Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yes, go ahead, please. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to uh this evening's planning commission meeting. Um, we'll start off with ro deall, please. All right. Mark Hair, present. Philip Lindholm, present. Shannon Wallace, present. Robert Estrada, present. Lynn Larson, Ellen Talbo is excused. She might possibly attend after 7:30. And Philip Combmes, present.

Thank you. You've reached quorum. Thank you very much. Um, thanks for your patience as well. I sent you a message. I'm not sure if you got that. Yeah.

Um, let's go ahead and do the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands nationy and justice for all. Everyone had a chance to see the minutes from last meeting. Yeah, we have move approval as mailed. Second. Thank you. Take a vote. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? Thank you. Um, let's see. any changes to our agenda for today? Um, actually, Mr. Chair, if we could reverse the order of the new business items, so childc care centers happens before the brewery and distillery discussion, I think that'll flow a little better for you. Okay, sounds great. All right. Uh, do we have uh anyone here for public comment today? anyone signed up and no one for public comment, Mr. Chair.

And uh let's go ahead and jump into the comprehensive plan docket for 2026. Thank you.

So um this evening is the public hearing for setting the docket for the 2026 comprehensive plan uh amendment and zoning map amendment process. This is something that you held a study session on at your last meeting and sorry trying to get this out of your way. There we go. Uh we're moving through the process as as per normal meaning there will be a hearing here at the planning commission. Once that's concluded and you have your discussion and potentially edit the package, it goes forward as a recommendation from the commission to council. Uh the process began back in July of 2025. There was a call for private applications and two private applications for resoning were received. Tonight, as I mentioned, is the uh public hearing. So, we went through these in more detail last uh meeting, but again, there's a total of uh 22, 12 of which are responding to uh state law changes. And so really just verifying uh that the current city code or zoning is consistent with all of those bills or if not identifying the needed amendments to be consistent with each one of them. Uh number 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are all either um issues raised by council members, issues raised by planning and public works staff or other city staff about issues that could be uh corrected or improved within our code. uh from everything from as you see there that first one just correcting the name for Pierce Transit to talking about the horizontal mixeduse that you as the planning commission asked be considered. The final two amendments are 2026 number 21 and 22. Those are the private reszone applications. One of which is to reszone

a parcel from C2 commercial 2 to NC2 neighborhood commercial 2. And then the final one is down in the tum area, a request that was submitted to reszone from residential 3 or R3 to mixed residential 2, uh, MR2 is what that should say, or allow daycare centers independent in the R3 zone. So with that, um, the schedule going forward, if you are ready to take action, it would happen on October 1st or later if you need more time. And then after that, October 13th is when the study session will happen at the city council and then they'll move through their legislative review and at this point take action on November 3rd to adopt the should say sorry 26 docket and then as always after that is done the substantive review and drafting happens and next spring everything will come back to you for detailed review. So that's all for um the preparatory comments to the public hearing. Mr. Chair,

thank you very much. So, we have no one here. Do we need to close the public hearing? Um, if you would mind opening it first, please. Let's open the public hearing for any comment. There is one person online and I'm not sure if they want to testify. Um, Jan G, if you would like to testify, please raise your hand.

All right. Okay. And if that's not happening, then um this would be the only person. So, if you would like to close public hearing, please do. Let's go ahead and close a public hearing. All right. We have no unfinished business. So, let's dive into our expanding zones where child care centers are allowed.

Thank you. And again, I'll share if you can give me just a moment. This is a very straightforward amendment and it's kind of a continuation of what the city has already done. It's not going to happen. Okay. So just this year in 2025, the state legislature adopted a new bill numbered 5509 and uh it expands even further than already has happened recently the um locations where a city must allow for child care centers and also uh allow for conditional use of a child the conditional approval of a child care center in other areas of um the city. As you see here, it's any conversion um of an existing building or allowing new buildings as an outright permitted use for child care in all zones except for industrial and open space. But then if it is an industrial or light industrial zone, we must allow a conditional use approval if it's on site. Meaning if you had I'm going to be really bad at this, but if you had a factory and there were people on site wanting to have child care right there in the building, that's something you could conditionally allow. But if it were to be on its standalone location in that zone, that's that is not allowed. Uh we are as a city allowed to impose uh restrictions on uh the permit including pickup and drop off areas and other life safety issues. The reason this is before you now is even though the um bill was just adopted this year and the the deadline to actually comply with it is 2027 rather than 26. Uh the city is recommending to you to go faster than that. Um we've already done a number of reasonzoning and updates to regulations regarding child care. But if you look at this map,

this comes from childcar deserts.org. the areas where you see orange dots and I know the municipal boundaries aren't clearly shown but very roughly

around and then up and then you've got Springbrook and then up. The orange dots is what would be considered a child care desert meaning they're they are not close either to um a school or close to where there's a high concentration of residential areas where people may need child care to be located. And so this is an opportunity to open additional locations for uh the development of child care either either in a new building or an existing structure. And these are also responsive to areas of the city that have um more diverse ethnically diverse but also uh generally the poor lower income areas. And again just that much more important to allow for child care to be where people need it to be nearby their house. So what would this turn into? It would be a table change where you see all these uh blue uh letter P's underlined. That's the new change to allow something outright. So you see daycare center in existing and new schools, existing or new churches, um daycare centers uh for people on site, daycare centers or adult relatives in a separate business establishment located on the same site. an independent daycare center or prescare prechool nursery school, excuse me. And then again, that idea of using an existing building, uh, be it residential or commercial in an area where you want to convert that either in whole or in part to a daycare center. So all of the P's mean it would be permitted outright per state law. And then where you see the letter C's underlined, those are the changes to allow it as a conditional use in the ind industrial one and two zones. If there are changes, we're continuing to do the research, but if there are changes needed to the regulations, given where the expansion of the use will be, this will be brought um before you before

