Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the City of Edgewood Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to start by calling to order the meeting at, 06:01PM. And the first thing we'd like to do is the pledge allegiance.

So I'd like to invite you to stand and do that with us. Alright. Thank you. So now we'll do the roll call, and I'll ask for assistance from staff. Carly Kilroy? Here.

Joanne Overfield is excused absence. Tom Green? Here. Andrew Hardesey is excused s absence. Leila Church? Here. And, Carla Lenore?

I'm here.

We have a quorum.

Great. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the consent calendar, and I'll ask a commissioner to offer a motion to approve that agenda.

Commissioner Lynn Watt, motion to approve.

Thank you. And do we have a second?

Commissioner Church second.

Excellent. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Did we hear from do we need to hear from Commissioner Green? Okay. I think motion passes. Consent agenda is is passed. So that leads to the next item on the agenda, which is the citizen comment period. And as staff explained previously, this is an opportunity for folks to offer comment to the Planning Commission for items that are not on the agenda tonight. And

if

you would please come to the podium and state your name, and then I believe each has five minutes.

And and it's about the proposed development on in Sumner Heights, and that that's appropriate. Okay. Anne Percival. 13021 56th Street East, Edgewood, Sumner Heights. I just got back from a long trip to Peru, and I found information about a proposed rezone change to my neighborhood.

Wow. I I was shocked. I have lived in been involved in Edgewood for forty nine years. I've lived in the same house in Sumner Heights on 56th Street. I have seen the death of my young husband from cancer, raised our two kids here, and now my second husband, Dan, and I live here.

I'm on the parks board, the PREB, and was part of a small group that wrote the grant for the county conservation futures purchase of the two Nelson Parks. So I've been involved for a long time. I'm part of the community garden. I even ran for city council a few years ago. This proposed development shocked me because I never realized it could even be a possibility.

We have such a nice neighborhood. We're supporters of our city. We love Edgewood. We have a diverse group with a variety of ages and origins, and we wanna preserve our neighborhood and not reinvent it in such a detrimental way too. The rezoning idea is entirely inappropriate. I urge all of you to vote no if you care about your Edgewood neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you, missus Percival. Next.

Hi. My name is Karen Coates. I live at 56231 31st Avenue East Edgewood, and I live with my parents, Jim and Esther, and they also own the adjacent property. So as a resident at Edgewood, I too want to voice my concern over the rezoning from residential to industrial for $5.06 $2.06 and $5.06 $2.08, Seminary Heights Drive East. So I lived in the house that I grew up in since 1967, and I've lived there most of my life.

Our family voted for becoming part of Edgewood because it was devoted to staying rural. I've read in the policy of Vision 2050 that one of the areas of vision is economic development policies supporting a distinctive built and natural character and high quality of life. And I fully believe that Rezone does not support that vision. So first, traffic and safety, that area isn't meant to support and increase volume on industrial vehicles, so it poses a direct risk to pedestrians. There's also not adequate buffer zone in that area.

So we've had my sister came to spend the night. She woke up in the middle of the night because her bed bed was vibrating, and we weren't sure it was that. So the cement plant, we knew it wasn't a train. We've lived with trains. We know what that's like. And we found out from our neighbor Mariah, who lives across the street, that they've been illegally using that as industrial zone. So their house is vibrating, and she sees the 18 wheelers. She hears them backing up with the beepers. She knows why the house is shaking. So I think it's safe to assume that's why our house is starting to shake.

In addition to that, we have landslide issues that have started to increase. It's reasonable to assume that vibration does not help the landslide issue. In fact, we had two dump truck loads hauled away today that's left off the bank of my parents' property. So there are multifactors, but the vibration can't help that. We also don't think it's good for the neighborhood character.

It can impact the property values. So I put significant money into my home in recent years so that my parents can stay with me, and so I can have it be a forever home and live there when I'm older. I'd hate to be forced to leave because of the rezoning impact and then also sell it at a lower market value than I could have. Finally, the environmental impact. Again, back to the vibration.

The area that need is asking for rezoning has a very steep bank, and it's adjacent. We have a bank down to the road, and then there's a really steep bank down the valley. It's right butted up against that, so I have concerns for a greater area than just our properties. We also see bald eagles flying above those trees on occasion, and rail tailed hawks lots of times. So it isn't just the land, it's also the habitat that we're concerned about. So we strongly urge you to vote against the rezoning and keep that residential. My dad has also suggested maybe the city could buy it and make a freeway park. Get Anne Mantel involved. Thank you for your consideration in listening to me. Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Alright. Can you hear me okay? Okay. Perfect. Hello. My name is Mariah Goianichea, and I've lived at Sumner Heights area for fourteen years. I live at 5629 Sumner Heights Drive East across the street from the residents of concern. 5628 Sumner Heights Drive East who filed their proposition to rezone their residential home into industrial zone. I strongly oppose the rezoning proposal at 5628 Sumner Heights Drive East. I chose to buy my house because of the charm of the neighborhood.

I grew up down the street from it at 5415 Sumner Heights Drive. I caught the school bus there. My parents built their first home there. So I'm very familiar with the area. There's a a strong sense of community and qualities that make this place very special.

The serene environment was abruptly disrupted at 04:30AM in early March two thousand fourteen or 2024. My partner and I were woken up by a sound of semi tractor trailer trucks entering the property, loading and unloading heavy material. This action was accompanied by the sounds of multiple backup beepers and large quantities of heavy materials being shifted and transferred. These noises continued in the morning, afternoon, and then in the evening. It turns out a trucking business was running out of the residential property.

In a residential zone, for several months, our community experienced adverse impacts of this business until a court enforcement stepped in. However, the result was temporary because as recent as February 2026, photo and video documentation was submitted to the city. Now as of March 27, there are solutions to rezone our collective neighborhood to industrial to fit their individual business needs and impact the entire community. My concerns to the impact of the community are it creates harm to the community members and the environment. Noise, light, air pollution.

