Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I am gonna open the meeting at 06:00.

Here.

Tom's not here with okay. Lauren? Here. Jan Furi? Here. Harley Lenore? Here. And Leila Church is not here. Okay. So I'm assuming that everyone read the consent agenda. And so if everyone has, may I have

a motion to approve it, please? Motion to approve the consent agenda, Carlyleigh Lanois.

Okay. Thank you. Second? I second. Okay, Jan Burrit. And all those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Okay. Very good. So the next on our agenda would be citizen comments. And if there's anyone in cyberspace, you just put up your hand. And anyone here for comment? And Okay. Just clear. Is podium, state your name, and

This is for items that are not the public hearings.

My name is Inna Duncan. I have been a resident of Edgewood for thirty six years. I own about 14 acres in the business Park zoning. We have provided employment for about 25 people out of high grade asphalt, which I own. Now I passed that down to my daughter.

And when it comes to planning and zoning, I have seen it all from the purchase, which allowed me to do pretty much anything I wanted with the business to know opposition about what we did. We own a asphalt company of thirty nine years, and we have seen opposition of the city because of the misunderstanding of what asphalt is. Butaminous asphalt is not a contaminant. Otherwise, you wouldn't see 95% of the roads made with that material. But I would like to praise you first, praise you because I've I had sat there at one point in time.

And I would like to encourage you to look at the items that you have in your planning department. One of the things that concerned me through the years was the lack of economic development. Because if you don't have tax revenues coming in, everything we do, we mostly do in Milton. We go eat there. We go buy things there.

We go to the pharmacy there. I mean, there's very few things that the city has actually said its mind to cater to the citizens. So with that said, I would appreciate very much that the planning is considering the economic development. It's very simple. We don't have to go across the street, but we do.

If we had had the corridor like it was planned when I was sitting in one of those chairs many, many years ago, we would have had business development. And I was working with, Pierce County economic development board, and I brought one of the key people there, and they were horrified as to what the code and the ordinance and everything was doing for economic development. So I I know it's hard work. I know I had to consult with these people at the county level because it's important to know. It is important to know sometimes what fees are being paid.

Because one of the things that I was struck by, our beautiful city, and it's beautiful. I don't doubt. You know, you go on twenty first and hundred and twenty second. It's just incredible properties, but we need to think about economic development. Thank you.

Anyone else out that wishes to speak? You can raise your hand online.

Seeing no hands at this time. Okay.

I'll open the first public hear public hearing at 06:06, and that's on the comprehensive plan amendment. Excuse me. The interim zoning ordinance. And, Jeremy, it's all yours.

Thank you, chair. Tonight, we are holding a public hearing to review the interim zoning ordinance based on several months of discussion with the planning commission and looking at revisions to what the council adopted earlier this year as interim measures. Not to exhaust mission. Hopefully, you had a chance to read the materials in your packet. But for the public's benefit, the changes that are being considered at this time would be to update the zoning district purpose statements for town center, commercial, mixed use residential, and business park to align with the 2024 comprehensive plan, to once again allow for townhomes and apartments in the business park zone as an outright permissible use near the inner urban trail, Replace the 200 foot nonresidential use standard with a ground floor building frontage standard.

Clarify what qualifies as a frontage occupied by a building and some other clarifying edits to that section code. Roll down here a little ways here so we can take a look at So this on page 19 of the packet materials is b m c eighteen eighty o eight o as originally codified prior to the interim zoning ordinance with red line markup changes that are proposed. So you'll see under subsection b, those purpose statements and the clarifying edits to align it with the 2024 comprehensive plan under number four, the business park zoning district, providing that, verifying language around the residential uses, focusing near the inner of the trail. And moving down to table one, opposing to remove the consolidate the minimum residential net density to one row, clarifying what that maximum density would be allowable in the business park zone. Minimal minimum allowable in the commercial zone.

Updating the language about the lot frontage, things specific to the arterial roadways.

Jeremy, could you make that a little bigger possibly? Just because I wanna be on the same page as you yeah. Thank you.

I'll collapse the the box too. I don't Small text. I apologize. Yeah. Minimum arterial roadway, lot frontage, clarifying the business park zone that it's only applicable on Meridian, but not on other arterial roadways in that zone.

