of this goes after aesthetics, and that's always a problem. But we are dealing with a lot, like you said, traffic concerns such such as that. And people are just trying to do it for safety, I believe. So I believe airing on that would be definitely better. So six foot, I believe, is is is adequate on those streets. Maybe even looking at other side streets too, but for those, for sure.

Okay. Okay. Thanks, Carly.

Yeah. Thanks. I think about long term impacts related to traffic circulation patterns. When we have corridors that fill a little bit more like corridors with taller fences, I'm concerned that that may result in increased traffic speeds, for example. So I don't know what the solution is or what kind of information we need to better understand that phenomena, but that is a concern of mine. Thank you.

Is that something that they have found in areas that increasing the fence is there any data on that that increasing the fence size?

I know of data that talks about how trees and those items that make the street seem a little more crowded will actually slow people down. However, yes, there's also a corresponding expenses, then there's less concerns about things running in front of them, so they might speed up more. So there's a, yes, there's a mixture of that. I would say that I don't know if there's a oh, there probably is an academic research on it, but I don't have that easily available at the moment. Well, we do But it is something that we can actually bring up to the chief as well and Yeah. Get his input on.

That'd be a good idea. One one good thing is we have a little more traffic enforcement in our city than we used to, so that's a good thing.

Well, one thing that is kinda nice is, like, on Crusilla. There's better traffic lighting. It's not, you know, slow down signs available. Sometimes that's probably where we should focus. Focus on traffic signs, not so much the barriers, but focus on how we signage the streets so people do have to slow the

Just wanna note that commissioner Church did have her hand raised, but it's no longer raised. Yeah. That's something there we go.

Hi. Yeah. I guess I I I lowered my hand because you're somewhat addressing what I was thinking about too. I guess when it comes to, residential mix, residential maximum fence height, I guess I would I'm thinking about the traffic volumes and speeds, as it pertains to the visibility and sight distance. And then I guess my other question or concern would be for the neighborhood character too.

But it seems reasonable, provided that the visibility and sight distance standards remain, I guess, enforceable or managed some way, especially around the intersections and driveways?

Yes. That would still, they would all have to meet the site's distance requirements, and we do often have encoder enforcement where people just install sensors, and we go out there and deal with that at that time. So it'd be the same standards. They would still have to meet all their site distance requirement.

Okay. So Just one more thought to going on to what Josh was speaking to. Go enforcement side, if they put the fence in the right of way, we gotta get them to take it out of right of way too. So we're gonna have that minimum separation distance from the traveling public. But one thought that might be worth doing some more research on if the commissioners are interested would be in those instances where somebody would like to install a six foot fence for whatever reason.

Yeah. If maybe there's an offsetting feature like installing coordinating with public works to install street trees in the right of way in front of said fence, but at least, you know, maintaining that appropriate separation from the traveling public so it's not becoming a safety hazard. That might be the way to meet or compromise.

Okay. So it looks like we're considering six foot to be reasonable and for further review. So next.

The next item is the nonresidential maximum fence height. The municipal code applies to the same maximum setback fence heights to nonresidential zone for the residential zone. The code also doesn't restrict the maximum fence height when located outside the setbacks since the town center commercial mixed use residential business park don't have a minimum setbacks, a fence, or a walk through, it could be as tall as the building. The proposed amendments establish a maximum fence height within the setbacks and required perimeter landscaping area. Does the planning commission have any comments or questions regarding that proposed change?

Anyone?

Yeah. My my quick summary is we changed the zoning code to get rid of setbacks in certain cases, but we didn't update the fence code to match. So Yeah. Here's our opportunity.

Okay. No. It seems good. Unless someone has a comment, go with that.

Alright. Next one. Barbed wire fencing. So the Minnesota code does not allow barbed wire fencing. However, there are illegal nonconforming properties throughout the city that do have existing barbed wire.