Sumner Heights Drive is also a school bus zone where where children are gonna be standing there waiting for the school bus. Many of our community members walk and ride their bike down the hill and up the hill to Sumner High or just into Sumner. Impacts on work from home employees and impacts on vulnerable community members. Currently, there is an industrial, zone that exists behind the property. It is not adjacent to residential homes, but presents the same concerns. Another industrial zone directly among residential houses would intensify the issues we are already experiencing. Please deny the rezoning request and protect our residential neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next. Good

evening, and thanks so much for the work that you do. My name is Eric Page, and I have been in Edgewood for a while. Hello, Anne. It's good to see you. We've been at this for a while back in 1995.

We were involved in the cityhood campaign, and, I had the pleasure of serving on the city council. And every now and again, an issue comes up that's just really good at getting people together usually in a negative way, and I'm afraid this Schaubert proposed rezone is exactly that. It's got quite a bit of an tension in our neighborhood, and so you're seeing the tip of the iceberg right now. You know how how that works, of course. I submitted a letter on April 6 that describes a number of the concerns, so I won't belabor you with too many of the stories of the challenges this region's home would present to the community character, to the environment, to traffic, noise, of course.

But most importantly, how out of step it is with both the comprehensive plan and also the vision for cityhood when we started the city. The thing I would really like to focus on is anticipating some of the arguments, sometimes disingenuous, that applicants would offer when we would encounter proposals like this. The first is very common, and that is to shift the burden of proof. And that is to make it seem like the community is responsible for finding enough reasons why this proposed rezone shouldn't happen. And that's really not the way it should work.

The city was founded and the comprehensive plan was created. The zoning was created with the with for good reason, and the burden of proof needs to lie on the part of the applicant. They need to demonstrate why the city should do this for the public good, and I think that's going to be very hard to do. The second argument that I think is really important to address is enjoyment of property rights. The applicant is going to certainly say that they want to enjoy the their full property rights, which of course they're able to do right now.

They have the property at the zoning for which they purchased it. The challenge is to make sure that we respect the property rights of all the many people who are in that area and would be adversely impacted by this proposal. And as you know, many people would be adversely impacted by this. But perhaps my favorite that you're probably going to hear, if you haven't heard it already, is, well, there's industrial zoning nearby. There's it's only just a small change, and this is a argument that's commonly used that, well, we want to make just a little bit more of the city industrial.

Of course, that ignores a number of things that are so important. One, the complete failure to provide transition or graceful transition into residential areas. The other thing that that ignores is you're always going to have a border. We encountered this all the time. There's always going to be someone who says, well, there's a use like this near my property, so why can't I expand this use into another area?

Well, of course, this could continue forever and it could be deeply problematic, especially in this area where we have steep slopes and people are already experiencing serious problems. So when you're considering this, I just want you to think of something that no one in Edgewood has probably ever said. And let me know if you've ever heard this one. How can we make Edgewood look more like Valley Avenue? Because that's what this proposal would do. Thanks so much, and really appreciate the work that you do.

Thank you for your comments. Any others that would like to speak? Great.

Yeah. My name is Bill Coram, and I'm just here to support my niece, Mariah. I watched her bill or buy that house in fourteen years ago, fix it up, and it's kinda like a little tree house right across the street from this proposed site. What I wanted to say is I lived here in Edgewood for twenty years. My parents lived here since did live here since 1971. My sister and brother-in-law lived just off Caldwell and, you know, Edgewood's got a vibe to it. It's just a good vibe And I sure want to see it stay that way. And so I wanna urge you to reject this idea of, you know, the proposed rezone. Thank you.

Thank you.

Vice chair, I'll note that we do have one person online with their hand raised. I'm gonna get the allow to talk if you wanna

Yes. Yes, please.

Hi there. Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes.

This is weird because you can't see me. Anyway, my name is Gloria Fletcher. I live at 12921 56th Street East in Edgewood right above, you know, right along where everybody else is that's already spoken. I have lived in Edgewood about twenty seven years, twenty six ish years. And so it was a new city when I moved here.

And back then, I did participate in some of those planning meetings, and it was really interesting to hear what our neighbors had to say. And everything you know, I agreed with it all. I'm currently a commercial real estate broker. I have over 25 of public sector real estate experience, though, including working with planners and various projects, including comp plan amendments and planning an NFTE applications, and I'm super excited to see that Edgewood is considering that. And I really understand that there is a big need for commercial lands because they're going away, and they are a big part of our tax base and employment base.

However, I don't think this parcel, when I looked at it, it makes any sense. In fact, I'm more questioning why it wasn't originally all zoned industrial and then grandfathered in. So this is a good opportunity for us to have that conversation, and I would encourage you to deny this application. And even further, as you go to do your two two year comp plan check-in, maybe consider, if not a full on residential change, but perhaps an industrial buffer change. Because as some of our neighbors have already said, the steep slope issue is is for real, and it has gotten worse in the last few years.

And I I think it makes sense to me that we all take a good hard look at that. Because if our property values are impacted by that, that impacts your tax base as much, and this is a pretty small piece of property. Let's let's take a lesson from Sumner and maybe think about doing a manufacturing industrial center like they've done so all of it's in the right place and in a place where we all appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Fletcher. We have one more online. Is that right, Steph?

That is correct. Yacinda. I pronounced that properly.

That's fine. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you. I am here in support of my colleague, Mariah, who spoke this evening. And I come to you with a genuine concern, a different perspective, which is the work setting. She and I both have demanding jobs that require attention to detail and the ability to speak with clients and people in a peaceful setting, and we must be able to direct all of our attention to the matters that are presented to us. I honestly believe that approving this proposal will compromise the capacity to maintain high standards of work and compound the pressure in an already challenging environment.