The minimum ground floor floor building frontage rather than going with what was previously proposed as a 50% building footprint within the 200 feet that are fronting. We're talking about building frontage and then how much of that building frontage needs to be the nonresidential use. And then updating the, footnotes accordingly. I will note here that under number three, we still have a a note about within 200 feet of said roadway, but with the other standards as currently proposed in the red lines, that statement would not be necessary. And down here, removing several of the other notes that are no longer relevant or necessary.

Clarifying edits that were spoken to. So, with that, that's staff summary of the proposed red line changes to that section of code. Happy to receive public comment tonight with the hearing, and we do have this further down on the agenda for discussion with the planning commission on the agenda.

So if anyone wishes to comment on this, raise your hand online. Okay. Looks like no one has responded.

In case online didn't hear the the chair, if you want to make a comment at this time with part of the public hearing, please use the raise hand feature on Zoom.

Okay. Noosha, would you state your name and address, and then you may speak.

Hi. Hi. Noosha Tashakur. I'm with Intracorp Homes. Current our office is located in Seattle.

We are looking at a development, project in city of Edgewood. And staff, Jeremy, has been very helpful walking us through the language that's being proposed in the amendment. And I just wanted to mention that, you know, we are excited about developing in Edgewood and the 200 feet frontage requirement for commercial that he was mentioning will make a project not feasible. So I'm happy to hear that there will there will be an adjustment to that. And as long as the, you know, frontage buildings are all commercial, we could develop a mixed use project.

And that is all.

Okay. Well, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay. Yes, please. And state your name again.

Okay. In the Duncan 113 Meridian Avenue East. My observation with, developers, is that they are not part of the community. Therefore, their interest is purely economical in for them, not for the city and the residents. In my experience with the apartments that were built next to my property is that there's issues as far as accommodating the exerted needs for these type of of developments.

So I would say that looking at the 200 feet proposed for nonresidential, commercial would be probably something that will allow for employment and for the economic development of people that will use the services here. So consider that we lost all almost all of Meridian to apartments. And consider also that there is areas that because of the beauty of Edgewood could benefit other businesses. So, yeah, mixed use, I believe, would be better in the sense that you would have and that was something that was proposed for many many, many years ago, that the bottom part of Meridian Buildings will have businesses. And the upper would be residential with the aims of having people enjoy and walk around town.

I get to see a lot of kids and a lot of people, including on my own property, thinking that it's part of the park, and it isn't. So we need to consider, again, the needs of the people. Developers have big pockets. I know that because I experienced it next door. Did it benefit me? No. It really didn't. Did it benefit my family? No. It didn't.

Did it enhance my life? No. I have kids running all over the property, and I had to call the police. So we need to think about the city, the needs of the city, and what is it that you envision. Like I said, having 470 units next to me, it's bit taxing when I have been in that property thirty six years, and that's my home. And, yes, we do send 50 jobs out.

Okay. Thank you for the comments. Do we see anyone else? I don't see anyone else. Okay. Okay. So I'm gonna close this hearing at 06:17. So we'll go on to our second public hearing on the public work standards and code updates, and I'll open that meeting at 06:18. Alright. Go ahead, Jeremy.

And this item has been talked about off and on for several years, but brought it back last month and looking forward to bringing this forward. We do have Chuck, our public works director, pending. We have any questions, that that you might have for him later on when we get into the discussion. But just as a quick presentation for public hearing, we are seeking to adopt some new chapters of code and localized public works construction standards so that we're no longer simply referring to external agency standards and have some local role and clarity for for projects going forward. That's that's it in a high level nutshell.

Okay. Okay. So if you're on Zoom, if you wanna raise your hand to speak, we will acknowledge you. And doesn't look like anyone is out there. Seeing no hands. So seeing no one is commenting, I'm going to close this public hearing at 06:19.

Ready to move on?

You're ready to move on.

Right. Tonight, we have three action items for the planning commission. These are the three items that were we had public hearings on at last month's meeting.

Mhmm.

First is comprehensive plan implementation amendments. And this has been discussed at least a few meetings now with the planning commission. So in your packet, there are several wrapped amendments to EMC title 18 and a recommendation to repeal EMC chapter 14.12 natural resource lines, all in order to be consistent with the 2024 comprehensive plan as adopted implements in those. Also, takes care of last couple of items relating to legislative updates to make sure that we're consistent with GMA and can formally close out our 2024 periodic update process. Happy to take any questions commissioners might have, but looking forward to recommendation of the council to move forward with this item.