did I do I'm sorry, I just lost it. The October 1st public hearing on this topic. Excuse me. So um as of now for sure this would be the change in the zoning itself but if if we need to be bringing some additional regulatory change we will present that to you before your next meeting's public hearing scheduled just one meeting behind essentially the 26 comp plan docket. So hearing next meeting and then action on the 15th of October and then it would start its way through city council on November 10th. And that is all I have for this issue unless there's questions. Mr. Chair. Mr. Sure. Yeah. Go ahead,

Miss Spear. Uh, just a couple questions. One, I think, uh, want to say that Maria Tobin and the South Sound Military Communities Partnership has done some pretty extensive research on this topic of childc care deserts, and it's something that will absolutely positively impact our community and the surrounding area immediately. Um, but I do have one question. as it's written in there, it it appears to be implied, but is there any explicit designation of ages for people that fall under this category? And specifically what I'm asking about is does the term daycare also apply to what we would now refer to as adult day homes? Is that an explicitly separate thing? Yes, adult adult family care adult uh or day adult adult family homes, excuse me, is separate and apart from a daycare center.

Dayare centers are I read children that are of school age. Correct. Is that Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Yep. They're two different distinct uses and they are zoned differently. Thank you. M Mr. Strada has a question as well. Thank you.

Pass. Go ahead, Mr. Larson. number one I don't think we can have too many dayc carees uh because uh it's their entire dire need and there's because the regulations that the city and state have about operation of daycarees is pretty darn complete and there's no reason to not be able to allow them to allow to go anywhere in the city what number two that brings about a little bit of a worry as to whether there are any minimum standards for a daycare to operate as in number of children served or something like that because uh because we're now allowing it to go anywhere that's there are even fewer barriers to entry of a person wanting to go into this business and I wonder whether there is adequate business knowledge on required on behalf of these businesses uh starting up and taking care of children. Uh whether there would be too many of them and it would force some of them out of business because there's so so much supply now that there's not enough demand for a functional business and yet everybody has a child or two or three that they know uh will probably come to their own daycare. I just wonder about the the viability on a longer term basis and without regard would there be any thoughts?

Well, what I can offer you is that there's two general um categories. There's um basically in inhome um care for kids and it's a it's a smaller number of people as opposed to what would be in a daycare center. That's 13 or more children up to 12 is what's allowed in someone's home. Um, business licensing is required for both kinds unless this is truly you're babysitting your cousin or something like that. Uh, and then the requirements for health and safety for the children, for how the business is run, that's handled through state agencies. And so the city would be involved in terms of uh allowing the building to and the business to open after permit review, etc. But then there's going to be that state level oversight with operations uh and uh safety for the theu the children.

Thank you, Mr. Strata. Thank you. Did the chart that you showed us where now it's allowed are all those areas that's would been mandated by the state? Correct. So, we basically don't have any

really the only place now that the the city has discretion is in the industrial zone um whether or not you're going to allow what those conditions would be to allow something on site. And then it says there are reasonable restrictions you can place like on pickup day uh pickup and drop off. Um there can be the design of the site and the parking and that sort of thing. But whether or not you can do it, that's now very black and white in state law. Right. Because it's the city code that has to be updated to allow it within our boundaries. To the code, unless that was a rhetorical question.

I I will say I agree with the industrial uh ad. I mean, if you're going to have a business there and they have that many employees, give them every opportunity to keep keep things going. So, you bet. Um, any other comments, questions? All right, let's go ahead and wrap that one up and slide into the next one.

Thank you. So, again, that one will be in front of you for a public hearing next time. U, the final topic for this evening is one where we're going to be asking you to have a little more active dialogue amongst yourselves. And on uh line tonight to help me out with this is Angie Silva, the assistant director for the planning and public works department. Let me share one more little presentation to set the stage. So, we're talking about the locations where breweries andor distilleries might be allowed in Lakewood. Um, just a really quick summary of what's already happened with this issue. Um, if you'll recall, this was actually a topic included in the annual development regulation package. So you did consider this once before had a hearing and made an recommendation and that went to council in August. Uh after deliberation at their level uh they asked first of all they removed it from the package of approval and then they asked that it be brought back to the planning commission uh for a a little more detailed conversation about in particular where breweries or distilleries would be allowed within the downtown. And then uh the second second part to that is where it might be allowed in the station district sub area. You had some of the planning sorry of the city council members who wanted to uh be pretty liberal about where they would allow bars and taverns in particular um including in some of the neighborhood commercial zones. Uh you had others who were wanting to be a little more restrictive with where that particular use might be allowed. there was a some conversations about where tasting rooms versus a bar or a tavern would be allowed. Um, so there's all of those different nuances and that's why it's in front of you again tonight. And uh, just for reference sake, this is the current uh, code. This is what is allowed either permitted outright or

