City Council - Regular Meeting

Evening. Pyongyang City Council meeting for February 10 is called to order. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Will the city clerk please call the roll?

Deputy mayor Johnson? Present. Council member King? Present. Council member Gilliam? Present. Council member Kastema? Present. Council member Smolco?

Present.

Council member Adler?

Present.

Mayor Witty? Present.

Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The agenda is approved. We have minutes for the 01/06/1926 meetings. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Move approval.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. We'll now go into our citizen comments. Public comments will be taken in person. Will the clerk please provide the instructions for public comment?

This part of the meeting is for general citizen comments. Please reserve any public hearing testimony to that section of the agenda. The mayor will call on those who have provided their names in advance, then the mayor will call for other citizens who wish to speak. For the record, please state your name and address or city council district in which you reside. Please direct your comments to the council as a whole, not individual council members. All comments are limited to three minutes. The clerk will provide verbal notice when only thirty seconds remain. As a reminder, this portion of the meeting is counsel's opportunity to hear from the community and not the time to engage in debate. Lastly, per state law, this public comment period cannot be used to speak in support of or in opposition to a ballot measure or individual candidacy, and no such comments will be allowed.

Okay. I only have one slip in front of me tonight. So, Andy, you're you're on.

Thank you, mister mayor. Members of the council, Andy Anderson, District 2. I have a report from the battlefield two hundred and fifty years ago. Following the Battle of Bunker or Breed's Hill last June, the fledgling colonial army continued to organize itself and fortify their lines around Boston. Between September and November, the colonial forces led by Richard Montgomery and Benedict Arnold invaded Canada, captured Montreal, were unable to take Quebec however and were forced to withdraw to Fort Ticonderoga in Upstate New York.

The Colonial Navy and Marines formed last fall, went on their first expedition this month and Commodore Hopkins led a small squadron to The Bahamas capturing British cannon and gunpowder in Nassau, marking the first amphibious landing by the US marines. To give you a sense of community involvement, Timothy Meeker of New Jersey, who was an ancestor of our Ezra Meeker, enlisted in the army at the age of 70, fought in the same company with nine sons, two sons in law and one grandson. And I'll have more to report next month. Thank you.

Thank you, Andy. Appreciate those snapshots of our history. It's wonderful to think back and realize what our forefathers went through to get this great nation started. We're now, are there any other people that would like to make a citizen comment? Okay.

There being no further indications, we will move on to the consent agenda. Are there any items on the consent agenda that a council member would like removed for discussion? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved.

Second. All

in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The consent agenda is approved. We're moving right along tonight. The next item on our agenda is Item 4A, our ordinance and our Senior Planner, Chris Beal, will be giving us a presentation.

Evening, mayor and council. Just a second. We'll get the PowerPoint queued up. Okay. Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Chris Beale. I'm the Senior Planner with Development and Permitting Services. Tonight, we're going to do a presentation on our Title XIX update. This is our Platts and Subdivision Code amendments. This is part of our work program for this year.

So the overall intent of the amendments here, Title XIX, again, is our Platts And Subdivision chapter, is to streamline and simplify our subdivision procedures to promote additional housing development. The amendments would establish, consistency with a number of our existing city plans, including our comprehensive plan and housing action plan. It would align our local regulations with recent state mandated legislation, including those related to our permitting process timeline requirements, commonly known as Senate Bill five thousand two and ninety. It would also reduce redundancies and improve clarity and readability of the code. The intent also would be to shorten processing time lines for the approval of new residential lots.

And then, as with most of our code amendments, we make other targeted improvements and cleanups, as needed. So again, Title XIX, it's our subdivision code. It's, it governs land subdivision and property boundary adjustments. The current iteration of the Title XIX was adopted wholesale in 1999, and it's been amended a number of times over the last twenty five years, including in 2016 and 2013. The chapter generally contains about six different, subchapters: avengerland revisions, block combinations, binding site plans, so those are typically subdivisions for commercial properties Short Platts, which under current regulations is four and fewer residential lots.

Major Platts, which is five and more residential lots. And then we also have, definitions and design standards. Some of the key proposed changes in the ordinance. The first one would be to, increase the number of maximum lots permitted under a short subdivision approval from four to nine. Preliminary major plats would then also concurrently move to 10 or more.

This change would basically align us with most of the jurisdictions in Pierce County. We do have a slide coming up here that gives a comparison of those. The allowance to go to nine lots under a short subdivision was actually established in state law about twenty five years ago in 2002, and most jurisdictions have moved, towards the larger number. Under short plats, we also would establish what we call a two step short plat approval process. It would establish essentially a preliminary short plat review, requiring a minimum level of improvements such as access, utility, street frontage, before that short plat could be recorded.

