Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Ready? Alright. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the planning commission meeting, city of of Edgewood. I call the May 11 meeting to order at 6PM and invite everyone to please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance.

Alright. Let's take the roll the roll call. And it says read by chair, which is a change, I noticed. So first on the list is Carly Guillory. That's me. I'm here. Joanne Overfield has an absence. Excused. Tom Green? Here. Thank you. Andrew Hardesty?

Here.

Thank you. Leila Church?

Here.

And Carly Linoa? Here. We have roll called. Okay. Thank you.

Next on the agenda are our public hearings. We have two public hearings on the agenda. Just briefly, I'll say, public hearings are a one way communication opportunity that allows citizens to present testimony on a specific topic for the Planning Commission's consideration in their decision making process. So please frame your testimony as a statement of fact or opinion rather than a question. And when it is your turn to speak, those attending in person should approach the podium, while virtual attendees should use the raise hand option in Zoom.

And I will call on each speaker when it is your turn. Please clearly state your name for the record, and then you'll have three minutes to provide testimony. So the first, public hearing on the agenda is electric alarm systems, fencings, and retaining wall code amendments. Let's call this hearing to order at 06:02PM. Staff, would you pre please brief us?

Yes. Thank you, vice chair and public and planning commission members. Then we're having the public hearing for the electric alarm systems fencing and retaining wall code amendments. This is a reminder here. We are we have to use electric alarm systems as the main title, and all this is that's a state requirement, so that's why we're referring to it as such.

Next page. So there's a state law for electric alarm systems. It's h bill sixteen eighty eight, which is the purpose is to establish electrical security alarm systems regulations when a jurisdiction doesn't have any specific regulations regarding electric alarm systems. The effective date was 07/27/2025. Edgewood code is silent and vague regarding electrical security alarm systems and electrical fencing.

As such, we're subject to the complying with the state law and the requirements under that state law. As part of this, since we're touching the electrical or the fencing code, we staff requested to also look into the outdated fence codes, fence height restrictions, and retaining wall regulations for review as well. So what is electrical alarm system? It is an outdoor alarm system that connects the wire structure to an alarm system and transmits it a signal intended to detect and alert the property owner of an intrusion by utility, utilizing electrical charge. The image to your right shows a one of those examples is a chain link fence in the front.

It's kind of hard because they're not necessarily very thick fencing for the electric alarm systems, but they're a setback away from the chain link fence, and there is taller. They are electro have electrical charge, so they can actually provide a depending on types of shock. So what does the state leg regulation say about these? It's not considered a fence. It must allow all outdoor storage properties must be allowed on all outdoor storage properties that doesn't abut existing schools, requires specific voltage and max height of 10 feet or two feet taller than a perimeter fence, requires a minimum five foot barrier fence, And, however, the city may adopt additional regulations on these systems to better fit their community.

As such, that's why we are bringing forth proposed amendments to align them both more with our our community and our neighboring jurisdictions. We reviewed neighboring codes to see how they would correlate with our code as well. The proposed amendments, are provided in exhibit a of the hearing documents. We did a variety of updates to definitions. Three provided on the screen here are the, the bigger ones.

The electrical system alarm system electrical security alarm system is the state, definition. Fence we updated to clarify, that, the term fence does not include retaining wall or landscape features, including but not limited to trees, shrubs, and hedges. And we also provided a retaining wall definition that we missed before. On heights, the pro to measure fence heights, heights are measured from the lowest point on the finished ground to the surface to the top. That's not a change in our definite our measurements.

However, the next one is in case of fences located within two feet of retaining wall, the total height shall be measured from the lowest side of the retaining wall to the top of the fence, not exceed 10 feet. The image to your right, the first one is an example of the a retaining wall a fence being built almost on a retaining wall, and they makes it look like it's a bigger wall and provides a larger impact versus the image the second image where there is retaining walls, but they're set back from each other terraced, which breaks up that look. So the one of the main drivers of this change was to provide a better a less impact to your neighbors because as the code is right now, you could do fence right on top of a retaining wall and it wouldn't matter how tall the retaining wall is, but this would limit that. Next page. Additional amendments.

We broke our fence code into residential, mixed residential, and others. So on the residential mixed residential, our new one would allow up to six feet located six feet fence located behind a five foot of landscaping fronting arterial and our collector roads. Our current requirements are the four foot for front front yard fences. So on all other roads, we're keeping that. It's just we're allowing the six foot for arterial and collector roads to allow for greater privacy along those roads.

On the interior rear and setback, we have a no new fences exceeding six feet on the property. This right now is set that six feet is within a setback. However, in the m r one and m r two, there is no interior setback. So what that means is, technically, the walk can go as tall as a house there or a fence. So you can have a 35 foot fence, technically, which wasn't the intent at all for that.

So we wanna clarify that no fences exceeding six feet be anywhere else on these properties on the r one r and mixed residential zone properties. We also this isn't a change, but prohibited barbed wire, razor wire, etcetera. Then on the next page, we have the all other zoning standards. So this is a mixed use residential, down center, commercial, business, park, and industrial. This is where we did have to make some additional changes.

So, one of the ones we didn't update is the front setback up to four feet, fronting all other, four feet's allowed fencing on the front of these zone properties. All the other areas, though, interior and rear, not to exceed exceed six feet in height if located within five feet of property line or required perimeter landscaping strip. Otherwise, you shall not exceed eight feet in nonresidential zones and 10 feet industrial zones. Again, our our fence setbacks are based off or fence heights are based off setbacks. These zones don't have any interior rear setbacks.

So, again, those wall fences can be as tall as anyone wants. So this is to limit those, so not to exceed six feet in height if they have a, longer property line or within five feet of a property line or the required perimeter landscaping. So if there's a perimeter landscaping, we want the fence interior of that. Otherwise, for, the fences that are not near the property line or interior can be taller if they need that they would like to for, you know, security reasons of however that property is being used. Exception we're adding is for, recreational uses.