And there may be applications where barbed wire fencing may be appropriate for security reasons that will negatively impact the community's aesthetics. The proposed amendments would allow barb or reserve fencing in industrial and public zones under specific guidelines. This kind of came from us doing our research on electrical fencing and seeing how many cities do allow this type of fencing as well. So since we didn't have it, we felt like it was time to bring it up again. In this case, the proposed amendments would not have it in residential areas, but would allow it in industrial like uses and require specific separation regarding adjacent uses. Yeah. So is there any questions or comments on that change?

No. Is well, I say no. Anyone else? No. It seems reasonable. Yeah.

Alright. One that wasn't brought last month, but as we're going through our code, decided that it was something we needed to discuss with which is retaining wall regulations. So the overall goal of this revision is to determine if our retaining wall height should be limited when facing street rights away in neighborhood property. For example well, I'll just read the rest. The municipal code currently allows residential walls to four feet within front yard setbacks and up to eight feet in interior and rear setbacks.

However, if a zoning district does not have a setback retaining wall, it can theoretically reach the maximum height of a building. Additionally, there's currently no height limit for retaining walls located outside of the setback. The proposed amendments would limit the maximum height of a single retaining wall without terracing. The proposal is either four or six feet. And the however, the exception would be made for taller walls if it's not visible from adjacent properties or public spaces.

So I'm gonna provide just some examples here so you understand where this is kind of coming from. So if you're driving up Meridian, you might see the Edgewood Heights phase three development. There's a large retaining wall there reaching up to 10 feet facing other property. And there are other developments within the city that have retaining walls a lot larger than that that are interior of the site. Uh-huh.

So as we're further developing our city, we're trying to understand if well, should a 12 foot wall be built along a neighboring property just outright as we currently would allow? Or should there be some kind of maximum and then terracing requirement? So Pierce County has an eight foot requirement. So brick and mortar can be eight feet, but then they have to terrace. Other cities have a smaller amount of six feet.

So that's kind of where we're we we initiated the discussion of trying to keep less impact on neighboring properties and then making sure our street frontage is stay walkable without huge retaining walls and limiting to the the four feet in the town center commercial areas. The second benefit of this is to require basically, it would require developers to grade better with the win and stop creating large shelves. They have to do a little bit more planning on their grading work to flow more within neighborhood. So those are our our proposed amendments. So does the planning commission have any input regarding reducing maximum retaining wall height from eight feet to six feet within setbacks or right of ways?

Did the town center makes use zone and districts be limited to four foot retaining walls along right away?

I I I could definitely see that a four foot for, like, town center area certainly makes sense. Having like you said, if the landscaper can do a little more work to do things aesthetically rather than just building something to eight feet. So anyone else have a thought about that?

Commissioner Green has his hand. Tom, go ahead.

Yeah. I do have a question about the terracing. When you mention it, what is the the amount of terracing that they're looking for? I mean, are we talking, like, a one brick width? Are we talking three feet, four feet for plantings?

What would that look like? So Pierce County uses two feet, and that's what we are proposing. And primarily for allow landscaping, they have to meet their blank wall requirements. It's become a way that they can do it. However, we could go larger or smaller depending on how planning commission feels.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, two feet. I just wanna make sure that there was proper room for plantings in there because I wasn't sure if that was mandated. That's my idea of why it would terrace. I do like the idea of a six foot, especially where it's gonna be viewed by neighbors and the streets and all that.

To be clear, are you talking six foot height?

Yes. Yes. Sorry. Six foot height, and I believe two feet's probably good enough to to get a a good amount of vegetation in there.

Thank you.

Would it would it be cumbersome to have some sketches of what something might look like with terracing and, you know, with, you know, with these sorts of things?

Yeah. We can probably we can't find any in the city. Yeah. But we can probably get examples from neighboring cities about their terracing or Pierce County for that matter and show examples of that. Yeah. And then we can also show pictures from Meridian of the Edgewood Heights kind of wall to kind of give you

That that I think that would be I think that would be nice to see that. Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner Church has her hand raised. Okay. Go ahead, Lila.