conditionally. The term production brewery in this MF3 zone is actually only in the station district. But then you see it also as a conditional use in neighborhood commercial too. TOC is transitident transit oriented com uh commercial that is also the station district. CBD is the central business district or downtown and then you see it in commercial one commercial 2 and in uh the industrial business park. small craft distilleries you'll see in the NC zones, TOC, CBD, C1 and C2 and IBP. So, um, neighborhood commercial up more intense wine production facilities at this point are in the internet. Geez, I can't talk tonight. I'm sorry. The industrial business park and then also the industrial one zone. And then in terms of uses that are considered eating and drinking establishment land uses, the bar and the tavern, that is a conditional use downtown and then it's in the commercial zones. A brew pub or brewery is in NC1 up through commercial 3. And then the tasting room as currently defined and included in code is permitted in again NC1 up through commercial 3. So that's status quo. what's being suggested uh in the amendment you already passed up to council and is now back in for in front of you again. Um there's a few tweaks to that. But if you'll recall there was the inst uh addition of a auto stall one per 20 uh in the brewery and distillery uh definition for parking spaces. There is the change out of terminology. So removing wineries and using wine production facilities to be consistent with definitions and state level uh regulation of these types of facilities.

And then this is really small text but the point here is that there's changes to definitions both uh just keeping one but tweaking it or removing something altogether or adding a new one in. And all of these are to be consistent with again state statute and rules that govern alcohol businesses and production. Another few things of regarding that. So changes to existing or replacing current definitions to be consistent with state uh regulation. And so what we would now do with a new version of the zoning code uh because distilleries are laid out specifically as an agricultural use. Actually, what's being proposed is to allow a distillery from the neighborhood commercial one through the industrial 2 zone, also including the two sub areas, the station district and the downtown for commercial and industrial uses. Um, you'll see here in yellow adding the term brewery, removing brewery production and small craft distillery in order to just be consistent with definitions again that the state now uses. And so what you'll see though is brewery now would be allowed everywhere from uh NC1 up through industrial 2. And again, this would include both station district areas. You would remove small craft distillery and brewery production as uh no longer being used as code terminology. And then wine production facilities would continue to be allowed in industrial business park and industrial one in terms of the eating and drinking establishments. And this again is kind of the core I think of where council is seeking recommendation from you is allowing bars and taverns. Uh, do you want to recommend allowing those in the neighborhood commercial zones as well as the downtown? I'm sorry, as well as the

station district. And then do you want to keep it as a conditional use in the downtown? Do you want to add it in any other areas of the city as well? And then there's the removal again of brewery and brew pub um in the currently allowed NC1 up through commercial 3. No change to where tasting rooms would be allowed. So, everywhere from neighborhood one to commercial three. So, again, this is kind of the core, but you're welcome, of course, to talk about all of this. Um, but the council was really hoping for feedback on where to allow um tasting rooms, where to allow bars or taverns, and if you feel there's anything else that needs to be changed with um how this is being presented as as updating to the code. So, with that, I'm going to stop sharing. I'm happy to bring that back, but Angie Silva is also here to help answer some questions because I am not an expert on these sorts of establishments. So, I wanted to call a friend.

Quick quick clarification. Um, I mean, when we sent this up before, I think we had already kind of discussed it. Can you can you be bu a little more specific on what it is they what their concern was so that we can try and solve that? Yeah, I think I think for the most part they were fine with the idea of allowing tasting rooms and breweries and micro breweries in particular, as well as uh wine production in more areas of the city um as an economic development tool, but also as something where people are able to go to a tasting room that's associated with those and have that as um entertainment, something that they would just like to do as a social activity.

Could you put that table back up so we have that as we're talking? Sure. Thanks. Where did I go? I mean, full disclosure, I'm not a drinker, but I I supported all these because I see how they do work for economic development and um and I will frequent a place for business meetings or um to to meet up with friends and they often serve food. So, I think this is a great thing for the the city, which is why we kind of pushed it uh and we had to change the language anyways. So, it seemed like a a large non-issue. I was only concerned about it going into residential neighborhoods,

right? And um so, I guess I'd open it up to any comment. Yeah, go ahead.

I wonder if I can ask for some background on why it's been a conditional use for bars to be in the CBD. Um, this probably goes back to the history of Lakewood pre-incorporation. This is um an effort that was reflected in code for a long time. I don't know how long the code has read like this, but it's been decades uh about where to allow bars, taverns, tasting rooms, etc. because the effort was to clean the city up now that it was a city. And so some of what you actually heard from the council when they talked about this in August was, do we want to go backwards or not? to put it, you know, in a very succinct way of of a a more nuanced conversation. And also, do we want to allow certain types of these uses again into neighborhoods versus into the more commercial areas? So, the crux of what information the council, I think, is looking for is where would you want to allow a bar, a tavern, a tasting room, um, is really what they're looking for. And it's, you know, there's always the the stereotypical reference back in the day of of the cops show and Lakewood was a frequent area that was featured on the show and etc. There's been a lot of work by the city since it incorporated to um reduce crime, reduce uh certain types of businesses that are conducive to crime. And so that was was part of the desire to have a little more refinement in this conversation.

Thank you. Sure. here. Miss Beer, can you um I guess verify that bar tavern and brewery brew pub. So in real real world terms, where does the ram fit into this chart? Restaurant. Restaurant.