Currently, we don't require those improvements, but most Pierce County jurisdictions use process. And, again, we'll provide a better visual on an upcoming slide here. Administrative final plat approval. So this is for the larger, major plats. This change was actually established in the mid twenty tens in the RCW.

It allows for the public works director to accept the public infrastructure that's part of a final plat. So final plats currently come to city council. They are at the end of a project, so it's after the public outreach, after the permitting, after the construction permitting, after the construction has occurred, all and of the infrastructure is put in, council's essentially taking an action to accept that public infrastructure. The state law allowed that to move to public works, as the basically, the primary approval mechanism. And so as a way of essentially trying to meet our 5,290 time lines, we would propose in the Planning Commission recommended approval of the administrative final plat process.

And then binding site plans, we don't get very many of these. Again, they're mainly for commercial subdivisions. So again, we get maybe a handful of them every ten years. It would move that approval process away from a public hearing, where we don't usually have a lot of participation, to an administrative approval as well. So this is the graphic that we put together during the Planning Commission review.

This takes 10 of our jurisdictions that are near us, most of them in Pierce County, including the county. It also includes, Ian and Claude out there on the edge of Pierce County. But out of those 10, most of them, eight of them have moved to a larger number, Edgewood, kind of in the middle at six. The rest of them have moved up to the nine. And then there are two, Enumclaw and Milton, that are at four.

You'll see that almost all, except for Sumner and us, have a preliminary and final short plat of approval process. So again, that's a process that requires those improvements be put in prior to the recording of the short plat document. And then you'll see in that right hand column the approval mechanism for final major plat approval. Because it's a newer change in state law, it appears that most jurisdictions are moving towards a director or a hearing examiner in one case. It's just a slight majority that have moved to that administrative process with some of the other jurisdictions remaining as council approval. So it just gives you kind of a snapshot of what some of our surrounding jurisdictions are up to.

Yes. Chris, I just had a quick question about that two step short plot. We're putting in the utilities access street frontage. Are those in the design phase? Or are those actually physically putting in those items?

Yes, Amir. So physically placing the improvements in prior to the lots being recorded. And what that essentially means is we do a preliminary approval right now. You can record that document and establish the lots and defer all of the improvements to a later date or to a builder that might build the or might purchase those lots and build them. Under the two step process, we would still do the preliminary review.

There still would be conditions of approval. It's just before you record it, you would have to make those improvements within a five year time span before the document or before the lots could be recorded. Essentially, what a lot of the building community that we work closely with have asked us about with this is to establish a process that basically us and Sundar appear to be the only ones that don't do this because we do get a lot of short plots that get approved and recorded that are not buildable. So, somebody is maybe speculating on land or maybe they have a homeowner that just has a large enough lot. They hire a surveyor, and they divide the lot up, and they think maybe it will work.

But we have probably five or six different shortplats that some of them, twenty plus years are just sitting there. And I think a lot of the building community would like an opportunity for that to kind of reset over time. So maybe they could look at a different proposal. Maybe they could look at a short plat with a few more lots in it if the regulations change. The feedback that we've gotten is when that gets locked in, it's very hard to undo it and go back. And sometimes those things sit fallow when they could be more productive if perhaps somebody could take another look at it after five years and re subdivide it.

Yes. Thank you for that explanation. It makes it real clear for me. Thank you.

Okay. So the next slide here, we just discussed, there have been a few changes with state law, related to subdivision standards. There's been a couple of new sort of innovative subdivision types that have been established by the state legislature in the past couple of years. These are really established by the legislature in the intent statements to improve homeownership opportunities through the subdivision process. So the first one is unit lot subdivisions or ULS, and then there are residential lot splits, RLS.

So there's a mandate for jurisdictions to adopt these. We do have some local flexibility, but we do have to adopt the standards. Unit lot subdivisions are essentially the way that you can really think of unit lot subdivisions is like a condo. So a condominium gets established. It's typically part of a single building, like an apartment building or even condos or something like that or townhomes that get turned into condominiums.

Unilot subdivisions allow for the subdivision of land and the building on it to be sold off. So a good example would be somebody builds a detached accessory dwelling unit in their backyard. They could create essentially kind of a postage stamp lot to sell maybe some yard space around it and the home to a new owner. The thing is, though, is that it doesn't allow any new density. It can only occur with the development that's allowed by zoning.

So it can't permit something like a duplex where we don't allow a duplex. It has to be consistent with the underlying zoning. So you have to kind of think of a unit lot subdivision as a land conveyance tool, doesn't increase density. In fact, the interesting thing under unit lot subdivisions is the development of the two lots, even though they may have two owners in the future, are always tied together because they're essentially required to be tied together by the law. So somebody can't buy the unipod and then add another ADU if it's not already allowed with the two lots.