Okay. So we have discussed this at length. And Jeremy said, if there's anyone that has any questions or comments at this point. If not, I would like a motion to to pass this and onto the city council. So this was the the draft title 18 amendments. Right? Hold on. The title 18 amendments. So do I have a motion to

Did I say a motion to approve the recommendation or the city council of title 18?

Is that correct? Wait a minute. Yes. Right. Title 18. Correct. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Carly. I

don't know.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. That's right. Carly moves to pass, and we need a second?

I second the motion.

Okay. Jan Furry seconds. Are there any any I assume that nobody has any negative anything negative. So all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Okay, Jeremy. We'll move that on to the city council.

Thank you, chair. We will go on to the second action item. Okay. Here. This is for twenty twenty five conference of plan annual amendments.

You may recall last month after the public hearing, we had some discussion and asked for recommendation of council to remove the West Valley Highway overlay. But, I mean, the effect of that was we still had one item on on the docket, and that is the scrivener's errors and inconsistencies on the zoning map and the conference of plan. Next. So night before you is a draft recommendation that would then pass that along to the council for. And happy to take any questions.

Okay. So once again, this has been discussed, and I assume it would you may have discussed it at the last meeting, which I was not here. But if everyone is ready, then I'd like a motion to pass this comprehensive plan amendment onto the city council.

So moved. Pass it on to the city council.

Okay. Jan Furi, I I need a second.

I will second it. Carly Lynn Waugh.

Okay. Very good. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. We will pass that one on.

Thank you. Last, but certainly not least, is our critical areas ordinance update. Mhmm. See the abundance of attachments to this particular item. And, while Josh isn't here this evening, I hope his presentations on this subject matter have stuck with you over the last four months.

This is the biggest part of the 2024 periodic update implementation piece and the best available science updates related to that. Alright. As we dive into that, the the biggest part of this was the fish and wildlife habitat conservation carriers. Mhmm. And all the amendments are summarized in your packet.

I don't wanna go ad nauseam through all of them, but wanna have some conversation about the buffering buffer. Bringing your attention to page 209 of the packet. Snap did a more detailed analysis of mapped fish bearing water bodies focused on proximity to steep slopes, other critical areas, and alignment with fish and wildlife recommended the the tree height groupings that they've talked about, SPTH. And try not to butcher this terribly, but there are several different, categories for the SPTH standard site classes that have been grouped into three groupings in our analysis. Smallest buffering in 94 to a 111 feet.

Medium is 112 to 204. The largest 205 to two thirty one feet. We are proposing that for all stream types, it's a 100 foot minimum buffer, which is an increase for the nonfish bearing types. Any of these fish bearing streams that abut or overlap with wetland or geologic hazard critical areas, that it would be a minimum 150 foot buffer, which would be more in line with the the tree height buffer widths in those areas where we've got the type systems and more in line with some of the feedback that we've received from external agencies. Based on the analysis, inviting a little deeper in, that kind of two areas in the city, two types of areas, I should say.

One being where Wabto and Simons Creek Creek r located in the Southwest portion of the city at the valley floor. The the tree height base buffer is that lowest category around a 100 feet. And then other areas would be where Simons Creek starts elevating out of the valley, Caveat Creek, and there's a few other unverified type of things on southern and eastern slopes. But all of those are in these ravine type systems where you've got steeper slopes adjacent to it. And when we include those steep slopes and their the hazard areas and their buffers, you're gonna have more than a 150 feet more often than not.

So feel this is a reasonable Mhmm. Approach. I'm happy to take any questions that I should have. Approach.

So I know that, we had asked for some input from what the other cities were doing, and I think you had some tribal input too. But so I I think that in our discussion, we seem that these would be reasonable, these setbacks. Does anyone have any comment on them? They've been presented now. Okay.

Oh, go ahead. Thank you, chair. Commissioner Gillery, I do want to acknowledge for the record that, in planning, we have a lot of competing priorities and, regulations that we have to contend with. And, also, a 100 feet sounds like a lot. And I want to appreciate, in the staff report, attempting to standardize an approach to the buffer width for simplicity or for an a whole host of reasons.