Yeah. What what you see here again though are some outdated terms, but the way Brew Pub was defined in our code currently and would go away is it's an eating or drinking establishment that includes production of of liquor on site. And I believe that's what the RAM does. Um, but you can also have um under these other terms that the state now uses um I don't know if it would be a brewery or if it would be one of the other ones. I don't know. Uh I think what I think what I'm really asking is when you go back to that chart, do

is anything that's serving food that we would call a restaurant or a that type of an environment going to fall into the second part of that chart? I I can assist with that, Miss Spear, please.

Um, currently, as the RAM is the example, it's kind of classified as two primary uses in our current code. So, a restaurant and brewery operation itself and the draft proposal that went before this body uh previously, it again still would be an allowed restaurant, but also that brewery production element of it would be moving forward. So it still retained that allowed use in the zone uh for the ram. But there are other locations within the still uh city itself that does provide some of similarities to a brewery production uh to a degree. Um the Oak Tree Food and Drink Company would be another example of what those uses um are within the current city in the current zoning structure. Sir,

yeah. And it's a little confusing when you look at tables like what I've been showing you because um what you see are the use and then the zone. Neither one of those is is telling you a particular building is only one use or you know that sort of thing. So you may have more than one use in a single building in a single zone or you might have more more than one you know. So um what this is telling you is that a land use in our code bar tavern is considered an eating and drinking establishment whereas small craft distillery is not but they both might be allowed for instance in the commercial one zone. So the the table isn't necessarily saying a building or a particular business can or can't do it. It's the use,

right? But that's the crux of what the council's asking us to do, right? Is provide more clarity in where we want these types of uses to happen. Right. Right. Right. Okay. Go ahead.

Um Okay. I I have a one concern. We've just said that we can have daycare centers basically anywhere and um now we have this here where we have no limitations effectively. We have we're trying to decide where the limitations would be. I don't think we want to have a brewery or a distillery next to a childcare center. And so that gets back to the bad old days of Lakewood of which unfortunat I was a kid. I remember those days. We won't go into detail. Um and uh so I I think that we do need to set some parameters to avoid that uh problem.

And I don't think we we're going to settle that in this form right now. I think it needs to be, no offense, referred back to um our our wonderful city staff to really look at uh how do we address that issue because it's going to be an issue. You're absolutely right. And some of that may already be addressed. I can't tell you for sure right now, but you have the zone uh zoning table that says you can do X in this area, but then remember there's the regulations that then are implemented in terms of that use. So it may be that if suddenly you have uh both in neighborhood commercial one a daycare and a brewery you would see in the regulations a brewery can be no more than 500 ft next to a childare daycare center. I don't know if that says that right now, but that's that's the way that would be handled where it might be two things are allowed in one zone, but it's the regulations of where it can be on the site, how close it can be to other types of uses, and that would also govern. And so just because the zone says yes, those regulations also govern. And yes, we will come back to you with more detail on that.

Mr. Strata and Mr. Her. I guess I'm I am really confused because according to the definitions here regarding brewery it says that in the business of manufacturing beer malt liquor manufacturing then down below we scratched out manufacturing 15,000 barrels a year. So if that's production, that's what we're talking about, a brewery's production, then I would not classify the ram as being a brewery because they don't produce, they sell. So in their backyard, do they produce? They do both.

They do both. They they do both simultaneously. That particular establishment, I stand corrected. I stand correctly. And Mr. 15,000 though that's still not valid anymore. The reason that is is removed is because state law definitions have changed. Um but I'm going to ask Mr. Chair if you wouldn't mind calling on Miss Silver because I think she's got some additional information. Yeah. M Miss Silva, can you sneak on in before Mr. Her goes?

Yeah, happy to do so. Sir, um the reason why the barrel production was stricken out of the new definition is the Washington state uh cannabis and liquor control board sets license parameters on production and the de several tiers of different licenses. So at a local level we don't regulate that piece. What we regulate is the land use aspect which is part of the discussion here today. So, for example, a brewery license, a micro brewery license is allowed under state law to produce up to 60,000 barrels a year. There's different privileges or add-ons to that license that could be granted by the state. For example, uh operating a tasting room, for example, a restaurant license in addition to the ability to do direct shipments uh regionally, locally, or even internationally. Another tier of common licenses at the state level is a winery license. There is not a specific barrel production limit on that, but again allows at a state law level a tasting room and additional uh retail locations as well. As it relates to distillery licenses, it's a little bit more complicated and breaks it up into probably about three different primary category, excuse me, two primary categories, which is a distillery license, the ability to manufacture and sell and distribute spirits, but also maintaining about 51% Washington and grown raw materials. Another tier of that distillery license is considered a craft distillery which does limit the production of no more than 150,000 gallons per day. So what the draft definitions what we can regulate at a local level is really the allowed use and where it is appropriate in certain zones etc. So not getting into the weeds per se of how many productions of barrels as that is where the state falls

into their appropriate role and responsibility. We um have excluded in here under the left uh does not in Can you go back? Sorry,