I have, worked with her for many years. It's my hope that you take heed to the residents in the Edgewood area. I am not in that area. I'm a colleague, and I really think it's a beautiful area. And I support Moriah, and I hope that you can take their statements as well as mine into consideration. I'd like to thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your comment. Are there any folks in the room that would like to offer comment? Great.

Good evening. My name is Gordon Adams. I live on 13120 55th Street East, and have been there since 2012. Raised our son here. We were I've lived in the Tacoma area for since 2000 and was drawn to the city of Edgewood because of its rural charm and specifically this area to raise our family.

We have this wonderful view that looks down to the valley, and I am concerned that this what this is going to do by changing it to industrial is going to be a mistake that that I think the city of Sumner has done as well as the city of Puyallup and unincorporated Pierce County. The the light pollution I can do shadow puppets on my bedroom wall from the light pollution coming from the city of Sumner, from the city of Puyallup, and unincorporated Pierce County. This property right here is going to in addition to what my neighbors have already expressed, I'm going to voice light pollution concern. I think that these the eagles and the other things, the habitat, and just the regular enjoyment of this place. When we're in the deep dark in the you know, January, it's lovely this time of year, but in January, you know, I go we go by that place all the time every day.

And it is a wonderful there's, I think, three main entrances coming up the hill, this being one of them. I think that the city planners could really look at that area not as an industrial area, but more of a welcoming area, a place for a sign. The access to get from that area specifically to the city of Sumner is difficult already. My son is going to be likely attending the Sumner High School, and he's going to be either walking or riding his bike through here. And so I'm concerned already of the traffic kinda wiggling onto the city Of Sumner side, but the city of Edgewood doesn't need to further confuse all that and make it unsafe that way.

Those are my two main issues. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have another online.

Can we can we offer that person space after this person?

Yes.

Yeah. Okay. Please. Thank you.

I'll be quick. My name is Lisa Steudel, and it's s t e u d e l. And my address is 13203 56th Street East, and I'm a neighbor of all these lovely people. I've lived in in Edgewood for twenty five twenty eight years. And I I feel like our neighborhood is just one of the best and and was surprised after we got home from a trip recently too to see what was proposed.

But I I would like to second and third, like, Anne's idea of a park, Gordon's idea of a welcoming zone, and we've got the buffer zone. I just feel like there needs to be something like that put put there instead of more commercial. It's just a small little zone, so it'd be just great to have a welcoming park or a welcome zone there. Thanks. Thank you.

Alright. Staff online.

Alright. So, Dorsey, if you wanna unmute yourself.

Hi. I'm Dorsey Marks. I live with all these wonderful people that have been talking. I'm at 13006 56th Street East. And my husband, John, and I lived here twenty two years ago, and we just moved back last year because Edgewood is beautiful and peaceful and quiet.

And we're lucky enough to have a house with a view of Mount Rainier now, and we do have a little more noise than we anticipated moving back here. But the last thing we need is even more noise from from it turning into an industrial area, and so I am concerned about that. I have the same concerns that everyone else does, and I love all the the buffer idea or the park or the welcoming area. Those are all great ideas. I just wanted to add to that, whoever wants the property now for what you know, for the business they have planned, I'm not happy about that, but also if they sold it to somebody else at some point, who knows what noisier or brighter or, you know, what worse business could end up there too.

So I just wanted to add all my concerns and hope that you keep it residential or a park or something like that. So thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Staff, do we have anyone else online?

Seeing no other hands at this time.

Okay. What about in the room? Anyone else? Okay. See none.

If I could have just a little closing remarks.

Please. Appreciate it.

I just wanted to start by thanking everybody for coming this evening and and sharing your thoughts and concerns. Wanted to reiterate this is a application from a property owner. This is not a city driven initiative. And all of the comments that have been made tonight as well as all the comments that have been submitted online through email will be part of the record and taken under consideration as the staff reviews the application. I will also it's not secret information that that property has been under code enforcement action.

And so if any of you are aware of any business activity occurring, please notify staff so we can take appropriate code enforcement action. We can't do our jobs without your eyes and ears. So thank you.

Thank you, staff. And can you just briefly describe how, everyone will become aware of any future meetings on the project?

Yes. The next step after staff room is able to review it, the planning commission has to have a public hearing. The same notices will be sent out with a public hearing date and a time and a Zoom be the same kind of format here with a Zoom link, and it'll also be posted on the sign. So there'll be those whether it be primary. Also, it'll be in a newspaper. However, not a lot of people look at those anymore. So we understand mailings and the poster are gonna be the primary ways.

And that notice goes out at least two weeks in advance of the public hearing.

Thank you. And one last question. Are application materials available online?

Yes. Everything that the applicant has submitted is available online to be looked at through the permit portal. You look up by the permit number. And I can assist with that if you have any questions.

Great. Thank you, staff. So at this point, we'll close this portion of the agenda, the public comment period. And thank you, everybody, for attending tonight. We'll see you soon. Yeah. Thank you.

Alright. If we are ready to proceed, staff is ready to continue.

Next item on the agenda, we have some discussion items. There's three of them. First is the alarm systems, fencing, retaining walls. Staff, do you have a presentation for us?

No presentation this evening. Okay. But I will just give a brief status update. As presented in the packet materials, we did a brief summary of the conversations to date. We have reviewed the draft material with other staff, received some feedback, have not had a chance to incorporate that into the draft code just yet. But with all that being said, staff believes we are prepared to go ahead with scheduling the public hearing for this item at next month's meeting. So with the commissioner's concurrence, we'd be happy to go ahead with that.

Thank you for that. Are there any commissioner questions, comments? Hearing none, that sounds like, we'll see it next, month as a public hearing. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah. Next discussion item is all businesses and licensing regulations. What what say you? Mhmm.