So I can appreciate that and just want to acknowledge for the record that a 100 feet sounds like a lot. I'm not a scientist, but I think I hear staff acknowledging that there are competing priorities and that this seems like a reasonable approach. So that's just acknowledging that for the record.

Yeah. Thanks. Okay. Thanks, Carly. Alright.

So this is a this critical area amendment is someone that we need to pass on to the city council. So could we for this amendment for Edgewood Municipal Code title 14 be passed on to the city council, so I would need a motion to move this forward. Anyone out there? I move that we for that we forward the title 14 amendment for critical areas to the. Okay.

Very good, Jan Furi, and we need a second.

I second that, Carly Leroy.

Okay. Very good. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Alright. So this will also get passed on to the city council. Very good.

K. I take it we are ready for the discussion items tonight. And, so first is on the interim zoning ordinance. Gave our presentation earlier. Happy to pull up anything for further review and and discussion, but, staff is seeking any feedback with commissioners might have so that we can clean it up and prepare for a recommendation at next month's meeting.

Yeah. I think that we've had a pretty good discussion on this. And one of the things, of course, that came up was the commercial spaces not being being able to be not nonfilled for so long on a lot of these complexes. So,

anyway,

I don't know whether anyone has any other comments about

If if I might, just to respond to to some of the feedback we heard tonight. It's it's been a little bit of a confusing thing for us to review and and contemplate. I just wanna provide a little more context on the 200 foot piece when staff was first looking at this and trying to bring something forward for for the council to act on immediately. Our our initial stop gap was looking at 200 feet as that zone, if you will, 200 feet from the road where those nonresidential uses need to occur. As we got into more discussion, commissioners, looking at other cities examples of how they've managed to get those nonresidential uses incorporated into these mixed use developments, found that looking at a a ratio of the building frontage was more applicable, provided greater flexibility to the individual project to make the spaces more compatible with the the scope and scale of the project.

We actually are Josh has been working very closely with a developer on a proposal right here off of 24th Street. Looking forward to it being kind of our first main street style structure where you'd have that nonresidential use on that sidewalk. But, you know, the depth of those units, you only need 35 to 40 feet. And we've looked at some other agencies to, you know, see what they've implemented, and that seemed to be consistent. So, we didn't wanna get into a position where we're requiring more of the Ground Floor to be commercial than was viable from a market perspective.

The last thing we want is to be another city with a bunch of vacant storefronts. So that is the primary driver wise staff has shifted to that frontage ratio as opposed to a overall footprint ratio. And and by requiring those nonresidential uses on the arterial, we're still getting that along the road where it's meant to be inviting and walkable, etcetera. Wanna provide that additional context for the discussion.

Oh, thanks, Jeremy, because I I know that was one of the things that, you know, had come up, and we're looking, you know, for sort of guidance in that area. So appreciate that. Does anyone have any other questions?

If I can add to that. I'm just kinda I guess my brain is still kind of turning on the thoughts. This is gonna probably be weird when it comes out, but I'm just curious. And I know I've read my brain's a little dead right now from the huge documents today. I'm, like, trying to remember what I read at what time. But there was something in there that said something about I don't have it in front of me, but about, like, a temporary use of residential, and then it becomes commercial or something like that. Is that am I making that up? I feel like that's how I read it, Is that it would, like, start out initially as resident or start out as commercial, then could become residential or opposite. Is that

See if I can pull that up.

And I I apologize because I didn't write it down, but I remember it stuck out in my brain as interesting. The reason I'm asking is I just I think that okay. So I've seen some projects that were, like I feel like it was in Issaquah or, like, Renton. And it was a, like, senior housing project where they had the commercial at the bottom and residential above. But then along the sides, there were these split uses where it could be also, like, an office in the front, and then their residence could be in the back.

It was a really cool concept because there are a lot of, like, senior citizens who have, like, a small business that they want to run or, like, a a art or craft business that they could run-in the front, and then they can have their residents right there on-site. And it would be a cool concept. So I was just curious if that and I do apologize that I I didn't write that down. It didn't seem significant at the time. But are you seeing this here? I'm I'm not

So if if this is what you're referring to, I'm I'm inferring that it may not be, but there is currently a provision code that we're proposing to be stricken that talks about vertical mixed use projects with ground floor commercial that may be constructed as fully residential projects with the requirement of ground floor be converted to commercial use within three three years of Yeah.

That's it.