I'm sorry. does not include nightclubs or adult oriented businesses which to me was one of the big uh troubles that these uh facilities had you know for the last 50 years that's seems to be uh largely gone especially in metro area I'm sure you guys have been up to you know some of the other places now Fremont Brewery or Red Hook or any of those other locations wine tasting up in Woodenville or the tasting rooms up there. The whole I mean it's a very different scene than it used to be. Even in Fremont, um there's a a winery where they produce and they have a restaurant on the edge which faces a um a child learning center and um which you know very similar to a daycare. And um you'd think those would be in conflict but well managed and don't really operate at the same hours. And so they're very different and they they seem to have been able to work a lot of that out. I think the state regulate regulations on it have been pretty tight. Um the liquor board is very um very strict and so they have uh quite some criteria as well as our own zoning. So I even though I have a kid that age uh I'm less worried about that. But I do think it's I think it's a real thing. you know, we got to we got to be aware. I I worry more about it going from a commercial area than um and and into a neighborhood than I do it traveling anywhere where there could be a daycare because you can always choose a different daycare if you're really that concerned. Um you can't pick up and

move as easily. So, I I would um I would be a proponent for uh allowing it in more areas, but it looked to me like tasting room was allowed across the board, which is pretty broad. I wouldn't go much further than that. Um I you you might even be able to put that into industrial because that's where the uh wine is made, right? Oh, I I don't know why you wouldn't put it in any of those, but the other way I wouldn't go far into the residential. I would I would stop at the neighborhood commercial. And maybe the thing we could consider, and I'm just tossing this out um as have a conditional use on bar and tavern NC1 through CBD. And maybe the CBD should be an outright P uh for permitted use because that is I mean that's the urban core that we expect and wouldn't you wouldn't you expect to see that in that area? That being said, I'm I toss that out as just an idea. I don't know what you guys think about that. But let's go Mr. Estrada and then Mr. Larson.

Spirit, can you give me an example? Well, first of all, we talked about daycare centers being allowed anywhere, NC1, NC2, for example. So, if we allow NC1, NC2 bars, give me an area that's considered NC1, NC2 here in Lake. If you give me a minute while Angie talks, I can find one for you. I just I don't have it on the top of my seat. Sure. a bar and where a day care center can be located. Sure. Yeah. So, if you'll indulge me and um continue talking, I will try to find a map that will show that for you. Um

Mr. Chair, I think I have a question for Miss Silva. Yeah, go ahead. U Miss Silva, can you talk to us about and maybe just to me, everybody else may already know this, but can you talk to me about what might be considered in the conditional use conversation versus just an outright permit approval or disapproval? what what type of things would fall into that analytical u review?

Great question. Our code specifically outlines criteria for conditional use uh permits specifically. Consistency with the comprehensive plan or subary plan um adjacent uh neighborhoods and land uses are just some of those criteria. uh kind of nuance between permitted and conditional use is um our required time of decision. meaning uh if I was a permitted use by state law and most of our land use uh provisions if it doesn't require a public notice or public hearing um we need to issue a decision within 65 calendar days after complete application meaning 65 calendar days in the city's hand versus return to the applicant for request for information on the conditional use side we typically call these a type three process which triggers um not only a public notice but a public hearing before the Lakewood hearing examiner. Under state law, um a decision for a conditional use must be issued within 70 days and calendar days after the time of complete application. The nuance between the conditional use as well as the permit. Another nuance other than those distinguishing factors is the ability to add additional conditions as part of that CUP or conditional use permit. um to further mitigate adverse impacts whether that's through the environmental review under SEIPA or other conditions that are not specific under the SEPA parameters for the built or natural environment. Oftent times many of those conditions to mitigate those adverse impacts are often already built in development regulations especially in zoning codes. Stepping back further and the original proposal went that went through this body and helped inform kind of the crafting of

those de definitions but also the allowances themselves was kind of looking at jurisdictions surrounding Lakewood and how they treat tasting rooms to breweries and distilleries. what is very common um amongst jurisdictions and we assessed nine jurisdictions all the way from Tacoma to Seattle, Rent and Federal Way and also Birminton uh Pollsville and took a look at their codes and really what are they requiring and where are they located? Um what is common themes amongst those jurisdictions is that they're often outright permitted in industrial uh zones without a conditional use permit. An example of that would be in Tacoma, specifically in a couple of their M1 and M2 industrial zones. Another common theme in that jurisdictional review was also outright uh permitted use in their commercial and mixed use zones um which also did not limit any type of square footage um as well. And then last but not least, another common theme that you saw from those types of uses in those jurisdictions is outright permitted use in the downtown and pedestrianoriented districts and where you want the walkability. Second piece in a previous discussion that was kind of been having about you know locating um discussion of daycare centers versus these brewery or craft distillery nearby. And often while the zoning code may allow those provisions, we also have to recognize the fact that market conditions will drive the location. And if it's an existing structure, folks looking to locate a brewery are going to look for not only the space and square footage and the lease considerations if that's a factor in the real estate transaction, but also the parking and adjacent uses and the synergy related to that. Similarly, daycare centers often look at what is those appropriate

locations and synergy amongst the neighboring uses and how they do that. So, just a little nuance on that. Hope I answer your question in a long and uh hopefully not a boring way. Sir, Mr. Larson, do you still have a question?

Yes, I have a excuse me, a couple of points. Uh first is this looks to be really really well thought through. uh there are uh checks and balances and compatibility considerations and it really feels good to me. Uh I think that uh we have cleaned up Lakewood. I think it's time to start a new I think it's time to put more Lakewood back together the way that we want it to be. Uh that's first thing. The second thing is that of the questions for how to zone the the four categories. My view is that uh it belongs as an outright use in CBP center business district CBP excuse me um is just that and it's as goods and services rendered to the public and and this does that. uh the other three I make conditional uses because uh uh there are variables around them that need that get require the checks and balances that are set forth in the conditional use uh process. So uh that would be my recommendation is that we do conditional use for the first three and outright use for the next one uh in that row and that we move this forward. Thank you.

