As it has done repeatedly in the past, a proposed zoning code for Marysville has stalled in front of council.
Now city officials are expressing concern it might never pass.
City Council, for a second time, tabled the second reading of legislation Monday night that would implement a new zoning code for the city.
City Manager Terry Emery said he is, “not sure I see a path forward for this.”
“As hard as we have worked on this, I am worried if we are ever going to get there,” Emery said, noting that everyone involved wants the code to be perfect to them and “you are never going to get that.”
Emery’s comments came as the council neared completion of a second hour of discussion on the zoning legislation. In fact, the discussion is nearly three years old. At that time, city staff and officials began the process of updating the zoning code to modernize it and bring it into line with the comprehensive plan.
In November 2019, the planning commission unanimously approved the revised plan and recommended it to council. During the council approval process, residents came out to speak, mostly in opposition of the plan. Council held five readings in an effort to get public input and an ad hoc committee to review the plan and address concerns was created. Eventually council voted down the legislation, deciding instead to send it back to a committee for further revisions.
Last month, the newest iteration of the plan came to council. At the Oct. 12 public hearing, members of council and the public found multiple concerns with the code and tabled the second reading and public hearing to Monday.
At Monday’s meeting, City Planner Ashley Gaver offered nine amendments she thought would address the concerns which ranged from drive thrus in certain neighborhoods, fence heights, parking, building timelines, terms, housing density and business uses.
Council agreed on eight of the nine amendments, but could not agree on density requirements for single family homes. At the meeting earlier this month, council member Mark Reams said he would like to see a maximum density of four homes per acre.
In the amendment, rather than include a density maximum, Gaver listed minimum lot sizes. She said that gives the developer more flexibility. Additionally, she said many consumers want smaller lots. Reams said small lots can still be used as long as the developer increases the open space so that in total, the development has a density no higher than four units per acre.
“You aren’t going to see any development,” Gaver said. She said to have the minimum lot size and have four units per acre would require about 45% of the project be open space. Gaver said that is cost prohibitive to development.
Additionally, Emery said that often times city staff ends up performing the maintenance and upkeep on green space. He said the city does not have enough staff to maintain city parks and grounds as well as the additional greenspace created by the sprawling subdivisions.
Council members debated whether to approve the amendment as Gaver had written it, which would allow the amendments and the code to move to a third reading or table the second reading and public hearing until next week so Gaver and Reams could talk and she can rewrite the amendment.
Council members said they have been working on the code for years and it needs to move forward. The code can be amended in parts after it is approved.
Reams suggested approving it with the density requirements and discussing it afterwards, that way a developer doesn’t step in while the code is new and the changes haven’t been made.
Council members decided to approve the eight amendments they agree on and skip the one dealing with density.
Reams will meet with city staff over the next two weeks to see if there is compromise language that meets Reams’ goal and protects the city.
Emery said the process has been frustrating. He said planning commissions, committees, citizens, staff and a highly respected consultant have worked on the plan for years.
“And it seems like every time we get really close, there is always one other thing that comes up,” Emery said.
He said the new code is significantly better than the old code. He suggested passing the code and allowing it to work for a period.
“Let’s put it in place and see how it works , see if it is meeting all of these things we are looking at and meeting all of our needs and if it is not, we can come back and amend it and try to get better, but this idea of always having one more thing, and it needing to be perfect before we can pass it, it is not productive and we need to be able to move forward.”
He said he is hopeful the conversations with Reams are productive and council can approve the final amendment at the Nov. 9 meeting. Law Director Tim Aslaner said that if the amendment is passed then, there could be a second reading and a public hearing held after the amendment is passed and a third reading on all the amendments and the zoning code could be held Nov. 23.