The golf, range nets, baseball nets would be exempt from these standards. Chain lane fencing, when is, would not be allowed if visible from the street except for the industrial and public zones. And if it allowed, it would have to, have either black or green vinyl coated. This primarily is a has been a design standard requirement anyways. We're just bringing it forward into the fencing code to be a little bit more clear when we get these questions.

And then barbed and razor fencing wood is a new item here for industrial and public zones. If not visible to adjacent residential uses located outside any required perimeter landscaping, it's gonna exceed 10 feet in height and no more than two feet of barbed or razor fencing. This would be new. However, for these zones, we already have them existing, and we felt that this wouldn't distract from the neighborhood character in the industrial zones and the public zones that need these uses forever. For example, our our yard, are it's already provided.

So this is nothing new, and it will allow the director to also have review of these as well. Alright. Next one. These are on, retaining walls. So our current code doesn't really talk about retaining walls very much except for in, for regarding setbacks.

So I had same similar kind of fencing, setback requirements. And, but as we've established, there aren't any setbacks for some of these zones, so we wanted to address the potential issue that we have here. So the general standard is up to four feet of retaining wall along front property lines, which is similar to the fencing one, and, up to six feet on interior side rear property lines. This is to also as our new subdivisions are getting built, would also put on pressure for those developers to make sure they're grading more with the site instead of trying to build flat shelves. And we're seeing we have seen large walls eight feet plus as an example of that.

The image to your right is a perfect example of that. That wall is almost two stories tall and is visible from a neighboring property, not directly next to them, but there's still an impact. And there's a question is, should that have been terraced with some landscaping to break up the wall? And that's what got us to discuss this change. In the town center and MUR zoning standards, property adjacent to public right of way shall utilize terracing such that no individual wall exceeds two feet.

In all other areas on the property, no individual wall shall exceed six feet in height. The intent of this was to address the whole purpose of the town center and mixed use residential, whereas it's pedestrian oriented. There will be pedestrian centers that still apply to all developments that they can't just put two feet of wall and then have a gap between the next building. There's gotta be a walk up. There's gotta be there's variety of pedestrian oriented design centers that will apply to them.

However, we felt that having those areas that is only 50% of our frontage would need to be developed. So what happens to the others? We felt that having some terracing would be okay as long as it it's almost like a seating wall level or more pedestrian, know, which is similar to, say, if Tacoma has in their mixed use centers. We also define what terracing is and have a minimum feet of two feet of width of terracing, and that's to provide landscaping and soften the views. So retaining wall that's six feet tall, which would be allowed in the town center, but then can have two feet of terracing and another six foot to help break it up.

And then on top of that, just because there's so many unique, it's hard to take everything in for all projects since so many properties are very specific on how they're they can be developed. There's deviations would be allowed if not visible foam adjacent properties or or open space along public and private streets because sometimes they have to have retaining walls over the certain heights based on just safety of how the roads need to be built. And stormwater facilities proposed as part as a design review application. Next page. Just here are some just it's the same slide, just different images.

Top image here shows a smaller, about three foot retaining wall with a six foot fence. You can start seeing how then that becomes a nine foot tall fence kind of look and feel. So having the limit at 10 kind of gives you the probably our our best image of what that would look like to a neighboring property. And the image down to the bottom right would show what would be allowed for retaining wall along Publix Street just to keep it the the street safe. However, the fencing would need to be set back at least two feet with landscaping in between.

Excellent. Alright. Next, part of the fence code is the actual electrical security alarm system and electrical fencing. This is all new code. So where would it apply?

It'll apply to outdoor storage areas within the commercial, business park, industrial zones and on parcels in any zone used for livestock. Does not include, invisible fencing, pet fencing. So the performance standards proposed are prohibit or it would prohibit electrical security alarm systems between the front of a building and adjacent street except for industrial zones that comply with landscaping requirements. Just noting here that staff will be requesting in part of the discussion, exception discussion with the planning commission tonight, an exception be made for front yard livestock fencing be allowed, because as it's currently written, livestock wouldn't fencing wouldn't be allowed in a front yard. So, we're gonna be talking with planning commission tonight on that.

Setback for the electrical security alarm system is five feet and no taller than eight feet when adjacent to sensitive uses. A minimum of six foot tall perimeter fence. Staff will be also request an exception for this for a four foot fence for livestock properties. Again, this kind of ties with a four foot fence requirement of the other roads that are arterial and collector. So as part of discussion tonight, we'll be talking to the plant commission about that.

Powered by no more than 12 volts of direct current. Warning signs needed placed every 30 feet, must include first responders' rapid entry device, and meet critical area setbacks. The biggest changes from the let me go back. Yeah. The biggest changes from the state requirements would be that we have a taller perimeter fence, which matches the nearby jurisdictions. We're, have a greater setback with landscaping, again, matching near nearby jurisdictions. And where it applies, we are specifying that only applies in the commercial business park and industrial zones and not throughout the whole city.

Right.

Inclusion amendment, we have it to evaluate through EMC eighteen sixty to 20. Checking that it confirm that the proposed amends conforms with the GMA, which we believe it does, that they proposed amendments are consistent with and implement the city's comprehensive plans and goals. We believe that does. The whether circumstances related to proposed amendments, are located here substantially changed since the lapse of the Dutch, last adoption of the city's comprehensive plan. We believe this is actually well, state of law has changed since requiring the last code amendments, but we do believe that this implements our comprehensive plan.

And that the whether the proposed amendments reflects current widely held values of residents to say we believe it does, and that's why we're bringing it to the public hearing tonight. And that's all I have for the presentation for the public hearing.