Mr. chair just want to offer. I completely agree. I think we want to allow the bars and the taverns and the downtown where folks can go and they can choose to go and choose the ways in which they expose themselves to things. Neighborhoods may be a little bit of a different story. We we want some opportunity for public hearing and weighing in and and more thoughtfulness there. Yeah. Yeah. Appreciate it. Any other thoughts on that?

And just it's been up for now for a little bit, but to answer Mr. Strata's question. The hot pink that you'll see in a number of different areas, that is neighborhood commercial, too. So, Bridgeport up a little further north up toward the top of the city and then over toward um the Fort Silicon Park and the Western State Hospital area and then a little bit, excuse me, where did that come from? Down in the TICOM area as well. And then the softer pink, that's neighborhood commercial one. There's less of that, but for instance, it's over here in the southwestern part of the city and I think if I'm reading this right a little bit just next to the NC2 up by again western state and Fort Stilicum Park

largely along the arterials where there's already a lot of commercial development existing. Yes. And then you'll see also I didn't mention it's in Spring Brook and then that far eastern section u right above the north clear zone. I mean Mr. Mr. Chair, I think it's worth pointing out I immediately what comes to mind for me is Lake City Pub as like the standout thing that fits inside this discussion.

It's not in the central business district. It's in a predominantly neighborhood area. There's a light there's a light commercial area right there. But I I think as as we move through the city, folks are looking for more opportunities like that. Of course, they they expect to see these things in the central business district, but I think more and more as we as we move forward and and try to take best advantage of the space we have and we think about what does it look like to to grow Lakewood, I think those opportunities to have these these things in maybe not the most traditional locations are are really exciting. And just think about, man, if I'm trying to bring something like that to life, having to go through the conditional permit process, which is almost what, three times automat, you know, three times longer than normal. I mean, we're going to balance that scale there, right? I That's a long time. Um, I don't know. Are you Are you suggesting an outright permitted use in all the neighborhood commercials? I think the discussion is is warranted, right?

Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Larson, I think I'd agree with that. Lake City Pub is a perfect example. If it had a brewery next to it, it would mean more business, would mean more attraction to the neighborhood for the neighborhood. that gave me uh source of of a thought that I really do believe needs mentioning and that is that that these uh premises that uh have people gathering together um they have dialogue. They it means our community is talking to each other and with each other and that's a really really basic value that we forget about when we think about these

places. Yeah. So, so let me and I I'm not going to disagree. I I would say I'm I I could support that just because there's a limited amount of neighborhood commercial. I wouldn't be opposed to that. One area that came up specifically was the TOC, which is the transit oriented development areas. And um I don't have an objection to that area either if but maybe that's one that stays as a conditional because if you're going into that area that would be something where it could be impacted. So just something I would love to get your guys' thoughts on that.

I Mr. Chair I I think I would make the ar the same argument. Uh the the intent of the the transit center is to have people where they do not have to move out of that area for the amenities that they desire and require on a daily basis and certainly sustenance and uh community um celebration is falls into that area and I think the expectation would be that those amenities are immediately available um and and and possibly creates opportunities. We talk about mixed use all the time. And if we protract that, I I think that puts barriers in the way of of bringing those mixeduse opportunities that might not otherwise exist. I don't know. I'm not a mixeduse developer, but but I think that would be a consideration. You know, if if we know we have to tackle an extended permitting process versus something that's already been looked at and considered and and decided, yes, we want this. Um I I do think that in that particularly in that area that is these type of amenities would be expected and desired and and I think we should be uh looking forward enough to understand that and and say are we able to accommodate that and because the se um I don't know if the the sea that happened for the central business district that that include the transit station as well or that same process happened there as well Right.

A planned action ordinance was adopted for both sub areas. Yes.

So is there any benefit to what what benefit would come to life if we did have a conditional use uh allowance in in in the transit center as an example. Um well just to mention that is actually one of the topics that the council discussed as well in August where they were trying to distinguish if there needed to be a distinguished um effort between the downtown and the station district sub areas and the mention was that there is um additional residential right now in the station district as compared to downtown. Uh it's got more of the multif family as well uh already getting built as well as standing. And so there was a there was just a back and forth a little bit. They didn't have a direct question to ask really, but there was some pause that maybe more of the uh commercial bar tavern types might be in downtown versus in the station district. Um, but coming back to your question, Commissioner Hair, the planned action ordinance said if you do any of these types of uses and you um generate this many vehicle miles a day or or trips a day and if you have this many housing units or this many job units, we're going to be okay and you can proceed. I would have to go back and look to see if there was any discussion actually about a specific use like this. I can't recall and I'm it's not coming to mind. Uh but it it would be the policy question ultimately of what types of uses do you want next to each other in any part of your city uh including next to the sounder station.