Thank you, vice chair. This was introduced at last month's meeting. Tonight, you have some draft code amendments for your consideration to go through that at the high level, in EMC five zero five, there's language about the, threshold for exemptions from business licenses. City of Edgewood's license that threshold is at $5,000. The state law has a what do you call it?

A a minimum threshold of $4,000 with indexing language where it's revisited every forty eight months. So we got the pass for this go around. We didn't have to make any changes to our code. But rather than wait until the state index gets to $5,000 and update our code, we thought it would be prudent to take this opportunity, update the code now with some indexing language so that we don't have to revisit it, forget about it, have new staff, who knows, all those different variables. So there's that's the high level behind those changes in 05/2005.

As far as the remaining red lines under 1900, staff's goal is really to consolidate the limited home business section with the standard home business section, providing some clarifying edits in there, adding titles to different sections, consolidating two subsections into one for performance standards, and making sure that the limited home businesses are included as a separate exception under the performance standards. So there's, I think, five different items under that section that qualify for the limited home business. I will note there is one provision in there about a square footage restriction that was touched on at last month's meeting. Rather than include that language in there as it's currently codified, staff's proposing to remove the 20,000 square foot limit and just go with the percentage basis instead. That way, if you have a larger piece of property or more building footprint area, you would be allowed to have more home business area.

And that also creates some flexibility in whether or not you would be a standard home business versus a limited home business based on how much land and or building area you have. So that's probably the the biggest thing to kinda chew on. And, yeah, that's really it at a high level. Love to go ahead and consider scheduling a public hearing on this item also at next month's meeting if commissioners are feeling good about the draft language proposed. Again, not suggesting really any substantive changes to what's in home business and limited home business other than clarifying edits and removing that one twenty thousand square foot threshold.

Thank you. I know I have a couple questions. Do any other commissioners have questions or comments?

I just have one.

Yeah. Lynn commissioner Linhua, go ahead.

I think the only thing that really, like first off, thank you for this. Because as a home business owner and person who this directly affects, I really appreciate streamlining this because as I've been even in the process of revising my own, it will help a lot because I've been going between two different things trying to figure out what applies to what. So this will be very helpful. My biggest concern, and I think it's something I've voiced, before, is the number of trips allowed, for a home based business. And I do think just like with larger properties, having more, flexibility for the size of the business or the amount of space it takes up, I think there should also be consideration for the type of business that would maybe require, more trips per day.

I think I've also mentioned in the past, you know, how do we differentiate between a delivery for, like, personal use and delivery for business use, how is that even tracked? Or is that you know? Because I I know that that's something that is mentioned as, you know, limit to a certain amount of deliveries per week. Again, something that would be very difficult to, you know, differentiate. But mostly, you know, depending on the type of business.

If you have a salon, you know, if you're just doing color and things like that, you might have less clients. But if you're doing as a barber, you might have a faster turnaround, and you would be significantly limiting someone's profitability, and it's not necessarily a disruptive activity. So I think it's important that we consider that, that there may be exceptions based on the type of business as long as it's still being operated within reasonable hours that are, you know, set by the city. But I don't know that a set number is appropriate for all businesses and, obviously, all neighborhoods. So if depending on the location, there might be exceptions is kind of what I'm suggesting.

May I respond?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Love the the conversation and appreciate the feedback from just an overall engineering perspective and what I know of planning. I won't speak for my AICP next to me. But when roadway networks are planned, we look at how many trips can be anticipated. And for a home business, in order for it to maintain the look, feel, and aesthetic of a residential neighborhood, we would expect that the home would not generate a significantly greater amount of trips than a typical home might.

Generally speaking, from from an engineering perspective, that number's around 10 trips per day that you would see at a home. So if we start seeing more than that at a particular site, then that could become a problem, and not just from a, not even just from a neighborhood look and feel perspective, but potentially from a traffic operations perspective. So I I want to make sure the planning commissioners are aware of that and consider that in in in looking at this a little harder. I don't know the origins of the 16 trips per week or 16 deliveries per week figure, but that roughly comes out to two trips per day if you average it out, maybe up to three. But yeah.

So just trying to take that into consideration. I I I'm challenged from an from a city infrastructure planning perspective of allowing for too many trips because that is a lot harder for us to plan for it in the long run.

Can I comment on that? Is that okay? Okay. So my question is for a day care, for example, if they're gonna be licensed for a certain amount of children, your base that scenario of I think it's 16 trips per day for clients is what I read, if I'm remembering correctly.

I don't have it

quoted in front of me. But, if if you guys don't mind pulling that up.

This for reference.

6, yeah, 16 per property. K. So if that was the case, if you're allowing a home based day care, child care situation, you're looking at roughly five to eight children max that they'd be able to be licensed for unless they're carpooling, which isn't realistic. And then I think about well, I can think of several different situations where, you know, that might be limiting someone's ability to, like, operate successfully. But then I also wonder about other businesses that have been grandfathered in knowing that they most definitely, you know, are going beyond those numbers.

But I guess as long as no one's complaining is where we're all okay. If that I don't know. That's ultimately where my question comes from. Like, what point does it become a problem? Is it when someone complains? And if it's a private road, how does that change things if it's owner maintained? Those kinds of questions.

So the first point, child day care is accepted from these performance standards so long as they meet the child day care performance standards. So a child day care, so long as it performs with the other section of code, would not be subject to the trip limit. Okay. But to your second point, yes. We don't go out and monitor. It's it's, you know, that's a resource we don't have. So it would be a complaint based Okay. Situation.

And just to go a little bit further, when someone applies for it, we just request them to provide those numbers to us. There's we just ask the engineer if that seems appropriate. Completes, yes, until we hear otherwise.

K. Thank you.

Commissioner Church.