So there'll be some tracking mechanisms that go along with that, but it's fairly innovative. We actually have had a few people actually already inquire about this, particularly for townhouse projects. We've had a few different developers ask when we're going to adopt our unit subdivision standards. So there is some interest there. And I think talking to some other planners in other jurisdictions, I think there's also been interest in that. Some other jurisdictions are ahead of us in this process. But that's kind of unit lot subdivisions. Residential lot splits are a little more simple. It essentially is a two lot subdivision, kind of like a short plat. The state law requires that we combined that process if an applicant requests it, to come in with the building permits for the two homes and the two lots at the exact same time, which is fairly unique.

We usually have a phased approach to doing the short plat, making the physical improvements like the utilities, and then processing the building permit. The legislature essentially put this in place to try to accelerate the opportunities where maybe we have a lot that just could be easily split in half and two homes could go on it. And we should the city should basically create a permit pathway to allow people to do that immediately. So, we're establishing that process pretty much similar to what the state law allows. There's not a ton of flexibility because it's fairly straightforward.

Any questions on that? Okay. And then, on our other chapters, we have a design, standards chapter that essentially regulates, the design, of utilities, street frontage improvements and that type of thing. There's a lot of redundancy within our design standards chapter. It pulls over regulations from our utilities chapter, from our street standards chapters.

It pulls them into our subdivision chapter, which was definitely a way of writing the code. It just creates a lot of redundancy in the way that it's used. Most of our engineers use our utility chapters, and they don't flip to the subdivision chapter. So we've retained those references to some of the design standards but removed duplication, essentially. You would open the code and see a design standard in Title XIX and a design standard in Title XIV, the utility chapter, and they're pretty much the same thing where they point back to each other.

So it's it's kind of a low hanging fruit opportunity for us to clean up the code, make it a little bit more readable, and eliminate some of those redundancies and improve usability. There's also procedural updates. So not all of this is in title 19. There are a few other chapters, that are involved. Some of the changes in title 19 to our, hearing process would require a companion amendment to the hearing examiner chapter, which is title 2.54. And then for, senate bill fifty two ninety, it revises our public noticing and comment procedures essentially consistent with those processing time lines. So it puts it in our current code so we don't have to flip to the state law every time we need to know what our standards are. Okay. So that's, the full update. I did embed a few QR codes here if anybody wants to scan this and look through our project website.

But the next steps tonight is a consideration of that first reading ordinance, as well as final adoption after that. So available for any questions.

Deputy Mayor Johnson?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I do want to just chime in on a couple of things that I think I'm very excited about. In terms of economy of scale, I think the antiquated limitation of lots qualifying as a short plat to three is long overdue in terms of economies of scale. You may have a smaller lot that is let's say approved in the zoning to have up to four five lots, but because the short plats at three, they either have to file two short plats or go through a full plat, which is just not cost effective for a developer.

So they end up with maybe three larger lots rather than just to forego the process or go through the longer process. So it makes sense to move to nine for economies of scale. I think that it should make housing more affordable too, because if builders are able to have economies of scale and get more houses that are applicable within the standard zoning, then I think that would cause costs to go down. And just typically like we're seeing with this developer who's developing the AOB lot and then now he's going to be developing this, what's that, Bell property. The economies of scale makes sense.

He's already in town. He's been developing there. So this project reflects reflects that kind of concept. So I really like this idea. And again, as I understand it, not as detailed and granular and professionally as you do, but this does not necessarily open up higher density.

It just means that the land that was already available and zoning to be developed that way could be done more expeditiously through a extended short plat allowability. So it's not like taking a lot that was meant for three and now that same lot is going to do nine and it's tough to meet the criteria what the zoning density is. So it doesn't again, this is overcrowded. It still applies to the zoning as I understand in that particular lot location. So that I'm really excited about. I also I do support the final approval plot approval through administrative approval. I think there's something about that. It just seems more efficient to me. I don't know why council needs to get involved on something like that. It's pretty granular.

I was talking with our city manager earlier about this. And the only thing I would say that maybe if council decides to move forward with administrative review or approval of final plot on the bigger projects is that if it's something significantly big, the staff could brief us along the way on how it's coming so that if we want to weigh into that, we can certainly give direction and give some thoughts on that so that there's no surprises afterwards. But I think for the most part, it seems to be more efficient for again, a builder or developer and then not getting counsel who's really in some essence really just not trained in the granular things to be making approvals and something that we really don't know about in general. So I would support that administrative approval through staffing. And then the unit lot subdivision, I'm kind of intrigued by that.