Thank you, staff, for the presentation. And now we are gonna open it up to public comments. Is there anybody in the room that would like to offer public comment on this proposal? Seeing none. Okay. Do we have anyone online?

There are no hands raised at this time.

Okay. No public comments on this item. Are there any additional staff comments?

None at this time.

Okay. Thank you. Let's close the public hearing at 06:19. And next on the agenda is our second public hearing. So let's call to order this public hearing on home business and licensing at 06:19PM. Staff, would you brief us, please?

Right. Thank you, vice chair, planning commissioners. This is item that's been discussed with the planning commission at last month's meeting. Looking to make some changes to our code relating to home businesses and limited home businesses in an effort to streamline, remove redundancies, and and improve clarity and transparency on what the requirements are. Also looking to update another section of code relating to business licensing and minimum thresholds or when a license is required, due to changes in the state's model ordinance.

So There have been no changes made to the draft materials since last month, so happy to receive any public input at this time.

Thank you, staff. Is there anyone in the room that would like to offer public comment on this, item? We started the public hearing. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

So no comments from folks in person. Do we have anyone online that would like to offer offer a comment?

No hands online.

No hands online. Okay. Are there additional staff comments?

Not at this time.

Okay. Thank you. Let's close the public hearing at 06:21. Okay. Great. So we've done the public hearings. The next item on our agenda is the citizen comment period. And this portion of the agenda is reserved for public comment on items on or off the agenda. So do we have anyone in person that would like to offer any public comment? Seeing none. Do we have anyone online? No one online either? Okay.

Staff will make the point of highlighting the email attached to the packet materials from citizen regarding a recent notice of application that was issued and happy to discuss any questions or concerns commissioners may have during the board member comment section of the agenda at the end of the meeting.

Thank you. Alright. Well, next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. And do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented?

Motion to approve the consent agenda is Carly Lynn Waugh. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, mister Hardisty. And let's have a voice vote. All in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the consent agenda passes. Alright. And that leads us to discussion items. We have four on the agenda tonight, and let's start with the electrical alarm systems.

Yes. So as we had the public hearing presented that, we haven't changed any of the materials for at least two meetings now. As I noted in the hearing, as we're kind of going through our last look throughs, we noticed that the electrical fencing would apply to livestock. And that one of the first code items was that you weren't allowed to do it between the building and your street, which obviously, there's a lot of our larger properties that have horses and other livestock in their front yard. So we are looking would like to make an exception for that for livestock properties.

So if it's okay with the planning commission, that's how we would like to approach it, well, then I'll take a discussion from planning commission on that.

Thanks, staff. Do we have any questions or comments from the commissioners? Just one.

Yeah. I'm just curious. I'm visualizing and, again, front facing is always gonna be the front of the house. Correct? I know a lot of properties, their side of their property is, like, along the main road, so I just wasn't sure if that was still, like, what you guys consider.

So for this standard, it was was between the building and the frontage. So it would be that side. No matter where the house was facing, it's between the actual building and frontage.

Okay. Just getting clarity. That's all.

Mister Hardesty?

Yes. So is there a standard height for the livestock fencing? Obviously, it's way less than the proposed fencing for the other

That was the other item that I mentioned. Okay. And I can get to that next, or if we wanna go right into this, I can. Okay. So the other item that we noticed is that that we allow six feet fences for only arterial or the proposal is for arterial and collectors.

However, there's a lot of other streets that aren't those that would are only allowed four foot fences. So right now, the this code wouldn't allow livestock fencing without them installing a six foot fence, which means they have to build it outside the front yard setback. So there's a lot of problems with that, but we were thinking an exception allowing them down to four feet wouldn't make a lot of sense in that case. But for the actual livestock, electrical fencing, we haven't ever seen it more than four feet ever.

Oh, it's those that are up against the roads. And are you okay.

I just do ask, is there, like, a standardized design that you guys will require on those?

No. No? It won't require permit either. We right now, our code's actually kind of questionable if it's allowed, but we're just making it more clear that it can be and just be away from, you know, not reachable by the sidewalk type of situation and that they're still behind a a fence of at least four feet. Otherwise, there's not gonna be a a a additional permitting or anything like that.

Are there other commissioner comments or questions? I have a comment and a question. I once grabbed an electric livestock fence when I was a kid. But my question is about Chainlink. During the presentation, you talked about Chainlink not being allowed in the front. Is that what I heard?

For the town center

Oh, okay.

Use residential, commercial, business park, industrial, but there's an exception for industrial

Okay.

And business park, I believe. Okay. Thank you. But then it would need to be chain link or be vinyl with black or green and visible from the street. If it was not visible from the street or public right of way, then it could be allowed.

Okay. Thank you. And so from the planning commission tonight, what do you hope what are you hoping for from us?

If you have any other comments on the draft revisions, we can still work on those. If you're okay, I can move forward with a proposal for the two exceptions that we talked about and potentially bring them for action then next month. However, the next month you want revisions to those languages, we can make those revisions and push to action later.

Okay. That aligns with the schedule that I see on your staff report. Okay. Thank you.

I do have one last thing. I'm gonna probably, like, be beating myself up for saying this, but I will say I'm kind of surprised that we don't have any kind of standardized, like, dialing considering we have pretty strict, design standards for fencing everywhere else. And being that livestock areas tend to be pretty large and can sometimes visibly make a big impression on a whole strip of road. I'm just in my mind, I'm thinking of driving down, like, a hundred and twenty second, and I'm just thinking if someone decided to go really rogue and do something crazy with the four foot fence, it would change the entire feeling of that area. Not I've never been big on having lots of rules about these types of things.