That provision has been in our code, and it has not been leveraged by any developers. Okay. So we did not feel it was really beneficial to keep it.

Okay.

Now to kinda go down a little bit of what you were speaking to, what I heard in that we have provisions now in our land use code that were adopted earlier this year, thanks to discussions coordination with the planning commission about work live and live work type units. Where a live work unit would be more than 50% residential, but a work live would be 50% or more non residential. And those types of units could be single level or or multi level type units. The example the developer I mentioned earlier is actually looking at two level units along that frontage where that ground floor piece of that unit would be the nonresidential, and then the upper floor piece of that unit would be the residential.

And they

would qualify as work with units, which is a nonresidential use according to our code. Therefore, it meets the requirements of the nonresidential use along that building.

Yeah. Interesting. I just I think it's a really cool concept. I was

Yeah.

Trying to make sure I understood how that, like, worked with what we were taking out. So thank you for clarifying that. But, yeah, I mean, I'm I'm all for you know, I've said this many times, but I'm all for allowing businesses to operate in residential areas as long as it doesn't affect the neighboring properties. You know? Obviously, I'm, you know, walking, talking business owner on my property.

But I don't know. I guess those commercial I think it's I I initially was reading it kinda thinking, like, where does this even apply to? Because it we obviously can't force a owner a property owner to change the use or change the building structure of what's already there. I see a lot of, like, these strip malls that are really outdated. And it's like, you can't go like, oh, well, it needs to look like this. Know, that's not realistic. I just again, I always think of, like, is there a way we can offer some sort of incentive to update these buildings? You know? Like

You mean buildings that are already

That are already there because they aren't they're not meeting the needs of the businesses that would like to come in, and they're not meeting the visual needs of, like, what consumers are looking to go shop at. So, like, I'm gonna probably go to the new nicely painted building in Milton because that building looks more appealing. Let's I'm just gonna use the new, forest in Milton. I really like what she did in there. I wouldn't have expected to see something so cute in Milton, to be honest with you, in that strip mall because it's not easy to afford a spot there.

Yeah. But I've been trying to support her as much as I can because I love what she did, and it's very just, like, modern and cool. And, anyway, the only reason I focus on that is I could see someone trying to open something like that in a more affordable strip mall and not getting the business support because it's just another business that kinda gets, like, like, lost in those older style buildings. I don't think the signage stands out enough and all that. So I don't wanna, like, impose changes on businesses that have been operating in these older buildings, but I do think that there's gotta be some sort of, like and this is where I say, like, the incentive.

Like, this like, discounting some of the, like, signage fees or, like, just to encourage that these businesses get better representation along Meridian Corridor. If we can't change the business buildings, like the actual physical buildings of how they look, at least, like, it easier for them to put more signage to Mhmm. Make it more appealing for people to shop there. I don't know. I just feel like I drive by some of those stores, and I can honestly say I've never pulled into the parking lots on a few of them. Not, like, proud to say that, but I've never been drawn to it. Yeah.

And so Well, you know, part of that, that could be a discussion for the economic development committee too to talk about how to incentivize a business. I mean, theoretically, if somebody wants to put in a business in there Mhmm. They would ask the landlord for something to, you know, make it more attractive. Yeah. Some, you know, some something with the build out. But I but

Like, for example, my old facility, my old day care facility was right on Pack Highway near 3 20th. The only sign I could put out according to the city was the one little one, like, along the top of the building. Right? And that was fine. And I was lucky because I got, like, a random spot that had an older big sign right there so I could make it bigger.

But I just think about, like, if I had only had a small spot that would have been allocated for me, how that would have been so much harder for people to find me. And when I think about some of the areas down here and how the shapes of the buildings and stuff, it's just not really like they're not included. You know? Like, they're it's it's literally like you almost kind of categorize it like doctor's offices where you kinda just drive by, you know, like, dime a dozen dentist office where you're just like, oh, if you if you're intending to go there, you know where it is. But, otherwise, you drive right past it.

I don't know. I just think there's some really cute businesses around here that we just they don't have that storefront set up. So I guess the the circle back to what I was trying to say is just basically, like, because we can't change that for the ones that are currently there, I do appreciate what we're trying to do for future building. But it's gonna take someone selling, like, that big old Milton Plaza, like, Surprise Lake selling finally. I'm so curious what that even means, you know, for the future. But I'm like, I'd love to see someone else maybe sell something so we could get some other things.