Yes. I I I acknowledge commissioner concern. I guess from, you know, perspective of a neighbor, resident, I don't know that I would really want to be a neighbor of of of a business home business that had a lot of delivery trucks coming in or 16 trips more or more a day, because of maybe an inconvenience of noise, maybe parking issues, etcetera. But, you know, outside of that, I think it is something worth considering as the overarching impact to the transportation route and system within the city that home businesses impact, which is an issue of safety. Knowing that there is increased traffic, increased delivery trucks, it means an increased impact of potential hazards to our safety.

So it is something that I think we need to consider in a bigger scale, not just by individual streets, whether they're private or not, but as a a city as a whole. I have comments on other areas, though. I don't know if there are any con more comments in this section. If we want it, I should share that.

I'll note that commissioner Green has his hand raised. Tom, are you responding to the traffic concerns?

Yeah. I just had a quick question. You had mentioned that the day care wouldn't even fall under that. But then I was thinking of different scenarios. Like, what if it was off a major arterial? What if it was in a neighborhood? I mean, we can think of the worst and the best situations for 16 vehicles. Is there a process that you can ask for a waiver if you're applying for this and just to describe the circumstances that it may still be able to get approved?

So on the day care, here's the section that, we're we were referring to here. Basically yeah. If if if it's compliant with the standards in eighteen one hundred o four o, then it it's sent from the performance standards listed under subsection one, which includes the 16 trip limitation. As far as a waiver goes, as Josh described, we simply ask the applicant to provide how many trips they anticipate. We take that, take it for their word as an affidavit.

We don't go out and take a traffic count or anything after the approval. And we do not currently have a a variance process, at least an administrative variance process that would allow for us to allow for more trips internally. However, anybody is allowed to apply for a hearing examiner variance on any land use application, including a home business. That would involve a a public hearing with a hearing examiner.

Okay. Thank you.

I will just if you don't mind me adding, That is something that we could look at doing as having a a very administrative waiver as part of it. We we do something similar, a deviation request for residential design. So we could do something similar here. It is also at an application that gets public noticed as well, so that would probably be a high consideration if we received a lot of comments regarding noise, if or concerns for traffic trips, that that would be one avenue of ensuring compliance or just how to address their neighborhood concerns with if we did get a waiver request.

This is Commissioner Church. I I'm glad you brought up the child care exemption because the child care exemption along with the exemption for bed and breakfasts, I just wanna clarify. Since bed and breakfasts are exempt from the home business section, can staff help us understand where they're regulated instead and whether it makes sense to reference that section here for transparency? I'm I'm asking that because in the child care exemption, it explicitly references the applicable, applicable standard section. So, it may improve clarity to apply the same drafting approach to other exemptions so readers can easily identify where those uses are regulated.

Appreciate the the comment. We do not currently have another section of code that regulates bed and breakfast ends separately. The anticipated impact from a bed and breakfast would be you have a house with a certain number of bedrooms, so you can only fit so many people into it. So the the impact is expected to be rather negligible. You may have one or two guest vehicles at a bed and breakfast site at any given time.

So it's very compatible with what we would expect as a residential use. So that that's my take on why there wouldn't be any additional regulation behind that particular exemption. But as far as the other ones, if if there's further clarity desired, we can certainly look at providing that.

I think it'd just be helpful, to explain why they're having exemption and and if there is other, you know, code that it might overlap is why it's not why it's, being exempted. I mean, I can think of, you know, their current concerns similar to other, you know, home based businesses of traffic, parking, noise, to neighbors, and so on. So I guess I just want it to be fair to all home business types, in consideration to the the information we provide.

Just to add a little note on here. So the bed and breakfast in is a AUP and all the residential mixed residential zones. So they would have an additional review and would be specifically traffic would be one of those, based on traffic currency and some other issues. However, we'll still look at it to see how to make that more clear. But that's my guess is educated guess would be that that's why it's exempt from those standards because there's a whole different section of regulations that'll be looked at for them.

If I could just add to that just because I I haven't actually looked into that one before. But I I do think it is appropriate to have some specific you know, obviously, there's I always think of Palm Springs. They had major uproar in their in their neighborhoods of the overnight bed and breakfast Airbnb rentals. I've read many articles about how how hard it is now. You can't even get licensing to do overnight, stays there, or for, I guess, home short term rentals.

So, obviously, we're not in that situation here. However, I think it would be appropriate to have maybe some preliminary verbiage in there to kinda describe what that would be, being that it is exempt and it kinda doesn't have to hit all these other categories or markers. But I do think it's appropriate to have something in there that we have as guidelines. So it's not just like an application that we review and it's kind of, like, up in the air. I do think it would be nice to have something written.

Well, staff will certainly endeavor to find some information to bring forward to next month's meeting. But if the commissioners have any examples of other agencies, code that they'd like to have us consider, please, let us know. Yeah.

Okay. Great. I have, I've little whittled it down to one comment rather than two, but it's on page 22. And this is where we get in a little bit to design standards, you wanna call it that. But in specifically, I'm looking at is three a, and it talks about not having a a separate entrance for the business from the outside of the structure.

And I have concerns that this is too restrictive. You know, I can think of my house. I could put a business in the back, and there's a separate door. And, also, I have heard or I understand that there's some tax law related to having home businesses that do require its own entrance. And so I would hate to conflict, in that way. But perhaps there's a way we could write this language here to get to the same goal without saying no separate entrance, period.

Thank you for the comment. Yeah.

Thank you.

Believe the intent is more focused around it not being a completely isolated space as opposed to

Yeah.

Having separate entry.

So Yeah.

I get it.

Certainly look at clarifying.

Okay. Thank you.

Can I make a request for a nonofficial vote on if the planning commission wants us to look at parking waivers or trip waivers for the home business just to see if the if it's if we should move forward with that for the public hearing?