I like having some freedom as a property owner, but I I feel like it's kind of interesting that we are allowing so much, creativity, I would say. Because I think that could look pretty messy if someone's just trying to, like, save a few bucks. And usually, I just put the whole left side of my pasture. I just redid the fence to re make sure it was all safe and good for the dogs, and I was not cheap. So I can only imagine, like, if someone's got a huge area, I was, like, 700 linear feet, and it was not a cheap project.

So I know that would get very expensive. So I I do think that I mean, I think I like what mine looks like. I don't think it's a super expensive option. It was just, like, a big, you know, cattle grid type thing with posts in between and one bar like, one I don't build, obviously. I'm using all their big words. And then the board at the top. But, anyway, it it come it came together really nicely. I was just thinking, you know, even if we had, like, four or five options or something. I don't know. Just to kinda, like, keep some continuity or neighborhoods.

Just because I I do recognize that farmland and things, everything gets very expensive. But I don't know. I guess it just kind of surprises me that we wouldn't have something standardized. That's just my comment.

I'll just add or comment on that. The we don't review any fencing except for heights and, basically, if it's blocking, per site distances, and except for if it's a commercial property with design standards. If the planning commission wants us to look at fencing designs for residential, we could do that. But there could be also be concerns about locking specific sites into certain things, certain designs only, that I I believe staff would not want to be a part of it, but we would look into it if you would want to.

Yeah. I I guess it was just more I'm just imagining, like, acres and acres of, like, some super botched looking project and how that could look really tacky for what also can be really beautiful when you're driving by lots of land and and, you know, livestock stuff. Just just something maybe for us all to think about. I don't know if that's I mean, that's a real serious concern for others, but I do think it makes it can very much enhance the character of the area too. So that is all.

Alright. I think that concludes our conversation. Hearing from from no other commissioners? Okay. So does that lead us to the next agenda item? Okay. Alright. So that leads us to the home businesses and licensing.

Yes. Thank you, vice chair. Happy to bring up the red line code if there are any questions, comments, concerns. But, again, this is mainly an effort to clean up our home business code, put it under one section instead of two, remove redundancies, and then also take care of the, model code from department of revenue at the same time. So open the floor for the conversation.

Yeah. Thank you, for that. So I see that, our tentative schedule looks like we'll have a recommendation from the commission at next month's meeting. So today, do we have any commissioner comments or questions for staff? Seeing none, we look forward to seeing this again next month.

Thank you very much. Okay.

Alright. Next on the agenda is the MFTE program. Let's talk about it.

Alright. Maybe we'll get a little more conversation on this item. So, this was introduced last month. Diving a little deeper in, wanted to have some good conversation about some of the potential, standards and design guidance that we could entertain. Staff went ahead and dove into some of our neighbors' codes for some ideas and examples, looking at Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma.

And so I just wanted to be able to share that information with the commissioners as well. But staff would like to open the conversation by talking about appropriate geographic areas for the potential implementation of a multifamily tax exemption program in Edgewood. First and foremost, the statute says they have to be established in urban centers. So there are some criteria there on the screen. I won't read it verbatim, but, ultimately, staff's recommending that the commissioners limit eligible sites to those that are within the town center and served by sanitary sewers.

And there's the option of looking at our mixed use residential and commercial zoning districts as well, particularly, you know, those that would be along our Meridian spine as opposed to, for instance, the mixed use residential over on the West Side of town, focusing on not only the sanitary sewers, but within 750 feet of an active public transit line. So the commissioners have any comments on staff's recommendation?

Specific to locations only?

At this time, yes.

Okay. Any comments? I think it sounds reasonable. You listed three items, so all would be required in order for this program to be an op an option for a developer. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay. Do you have handy a a zoning map where you could show us how far our town center?

I can very shortly.

Okay. Thanks.

Are there any other questions while I'm bringing that up?

Yeah. Quick question about the location of sewer is ever changing. So would amendments need to happen to our code in the future to reflect the new locations that this program would be applicable or an opportunity?

That's a a great question. At this time, the entirety of our town center is already within the sewer service area. But the the code they're looking at our neighbor's codes. They do have very specific geographic areas in outlined in their code even with with maps. So Mhmm. It while I would need to talk to legal to confirm Mhmm. I believe we could craft language that leaves it open to adjustment as the super service areas adjusted if that were necessary.

Okay. Thank you.

So here is our zoning map. I'm starting down at the the south end of our Meridian MUR zone. And just to give you an idea of 750 feet, that would include the entire width of the, I'll call, hot pink MUR zoning area, which most of those are if not immediately abutting Meridian, they're within very short walking distance of Meridian in transit. The light pink is our town center zone. You can see it's a little bit wider to the East Of Meridian for the existing apartment site, but, again, still very walkable to the Meridian Spine and Transit Service.

And all of those properties are served by sanitary sewer.

Okay.

Going to the North, we have our red commercial zone. And you'll see as you go North Of 16th, it's just the East Side Of Meridian. The West Side is Milton, so our code would not apply to Milton.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Other commissioner comments related to location?

K.

We have a hand raised by Leila.

Alright. What else do you got?

This is commissioner Church. Oh. I had a question. As I live near or actually right on some of that pink area there. I'm just wondering as far as these these new proposed builds, what kind of separation would they would we be able to require from existing builds?

So for example, if you're looking at a hundred and fourth and eleventh in that area there, I believe that green area, is that if you show it as the satellite image, then you could see the open green area. Isn't that a natural, a green space that's supposed to stay there? Are those are protected from these builds, or would we somehow space it from there? What kind of requirements do we have around our green space?

So our critical areas ordinance governs all the wetlands and buffers, and there wouldn't be there aren't any proposed changes to separation and buffering requirements as part of the draft multifamily tax exemption stuff that we're looking at. Also, those projects would be subject to the same development standards, density requirements, etcetera. So at this time, I we're we're not looking to allow for increased density as an example if if somebody were to come in with a multifamily tax exemption request.