I overall support it. It sounds like the state is directing us anyway. So there's not many as you said, straightforward, pretty forward. But the thing I like about this is again,

just

going to bring it back home in my own specific example and different families that live in fill up might apply it the same way. But let's just say, for example, I want to build an ADU that qualifies on my property. And typically in the past before because it was considered one lot less you went through a short plat process that whoever you a child that wanted to live there really couldn't own the PCLM because they only live there and pay the rent. But if there was a process where you could carve out a little bit that gives them a chance for ownership and still have their independence of equity building without having to go through the process of kind of the full short plat. I But do want to talk about that because I'm a little blurry, help me with this very quickly.

What's the difference between this unit lot subdivision versus a short plat in that scenario? Is it just a different criteria that allows for a quicker, smaller carve out, whereas a short plot is very much detailed and pretty uniform. Tell me a little bit about the difference, if there is one, between those two criteria.

Yes. It's mainly that unit lot subdivisions don't have to necessarily comply with the underlying lot standards for the zone district because it is more of a land conveyance tool than it is creating a fee simple lot. So it allows for postage stamps maybe not the right term, but it's the best way I can kind of describe it. It allows for a smaller footprint. A short plat, we kind of almost like I think about your lot where it's at and how it's kind of long and narrow.

You'd have to create a lot, and then you have to create kind of a panhandle lot that goes out to the street frontage. You just end up with a much larger square footage. So in terms of conveyance to another property owner, it's just gonna cost more because there's gonna be more land involved. There might also be additional requirements, because you are creating a separate lot that isn't then tied to the parent lot anymore. It's essentially a stand alone. So there could be new requirements for utilities, easements if there's shared utilities that maybe wouldn't necessarily apply if it was a unit lot subdivision. So there's some minor differences in the way that we look at utilities and access. But I think the main thing is it allows for a smaller lot. It provides way more flexibility in terms of how that lot is oriented, configured, size. It provides a lot more flexibility.

Yes. I really like it in concept. Again, I don't claim to understand all the details. But overall concept, it seems like a really a great tool for home affordability, especially if you're dealing with family or whatever. Just seems like a great opportunity. So thank you for that. So overall, I'll be supporting this ordinance. In fact, I'd like to make a motion, if it's okay, Mr. Mayor to approve the first reading of this ordinance as listed in 4A, as stated and presented by Senior Planner, Chris Spiel.

Second. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion further discussion? There being no further discussion, all in favor,

please. Aye.

Any opposed? The ordinance passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate that. And again, I we've got two ordinances before us tonight and it reflects the work that our planning folks have been doing and that hard work is really appreciated as we move these things forward. So our next topic for tonight is our item 4b, public hearing and first reading of an ordinance providing amendments to the zoning map and municipal codes. And senior planner, Kendall Walls, will give the presentation.

Thank you. I'm Kendall Walls with Development and Permitting Services. And we have code amendments package two before you from our DPS work plan for this year, and it's regarding the phase one zoning map amendments and some associated code amendments. For just a brief overview of the presentation, I'll give a background. We'll walk through some examples of the zoning map amendments as well as the zoning overlay map changes and code amendments as and the analysis and recommendation.

Excuse me. So the purpose of these updates, as you all know, we adopted a periodic update to our comprehensive plan, which also amended our future land use maps, which is the driver for a lot of these changes for our zoning map and as well as code. We also had some other map requests and cleanup items that were identified in the comprehensive plan process. So that's just bringing that forward on our zoning map. And as a reminder as to how these different documents work together.

We have a comprehensive plan and future land use map, which are advisory. So it's the policy, kinda sets the stage, what our vision is for how the city should grow. And then the regulatory aspect is done in our zoning code, excuse me, in our zoning map. So that really implements that vision and how properties are to develop in the city. So right now, they're not in alignment, and these changes that are being proposed are to bring those into alignment.

Excuse me. We are proposing the zoning map updates in two phases. We have some property owners that have been waiting for a lot of these changes. So we decided to kind of break these up so that we could handle some of the more straightforward changes for implementing our future land use map now. And then we have some other items that we identified for phase two that we'll bring forward to you towards the end of the year just to allow for more detailed analysis, some code development, coordination with property owners, and work with the planning commission.

So tonight, we're focused on those phase one amendments. For some example of those changes, we have some public facilities or zone changes. These clips of the map are showing the one on the left here is showing La Belle and Minute properties that the city recently or in recent years had acquired, and so they're now park properties. So it's proposed to go to a public facilities zoning designation. There's also some kinda down near our downtown area that are owned by the school district, and they requested these map changes as part of the periodic update.