I I would I I uh don't disagree with what I've heard so far. I I I I tend to subscribe to let the businesses uh the market conditions as Miss uh Silva indicated will will uh let a lot of that play out and having worked in uh enough mixed use projects and developments over the years I've seen it very successfully done um and tastefully done I have I don't have good I don't have bad examples to share in the last 30 years. So, I guess I would lean towards supporting that uh across the board. I would add in and just throw out there, I wouldn't be opposed to it happening in any of the three industrial because those areas are where it's produced. And if you're able to produce it and have a tasting room in your facility or a restaurant or a place that serves it, that it's not my cup of tea, but uh I I've seen that very successfully done up in Seattle and and Woodenville. So, I would I would support that area as well. Yeah. Go ahead.

I really appreciate the thoughts. I appreciate Mr. Larson's emphasis that this is a place where community can gather. That's really important. I appreciate Mr. Har's thought that, you know, Lake City is a tremendous contributor to that area. I would also say that not every bar and tavern is Lake City. And I just want to be careful that we're talking about bars going into neighborhoods across the city in these ways, in these zones, and they're not all Lake City. So, what how do we feel about other versions of bars going next to your house? And I think for me anyway, it's really important that we protect neighborhoods and give them a voice. And the conditional use permit isn't saying no. It's just saying let's be thoughtful. Let's be careful because once they go in, they're very hard to root out.

We have not proposed allowing this in residential areas though to be clear. What what's on here is um neighborhood centers NC1 and two which we looked at on the map, right? That's the pink areas on the map we were looking at. Yes. Those areas to me are not It's they are adjacent to residential areas certainly, but almost everything in Lakewood is adjacent to a residential area, right? Um

I don't disagree with either of you. I I think your point is that they're right next to it. They're adjacent to. So at some point a residence will be next to a commercial and that's that's the one that How do you weed that out? the types of the types of problems that taverns have are not the kind that stay with inside those four walls.

And again, part of the benefit of the definitions, and this is something that staff will go back and verify before this comes before your next meeting, but bars and taverns are a different kind of use than a brewery with a retail section or a distillery with a retail section, right? Or the tasting room. So, it's um I what I think I'm hearing from people is there's a more a higher comfort level with the tasting rooms and the breweries versus the bars and the taverns. Uh and so we can just go back and try to refine that a little bit and bring it back to you next time. It won't look exactly like this. There'll be some additional uh detail for you to chew on and also for the public to be able to testify about.

If I may, just one more thing. Yeah. You know, I've I've seen in other jurisdictions, they have distinctions that are really splitting hairs in unhelpful ways. For example, you can have a car lop, you can have a car wash. I don't think that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about something a little bit more meaningful. Miss Beer, just one more time for for my brain's clarity. Is this the ch the proposed new chart that we're looking at right now? It's one of them. What we have um in front of you tonight, Commissioner, is this single one is showing you what is currently allowed, right? Um really specifically what I'm asking is go can you go back to the other one? Sure.

Do as as this chart sits where it says brewery, is that a restaurant that brews beer?

Let me put you back up into the definitions. It's any person which includes a business engaged in the business of manufacturing beer and malt liquor. Um and then you also have micro brewery or small craft brewery. And again that's in there you see the um ability to have retail on and offsite um on and off premises. And then you have a small craft distillery. You have the tasting room which again is a slightly different animal. Uh you have the tavern that's defined as well. Um so that's the accommodation for sale by the glass as opposed to, you know, by the barrel, I guess. So there's there's little subtle differences between each and and again, as we bring this back to you next time, we'll we'll put a little more thought into what might be allowed in which zone. um if you're willing to trust that process or if you want to give additional direction. I guess my question would be do you want to have bars or taverns versus the brewery or the tasting room allowed in NC1, I'm sorry, NC1 or two and then uh transit oriented commercial and central business district. And if you don't have an answer right now, then that's something you would be discussing next time.

So again, reiterate, you're saying we're not talking about bars in talking about breweries of not the drinking of you tasting if there's a tasting room there. And then, you know, with the retail sales, I don't know if that automatically equals a tasting room or not, but yes, two different things. Can you go back to the other table? I think that there you go. This is so this is where the bar and tavern comes into play, right? But we're talking about the tasting room or the brewery also serves liquor, not just produces.

The micro brewery may sell beer of its own production at retail on and off premises. Small craft would fall within um the same definition as you see. tasting room. It's attached to a distillery or a craft distilleries facility. And then if you go back up into bar or tavern, it's sold for on-site consumption that are not part of a larger restaurant. And then you have the brewery, which um it doesn't necessarily show sale on site. Uh that was that's where you get back down into some of these other definitions. So again, bar not being

correct. That's that that is the crux of what the council was hoping for some direction from you on except that we can cheat a little bit and drink anyway breweries there and drink. It's like a bar. Don't ask me. I don't know. So you know hair to an extent. Yeah. Same thing. Even though we say bars are not going to be allowed, in reality goes by name. So

would you Yeah, go ahead. Um, thank you. Um, yeah, I just wanted to say I would not be in favor of a bar there. And it it's this conversation is interesting in that just this past week I was with a friend of mine. I was driving around Lakewood and we were in Lake City. She says, "Oh, it looks so much better. Lakewood's finally cleaned up Lake City and I don't see all the people I used to see there." So, you may think that we don't have an image issue, but we do. And that area does have one. And so, you're kind of selling them down the road. We need to be careful about that.