Okay. So then it would be that we are we don't have any plans to, repurpose that green space?

Not at this time.

Okay. Thank you. Then I don't have a concern.

Alright. Next item. Next topic.

K. So next would be to look at the minimum requirements at each exemption level. This is where we get into our examples from our neighbors. There are three different exemption levels by statute, eight years, twelve years, and twenty years. At the eight years, the statute doesn't have any additional requirements.

Twelve years, you have to have at least 20% of the units as affordable housing. And twenty years, you have to have at least 25% of units as permanent affordable housing. So the longer the exemption, the higher the bar. Now as far as additional requirements for the eight year exemption level, both Puyallup and Tacoma require that the requesting development have at least four units, that half of those units being proposed have permanent residential occupancy, and that, in Puyallup, they also require that tenant displacement is prohibited during the duration of the exemption. In Tacoma, they require that if if project has less than 20 units that it must be owner occupied.

They cannot be rental. So maybe pause here and and see if commissioners have any thoughts, see things they like, see things they don't like. For what it's worth, staff believes that we should have some kind of a requirement at the eight year level. But whether or not we have some or all of those that are being employed by Peelope and Tacoma, we're completely open to that and probably get into some of that some more discussion about Edgewood unique ideas in the next item for discussion.

Commissioners, are there comments or questions?

I have a question on the on the PO ops guideline for the four unit minimum and the 50% permanent residential occupancy. So when they say tenant displacement, they're referring to eviction. Is that okay.

I believe so.

Yes. Because the sometimes you already have multifamily projects that are just doing additions to them or and and like that. So not forcing ones already there out just to

To expand.

Get this program to work.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to the 12 level. Oh, commissioner Church.

Sorry. I was a little late there. I'm raising my hand. So I I as a comment, I think it does make sense to have a, some kind of alignment with Puyallup and and Tacoma as far as, a minimum, such as a four unit minimum. I think I think it makes sense. And as far as the 50% permanent residential occupancy, this is so that we cultivate long long term residents here rather than long term rentals. Correct?

I'd have to speak to staff to truly understand because I could see it as trying to keep from converting units to some other nonresidential use as as an example.

I see. Okay. Yeah. I think it would just be interesting to have a little more clarification on on why they have these requirements in there, like, why it's been helpful or it hasn't been helpful to their development.

Alright. We will dig into that some more. Thank you.

Thank you.

So on the twelve year level and I'll highlight at this point that Sumner only had something at the twelve year level because they've decided to only adopt the twelve year level. They do not offer eight or 20. And so that is another thing that could be considered here. I could see 20 being a greater administrative burden, for instance, because of the need for permanent affordable homeownership and working with a qualified nonprofit if we're not doing it ourselves. So there's there's that additional burden to that level.

But Sumner, with their twelve year, they've increased it, know, to a 12 unit minimum, and then this is where they speak to the 50% permanent residential occupancy and tenant displacement like Puyallup at the eight year level. Puyallup built upon their eight year restriction and included relocation assistance at the end of the exemption term so that folks who are in a unit that may no longer be eligible for affordable pricing would have assistance by the owner to relocate to another affordable site. And then Tacoma has require requires 30% ground floor commercial in specific zones. I thought that was very applicable to to the goals staff has for this in Edgewood where we've already got the percentage of ground floor nonresidential use built into our development standards now, but we could leverage that multifamily tax exemption program to increase that number as an example. So happy to discuss twelve years in any further depth if any commissioners have questions on that.

Are there any questions or comments related to twelve years?

I do have a question on so when they're when they're talking about the commercial at the ground floor, obviously, mixed use basically with that would that would be there? Yes. Okay. All I got.

Okay. Moving on to twenty year, and Sumner doesn't offer it. Puyallup did not have any additional requirements, felt the statute was plenty. But Tacoma went ahead and required 25 units per acre as a minimum density for offering the twenty year, and then this is where they also require the 30% ground floor commercial. At this time, staff would not recommend going the twenty year route just due to some of the additional things I've already mentioned. But if the planning commissioners feel that it is worth exploring further, staff can certainly dig into that.

I I definitely like that, and I can see the benefit of going with one option and not multiple. I think I'm I'm in line with what Sumner did there with the twelve years. I think eight years seems actually goes by pretty quickly, and sometimes you don't see the changes you want in that amount of time. And I think twelve years is a very reasonable amount of time, and I'm definitely supportive of that idea.

Thank you. Okay. Well, I certainly don't wanna belabor this, so we'll we'll move on. And we'll we'll take the comments received tonight into consideration as we put together a draft for for the review at next month's meeting. Last but not least, looking at other desirable and potentially costly design elements for eligibility.

I've thrown five bullets on here for conversation. First, structured parking under or beneath other occupiable building spaces. Simpler way of putting that, parking garage. Those are very expensive features. And when combined with other types of construction, it it for whatever reason, it's just not not penciling as the developers would say.

When I looked at looked around for some other examples of different projects where you've got the mixed use, I'm not finding the parking underneath as an option, at least not nearby from a private developer standpoint. Where was I going with this? So I I looked at Puyallup and Federal Way as the two nearest examples of some projects that have residential units over a nonresidential ground floor. And I'll actually be making a presentation to the council tomorrow night. That's why I'm got it in my head.

But so I would encourage commissioners to if you're not able to listen in to the meeting tomorrow night, catch it after the recording's up on the website. But the one in Puyallup is actually Puyallup City Hall, so you've got government participation in the structure. It does have structure parking was kinda offset behind the the mid vertical building itself. And it's a much it's a relatively small footprint. The one in Federal Way is a little bit of smaller building that I found off of 3 20th where they've got Ground Floor commercial, but all the parking is surface parking behind the building, and it's it's part of a multifamily development mostly.