Well, it is a I mean, it's it's always an issue when you have older buildings that haven't been upgraded. It's true. Yeah. Well, I appreciate the comment. Yeah.

Anyone else have anything they wanna say? Okay.

K. Well, staff will take this back and clean it up, get it ready for commissioners to make the recommendation next month. Again, we'll make that edit regarding the 200 feet.

Okay.

And I think that's about it. The the comments are also well taken by staff. Certainly something we can bring up with the, but might be a a future item looking at nonconforming uses or something to that effect.

Right.

Have some ability depending on how much they wanna adjust what they have. Well,

and and and by no means, with my name on the record, I'm not ever implying I want to, like, have small businesses or small property owners, like, trying to, you know, pay their mortgage or whatever now have to, like, upgrade because of some sort of implemented thing. But I do always feel like when there's an incentive to make it a little easier for maybe upgrades, I I just think that there's something in it for them, and then they go, oh, okay. Maybe I can do this. Or, like, the city wants to work with me on this. And it's not like, oh, I had resistance one time with some old previous employee I I worked with.

And I think that's often the common misconception. Again, my experience with the city was not my best impression initially. And then I learned how to navigate, and things have changed since then. So I think it's important that, just like with what we've done in the past with the comprehensive stuff, it's important that we reach out to some of these building owners to say, hey, if you're ever interested in it, there are some options, and here's some of the routes you can do. And, no, we can't do it for you. However, we will work with you if it you know? Because someone might be thinking about it and just not acting on those upgrades because it might seem too daunting, or I don't have the time to take that on.

Yeah. That's okay. Very good. Okay, Jeremy. Where we go? Where should we go next?

Next on the list is our public work standards and code updates, the second hearing from tonight. No public comments were offered tonight. Curious if commissioners have any thoughts or feedback on what was provided. Again, it's something that we've been working towards for some time.

Yeah.

We've got the the draft details, you know, kinda looking at things dimensionally in the packet materials, but I don't expect commissioners to have much in the way of comments on the standards and, you know, the text of that. That's all Right. Technical type stuff. But

Well, I I I think if there was anything that stood out, Carly, is there anything that you wanna comment on this?

Yes, chair. Thank you. No. It's just one question. I I noticed that in the staff report, you noted you note the fee in lieu program for sidewalk construction, and it's not incorporated in these amendments. Do you wanna maybe give us can you speak to that program in the future, what that might look like?

That's a good good good one because yeah.

Oh, that that is a a great question. And, you know, if Chuck has anything to add, I'll have him raise his hand. But the the bottom line is really that we have not had a chance to really build a program for that just yet. We've we've been able to gather some information from the city of Puyallup in particular, But we were and we're interested in getting there. But as you know, resources and bandwidth have been issues for a little while. Chuck?

Yeah. Can you hear me okay okay?

Yeah. Yep.

Yeah. A lot of jurisdictions have this, and we would like to add it. One likes sidewalks to nowhere, but sidewalks from the urban area and from the schools reaching outward rather than to have random sidewalk pieces here and there just to pull that money and build a better, more usable, continuous facility, you know, staff thinks would be better for the community.

Is it as is this a complex thing to develop the wording for that? Or

We have a lot of examples. Not too complex. More of the value is the hard part

to

get buying on. And

Yeah. How you how you divvy up the what the builder would have to pay in terms of not doing it in front of their place and putting that money. You'd have to have an evaluation. Right. You can Financial evaluation. Yeah.

Charge something with no basis. And and then, I can say that, you know, council has been also interested in trying to address our pedestrian facilities in a smart way. Yeah. Like Chuck was talking about, starting from the core, working with school zones. There's a study done in 2004 that we have yet to fully implement. So, I mean, we're we're really trying to get those priorities

focused

on and identify the funding for it. And being a little program would only presumably help with funding those projects and that priority.

So it's on the horizon. Okay.

Quick question. Do we have a code enforcement officer yet?

Well, we don't have a dedicated code client specialist, we do have a code enforcement team. So the subject matter experts are coordinating on a biweekly basis, and we're we're still performing code enforcement functions.

Yes. Okay. Which is Carrie.

Okay. Okay, Jeremy. Well, I think that this can be can go ahead and and be worked over.

Great. Thank you.

Mhmm.