A couple of questions. I guess, for for these wall heights, I think that for me, it's all about increasing safety, first. And so I I lean towards being in favor of those items, as far as, like, the the sight distance and the driver reaction time and and so on. But but I was wondering if you could, for for everyone here, if you could kind of describe what you mean by greater public benefit. And when we make those statements in in our documentation, is it are you always using a certain definition for that?

There's not a specific definition because it takes such, a lot into it. That's probably why you're asking that that question. In this case, we're primarily focusing on the aesthetics of the the wall. The greater bubble benefit for the aesthetics and neighboring property property values are probably the the primary two. The third might be it also kind of deals with the same thing of less full grading of of site versus a little bit more of going with the slopes, which is a little bit of a aesthetic and environmental aspect of that item.

Understood. Thank you.

Okay. So, yeah, some sketches for or pictures for the future would be good. And yeah. Go. Okay. Carly.

Thank you. One of the questions in this is about retaining walls along the right of way in town center and mixed use zoning districts. I think from an urban design perspective, there ought not be retaining walls along the street, But rather, we should have, you know, an interaction with building frontages and entries so that the sidewalk is an extension or rather the the private property is an extension of the public realm. So the lower the retaining wall along the right of way in those zones, the better in my opinion. Thanks.

Okay. I mean, that is reasonable. I know sometimes just because of the the style of what's being built, they have to build it up more than than two feet. But but I think that's a reasonable thought to yeah. A reasonable theory.

Just trying to guess for context of that one, that was that four foot, it was actually taken from the state of Tacoma's mixed use districts in their pedestrian zone, but that was the maximum they allowed. But if if that one the technician recommends a smaller one, yes, we that.

Okay. Okay. So

yeah.

And I think some of the don't some of the apartments have, like, four foot retaining walls in front of them? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Josh, where do go?

Yes. Now onto the electrical security alarm system. So I've had too much education on this topic. Basically, there's actually two different systems. Electric security alarm system aren't necessarily the same thing as electrical fencing, although it can be.

It can be from the city's side, but it's not from a electrical permit building permit side of it. So, yeah, having conversation with a building official of this was very confusing sometimes. They're talking different whole different groups of people that had to review the different permit. So for our purposes of the land use, we can just say just say that they're basically the same thing. However, what exact permit from LNI or other jurisdictions is needed.

It's very dependent on the type of fence that they want to do, and that's up to, unfortunately, them to figure out what those permits would be. So on to applicability. So h d six eight eight allows security fencing on any outdoor storage property that does not abut, like, full uses, provided that the lot does not include existing residential hospital uses. State of Tacoma allows these systems in outdoor storage areas with commercial and industrial zones. The city of Milton allows them in light manufacturing community facility zones as well as some parcels used for lifestyle.

The city of Sumner allows them in manufacturing zone. I should note that all three of those mentioned electrical fencing directly because they were updated their code before the HP sixteen eighty eight, so they don't call out the security alarm system correctly. So the proposed amendments would permit electrical system alarm systems and electrical fencing around outdoor storage areas within commercial, business park, and industrial zoning districts as well as pretty lots used for livestock. Then HPL six eighty eight also allows security fence in I I guess I duplicated that. Oh, yeah.

So the staff question, does planning commission have any additional guidance regarding applicability? I want to see it in more places, allow more places, more restricted, or because we basically as we can come with our own regulations, but if we don't have any, then h b six eight eight is in place. So we have the flexibility to do more or less depending on how funding commission would like to go.

But they have to have a barrier fence. Right?

Yes. So

there sits behind the barrier fence.

Correct. Right. So they have to have some and this is another thing directly with the permitting side of what type of fence and how wide the slats are. They can't be basically, you can't put a hand through it based on what the building official was telling me of what alarm system would allow.

Right.