All the, what I'll call garden style apartments are are set back away from the street, but the one building that fronts the street has walk up commercial units. So throwing that out there. If we wanted to see something where structured parking was part of it, then we probably need to find a way to incentivize a developer to provide that. And multifamily tax exemptions could be a way to do that. Long way of saying that.

Sorry. The second bullet, crosswalk safety improvements when abutting existing public transit stops. Currently, we've got several transit stops along Meridian, but there's only marked crosswalks in very specific locations. So if a developer were to actually put in a, a crosswalk with appropriate warning signs and and flashing beacons that may be for the expense of doing that. They may have some eligibility through a multifamily tax exemption project, but that that's a it's an idea.

It's relatively low hurdle. Third, relocating overhead utilities on the furnished underground. This is something that was mentioned last month. The cost to underground power and comm has gone up quite a lot in the last several years, and, we have a whole segment of Meridian south of the town center that has yes yet to put those utilities underground. So if we want to encourage development along that stretch of Meridian, we may want to consider this as an eligibility requirement in that zone as as an example.

Fourth, developing more than the minimum residential density. Well, our code requires at least a minimum level of density. But if you're gonna go over that and up to the maximum density, maybe that's one way we can incentivize this because, for instance, in town center, we don't have any development that's over 24 units an acre. We allow I think we have an unlimited max as long as you go to the max building height, but we're not seeing developers leverage that because the cost of construction is so high. So if we want to see higher density, we may need to offer multi family tax exemptions as a way to get more vertical construction.

And then last but not least, allowing for additional building height to achieve maximum density. Some cases, the current maximum building height doesn't yield that maximum density that we already have in our code. So if somebody's gonna build to that maximum, you know, whatever height you need to achieve that maximum density, but long way of saying. Just just another thing to consider for for MFT eligibility. But, with that, happy to hear if if anybody has any thoughts or concerns about any of these, items being brought forward by staff or if commissioners have any other thoughts for consideration.

Commissioners, questions, comments?

I do. Okay. So just kinda going through the list. Structured parking, I think I understand the concept of this. Don't be it making sense in the area.

Doesn't quite visually fit. But then when I think just because I'm thinking of it, like, the way it would stand out essentially, it wouldn't quite go with the that general area. I also think it wouldn't look like, I I think a a taller building would make more sense with residential characteristics or, like, you know, apartment style up top would make more sense to me than a parking structure. But the only thing I get confused by, though, is how are we building more density and then not allowing for additional parking. And so that would be kind of conflicting.

I don't know how we can do both and have the parking available that would be required if you're building up higher. Then I guess my main other question is really so are they are these things that you're you guys are suggesting as an option to qualify for that discount, or is it, like, an additional like like, if you can meet three or three out of four or something like that? What what is the crate are you guys adding this as a criteria, or is this if they do this, they also qualify for the discount or the tax?

Will say for for this initial conversation, staff's intent was not to require all of these for eligibility. So the idea of a certain number of these seems appropriate. We we have like, in our floor area ratio table, if you do certain things, you can get bonus ratio for different things without getting too far into the weeds. So, yeah, I mean, that that's certainly an approach that we very much be in support of.

I could see, like, a sliding scale percentage where if you, like, you know, hit this marker for each item that you were able to do that benefits the community. Maybe you have, like, a sliding scale percentage. I don't know if that's even realistic, but I don't know. I I mean, I always want to say I welcome builders who are willing to, like, invest in our community. So, like, they get a deeper discount based on that, I I would be supportive, especially if it's something we've all agreed upon anyway.

I could see where, from a sliding scale perspective, a couple of ideas would be the minimum eligibility. You know, instead of doing the 20% affordable at the twelve years, Edgewood requires 35 or 40% affordable. But if you do these other things, we'll we'll get drop it down to the 20%. Or, you know, maybe there's ways that a multifamily tax exemption project could get reductions or incentives on other design standards, like number of parking stalls required, like, well, the building height, you know, other other things like that. You know?

I mean, I I'm also very drawn to the incentive of the, you know, bearing the the power line and things. I think that's really beneficial for the the drive down meridian specifically and and just kind of modernizing that whole experience. It's it's kind of patchy. So I definitely am supportive of that.

K. Thank you.

Others, mister Hardisty?

Yes. I had a question. What is the maximum building height per Edgewood?

So it depends on your zone. In town center, I believe we're, what, fifty seven and forty five in commercial or mixed use. K. 45 in commercial and mixed use residential and and 35 in business park. Yeah.

And then I do think that I like the idea of incentivizing to underground those utilities. Obviously, that's a little bit of my background. And so I do know very well how expensive that can be. And, you know, obviously, the aesthetics do come up when you, you know, talk about overhead power lines, but also undergrounding them at that expense. It does make them more resilient, you know, less options for, you know, outages and things like that with various things overhead. So not only does it help aesthetically, it's definitely you know, from a from a little bit of a safety standpoint, it helps a

little

bit. So like I like some of those ideas being able to group those things together, bring some folks in. And then the parking, I mean, obviously, you know, when you think about a multifamily application along that Meridian spine there, I mean, it's more conducive to folks utilizing mass transit and things like that. So, you know, parking isn't as big of an issue. I know I've seen some in Seattle where they literally have them posted as zero parking. It's just street parking only. They build this giant building, and there's no parking. It is literally street parking for those folks. So at least we don't have that going for us yet. So pretty bad in in some of those other applications, but I like that we're having a conversation about it, though. It's good.

Commissioner Church?