Well, we we um can approach this a couple different ways. Um you know, the conditional use does then go in and factor those things. There is a little bit of time delay, but then it's a little more thorough at the neighborhood. There's public hearing comment. And so, you're not saying absolutely not, but you're saying you got to get your stuff together and make sure you're the real deal. And um and so I I wouldn't be opposed to a conditional or you know I don't want to push this. Um I I think on the industrial th there's commercial activity going on there anyways. I to me those should all be P's. I I can't figure out why we wouldn't. So that would be what my my first one in downtown um core I I would say permitted. Um, the other ones I I kind of feel conditional and I I'm it's pretty weird that I'm way uh more liberal than everyone else here, but I I would say that I I um I probably I'm be fine with a conditional use because that way it still gets vetted out. The neighborhood gets a chance to speak to it. The people who come in, they have to get their stuff together. They have to prove why it's good for that area to do. And so I kind of think that that one makes a little more sense. Um or if you guys both uncomfortable with it, not to try and get a unanimous, we don't have to be united always, but um I like to I like to be closer. Um if we wanted to, we could just say no to those right now and revisit this, you know, see what the interest level is.

Mr. Truv, I mean, I think we can break this up. Yeah, I think we have some different questions at play. So if we break up the question, so for example, if we were to all vote on TOC, that could look like one vote. And if we were to vote on NC, that could be a separate vote. Um, well, yeah, I guess before we do a vote, could we just get a Is there is there any disagreement on the industrial? Any discussion to have on that? How about on the TOC? I'm not in favor. Not in favor of the end of downtown or in the TOC. I'm sorry. Yeah. What about downtown? Sorry. One, if I may. I'm not I'm not sure we want to take a poll before a vote. Yeah. I guess I'm just

And just a reminder that a public hearing needs to happen. So, this isn't a formal motion for recommendation. This is you're taking the temperature amongst what we're trying to do is gauge where our question for clarity. Yeah. Go ahead. Um, in the conditional use permitting process, does that guarantee or is it is baked in that there will always be a public hearing and opportunity for public input from the people in that area or are we just speaking that into existence? It is required by our code and pro permit process procedures for those types of permits. Sir,

yeah, we don't we're not voting on it tonight. It's more of like what are the hot issues so we know okay let's think about this because I I'm fine going back to the drawing board and sending the city back to say hey do a little more homework on this but I don't know that there I don't know that we have any good direction for them on what the they'll do homework on yet. So I guess sounds like TOC I'm sorry downtown and industrial are are not an issue. So maybe we can talk leave those alone. But down in the um transit oriented center, we've got not as much interest there. What what about over here?

Thanks, Jason. That's Jason. Hi. I guess I have a You have to understand my background. I see all the drunks and alcoholics and that's where they hang out is the train stations, the bus stations and that and it makes it very unpleasant

and um I get to see the results of that unpleasantness frequently. So I do not like having those people around people that are trying to get to work that are trying to commute because it makes them not want to go to those places to commute. They don't want to park their cars there. They don't want to be there and I think it has a negative effect on all things that we're trying to accomplish. So, I think you have to be really careful about where you put things like that. You don't want to put you just I don't think we're ready. You haven't figured it out where the right places is, what the right wheels are. And um it's really awful when you go to a bus station and you have problems there. That hurts all the stuff that we're trying to do. Build a nice parking garage and things.

Dr. with what you're saying there, but I I think the connection, you know, you're drawing a pretty straight line from degenerate people at public transit stations to alcohol serving establishments. And I don't know that that's necessarily the direct line. It just occurred. They occur frequently together. It's not necessarily direct. Plenty of people go to drinking establishes and are not homeless or do not hang around in those places, but they can be magnets for people looking to score different things.

So, I don't think that when we're trying to establish ourselves that that's, you know, down the road when you're already established well in these areas, you can revisit them, I think. But I don't think we're ready for that yet. I mean, I just have lots of real world experience. That's not good. Yeah. Miss Spear,

if I could make a suggestion in terms of process, um I don't hear any sort of consensus to bring something forward to a public hearing uh at your next meeting. So, what I would um see if there's appetite for is I would it's not been advertised yet, I should say, first of all, so there's no confusion for the public if you don't have a public hearing on this next time. But what I would uh suggest is that staff have an opportunity to put something together maybe for the October 15th meeting and send this out to you ahead of time to chew on, think about where you can come back with some more concrete examples, maybe a couple of different versions of the table and talk about those, decide if any of them fit for everybody or if you want to make edits to that and then we can keep going from there with with public conversation.

Yeah, I' I'd be in favor of that. Okay. Chair, can I make a request for those the staff? packet that gets put together. Can you put some examples against those titles in the charts what this looks like in the real world? What type of establishments would be under these headers to kind of help us paint that picture? Sure. Thank you. Y and not to pile on, but can you please send it in advance? Yes. Like, you know, several days in advance so that we have a chance to really stew and and navigate through it. I think that that's helpful to really get your thought process done before you get here.

Yeah. And that's why I'm suggesting not next time, but the October 15th meeting, so two meetings from now, it would be back in front of you and you would have the information ahead of time at least a week uh to be able to think about it yourselves and then come in with your your conversation. Yeah. Please, let's do that. Okay. We're in no rush. Yep. All right. Anything else uh for that topic? No, Mr. Chair.

And we I don't see uh our council representative on today. And so our next meeting will be October 1st. Look forward to seeing you all there. Thank you all for being here. Anything else before we close, Miss Spear? Nope. See you on the first. All right. Have a great one. This meeting's adjourned. that you