Yes. So just in terms of procedures here, because each one of these is kind of a separate discussion, Let's take questions on each one of these, if there's any questions on this first Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I could yes, I followed everything on the park. And then when you went

to the school, can you describe to me what we're doing with the school?

So these are properties that were more recently acquired by the school district. They're kind of around Puyallup High School as well as Sparks Stadium. And so they had requested these map changes to recognize their ownership of those properties.

Okay. And so and that would be also tied to public facilities and same classification of zoning, the It

would be yes.

Okay. All right. So okay. Yes. Because it would almost be assured that it would go into perpetuity. So why have the zoning reflect anything other than that at this point. So it's consistent with the surrounding property in their area. Yes. That makes sense. Thank you for that.

Okay.

This is another example for public facilities zone change. This is also a property owned by the school district up off of 39th near Costco. The property itself is largely already zoned The property lines were modified at a certain point. And so right now, it's a split designated parcel. So we're looking to clean that up and bring it to the public facilities zoning designation.

All right. So these moving on to mixed use changes, particularly the UCX zone. We have several properties up in our South Hill Regional Growth Center that are proposed to go to UCX. And similarly, we have the South Meridian Corridor. This was another change in the periodic update, So implementing those changes as part of this package of amendments.

Councilmember Gilliam.

Thank you. Thank you, mayor. So on this current slide, I see that there's a lot of residents in that area. And so what would when you say mixed use, what other other than residential would there be in this area?

It allows for commercial as well as residential. So it's a mix of both of those uses.

Fascinating. Okay. Thanks.

K. So then I have a few slides here on residential updates. We have several changes for moderate and high density residential zoning citywide that came out of, again, those changes on the future land use map. So that's what's being reflected here on this map here. We have RM 10, which is a moderate density multifamily designation zoning designation.

There's also RM Core in our regional growth center, and I think we have a RM 20 parcel here as well. We also have some modifications that I'll show on a future slide around the Bradley Lake Park. But first, we have

So just a quick question. Are those are some of those changes, owner initiated?

Or are those

These changes, were not necessarily owner initiated. A lot of these changes were identified looking at existing development, though. A lot of these areas have some higher density already that's nonconforming under. I believe a lot of it is single family residential zoned currently, and so it was bringing that into conformance. And then in some areas, it's expanded slightly to help support the multifamily residential in that area.

Great. Thank you.

So then along East Pioneer, these areas were also identified in the comp plan update for an increased density. So we have R M 10 here, and then there's also a section of R M 20 just south of East Pioneer. And then similarly, we have this corner of Fruitland and 31st Avenue Southwest that's proposed to go to R M 10. And then there's a couple neighborhoods over here near Bradley Lake Park that have an R S 4 zoning designation, which is a single family residential designation, and it's proposed to go to R S 6. R S 4 is essentially with a lot of those changes for r m, multifamily changes.

It's essentially being eliminated from the map. So it kinda goes into the consolidation work for residential zones that we'll be working on this year, but this is just kind of a cleanup item to bring this neighborhood to the R S 6 zone.

These

were some smaller areas that are proposed to go to general commercial CG, kind of North Puyallup area off of North Meridian. We also have limited manufacturing or ML. And then kind of North Of SR 512 and the South Hill Mall, we have some proposed changes for general commercial and community business.

Deputy Mayor Johnson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As long as we're on here, want on this slide, this is near the South Hill Mall and near the transit station areas that we were talking about? Correct. There was some mention, I think, by this council that the Department of State of Washington was going to unload some property that they weren't going to use in that area. Was that new zoning designation applied to that? Because right now it's probably some kind of state designated land. Is there zoning on there that would provide some high density opportunity for development should they decide to sell that property? And if so, what is the zoning recommendations if it's included in this or if it's not included in this? What could it be?

Thank you. I meant to mention that when we were talking about our multifamily changes or residential changes. It's actually this parcel right here that's proposed to go to RM10.

Okay. RM10. RM10. And what is allowable? Because this

is a very important I want to drill a little deeper here. This is kind of an obscure area that probably wouldn't have necessarily housing, although it could. Shouldn't this be eligible for some high density commercial such as maybe hotel or hospitality since you're right by the freeway rather than just housing? It would be a weird neighborhood there.

Know, when we analyzed it previously, its access is off of that street that comes off of 31st Avenue Northwest. So it's kind of back behind existing single family residential. So there were, I think, some concerns for too much density at that location. There's also some utility challenges. So we did analyze some potential options, but the direction through the comp plan update was to go to a more moderate residential. The the r m 10 is in line with the underlying land use. If we were to go to a higher density residential or commercial type use, that would require future land use map change as well.