I'm gonna say as much as I want that to be included, I also really want this to move forward. So I think the fact that you guys are open to variances, obviously, in the application, I would like to have it maybe put on there as something to look at in the future, but I'm okay with moving forward as is.

Same.

I guess I'm just wondering if if we move forward, is that does that mean you're also going to consider looking at some of the exemption clarification as alongside that? Okay. Then, yes, I'm fine moving forward.

Thank you.

I am too. Parking or traffic waiver transportation trip waivers is not something I think needs to be in this, code section. Thank you.

Alright. With that and not seeing any other hands raised, is the commission ready to move forward with scheduling the public hearing on this item, or or would you like some more time to discuss it?

I heard, in summary, the commission say, let's move forward. Am I right in that? Yeah. Okay. Let's move forward and have a hearing next month.

Thank you for the clarification. Yep. We will go ahead with that. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Our last discussion item then is about it's an introduction to the multifamily tax exemptions, which our city council discussed at their study session last month. So looking forward to the staff presentation.

Thank you, vice chair. Apologize to the audience. This may look familiar, but I will be brief. This is a brief introduction on multifamily tax exemptions. Just really quickly, what is it? How does it help? What does it cost? And next steps. Multifamily tax exemptions are allowed by RCW eighty four one four. Edgewood is an eligible city per eighty four one four zero one o sub three sub c, and there are three tiers that you can consider as a city.

An eight year property tax exemption, a twelve year property tax exemption with 20% of the units being affordable housing, and a twenty year property tax exemption with 25% of the units as affordable housing. And these exemptions are strictly on residential sorry, new residential construction. So how does it help? Our localized standards and guidelines could include provisions that require the construction of nonresidential spaces to accompany the proposed multifamily development. So our quick hot take on that is while the multifamily tax exemption state law is focused on providing new residential construction, Edgewood has been struggling to realize mixed use construction, getting residential with a nonresidential component.

So maybe this is a vehicle to enable those developers to give us those nonresidential spaces we've so desperately looked for. As part of the state law, we can craft our own local standards and guidelines to highlight what would be eligible for a multi family tax exemption. We already have standards in our code that speak to how much nonresidential space you need to provide. So planning commission could consider maybe we need more or maybe some other design element that might not be the most affordable thing to implement is a way for someone to get in the door here. There's a lot to think about here.

The reduction of the property taxes over time may offset some of those costs for relocating utilities from overhead to underground. This is a hot button that was brought to staff's attention recently. The cost to relocate utilities has gone up exponentially. And in some of our properties, particularly along the Meridian Corridor as you go south from the town center, those utilities are still above ground. By taking small pieces and putting them underground, it's more expensive than taking the whole thing and putting it underground at the same time.

But the city doesn't have plans at this time or the resources to try to get those things underground in the short term. So how do we work together with the property owners to to achieve that long term vision and and goal of of the corridor. And lastly, the MFTEs could encourage development of more affordable housing units along the corridor because that's where we have transit. That's where it makes sense to have affordable housing. And barring us for compliance with recent case slots, this is something that is still fresh.

Don't have any directives or or clear guidance from commerce on this at the moment. But just participating with a consortium versus actually implementing affordable housing within the city limits, that that question has been raised. And we don't wanna get to a place where we don't have the right tools in place to create affordable housing in Edgewood if and when that occurs. So what is the cost? Looking at a hypothetical situation, you got a vacant piece of land valued at a half million dollars, but you have a new mixed use development coming in, increases the value to 7,000,000, but 4,000,000 of that is because of the residential units.

Well, then you're looking at about $2,600 in property taxes that Edgewood would get on that $4,000,000 of value. And an eight year MFTE would be a loss of about $22,000 in tax revenues. Over the course of eight years, that's not a whole lot. It's not nothing, but it's it's not a whole lot. But that same tax exemption would save the developer almost $330,000 because the tax exemption is on all property taxes, not just Edgewood's portion.

So next steps, as vice chair mentioned, council discussed it back on March 17. They referred to the planning commission to focus on the standards and guidelines component of this and what might make sense for Edgewood. Some focus areas staff is suggesting would be looking at the appropriate geographic areas for implementation, the minimal minimum affordable housing unit ratios, and other desirable community design elements that are otherwise costly to implement. On the geographic areas, staff would again recommend focusing on the arterial corridor with transit, potentially look at some of the other higher classified arterials in close proximity, but really focusing on the the three primary zones that we're looking at for housing, town center, mixed use residential, and commercial. As far as the minimum affordable housing unit ratios, the state law has 20% for the twelve year, 25% for the twenty year.

That's a floor. If we wanna have a higher percentage in Edgewood, we can consider that. Also, something that, Josh might be able to speak to more if we get into that conversation, would be the developers may not be too excited about an eight year MFTE. Lot of developers are looking at ten year performance periods. So if we had an eight year program, we may not get anybody interested in or taking.

So is it worth considering an eight year program, or should we be looking at the twelve year program instead and maybe getting guidance on, hey. Can we throw out a ten year option that still complies with the state law? You know, things like that. So bottom line after this analysis and public input, then we would hope the planning commission would pass along a recommendation to the city council. A potential timeline for consideration would be talking about this at next month's meeting in more detail, preparing for a potential hearing in June, and then potential action in July.

Again, this is a suggested timeline. We know of at least three developers that are very interested in the potential Gram FTE right now. But sooner we can implement a program, obviously, the better for them. At the moment, I believe that would also be the better for Edgewood. I'm working with our finance director and assistant city administrator on looking at financial side of things in more detail, and I hope to have more information before next month's meeting.

We're we're looking at that hard and don't wanna waste anybody's time. Right? But so far, everything's pointing to, you know, this this is starting to make some sense, so let's seriously consider this. But if for whatever reason, the financial review, the first blush of that says, you know, this really doesn't make sense. Well, there's our update, and we'll move on. But that's at least where we're at at this moment, trying to run everything forward. So happy to answer any questions you have. I know that was a quick and brief, but a lot more conversation is planned ahead.