Yes. I had a question. I I do, align with the thoughts about undergrounding the, the utilities. But I just want I was wondering, Steph, if you could remind me, after the initial build and during this eight, twelve, twenty years, whatever the city decides as far as the exemption, periods, who is responsible for maintaining that infrastructure during those periods and after? Because addressing aging infrastructure when it's underground is also very costly too.

So as far as the underground and the utilities, it'd all be in public right away. Those utilities are all franchise utilities, so the utilities would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance.

Yes. And if the if the utilities have to cover infrastructure, they would be a part of the build, I would I would assume too?

The way it works with private development is that the private developer is responsible for putting the conduit in the ground and paying for the utility's time and effort to move those lines from overhead to underground. Okay. So that's where those costs are coming from and and quite high. If it were a city driven capital project, then most utilities just have to get out of the way. And and that's the utility's cost, which, you know, nothing happens for nothing. It's gonna translate into monthly bills and that sort of thing.

Right.

Where Puget Sound Energy with the electricity, because of how that's governed in the state, the city would still have a proportionate share of the cost to relocate from overhead to underground. I think the utility trade commission has schedules out there, and I believe it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% that we would have to cover as a city for the power itself Mhmm. Last time I checked. Mhmm. Yeah.

I think it it's just a little more complex than just deciding to underground. If, you know, we were to anticipate an increase in density on top of it, I just think of what's happening in other cities in Washington where there are neighborhoods that have been able to afford to underground their utilities. But then when it comes to then having to address the maintenance, or the aged infrastructure, replacing, fixing, etcetera, it's then increasing the rates for everybody

in the

area, whether they're in those buildings or not. So I'm looking at it from a long term perspective of how we would think of that too. I do I do think of the parking situation too. And if it's not underneath, I'm just kinda wondering, like, how how are we requiring them to make sure that there's enough parking for everybody living in these units? Because I'm in a somewhat newer build here, I can honestly say there's a problem with street parking.

It keeps it aesthetically nice, to not have so many cars parked along the the road here, but then it also is is a problem if, you know, families can't if if families need to live together, there's no room for people to to park cars while we also don't have a connected public transit system here.

Oh, you, staff, for the presentation and also for sharing the resources from the Department of Commerce. I found them very helpful. And in talking about and getting in the weeds today about this, I think that's the place where we need to be. But I want to acknowledge that this program would help support state mandates for affordable housing, our housing goals, comprehensive plan policies, and whatnot. So there's a lot of reason that this program could be really helpful for Edgewood.

And in thinking specifically about multifamily housing types, we do have that in Edgewood along our Meridian Corridor. And I've heard from folks that perhaps there's design elements with those developments that maybe are not consistent with our comprehensive plan, for example. And so to see your line items about talking about structured parking and utilities and whatnot, I think we're on the right track for developing a program that can perhaps incentivize the design that we're hoping to see along our corridor. So thank you.

Yes. Thank you. Well, if commissioners have any other thoughts or questions, please always reach out. Staff will take the feedback tonight and craft a initial draft for further discussion at next month's meeting.

That sounds great. Thank you. So we've got one last discussion item, and it's an introduction on concurrency code updates.

Thank you, vice chair. This one is just a a quickie tonight. Really want you to kinda take this and digest this over the coming months so there can be more conversation next month. But the long story short is that our concurrency regulations have not been updated since they were initially adopted back in 2017. In talking with our consultant, that helps us with transportation engineering as our concurrency code is solely focused at this time on transportation concurrency.

We felt that there were a few areas where it'd be worth considering, making some tweaks, and and helping optimize some things. Trip threshold is currently set at 10 trips. Any project creating 10 or more new trips has to go through a currency review. Those projects that we're seeing raised to the level of potentially running into a concurrency question are are higher trip generators. And the way our fee structure is right now, the the fee is $3,000 for all projects up to 25 new trips.

So raising that threshold to 20 is is something that the consultant's recommending, but open to further discussion and conversation there. Just the way that our code is written, it's in the code what that threshold is. Second is multimodal level of service. We have a multimodal level of service in our in our comprehensive plan. Staff is concerned if we were to implement concurrency for active modes of transportation, it could effectively stop all proposed developments off of our Meridian Corridor because of the lack of pedestrian facilities that we have.

We certainly have plans to expand that network and build it out as we can. We've had conversations with Planning Commission in the past about a a fee in lieu program for trying to prevent sidewalks to nowhere out out in our more rural areas. So we're just, at this time, not recommending that we implement multimodal level service in the code, but certainly open for more conversation to go forward. And in order to clarify the code, the consultant's recommending changing the term road facilities to vehicle level of service just so there's no ambiguity there. And then last but not least, our annual report frequency.

It's been a little bit hit and miss, but suggesting going to a biannual just based on how, we've been seeing products come in and the level of effort for that annual report versus the amount of new information we might get out of it has not been a one for one, for lack of a better term. So happy to take any initial questions you might have, but really just looking to introduce this and come back for more discussion next month.

Thank you. Do we have comments or questions? I have one question. I heard you say $3,000 for a concurrency review. Is that outsourced to a third party reviewer, or staff do that in house?

That is completely performed by our consultant.

Okay. Thank you.

They manage our concurrency model for us. They do crack pipeline projects, see how the trips are being distributed, and make sure we are not running out of capacity.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. Alright. So we look forward to seeing this next month then. Great. That concludes that portion of the agenda. Now we've got staff and commissioner comments. The staff have any comments for us?

Yes. We do have a a few updates for you this evening. First, just programming note. I know where there's still one vacancy on the commission, and I believe we are scheduled to interview a new applicant at, next week's city council meeting. So there is a good chance we'll have a full, commission by next month's meeting.