Okay. I'm satisfied with that analysis, but not convinced. Isn't there access though on that property from 9th Street or somewhere in there,

maybe I'm

mistaken, is it just strictly off these backside streets?

I don't believe there's direct access.

Okay.

My the outline of the parcel is what's shown in that black outline.

Okay.

So there it's adjacent to the park and ride

Right.

But I don't believe it has direct access.

Okay. Yes. So as you're getting on the freeway there, it will be just to the right as you're heading, let's just say, whatever

Which is the on ramp there,

yes, Okay. For the

Yes. It's kind of an obscure kind of weird place. Well, anyway, I'm glad to make some changes here. I'd love to think on this some more, maybe offline, talk about some other options because it's such a weird place for houses to be on the really in the sense of the entrance of an on ramp of a freeway on ramp. It seems to me it would be great exposure. I just think of this particular hotel down here, right at the base of the Fairfield or whatever, it's right next to the freeway, it's visible and it would be weird to have residences there. I know it's a different location in terms of setup, but it'd be fun to explore it. Anyway, a thought. Thank you. I'm glad we are at least rezoning this for potential usage rather than raw land like it is now.

Councilmember Adler.

Thank you. Kendall, I was wondering if you could kindly remind me as community business designation. Can you define that?

It's we don't have a lot of community business, so I might need, some assistance. But it's a commercial designation. It's not, I would say, not as intense as your general commercial. It kinda tends to be more office, medical, and some other commercial components, but not your straight general commercial.

Insurance, realtors. Is

yes. Okay. I was going to have another question, but I answered it myself. So thank you.

Any further questions on this one? Proceed.

Okay.

So now, I'm going to talk about the zoning overlay changes. So we have a property off of East Main that has an existing agriculture overlay on it, but it was redeveloped into a manufacturing development. So it's proposed to be removed. It's no longer used for agriculture. So that's this property here on the map.

We also have the Shaw East Pioneer overlay that's applied to these property over here with the red hatching that we are proposing to remove from the map as well as the code. The Shaw Pioneer overlay was established in 2009 and applied to specific properties in this area. It was intended to supplement the base zoning at that time. So in looking at ways to streamline and simplify our code, this was an area that we saw as a potential option to do so. The area's largely been redeveloped for the properties that it applies to or it's currently under construction, so may not have as much value as well as we've had a lot of code updates since that time that have different design measures.

So the base zoning can kind of help assist in that process. Also to note, this property here is an ML or limited manufacturing zone property, and it has a separate overlay for it. But it was invalidated in a 2019 court case, so it's no longer enforceable. So that was a cleanup item that was identified as part of this effort.

I missed which parcel that was.

It's sorry. It's this one right here. Okay. So that component of the of the overlay in itself would need to be eliminated to clean that up. So that is chapter 20.46 of our code. We also have an existing chapter 20.51, which is a design review overlay code chapter. It's currently not applied on our zoning map. It was established in 1987. It was applied to the downtown area, at one time. However, it was later removed from our zoning map in 2006, but it remained in the code.

But we don't apply it, so it's essentially a cleanup item that we identified to eliminate that, chapter of the code.

Council member Castemma. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

So at the Shaw Road intersection of Pioneer, just so I understand this, in the it would be the Northeast section. You're saying that that currently is agriculture, correct? It

currently has an agriculture overlay on it and is likely used for agriculture. I can't say for which specific properties are currently used.

By overlay, I mean because I have heard plans from several in that area to develop that piece of property.

I think,

Probably with yourself present. So is that possible with an overlay?

Yes, it is possible. The overlay is intended to protect existing agriculture, ongoing agriculture uses from nuisance complaints and that type of thing. So we typically allow for that to remain as long as the agriculture is ongoing and meets the criteria of the overlay.

Okay.

At such time that it were to be redeveloped, then we could look at removing it because it would no longer be necessary.

Would you happen to know how what percentage of either of these is being used for agricultural purposes right now?

I don't offhand.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Proceed. Okay.

So now moving just to our analysis Staff reviewed these amendments for consistency with the review criteria in chapter or section 20.9, which is our zoning map amendments. And then 20.91 is amendments to our zoning code. And we found consistency with that criteria, which is provided in the staff report. We also completed environmental analysis as part of this process, and we issued a notice of adoption of the EIS that was completed for our comprehensive plan update. For that type of, dis determination, there's no public comment or appeal period associated with it, but we do provide notification to agencies and interested parties.

And then planning commission held a public hearing on this package of amendments in January on January 14 and recommended approval. And the council tonight is being requested to consider first reading of the phase one zoning map changes as well as the code text changes for chapters twenty point four six and twenty point five one.