Thank you for the presentation. Commissioners, are there questions or comments? And I see commissioner Green's hand up.

Yeah, Jeremy. You know, the the biggest thing I heard there is, you know, we do need more of the nonresidential, that mixed use in there. Is is this gonna be an isolated thing to where that is where we're really going after, or is we gonna see that we're gonna get beat up on a whole lot of just residential, and we'll get more of what we're not looking for?

So I believe we're able to craft this in such a way that if you're not providing a mixed use element, you would not be eligible for the tax exemption.

Okay. Because I I feel like

the other developers don't seem to have a problem coming in, but we we do need those mixed use. We need we need variety within within the city here, and that would be a great thing to see.

Agreed.

Anyone else?

Yeah. I guess I kinda wanted to just let this presentation happen and not, like, think too hard on it before because sometimes I'm I don't know. Sometimes the information hits me better when I'm hearing it from you guys. So my biggest question that kinda comes up is, like, I constantly hear that the city doesn't really have, like, the funds or needed to do certain this or that specific thing. Right? So then I I'm thinking if we're if we already have some I I I totally recognize having incentive. I'm all for that. I get that. But, like, I guess my concern is, like, what's in it for the city in the long run. Yes.

It helps us meet the housing requirements, and it makes certain types of housing more available at a faster pace or, you know, makes it I get that. I guess my biggest question is, are we just, like, kind of cutting off the financial option for ourselves, like, to make more money by offering this? Or is this it's not required that we offer this as a city? Is that what I'm understanding?

So as it's currently legislated, no. It is not a requirement that we provide multifamily tax exemptions. However, it may come down through case law that we are required to provide affordable housing. And so if we're not offering a program like this, it could be construed that we are not providing affordable housing.

So Totally understand about that. I just I guess what came down to the most likely beneficiary of this tax exemption is going to be larger companies who are already probably in a profitable situation. So I guess I always think of having incentives be more along the lines of benefiting maybe citizens in areas where they'd like to be able to build on their land, and it's not necessarily for mixed use, or, you know, it might just be for subdividing their property. I'd like to see those types of incentives, like, as a as an option or a tax exemption or or whatever the right way would to say that would be. But, I mean, I guess that's more appealing to me for helping people affordably use their land and develop more housing there.

But I also recognize that affordable housing usually needs to be along corridors where there's transit and things like that too. I don't really overall have an issue with this as much as that was something I just wanted to question. Like, why is it only on that mixed situation versus, like, other areas why we don't have any kind of tax incentive there?

So I'd love to probably talk to you a little more offline about Yeah. That to not get away from the the purpose of this item for tonight. But yeah. Appreciate the comments. Mhmm.

I will just add there's a a comment you had about other benefits to the city from offering this. It also potentially allow development that wasn't gonna be penciled. Therefore, we would actually get funds from the construction materials being delivered and the actual building and permit fees from there, the parking back fees, traffic impact fees. Those are all still there, and the city would get those funds that might not have if the program doesn't exist. Not that if we know very well if it's gonna suddenly increase mixed use development or not, But that that's one of the benefits for our for the city.

Other commissioner comments? Yes. This is commissioner Church. I guess my, my comment is that I I do like that staff is going to intends to be, intentional, about the design to ensure that the multiuse aspect is there within development. I just wanted to make sure that that multiuse area or in, whatever the space will be used for would be complete, when construction is complete.

Right? Not used as an open space setback requirement that we see happening. Okay.

Absolutely. That's that's one of the key components of the multifamily tax exemption program is that there's a certification that all the improvements are done, and there's an annual check-in to affirm the affordable housing requirements are continuing to be met and that sort of thing. So I can certainly be part of the program is making sure the entire project is built with to include the the mixed use portion of the project.

I guess the other item that, along that would be that I would hope that when we think of exemptions like this, development exemptions like this, that we also think how it might align with other city growth plans, including including our our climate action planning, and that maybe there could be, like, more of a community benefit incorporated into the plan, even if it's after the fact after the development is complete. So not a requirement of the developer, but a intentional use, by the city to offer up some kind of discount or advantage should a nonprofit organization benefiting the community needs want to then utilize that space. So I'm just kinda wondering, like, if there's a way that it it might incorporate back into some of the of our other, values for our city.

So if I could kinda restate what I heard to confirm that I heard you right. So so if a developer were to bring a nonprofit organization to the table and and offer them a lease for that nonresidential space that we're requiring of them, that maybe that's an additional incentive. Like, okay. We've got a twelve year program that the state requires 20% minimum affordable housing. Locally, we decide, well, we want 25 or 30% affordable housing for you to qualify for that twelve year program. But if you bring in a nonprofit organization that meets our city's goals and policies, helps us achieve that vision, well, it should go back to the state minimum of 20.

Yeah. It could be something like that, an option like that that is beneficial to the developer. But underlining all of it is just some kind of commitment by the city to, work with development projects to ultimately benefit the community needs. Because immediately when I think of affordable housing, I think that's great. But I think we've all seen cities or towns where there there might be affordable housing, but no services around to, support the the families that move in, and then we just create more problems, or issues that need to be addressed, which is, I think, obviously, for cities that grow.

But I think that in general, when we think of systems planning, we can better anticipate and plan for those growth.

I've I've loved that, and and it really was kind of in the back of my head not articulated well maybe was the desire for these mixed use developments to provide those community services, not just space for general office. You know? So, yeah, I I think we can craft something along those lines for sure.