So this is where it got a lot into detail about exactly what type of fencing and all these things. And just, yes, there needs to be a a separating fence, a barrier fence before you hit the electrical. So

it seems reasonable in today's world to have the ability to put in either an alarm based electrical fence or a a real touch electrical fence. Is if if there's a barrier, I mean, that that's that's kind of a they're gonna hit somebody will hit that first before they get to the other part. And I it it seems it seems reasonable. Does anyone have any thoughts? Yeah. Carly?

The concern that comes to mind is noise and wondering how loud these electric alarm fence are and if it's similar to, like, a house residential alarm. But then would would you talk a little bit about how maybe our noise ordinance might apply?

That's a great question. Actually, I haven't seen anyone mention noise as part of this in general. I don't some of them might actually make noise because there's supposed to be an alarm system, and so there might be an alarm in interior assigned with that. I will have to look into that. Oh, yeah. Electrical fencing, it's more of the

Touch. Yeah.

So it might be a

Yeah. Yeah. Or There might be some noise, but it won't.

But I can look more into the electrical alarm system. In those cases, typically, alarm systems are not are exempt from our noise ordinance because they're a security. So it is something worth looking into a little bit. So I I I will look into that for next month.

And they usually have a time they're timed. You know? Theoretically, your house alarm, if it goes off, it's timed that it will shut down after a certain amount of time. But I I would wonder if there's a when you put these systems in, if you can just have an alarm I mean, a a notice on your phone and no alarm outside, or you can opt for both. Would that would make sense. So but at at any rate, that'd be worth be worth knowing. But, usually, they're time, so they only go off for a certain period of time. And and we could say that they can only go off for, you know, twenty seconds or something. You know? Anyway

Question, was there was there a second part of that question? Did I cover that?

I think you covered it all. Thank you.

Okay. So

Alright. Next thing is the minimum barrier height. So h v six eight doesn't mediate a specific height. Oh, it did. Oh, yes. I did. Look at that. Electrical so on setback, city of Tacoma requires electrical security alarm systems and electrical fencing to be a mill and five feet away from dwelling schools and similar uses. City of Sumner requires a mill of 10 feet from lot lines. State Of Mellon does not have a setback distance requirement.

All three cities in the H B 688 require the electrical fence to be located behind the perimeter fencing. The proposed amendments include a five bit setback when adjacent to sensitive uses and a limit the height of these systems to eight feet when located within a building setback. Specifically, as I mentioned, there is a distance requirement that the perimeter barrier has to be away from the electrical fencing. But just in case, we felt like setting a minimum anyways would still provide that protection.

So but they're saying that, okay. You're gonna have a barrier fence. You're gonna have a setback from a dis Jason property anyway. You're gonna have your barrier fence, and then we're talking about a five foot between the barrier electrical fence. Is that correct?

Potentially have a six foot fence along the property line.

Yeah. And

So The guidance from the manufacturer might say you only need a three foot distance from the barrier.

Yeah. Yeah.

In this case, we're saying it has to be at least five feet.

Yeah. Well, five feet seems reasonable. 10 feet seems a little much. Yeah. But Five is great. Yeah. Five five seems really reasonable.

I'm concerned about the space between the two fences. How is that maintained? Like, concerns about maintenance come to mind because I don't understand, I think, what's happening there. I suspect there's solutions for the property owner to maintain that area.

Yes. So so typically, it's just landscaped either Yeah. However they currently they they provide that landscaping, and they have to maintain it. They just can't grow things like like trees in that area

Okay.

Because of interference. So, usually, it's lower.

Or gravel.

Yeah. Or gravel.

Gravel. Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay. Good question. Anyone else out there have anything else to say? Okay. Go ahead.

Alright. Now on to the barrier height. So H 3681688 and the city of Tacoma, Milton Center all require non electrical barrier fencing to be placed around their electrical fans. However, sixteen eighty eight does not mandate a specific height for that barrier. The city of Tacoma requires a minimum of five feet, while in Subnait require a minimum of six feet. The proposed amendments here require a minimum of six foot perimeter height. Do you have any questions or comments regarding that? Would you like to go with five feet? Do you think six feet is appropriate?