Second, certainly important, staff was able to finally bring our public works standards and code update and our sanitary sewer code update packages to the council last week. I wanted to, again, thank the planning commissioners that were involved in all that work last year and making those recommendations. Quickly summarizing, since then, staff has been working with working on developing the detailed drawings, the standard details. It's taken quite a bit of time with all the work that we've had. It's just kinda kept falling down the priority list, but we finally got there, got those detailed drawings done.

A lot of coordination with our partners on the sanitary sewer side, getting their feedback on those code updates, and and getting that all realigned to be very focused on the city of Edwards sanitary sewer system and what we own as opposed to trying to make it a universal code that addresses all pipes in the city. So just recognizing where we were at in that whole process. But as part of all of that, we also, as staff, recognize that one of our goals in the comprehensive plan was to not allow for community septics any further, but also recognizing there's a little bit of a tension between that and the desire to have predictable infill development going forward. Something that Pierce County utilizes is called shadow plotting where you would have a subdivision that may not have sanitary sewer available today, but it's expected to have sanitary sewer available sometime in the not too distant future. So we would allow for a developer to to create lots to the minimum sizes that are allowed if it were to be provided by sewer, but then not allowing a certain number of those lots to be built on until the sewer is actually provided.

That's where the term shadow comes from. There there are lots, but they're not really lots until sewers are available. And so then on-site septic systems would be needed on an interim basis until sewers are provided, and those septic systems could be provided on those shadow lots connected to the buildable lots. And instead of doing individual systems for individual lots with all their individual setback requirements, etcetera, to allow for community septics where four or more lots could be on one septic system, the footprint of that septic system would be less than the four individual lots or four more individual lots. And it all comes down to dry sewer lines as well.

So you're gonna you're gonna take advantage of shadow planting. You have to put dry sewer lines in so that when the sewer comes in, everybody can hook in without having to tear up the road and and cause a big disruption to the entire neighborhood. That's a high level summary. It was discussed briefly at last week's, study session with the council, had some follow-up communication with the council, just to clarify what's in the code and preparing for possible action tomorrow night. I just wanted to bring that to the planning commissioner's attention.

And this all I can do is give my word that this was not an end run. We're not trying to say one thing that the planning commissioner is working with you guys over the course of many years to develop goals and policies to, among other things, not allow for community septics. But then as we're doing our final review, recognizing the value of shadow plotting and the potential for allowing new community septics in these very limited cases. And wanted to make sure you're aware of it and could raise any concerns or questions you might have at this time before the council has a chance to consider it tomorrow evening.

Thanks for sharing. So tomorrow's meeting is at 07:00?

It is.

Okay.

I see mister Green has his hand raised.

Yeah. I just had a question about the shadow not the shadow, the the dry sewer lines sewer lines. Yes. Would it be also possible to implement where they would pay for, you know, the the distance that they're we're making them liable to travel anyways to connect to a sewer so they could just at least get a little bit closer to the sewer system on the on the main road arterial way?

I mean, there there would be ways to do that. Not sure if a developer would be incentivized to extend the sewer for some distance down the road without it actually being connected to the endpoint. Usually, extensions work their way upstream, not downstream. So I have not seen that employed, but it's certainly a possibility.

Well, was just thinking if they're if they're looking for an override from the current code, you know, to to have an exception, maybe they gotta jump a couple extra hoops to get that exception handled.

And just to be clear, the way that the code is drafted and being presented to the council, we would require dry sewers if you were more than I think the distance is 300 feet. But a director the public works director could allow a development to not put dry sewers in in that scenario if sewers are not expected to be extended within the next twenty years and there are very clear conditions on the subdivision that require an action, when sewers are available with no protest.

Okay. Yeah. Those those are just my comments. I'm just trying to you know, if if they would want an extra special, you know, exception made, that maybe there's just more to it for.

Alright. Just wanted to touch base on the climate planning. We are as part of that, we're starting our tree canopy study. So we'll be having a consultant work on reviewing our tree canopy, and then we'll be discussing with the climate action team and the planning commission what our canopy goal should be. We are working with our consultant that's doing the climate planning measurement on attending our next month's meeting to provide the findings from the climate impact assessment.

This is the one where you, the planning commission last year reviewed the direct version of this, where they're putting together a final, and we'll be presenting that next month. And then finally, wanted to just pass this over to commissioner Church to provide an update from last last month's climate action team meeting.

Sure. Happy to.

So we we met on April 28, and we're gonna be

now meeting, I believe, the last Tuesday of each month.

And the next couple meetings, we're gonna meet virtually with our our vendor measurement and other, city and county partners. This past meeting, though, focused on, everything from aligning our guiding principles back to our comprehensive plan vision, and making sure that we're considering how that language might be interpreted and translated into planning. And, also, we started looking at, our current period right now is center centered around data collection and assessment. So we took part of the meeting and and worked, individually on looking at the climate impact sectors, to identify, vulnerabilities, for future, projections. And, we just checked the assumptions there and, tried to see, you know, what might be missing.

So some

of those, sectors, were human well-being and emergency management, ecosystems, natural resources, infrastructure. And then from there we had, our subsectors, such as public health, critical areas, roads, energy, etcetera.

And

from there, we also talked about what tools we're using, to collect all of our all of this data, the partners, that are helping us, and, just really talked about specifically pertaining to our our city. And we've identified really, the increased temperatures that we're seeing, and how many days a year we're having temperatures of a 100, or more as being, a hazard that we are experiencing and will likely experience more of, and also drought and the the lack of the precipitation that's that's able to replenish our aquifer. And then tied to that, of course, we are looking at how to address emergency management response and preparedness by connecting our work proactively to our hazard mitigation plan. Thank you.

Thanks for the report. Any last comments?

That does it for staff.

Great. Any commissioner comments? Hearing none, let's adjourn the meeting at, 07:19PM. Thank you for joining us.