Thank you, staff, for the presentation. And I think the first place I went was our comprehensive plan and finding that we have housing goals that support this effort and that affordable housing and housing for all is a quality and a standard that we ought to all be striving for. And so specific within our housing goals is this program. It's also identified as a barrier to why Edgewood does not have any affordable housing right now as defined. And we do have a number of units that we ought to meet prior to 2044.

So I'd like to offer support for this program. And in thinking to your questions, one about geographic areas. Access to services, of course, ought to be a priority as well and is very important. I noticed that in city of Seattle, for example, this program is available anywhere that multifamily units are permitted. So in all those zones, and then Puyallup as a counterexample or another example, they have four different areas in the city where it's permitted specifically.

So in thinking about our city, I agree that along our Meridian Corridor that that makes sense currently. But that in thinking more long term, offering the program for any area that that allows multifamily housing, I think, makes sense as well. Thank you.

Thank you. So with that, we will continue preparing material and get ready for discussion next month, taking this conversation and input under consideration.

Thank you. Alright. So now that leads to the part of the agenda where we hear staff comments and or commissioner comments.

Thank you, vice chair. Might be aware, city has started some food truck initiative basically at in Mondays and Wednesdays from eleven to two are at Brink's barbecues out front at the barn. On Thursdays is the, Frying Dutchman, and on Fridays is Taco Murray's. You might have also been aware of the community park that there is now an ice cream truck there on Wednesdays and Saturdays. She will also be there any other sunny day that she can make it.

She was there, I think, three times last week and was nothing but great reviews from the kids waiting in line and during spring break. And then we also have, hot dogs from a dog eat dog on Sundays at the park. So this is a, kind of a newer initiative that we we've started through an RFQ process to kind of provide more food options to the city. And so far, it's doing well. It's part of the, food truck pilot program, and we've already, permitted more food trucks than we have had probably four or five years combined in the first month.

So so far, things are looking good on that front. Other item to talk about is the, climate, planning comprehensive plan update. We just, had our first climate action team meeting, which, commissioner Church is part of. So, part of our updates every month, I would like commissioner Church to provide the planning commission a little update on the CATS progress and how that's going and next steps so that planning commission's aware throughout the process of what they're doing. So, commissioner Church, can you provide that update?

Sure. And I I promise to be better prepared next time. But since I just found out about it, the ask today, I'm happy to comply and do the best I can and correct me if I miss anything. We had a really great turnout. I was really happy to see that since it was, like, a a Tuesday midmorning, that we had representation across all, I would say, lifelines for our city.

So we had representation from our city, as far as scientists, planning, support, and we also had regional from Pierce County and PSC utilities. Also, we had participants from our community partners as well and and more that I can't remember. But we were all there to provide our our our insight and feedback relative to our area of expertise. I'm joining to to help with systems planning as it concerns to infrastructure management and planning and emergency management. And I really appreciated everybody showing up in person and online to talk about the values of of our city and our interpretations of what should be included in climate mitigation and climate action planning.

So the the next step is we are waiting for our consultant agency representative to get back to us regarding our monthly meeting cadence and whether it's gonna be in person, online, or hybrid. There's a lot of interest in having it in person, which I think is really great. And it'll give us a a good space to collaborate and and hopefully provide that kind of insight that not only we need to move forward in in effective planning, but also what would be helpful to our neighboring cities. So thank you, staff, for all your work on getting the funds approved, and I look forward to working on the project.

And part of the next step will also be reviewing the climate impact assessment, and that was a draft to work to get that finalized. And as part of this, but separately, staff is close to having a scope of work for a tree canopy study to be done. It's part of our MPDS permit, but, also, we're gonna include it with our climate planning so that we have canopy goals citywide. So that'll be separate from the climate grant, but we're gonna incorporate that work so that, we can do it all at one time. And that's all for me.

And we also our staff's also working on the hazard mitigation planning at the same time as well. Right?

Yes. I guess I could speak to that as well. Yeah. So staff has been working on hazard mitigation plan update annex for Pierce County, and we've been working on drafts for the past couple of weeks on various items that are what impacts we have, what mitigation measures we're recommending, and we are finalizing our drafts tomorrow. And then we'll be once Pierce County goes through through it all and updates all the appropriate sections, they'll be going, to city council for vote and adoption.

Don't really have much up to update to that. We're primarily just updating it from last time, using whatever current science and mitigation measures were appropriate. And, yeah, that's my update.

And I'll just close with a public apology to our new planning commission member, Andrew Artisti. We failed to notify him of tonight's meeting, but I will be sure to be reaching out to him again tomorrow. And, hopefully, he'll be able to join us next month.

Thanks, staff. I have three things I'd like to identify. The first is the food trucks. I've heard great feedback from that as well. So community's noticing, and I think it's a fun idea. And it's great to see the success. The second I guess this is the last thing. Thanks for your apology, because I I've been noticing that I'm not offering, compliments to staff as much as I used to, but the sentiment is still there. We're doing a lot of stuff here. And I see the work that you guys are putting in and your whole team.

And, I really appreciate it and want to extend, thanks from the planning commission. So thanks. Oh, the third one, it's a question. Is the windmill moving over here?

What? You you noticed all the dirt moving out behind us here? So, yes, that is something that's been in the works for a while now. The the mayor championed a request through the state legislature for some funds to help us get that relocated onto the City Hall campus. So just out behind Chambers, you'll notice a lot of caution tape floating in the wind.

But we had our volunteer out there today excavating the hole for the new foundation. Now I'm not exactly sure of the schedule at the moment, but the first step is to get the form more clayed and and the rebar mat put down so that we can pour some concrete. But once all that's done and in place, we our public works director is is currently working on a request for proposals from contractors to actually perform the move. We're hopeful to have it happen sometime this summer, but we do not have a date set yet.

Very exciting. Thank you. No other comments? Commissioners, staff, thank you, everybody. Audience, thank you for attending, and let's close the meeting at 07:22.