Council Member Castagna. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that we adopt first reading of an ordinance approving amendments to the zoning map and peel up municipal codes 20.46. Second. 20.51.

Second.

Ordinance having been moved and seconded, we will now call for a vote unless there's no further discussion as far as I can tell. So all of those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye. Any

opposed? The ordinance first reading of the ordinance passes. Thank you. So we've moved right along and we're already to our city manager's report.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayer. Your, next meeting is on February 24. We'll have second readings of the ordinances from tonight. We'll also be bringing a presentation on the parklets. You know, with the weather today being as nice as it is here in the valley, it's time to start thinking about spring. And so the parklet program will be coming before you for consideration of how you'd like it implemented this next year. And a couple of other items we're still working on for the next agenda. Thank you.

Thank you. And I think I need to call on Councilmember King for our first report out. You're wearing some garb.

Not to be confused with garbage because the Seattle Seahawks are Super Bowl champions. And I'm sitting here, I don't know if I'm on camera or not, but I did wear a tie. It's underneath. So don't get twisted. I dressed up for tonight.

But yes, Super Bowl champions and for the second time and twelve years later, we finally decimated our one yard line goof. So glad to see them pull through and pull through single handedly. And also, I'd like to recognize someone else pretty special to our city and recognize an Olympic athlete that is competing in the Winter Olympics. She spent a preferable amount of time in our city. Her family lived here for quite some time.

Her name is Corine Stoddard. She's an Olympian in short track speed skating. And she's competing in the Winter Olympics and has won many international medals including a world gold medal recently this past year at the World Cup level. And so last night, I had the honor of seeing her on the Olympic ozone, if you will, on channel five, where she mentioned me as someone who got her started in speed skating at the age of six. So it was nice to see that and see the success that she has had.

This is her second Olympics, and I think she has a really good shot at bringing home the gold. So as a fellow Puyallup resident and fellow former Tiffany's speed skating team member here in our city. Good luck, Corey, and all the best to you and bring home the goal.

Thank you. Yes, we'll applaud louder later. Council Member Adler.

Thank you. I just wanna take a moment and, share. I know that all of us on the diocese know, but after the president signed into law a week ago today, the appropriations bills that were outstanding for fiscal year 2026, The city of Puyallup, thanks to senator Cantwell and councilwoman Strickland, will receive 850,000 towards our Meeker Street and Meeker Street improvements through the congressionally directed spending, aka earmark opportunity that organizations and local governments have. It is a really cool testament to the way that this council came together around one project for which we submitted city staff submitted, which clearly was a terrific application and a very competitive process. But we all came together and put this forward.

And here we are receiving a significant amount of funds. And I do believe, now and city manager can correct me that the project Meeker Street is now completely funded. Is that accurate?

Yes. You are correct, councilman Radler.

Wow.

Terrific. So, again, I I just am very grateful that, team Puyallup came together. Many of us were able to go to Washington DC and advocate for this, project, And I'm excited to to see it come to life, and I look forward to working with you all, my colleagues on the dais as well as the incredible city staff, to begin working on fiscal year 2027, which Congress is a little bit behind on. So we're going to jump right into it. And it is my hope that we will be able to continue advocating and seeing federal dollars get invested right here in our city. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilmember Castama. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilmember Adler, thank you for your work, specifically on the Meeker Street back in D. C. I think it was you had brought the idea of us actually meeting with representative and our congressional delegation to get this going in the first place. So thank you for doing that. And I think that that Councilmember King kind of short changes himself. The news article last night on King five was very clear.

They identified you as the inspiration They got this young girl skating in the very first place and had a picture of him as her coach. And it was just really very inspirational story. So it's wonderful. But along with her, we have had other Olympians from Puyallup. And just recently, we had many of you probably know Megan Quan swimming.

And that was in February 2008. She won the gold, two golds, and she's also won a silver. And then, of course, the boys in the boat, we all hear about the boys in the boat. Well, one of the boys in the boat was from Puyallup, and his name was George Shorty Hunt, and he was anything but short, okay? But those are just the names they give people to be contrary.

And of course that was in 1936, that was a gold medal. Gertrude Willamson also in 1936, she was in track and field, Peelope High School. She went to the Olympics that year. Casey Kerrigan track and field hammer throw, that was in 1968. She was born in Puyallup.

And I think that the Olympics are a great time for inspiration for all of us. As all of you know, I'm an avid skier, can't really get enough of it. This year I'm not getting enough obviously, no snow. But Lindsay Vaughan, I'm a big fan of Lindsay Vaughan, age of 41. She came back with a titanium knee with a torn ACL.