Alright. Last but not least on the discussion list is getting ready for the next year, annual conference of plan amendment cycle.

Mhmm.

We touched on this last month. Give you guys a kind of a heads up that wanted to start looking ahead. If there are any city initiated items, we'd like to have those kinda figured out before we get to the end of the year. We are aware of some other, applicants that are getting ready to, submit application. One is the, the West Valley Highway rezone area The property owners are getting together and ready to submit an application there because they are very interested in that.

We did what we could with city resources and see how that comes together with with property owner resources. There's another site down at the Southeast corner of the city, you know, that's Sumner Heights, Edgewood Drive. There there's one parcel there

Mhmm.

That is interested in looking at a potential reason, so we might see an application there. And then as far as what staff is aware on the screen here, we're looking at that business park zone, doesn't it? And with the recommendation coming next month, looking at allowing for the residential uses without the need for a conditional or administrative use permit. We've been questioning whether or not the business park zoning designation really makes sense in the grand scheme of things. Mhmm.

So that's one item staff is maybe that should be looked at in 2026 if my commission thinks that's of merit. Mhmm. Your thoughts on that. And then the other is the town center element. We noticed that as our county wide center of local importance has been defined, it's it's a little smaller than the current town center zoning area with the 2024 comp plan amendment or comp plan update, say, some additional parcels for zone town center.

So we wanna formally update that center local importance boundary. And while we're doing it, include the public zone parcels in that area that we can prepare that for submittal to the county for 2027 consideration. That just helps a little bit with funding applications amongst other things. So Mhmm. Don't think about it.

And then before we dive into the discussion, just wanted to make sure that planning team is aware of A few things that we've got on the horizon in staff's priority list for various code amendments, some that come in as we continue to work on the public works code. We try to incorporate a complete streets ordinance as well. That's another thing that opens us up for additional funding, funding opportunities, I should say. Doesn't automatically give us additional. And then our landscaping standards is something that staff has been looking at.

There's some things in there that are really public work standards that shouldn't be in our zoning and landscaping standards. We're just looking at Oh, okay. Things cleaned up in there. We've been looking at fencing. Some folks have expressed interest in increasing the fence height allowed in some areas from the four feet to the six feet, particularly along arterials or collectors. Right now, we have that

Yeah. That makes sense.

Principal arterials, but not for the others. And some home business licensing. We've got some language that's duplicative. I'd to clean that up. Also, with the limited home business, right now, we don't allow for clients to come to your home, but that does not make sense in several applications. Like, you're cutting hair or or doing something. You got one person coming by appointment at a time. What impact does that really have on the neighborhood? Right. Little things like that. So it's kind of the highlights. Special events code, I didn't get into the detail because we all know we need a special events code. That's it.

This is Commissioner Fury. Would you explain again the possibility of, as I understand it, you wanna include the public zones into the map for the town center to to make the town center larger or smaller? I was a little unclear.

Apologize for any confusion. No. I'm not trying to increase the size of the town center. Just looking at those properties that are zoned town center. We have several properties within that box, if you will, that are public loan that have, for whatever reason, been kinda cut out of that center of local importance geometry. It doesn't make any sense why.

Okay. Oh, yeah. Okay. Well, these things all look good. Anyone have any thoughts about anything else? It looks like if we tack tackle all these, we'll probably be well, you know, have lots to reap. So anyone have anything that they think we need to add?

Not to add, but I'm very eager to discuss the client coming to his own home businesses because that whole counting their trips by arrival and departure as two trips drives me nuts. So I would really like to revisit that or change the number that is allowable.

Oh, that that that could obviously come up with that.

Amazon ruins those numbers if I were to just say them alone. Yeah. Like, they do more than what my clients do. So I think that's an important one to visit. Thank point.

Okay. Well, if no one has anything to add, I guess we'll just work off this list. And it's a good yeah. It's a pretty big list, but it's some of them as much.

Well, and as always, staff would encourage any of you to reach out Right. If you have any thoughts or questions in the meantime.

Okay. You have anything else to add, Jeremy?

Nothing further from staff tonight. Thank you.

I have a question. This newsha, the development, what is that development?

Well, without giving too much away, they they are looking at a site along Meridian. K. And

Okay. A site along Meridian. Okay. Okay. Well, if no one has anything else to add or you say, we'll adjourn the meeting at 06:59.