Harley, go ahead.

I think it would make sense if this isn't the front yard setback. We just finished talking about what the front yard height ought to be, and I think that whatever it is, it should be the same. Yeah.

Believe in earlier parts of the proposed amendments, they'll talk about chain link fencing and fencing located within between the building and the right of way, which wouldn't be allowed in the chain link type of fencing wouldn't be allowed in the mixed use residential town center and commercial. So it shouldn't be in those instances in the front yard or between the building and the front. However, it might be a side or rear yard for sure. And it's only allowed in those outdoor or as we're proposing outdoor area storage.

So six foot would be reasonable then? Six feet.

Alright. And so there's obviously a lot of red lines provided in the code. Yeah. Is there any other questions, comments, or concerns that you saw that you in the red light?

Anyone else see anything in the red lines? I didn't I didn't see anything that

We're not necessarily in a rush to get this passed through, so we'll Yeah. Do is we'll do the additional research that we've talked about here Yeah. And some additional red lines. So if there's any questions next month about anything, we can obviously go through it then.

Okay. Okay. Right.

Alright. Last item on business is, just to circle back on the special event code.

Right.

We did not receive any public input this evening. No. But, happy to answer any questions commissioners might have, and looking forward to bringing us back in a clean form next month for potential action.

Okay. Did anyone see anything on the special events code that they wanna bring up tonight to the staff? I it looked pretty it all looked reasonable to me. But, Tom, do you have anything to say? Or

No. I was reading through it earlier. Looked good.

Okay. Okay.

I will just add that the school district of the school district is reviewing it, so they might have additional comment

Okay.

For next

Right.

Yeah. We we, contacted by them, and part of why we kinda shifted to a special events applies to city owned property and right of way approach and added language and temporary use permit section to clarify how how events on school properties would be handled if, you know, they Right. Have their own use agreements. They've got city staff supporting the event or not city staff. Sorry. School district staff Yeah. Yeah. That then makes our review of that a much easier process.

Right. Right. Okay. Okay. So we're all good with that. Right.

We have a few staff updates.

Okay.

First, we had a a missionary member resigned last month. So we have an open spot, and we have one applied for, and, council will get to, that next month. Again, if you know anyone, commissioner Rosen Rosenberg. Rogemba. Oh. Oh. He was moving out of the city.

Oh.

So if you also know anyone that wants to apply, then there's a spot open for that. We also mentioned last month that we were applying for the commerce climate grant that reopened. We got notified last week that we did get it.

Oh, okay. Good.

So we are getting the full $3,395,000 to finish our climate planning. We have a year and a half to work through that, and so we'll be hitting the ground running next month. We're planning getting all the contract stuff to city council this month and then getting all the final stuff early next month and start running with everything. There's gonna be notices out for various advisory groups to be as part of this. So there's been a lot happening within the next year and a half on this topic, so I wanted to mention that to you.

We also launched officially today or maybe yeah. Today, the food truck pilot program. So they we've had one person apply already. $50, which is a 100% reduction. Five hundred to fifty dollars. 10%. Yeah. 10%. Oh, jeez. Math's really bad there. Oh, really bad about that one. Yeah. That'd be fine. So hopefully, that will go just for this year, we're we're looking at it. Might eventually cause us to do a code update in the future once we kinda get through the how this program is going.

As part of that, we also have an RFP out RFQ for food trucks to be on city property out here in front of City Hall and then also on the community park. If you know anyone that's the food truck business that are interested, we're have that out there, and there's gonna be spots available. So, hopefully, we're bringing in additional food options to the residents this summer. That's all mine. Do you have any

and nothing further from staff.

Exciting day yesterday for all the Northwest well, most Northwesterners. So, anyway okay. So we've gone through it all. We'll adjourn the meeting at 07:07.

I mean, did calc. Yeah.