She has four World Cups under her belt, three time Olympic medalist. And she went ahead and she had an accident right out of the gate, I think fourteen seconds into her run, broke a tibia. But I have to tell you, her quote is very inspirational to me. And she says, You all have the courage to dare greatly. It's a great quote. And as someone who is personally trying to bicycle around the world and I have biked a lot of it and I have a lot more to go. I find quotes like that extremely inspirational. So thank all of you on the dais for making things happen. And anyway, thanks for that. Thanks Mr.

Mayor for allowing me to make those comments. Council member Smolico.

Thank you, mayor. I would like to remind everybody that today is the deadline to get your ballots in for the Puyallup School Levy. So you have until 08:00 today. So if you haven't dropped those off, please do so into a ballot box directly. And thank you to those of you who have voted. And also in line with council member I'm so sorry. King, thank you. In my own brain, thank you. I would like to just pray and hope for safety tomorrow at the parade. It's gonna be an amazing event, but giant crowd events like that nowadays make me nervous. So as celebratory as it is, I just want everybody to be safe and wise and get there and get home safely, but have a blast. That's it.

Thank you. Councilmember Gilliam.

Thank you, mayor. I wanted to give the city a a quick update. We had, a city council retreat where we, got great reports from the city, and word on the street is we're gonna do a 250 celebration, and I believe the Chamber of Commerce is gonna spearhead that for for us. Also, our our city staff are gonna be proactive versus reactive in public or traffic calming throughout our city. So we're we're putting thing good things to invest in our community and to make sure that our citizens are safe, and that's very important to all of us.

So I'm really proud of our city staff for all their hard work to put that retreat together and then just to listen to our questions and pick up the baton and keep running. So really grateful for the whole city staff. We also had the Pelt Main Street Association annual meeting. It was wonderful to hear the annual report of what the Pelt Main Street is doing to bring business to our community. And I was I just wanna do a special shout out for Eric Edvalls.

When he did his presentation, he really brought a lot of life to the room, and there were several messages about how to work together past political differences. So I was really proud of city manager Steve Kirkley to speak life into that and and Eric Edwald as well. So we have really fantastic citizens who wanna see people collaborate and work together for the betterment of all. And I'm and that is something that I can say on behalf of myself, but also I believe the whole city council team really wants all of us to heal and work together and move forward. So I'm just really proud of our whole city and our community. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think I'm the most senior member still around in this council. So I've had ten years of precedence. I want to congratulate the council. This is I think in the ten years I've been to a lot of council meetings that we've ever finished under an hour, or like fifty some minutes, fifty eight minutes. So maybe I'm mistaken on this, but unless you get long winded, we won't go over an hour, which So would be very anyway, congratulations. I'm sure we'll be able to use that time. Thank you.

Boy, you put the pressure on. I do have a report out to I serve on the South Sound Housing Affordability Partners. And in our retreat last week, we talked a little bit about $14.00 6 funds, that was the subject of our one of the subjects of our shape meeting on Friday. So I wanted to bring this slide forward to so that council was aware of what's going on and with the shape capital fund. And the shape capital fund is funded exclusively by fourteen oh six, funds.

The participating jurisdictions are Auburn, five Sumner and Pierce County. Pierce County matches the contributions by the three cities in the county. So as you can see there, Auburn is contributing 15%. Most of Auburn is in King County. So their contribution is a pretty nominal amount.

Fife has a pretty good commercial base. So they've got a pretty good contribution there. Sumner is participating. So they have a total of $293,000 contributed $293,000 in 2024. Pierce County matches it, so they had a total of 586,000 Then in 2025, same participants, ended up with 380,000 for that year.

So a total of almost $1,000,000 in the Shake Capital Fund. A project was identified in Pierce County, and those funds have been committed and those funds also attracted a chip grant of, as I understand it, of $1,000,000 So if you think about it as a contribution of $1 by Sundar, it becomes $2 by the contribution of Pierce County and then the Chip grant makes a $4 benefit to the capital fund. So the for 2026 and 2027 biennium, you can see the numbers there. And without Puyallup, if Puyallup were to decide to participate in this program, Pierce County matches up to $500,000 for the biennium. So if we were to max out the match amount, we would contribute $83,000 which would put us on par with the other contributors.

We do have 194,000 annually coming out from our commercial base. So that would leave us with 111,000 to put into our own coffers if we if that was the approach we wanted to take. So I just wanted to lay this out for you. Not expecting any decision, but I wanted you the council to understand what's going on out there with those $14.00 6 funds and the Shape Capital fund. So that is my report out of the Shape Capital my shake meeting this past week.

So sorry, Mayor, I've got an hour and one minute. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion. Second.

Meeting is adjourned.